Resumption of the session

I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 18 December 2008.

I would like to wish you all, ladies and gentlemen, a Happy New Year and a successful 2009 which will hopefully bring us nearer to European unity. May we be successful in promoting peace in the world. I would now like to make a statement.

Statement by the President

Ladies and gentlemen, the Conference of Presidents has asked me to make a statement on the events in the Middle East. The debate will take place on Wednesday afternoon in the presence of the Chairman of the Council of Foreign Ministers, Czech Foreign Minister Schwarzenberg. I mention this because it was not quite clear. We have put a lot of effort in and found him very willing to be with us, although he will have to travel to South Africa on the same day, if only for a limited time I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Czech Presidency most sincerely for this.

Ladies and gentlemen, whilst we are holding a plenary session at the start of the New Year here, people are once again dying in the Middle East.

Personally, and I am sure the same goes for most of us, I find I have a painful sense of déjà vu when I see the pictures on the television.

In the name of the European Parliament, I would like to express my deepest regret on the escalation of the Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas.

I say quite categorically: it is not acceptable for people to suffer, for violence to continue and for United Nations employees to come under fire. How far must the spiral of violence go until sense and reason prevail?

The violence must cease immediately on both sides. The firing of rockets on Israeli towns and cities by Hamas is completely unacceptable and deserves the harshest criticism and we must not forget that it was Hamas who ended the ceasefire. Yet the proportionality of the means employed in the response must not be disregarded.

All people in the Middle East have the same worth. The inalienable right of a state to protect itself does not justify violent actions, the primary consequence of which is the suffering of the civilian population.

The people in the Gaza Strip must be given urgent help. A Palestinian is worth the same as an Israeli or a European or an American - all people on this earth are equal. We must not allow a worsening of the humanitarian situation!

As responsible politicians, we must be prepared to decisively contribute to finding a permanent way out of this spiral of violence in the short term.

Attempting to reduce security to purely military aspects is doomed to failure, in my opinion. Therefore, there can be no exclusively military solution to the problem in the Middle East. A political solution must be reached in the end. Above all, this means learning lessons from the failure of the previous approach. Therefore, it is a matter of taking measures that are not only viable but also, and above all, sustainable.

Over the past few days I have been in contact by telephone with the Israeli President, Shimon Peres, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, the Speaker of the Knesset, Dalia Itzik, and of course with the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, who has been in the region for quite some time now.

I have also been in contact with the Vice President of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly because I am currently Chairman of that Assembly, the President of the Jordanian Parliament, Abdel Hadi Al-Majali, the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Gianfranco Fini and the President of the Moroccan Parliament, Mustapha Mansouri

I have always made it clear in all these conversations that the European Parliament is fully behind the demands formulated by the Council of Ministers on behalf of the European Union and confirmed by the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations on 8 January 2009.

It is depressing that this legally binding resolution of the Security Council, from which the Americans abstained so that it could be carried, is disregarded by both sides in the conflict, which is to say both Israel and Hamas.

An immediate and permanent ceasefire must come into force. This ceasefire must be achieved with the mediation of Egypt and the involvement of all players. Immediate and unhindered access to humanitarian aid must be ensured and the United Nations Work and Relief Agency (UNRWA) enabled to continue its humanitarian activities unhindered. And I would also like to say: not just for three hours a day!

When even the humanitarian organisations and the United Nations have to stop their work because the warring parties do not observe their neutrality, we have reached an unacceptable low point with regard to international law and humanity.

The third requirement is to intensify the peace process. The only viable basis for permanent peace is, and remains, a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine as sovereign states within secure borders.

The European Union, together with the members of the Quartet on the Middle East, with moderate Arab partners and with all participants in the conflict, must bring about a rapid resumption of the peace negotiations under the umbrella of the United Nations. However, a comprehensive solution also clearly requires reconciliation and, in particular, a reconciliation between the Palestinian factions.

Today we must question the method we have used so far in what we have called the 'peace process'. We could still assume until a few weeks ago that we were on the right track with the negotiations despite the well-known difficult environment and barely discernible progress. The international community and, first and foremost, we, as the European Union, have supported these negotiations through our strong commitment and we have given financial aid to create the basic conditions for establishing a Palestinian state.

But was this commitment politically strong enough? We must ask ourselves this question. In the meantime, we are again in the process of escalation. It is understandable that, in times of crisis management, we tend to think in the short term. We actually need an immediate ceasefire right now and a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, as required by the UN Security Council.

Experience over recent decades has taught us that peace in the Middle East cannot come from the region alone. However, it also true that it will not be possible without reconciliation between the hostile parties in the conflict.

Therefore, the international community must be prepared to promote peace in the Middle East more than ever before so that the bitter events of past decades do not remain bitter experiences for decades to come.

International forces can and must help to secure a ceasefire. Therefore, we must all make efforts to ensure that the Egyptian-French plan to institute an international mechanism to secure Gaza's borders will be a success and it must, of course, be dependent as a priority upon a cessation of the smuggling of arms and rockets into the Gaza area. The European Union had already announced in its action strategy paper at the start of the Annapolis process that it is prepared to become involved in this way.

But let me highlight one thing in particular: deployment of European and international security forces may not guarantee a ceasefire in the short term. It must pursue a clear political objective of creating the required trust for the conclusion of peace talks by guaranteeing security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. This means that by the deployment of some troops, which is only viable with a solid mandate, political influence will be increased on all sides in order to find a peaceful solution.

We need not only the repeated commitment to peace which we have so often formulated as our goal in the past. What we need is the willingness not only to aim for peace but to achieve it, and in fact before the hatred built up over decades escalates further and unleashes a conflagration.

In closing, I would like to remind you that 2008 was the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. I would also like to remind you how much we as the European Parliament have done to make this year a year of hope and we are setting political priorities that emphasise that the clash of cultures is not the law of nature.

Worldwide reactions to the war in Gaza show how quickly attempts at intercultural dialogue can be destroyed when they are overtaken by the reality of the images that we see daily on the news. Worse still is the fact that this reality plays into the hands of extremists and fundamentalists whose goal is not peace but to continue the spiral of confrontation.

Violence breeds more violence. This concept cannot be repeated often enough. Dialogue and negotiations are the only way out of this crisis. Both are not ends in themselves but must be conducted bravely with the aim that the people of Israel and Palestine can live in real security, in peace and with respect for their dignity.

(Applause)

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes

Data protection (appointment of the European supervisor and the assistant supervisor): see Minutes

Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes

Documents received: see Minutes

Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

Petitions: see Minutes

Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

Order of business

The final draft of the agenda for this sitting, as agreed by the Conference of Presidents at their meeting on Thursday 8 January 2009, in accordance with Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been circulated. It has been requested that this draft be amended as follows.

Monday:

As Mrs Andrikiencannot be present this evening to present her report on the development of the UN Human Rights Council and the role of the EU, there will be a vote on this report on Wednesday, as scheduled, without a general discussion.

Tuesday: No amendments.

Wednesday:

The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has moved to conclude the general discussion on the situation in Gaza with the submission of motions for a resolution. Mr Cohn-Bendit will speak to justify the motion.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone is aware of the situation in Gaza. That we should discuss it here in Parliament is perfectly natural. However, we are calling for the Security Council to take a stand, we are calling for the bodies to take a stand, and for the European Union to take a stand, but we, in Parliament, we debate matters but we do not want to take a stand. I do however believe that, faced with the urgency of the situation in Gaza, it is extremely important for this House to give its opinion and say exactly what it wants, in order to end the massacres currently taking place in the Middle East. I find it unacceptable that this House should not have the courage or the lucidity to vote in favour of a resolution after our debate. That is why our group is calling for the Conference of Presidents' decision to be reviewed and for the debate that we must hold on the Gaza situation to end in a resolution, one that demonstrates the clear and firm position of this House, of a majority, so that the massacres in Gaza stop. We want a resolution; we must be aware that we have a political responsibility faced with the current situation, and this political responsibility must not be a mere debate, but a resolution, a resolution that clearly states what we want and what we denounce!

Mr President, we have, of course, given this matter a great deal of thought. Perhaps Mr Cohn-Bendit overestimates the significance of a resolution, but with the Security Council's resolution we have a basis which we should support and, as the President of Parliament has already said, we should require both sides to seek peace, to lay down their arms and to comply with the Security Council's resolution. I would, however, just like to add that this must be the gist of our resolution. If this is so, we can support it. In this context we would cooperate and in this context we would support Mr Cohn-Bendit's motion.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the recommendation of the Conference of Presidents is based on great wisdom. We have, today, heard a statement by the President of Parliament who, if I am correct, was supported by all sides of the House. This is an important basic principle and an important statement by Parliament. We will receive a great deal of information over the next few days: through sittings held by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and by delegations and through communications received from the Presidency of the Council and from the Commission. Therefore, we are not in a position to effect a resolution today, which will actually correspond in detail to how things stood on Thursday.

I spent two days last week on the Gaza Strip border and observed a great deal of the suffering of the people on both sides. I believe that a ceasefire alone will not be enough. The ceasefire must be linked to a cessation of weapons smuggling into Gaza in the future. The details of the negotiations taking place in Egypt today, in particular, are of crucial importance. We should not destroy this by a resolution perhaps shaped by emotions. Therefore, I am in favour of the retention of the resolution from the Conference of Presidents.

(Parliament adopted the motion)

The deadlines are set as follows: Motions for resolutions 8 p.m. this evening, amendments and joint motions for resolutions Wednesday 10 a.m.

Thursday: no amendments.

(DE) Mr President, I had another comment to make on the debate to follow on the gas dispute between the Ukraine and the Soviet Union and on the crisis... Russia!

(FR) I apologise for bringing up the past, Francis; I did not mean to do so.

(DE) As far as this discussion is concerned: we would just like to establish and hope that all groups can agree that this debate should include a discussion on the fact that Slovakia wishes to illegally reopen a nuclear power station. I only wanted to ...

(Heckling)

You are the right man for the job. You can keep quiet, lad. Quiet. It is you. I only wanted to be sure. We are in Parliament, lad.

Would Mr Cohn-Bendit and Mr Ferber please stop their argument now. You can continue it later. Anything connected with these debates can be addressed in these debates.

(EL) Mr President, as the question of Slovakia and Bulgaria is a serious matter, I too should like to request that you ask the European Commission, which is after all the guardian of the Treaties and the Treaty of Accession, to tell us exactly what is happening and why these two countries took this decision.

The Commission has certainly taken note, so this will be taken into consideration.

(The order of business was adopted)

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

(EL) Mr President, allow me to inform the House about Turkey's offensive behaviour towards Greece.

The constant infringements and violations of Greek airspace, the fighter planes flying low over inhabited Greek islands, the obstruction of safe shipping in Greek territorial waters and the interference in search and rescue operations in the Aegean, for which Greece alone is responsible, and the extensive assistance provided to illegal immigrants by Turkey augur badly for the stability of the area as a whole.

We need to condemn this offensive behaviour and the continuing strategic challenge to the sovereign rights of a Member State of the European Union, namely Greece, on the part of Turkey and send a clear message that its behaviour is jeopardising its European prospects.

(HU) After the discriminatory measures which were introduced in 2004 relating to employees from the new Member States working in the European institutions, and which were ruled unlawful by a decision of the European Court of Justice in 2008, I wish to draw your attention to a new discriminatory decision.

Four and a half years have passed, and yet the nationals of the new Member States still feel like second-class citizens. What has happened, Mr President, is that a competition was announced last year for the post of head of unit of the Hungarian interpreters working at the European Parliament, a post to which the citizen of any Member State was eligible to apply. The head of unit in the interpretation service is responsible not only for administrative tasks but also for overseeing the transposition of European Union terminology into Hungarian.

Mr President, it is appalling that of two eligible candidates, one Hungarian and one British, the British candidate was selected. Could you imagine a post in the French-language service being filled by an English or a Spanish person? Mr President, this is unacceptable discrimination, and is causing serious damage with regard to the translation of European Union documents. On behalf of every new Member State, I wish to register my protest.

You will, of course, receive an answer on this point.

Mr President, this afternoon we have listened to yourself and others make statements on the terrible situation in Gaza and on the need for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from Gaza. I must say that, in this context, I agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit that Parliament should take a position - we cannot sit on the fence.

However, in a way it is a bit mundane to speak about bread-and-butter issues, having listened to all that has been said, but of course bread-and-butter issues concern all our citizens. Last weekend in Ireland the announcement by Dell, that it was relocating 2 000 jobs, came as a body-blow to the community in the Mid-West and West of Ireland. At a time when we are experiencing a global financial downturn, this is especially difficult for workers directly employed by Dell and for its suppliers etc.

In this context, the European Globalisation Fund could prove to be especially important to help retrain and reskill workers and to assist in the promotion of entrepreneurship for self-employment. It is crucial that the Irish Government makes an immediate application to the Globalisation Fund, so that workers can have some faith in the future and see that the EU is working to assist all workers and, in this case, those in the West and Mid-West of Ireland.

- (PL) Mr President, we have just reached an agreement pursuant to which the flow of Russian gas will eventually be restored to several Member States of the Union whose supplies had been cut off. It is worth highlighting the solidarity between the Member States on this matter, although sadly this was not evident from the very outset. The various countries held very different opinions on this issue. Fortunately, however, we made an effort to present a united front at the end.

As we are to debate the subject in two days' time, I should like to highlight two points. Firstly, this issue makes it quite clear that Russia deals with wholly economic issues as if they were purely political instruments. Secondly, this issue also makes it clear that we must develop a common energy policy as a Union. That is what we need, rather than individual energy policies for the largest countries, such as those building pipelines under the Baltic Sea on their own initiative.

(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a global era of the unhealthy dominance of Coke and crisps, I wish to raise my voice in defence of Hungarian grape and wine growing in the Carpathian basin, which is of international significance. As a result of incorrectly interpreted EU directives, European funds nowadays go to supporting those who grub up their vineyards, and it is not unusual for those who plant new elite grape varieties to be punished.

The Carpathian basin, within the territory of historical Hungary, was at one time the site of one of the largest grape-growing areas in Europe, extending over some 600 000 hectares. In 1948 there were still 260 000 hectares of wine grapes in Hungary, but today that territory has shrunk to 40 000 hectares. How much longer will the Carpathian basin's wineries, vintners and the natural environment continue to be destroyed in this way?

Wine, wheat, peace! I wish to invoke this Hungarian folk greeting to wish you a blessed new year.

Mr President, I rise on the issue of Palestine. I note that in your earlier remarks you have been somewhat coy in your positioning on Israel: 900 Palestinians dead, a third of whom are children, and yet we cannot find it in ourselves in this Chamber to utterly condemn Israeli brutality.

This onslaught is not alone disproportionate; it is entirely unjustified. It is not driven by Israeli security needs; in fact, it is a cynical and clinical attack not on Hamas, but on the Palestinian population. I think that Member States now have a moral obligation to flex the full extent of their diplomatic and political muscle with Israel to end this violence.

Tiptoeing around the Israeli administration will not work; it has never worked. Israel must now understand that there are indeed consequences for its actions. Therefore I call on all MEPs to demand the immediate suspension of the Euro-Med Agreement and indeed all preferential trade arrangements between the EU and Israel. Equally, we must resist any attempt to upgrade relations between the EU and the State of Israel which lays siege on Gaza and brutalises the Palestinian people.

The rhetoric of human rights, which so often echoed this Chamber, must now be honoured in word and deed. That is the only prospect for a successful peace process in the Middle East.

The complexity of this issue can be seen just from the length of time you took for your speech. You exceeded your speaking time by 50%. The debate will take place on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr President, my constituency last week was devastated by the announcement, as Mrs Harkin has said, of the loss of almost 2 000 jobs in the Dell factory. This also means the loss of probably 2 000 more jobs that depend on Dell production in Ireland. Dell is moving production to Łódź in Poland with the help of almost EUR 52 million in state aid.

Can the Commission assure me that the state aid, which Poland is using, is within the competition rules of the EU, and can it assure me that sufficient aid from the European Globalisation Fund will be available to prepare the dismissed workforce for new employment?

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, two days ago four schools in the city of Burgas found their walls daubed with racist slogans. They had sprayed on their walls things like: 'Turn Bulgarians into soap' and 'Death to the giaours'. 'Giaour' is a derogatory Turkish expression used during the time of the Ottoman Empire to refer to non-Muslim subjects and those of non-Turkish origin. In the Turkish mind a giaour is considered to be subhuman, which makes it the most offensive racist insult in the Turkish language. 'Giaours' is the same word used by the former minister of agriculture Nihat Kabil and the Turkish administrators in the Ministry of Agriculture to refer to the Bulgarians who had joined the department, following which they gave preferential treatment to the Turks.

Ladies and gentlemen, let this incident be a warning to you about what the Turkish mentality is like in the 21st century. This example alone shows that Turkey has no place in the European Union because it is a racist, xenophobic country which supports and promotes racism and xenophobia in neighbouring countries. This case shows that Bulgarians are not only not the source of hatred, but that they are victims of hatred and ethnic intolerance.

The European Parliament has always taken a vigorous stance against racism and ethnic intolerance. I appeal to you, as Members of this House, to do it once again and support our written declaration condemning Turkish racism against Bulgarians.

Thank you Mr President. I commend the efforts of the Czech presidency to handle the present gas crisis but just mediating one crisis after another is not the solution. The EU cannot remain in a babysitter role; that of an enfant terrible. One conclusion is clear: counting on a mutually beneficial strategic alliance with Russia as a reliable provider of energy is a strategic miscalculation. The root cause of the current crisis is not Ukraine, but the crisis within Gazprom itself, which has failed to live up to its own commitments.

For eight consecutive years, gas production by Gazprom has been stagnating at the same level. This is the typical result of political state control over production. Not being able to deliver gas at the same time to Russian customers and meet commitments abroad has probably brought Mr Putin to initiate the political crisis and point to Ukraine as a scapegoat. This makes it all the more important for us to concentrate upon finding new energy sources.

. - (HU) Mr President, fellow Members, the economic crisis that many people initially took to be scare tactics on the part of the media has now reached Europe; it afflicts countries, regions, local communities, enterprises and with them families and workers. Two of our fellow Members have already spoken of this. The consequences of the recession do not affect all of us equally, as the Commission reminds us in its Communication. The negative impact is multiplied exponentially on the fringes of Europe and society.

In order to prevent the present situation from turning the principle of decent work into empty words and to help us avoid an explosion of poverty, we must focus our efforts on our resources. This is why I welcome the Commission's Communication, as well as Commissioner Špidla's dedication to raising awareness and his urging Europe to make efforts to protect the most vulnerable social groups at this time of declining economic activity.

The Commission's differentiated approach gives reason to hope that a unified Europe will not mean enforced uniformity, especially not during a period of crisis. I hope and expect that it will receive the support of the European Parliament in this regard.

Mr President, nowadays we are faced with a paradox. Although a majority of European consumers have repeatedly stated that they are against GMOs, surveys show that they do buy GM foods when they are available in supermarkets.

Many consumers are just not aware that GM food is sold in Europe or simply fall into the trap of illegible labels and end up not knowing what they buy.

A possible solution would be to allow the absence of GMO in foods to be mentioned on the label. But currently there are no common provisions on GM-free labelling, leaving the Member States the freedom of choice. This leads to confusion of consumers and distortion of the internal market since, while some countries have already introduced non-GM labelling provisions, others refuse to allow this kind of information to be given.

People want to make food choices based on their own values and not according to safety assessment studies. If we care about consumers' concerns, then we should be transparent all the way and give them a real choice. Therefore I call on the Commission to provide the legal framework for voluntary GM-free labelling at European level.

- (PL) Mr President, I should like to take this opportunity of appealing to the Council to take appropriate action, pursuant to Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, in order to combat discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin in Lithuania.

Three politicians from the Polish minority were elected in the recent Lithuanian parliamentary elections. The Lithuanian authorities subsequently tried to deprive them of their parliamentary seats. The reason given is that these persons hold the Karta Polaka. This is a document confirming that the holder belongs to the wider Polish nation. It is intended to help preserve Polish culture and national identity amongst persons of Polish origin the world over. The Lithuanian authorities, however, consider that it involves loyalty to a foreign country. This is obviously ridiculous and outrageous. In addition, it amounts to discrimination for reasons of ethnic origin, and also involves violating the rights of a national minority, which is behaviour unworthy of a Member State of the European Union. I trust the Lithuanian authorities will reflect on the matter.

- (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Bernd Posselt, who represents the Bavarian CSU party here in Parliament and who also leads the Sudeten German Society has proposed that the Czech Republic abolish the so-called Benes Decrees during the course of its presidency. This is an outrageous demand and one that cannot be fulfilled by the Czech Republic. We surely know that the Decrees came into being after the Second World War in accordance with the views of the victorious powers and they replaced legal standards until a proper parliament was elected. It is therefore not a question of some sort of cancerous growth on European parliamentary order, as he has claimed. In my opinion Mr Posselt's organisation resembles a cancerous growth as it acts in direct opposition to the aims of modern European integration pursued by the EU. While Mr Posselt is attacking the Czech Republic, there are thousands of German citizens living and working there happily and there are large numbers of former Sudeten Germans who have retired there. I am myself an example of the fact that in today's Czech Republic there is no anti-German aggression since I was elected as a German citizen to represent the Czech Republic in this Parliament.

Mr President, the gas crisis has left hundreds of thousands of households across 17 European countries without heating during freezing temperatures. Eastern and central Europe have been affected the most by the dispute, which has shut down factories and schools.

Even if Kiev and Moscow sign the EU-brokered deal after hours of talks with EU officials, Gazprom says that the deal to restart gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine will be delayed as it has not received a copy of the agreement.

The team of technical experts sent by the European Commission will check flows into Ukrainian pipelines from Russia and, even if the gas starts to flow in Ukraine, it may take about 36 hours to reach EU Member States. As a result, Europe needs a single policy on energy security in order to avoid future conflicts and it needs to diversity its sources of energy supplies.

I welcome the intervention of Parliament in the dispute and hope that an agreement will be reached as soon as possible in order to avoid a deepening conflict.

(SL) Last year we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the year before that in this House we adopted a resolution which called upon the Bureau, the Council and the Commission to strengthen their efforts towards more effective multilateralism and more stringent implementation of this treaty, which we know has curbed the proliferation of nuclear arsenals, but, unfortunately, failed to bring about a reduction in their numbers. The resolution also called on the United States of America to withdraw their nuclear warheads from European territory and on the United Kingdom and France to halt their nuclear missile programmes.

As I only entered this esteemed House in November last year, may I ask to what extent and in what way these calls have been answered or, rather, how successful these efforts have been, given the fact that a new project for the deployment of a US anti-missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland is being revived and that this very project is, as anticipated, generating new tensions between the West and Russia, as well as images and threats of a renewed and dangerous nuclear arms race?

(RO) The debate about the gas crisis has been passionate, including this evening's session.

Every speaker is saying how serious and dangerous the European Union's level of energy dependency is. Everyone is saying the same thing: that the solution is to continue to reduce our dependency on single sources of energy.

We must not forget however about another necessity: to save energy.

It is difficult to say at the moment what the level of energy wastage is in the European Union. Some analysts even mention a figure of a third of total consumption. This means, as an example, that if Romania imports around 14 million tonnes of oil equivalent in Russian gas annually, almost one million tonnes of oil equivalent are wasted annually due to defective insulation in blocks of flats.

Unfortunately, Community legislation is not suitable for supporting the resolution of this problem because it limits incomprehensibly the European funds which can be allocated to projects for renovating heating systems.

I think we should ask ourselves the following question every day: What is simpler? Looking for new sources of energy and new transit routes or remembering that we can use simple methods to save a good part of the energy that is being wasted?

(SK) This year we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the euro and on 1 January 2009 Slovakia became the 16th member of the euro area.

My country has surrendered a part of its identity, but it has done so with pride. Just as we treasured our own currency, we have started using the euro and the majority of the Slovak population is quickly beginning to regard it as its own, too. We adopted the euro after only five years of membership in the EU and as Prime Minister Fico said on New Year's Day, we could see the euro as a lucky talisman bringing us stability and the potential for Slovakia to develop even more vigorously in this time of economic crisis. I would like to praise everyone who contributed to the adoption of the euro in Slovakia and to acknowledge the positive attitude of the Slovak public to the new currency.

I wish all Slovaks good luck with the euro as the symbol of an integrated and prosperous Europe.

(EL) Mr President, as no debate is to be held on it in Parliament, I should like to highlight the importance to the European Union of the proposal for a Council directive implementing the Agreement concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Associations and the European Transport Workers' Federation.

This directive, which concerns the work of seamen under the Maritime Labour Convention, will allow seamen in the European Union to secure decent working conditions.

This sector needs to be promoted, because it contributes towards development and productivity. The seas that wash the shores of the European Union are very important to international trade and young people should see a future in seafaring professions and come to the assistance of shipping.

(DE) Mr President, the background to my speech is the illegal transportation of puppies discovered in Austria at the beginning of October 2008. Since the beginning of October 2008 I have been trying to get speaking time in the one-minute contributions and I am pleased that I have finally succeeded. It is interesting that Mr Rogalski has been allowed to speak three times in the meantime.

However, now to the matter in hand. The Austrian police stopped a truck containing137 puppies. The vehicle manifested serious defects and the animals' passports were forgeries, as the dogs had not reached the legally required age for transport. The journey started in Slovakia and was due to end in Spain. This case is not unique and it brings to our notice once more that profit-orientated organisations are constantly evading current animal protection provisions in Europe in a criminal fashion. In Europe we really need comprehensive inspections of animal transportation and corresponding threats of fines in the event of non-compliance. The EU must jointly adopt European minimum standards in animal protection, which must be implemented and monitored by all governments. This would also compel those countries, which have been completely inactive in the field of animal protection to date, to introduce specific standards.

(SL) The bloody and relentless massacre of Palestinians in Gaza is a symbol of human powerlessness and double standards and an injustice which cries to heaven. Does the Palestinian death toll really have to reach four figures before international factors use the mediation mechanisms which have been at their disposal from day one of the conflict?

The European Union imagines itself to be an active force in international relations and a global political player. But is it really? Can we actually call ourselves an active force, when the Israeli army, in spite of all its sophisticated intelligence support, attacks a school, which is funded by the European Union, packed with civilians? Can international humanitarian law be said to exist, when the Israeli army forcibly moves Palestinians to a house which it shells intensely the next day?

I have been to Israel many times, including to Sderot, I know a lot about what is going on there, but this Israeli action is disproportionate, excessive and inhumane. This action is immoral, perverted and bizarre, because it essentially constitutes a pre-election campaign. This is a bloody pre-election campaign.

Mr President, may I take this opportunity to back the case for European Union funding to support the European Special Olympics Games, which are being held in Warsaw in 2010, and the Special Olympics World Games, which are being held in Athens in 2011.

The Commission allocated EUR 5 million in support of the Special Olympics World Games when they were held in Ireland in 2003, which was such a wonderful occasion and a pleasure for so many of us who were present. We in the European Union must be to the forefront in supporting volunteerism in sport.

Let me add that there is a written declaration on this issue that MEPs can sign this week outside the Chamber, and I would urge all colleagues to sign this declaration in support of EU funding for these very important Special Olympics Games.

- (CS) Happy New Year, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my frank amazement over the irony of fate that the Czech government, which is well-known for its specific approach to the question of negotiations with Russia, has not yet torn asunder its veil and heaped ashes upon its head. It has even postponed negotiations with Russia over energy security. I am yet more shocked by the position of the European Commission. It is threatening Slovakia and Bulgaria with sanctions and we have even heard that Mr Cohn-Bendit also recommends sanctions if the decommissioned nuclear power station blocks are brought back into operation. I would like to recommend to the Commissioners and spokesmen of the European Commission that they get some warm clothing, switch off the heating at home and explain to their families that they are acting out of solidarity with the Slovaks and Bulgarians. Or perhaps this was just a bad New Year's joke?

(EL) Mr President, I too should like to comment on the question of natural gas, given that we have become witness over the last ten days to the conflict surrounding this issue, a conflict in which many of the Member States of the European Union who are dependent on natural gas for their energy have been caught up, causing problems for citizens, businesses and industry.

Through discussions between the two opposing sides, which have been fraught with suspicion, mistrust and conflicting announcements, and the intervention of the European Presidency and the Commission, it would appear that some sort of a solution has been found.

It is clear that, regardless of intentions and apportionments, the problem may arise again unless measures are taken. We therefore need to examine the question of reformulating the European Union's energy doctrine by adding other sources of energy.

The European Parliament should also send a clear message that the European Union will not be held to ransom and should participate in the debate to plan alternative routes for a safe and continuous supply of natural gas. The objective of reducing energy requirements by 20% by 2020 will not be achieved under unstable and insecure circumstances.

(RO) The European Union must make it a priority to draw up a common energy strategy and an action plan aimed at improving the Union's energy security.

Ukraine's action in cutting off the supply of natural gas to EU Member States has highlighted the EU's dependency on its traditional suppliers. Furthermore, the low temperatures this winter have caused serious operational problems to electrical power suppliers who have registered record consumption levels.

The EU needs to devise a European strategy for modernising its energy grid, boosting energy efficiency and diversifying its energy supply sources. The implementation of the Nabucco project, the construction of liquefied gas terminals in European ports, investments in safer nuclear power stations, boosting energy efficiency and increasing the use of renewable energy must feature among the joint priority actions aimed at increasing the EU's energy security.

The European Commission, along with the European Investment Bank and governments of the Member States, must identify and guarantee the financing of these priority projects.

Madam President, I wish to raise the issue of Zimbabwe. It seems to me that if Zimbabwe is not on our television screens, then we do not really concern ourselves with some of the issues that arise there. Recently we had the case of Jestina Mukoko, Executive Director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project and a board member of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, who was abducted and held incommunicado for 21 days before reappearing at Harare Magistrates Court bearing signs, it might be said, of torture and ill treatment - all for the crime of being a human rights campaigner.

Ms Mukoko is currently being held in solitary confinement at the maximum security prison, and her future, like that of so many campaigners, aid workers and ordinary citizens before her, remains in jeopardy at the hands of the Mugabe regime.

Many words of concern and condemnation have been spoken in this Chamber and in other, national parliaments, yet the nightmare for ordinary Zimbabweans continues unabated. I believe that it is time we reasserted our interest in this and demand from the Council and Commission that action be taken once and for all to bring to an end the criminal activity against people who are campaigning for human rights in Zimbabwe.

Madam President, I welcome the statement by the President this evening on Gaza and, indeed, the decision of Parliament to have a resolution on the issue to urge an immediate, unilateral ceasefire by all sides in the Gaza conflict. With over 900 now dead, the futility of politics-by-war is painfully evident. You must insist that Israel stop the killing. Gaza is the largest prison in the world, with 1.5 million prisoners; it is now also a slaughterhouse, unfortunately, with men, women an children dying simply because they are Palestinian.

What possible crimes could the Palestinian children, who are dying in this conflict, be guilty of? What possible excuses have we Europeans to continue to do business with Israel while it callously continues to slaughter innocent people? The European Council must stop making excuses, stop the bickering and unite in concerted action which will bring this slaughter to an end. There can be no question of upgrading Europe's relations with Israel so long as it fails to engage in constructive dialogue with all the representatives of the Palestinian people.

- (PL) As an organisation of countries bound together by common values, the European Union should use all the resources at its disposal to prevent the spread of hatred. The French operator Eutelsat, however, has seen fit to broadcast a programme from the Al-Aqsa TV station, which has links with Hamas and openly calls for attacks on the civilian population of Israel.

By so doing, Eutelsat has once again demonstrated that ethical business is a concept quite foreign to those responsible for the management of that company, especially if we bear in mind that the independent Chinese television company NTD TV has been prevented from broadcasting for months. Despite appeals from many quarters, the Eutelsat management remains unwilling to revoke its decision, which was in any case taken under pressure from the Chinese Government. The surprising and totally amoral choices made by the management of Eutelsat raise concerns as to whether the intentions of those in charge are purely business-orientated.

(PT) Madam President, Israel's attack on Gaza is a war crime and a crime against humanity. What is happening is a tragedy: 900 Palestinians, including large numbers of children, have died, and thousands have been injured.

We have to demand an end to the attack on Gaza. We have to demand an end to Israel's blockade, which is turning Gaza into a concentration camp. That is why we join all those people from every country and every continent who demonstrate against the massacres: all those people from every country and every continent who are angry and go out to the streets and say 'No more crimes!' It is crucial for the European Parliament and other responsible European Union bodies to demand an immediate end to the attack on Gaza and an immediate end to Israel's blockade.

- (CS) Thank you, Madam President. I have recently been struck by the way that several Czech insurance companies have discontinued the provision of bonuses paid to women who take out compulsory car insurance policies. This step was justified with reference to the new anti-discrimination law coming into force. We see again and again how some politicians and non-governmental organisations adopt a rather exaggerated position over the question of gender equality. One such exaggeration constitutes a denial of actuarial mathematics which proves day in and day out that men and women behave differently in various aspects of their lives and therefore carry different levels of insurance and other risks. To deny such differences is not to fight for equal rights but rather to fight for the conformity and sameness of both sexes. Such a fight would be both futile and ridiculous. Men and women vary from each other precisely because the two sexes complement each other in a useful and beneficial way in everyday life, in partnerships and in society.

Madam President, a new opinion poll commissioned by the Campaign for an Independent Britain has just been published. Most of those surveyed said that the European Union is out of touch, corrupt and is poor value for money; 83% of those polled want UK law to be paramount and, therefore, to revoke the supremacy of EU law; and 71% want a referendum on continued British membership. Unfortunately, there is not much chance of that, given that the Labour Government will not even give them a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which it promised in its election manifesto.

The British people want free trade, friendship and cooperation with Europe and the world, not to be governed by the European Union. If there were a genuinely fair referendum that asked the British people if they want ever-closer political and economic integration with the EU or to leave, an overwhelming majority would vote to leave.

Madam President, I would like to raise my concerns about the ever-increasing lack of scientific rigour in the draft proposals presented to this Parliament by the Commission and, indeed, in some of the reports and amendments for which we as parliamentarians are responsible. Good science gives way more and more to populist and emotive responses, often dressed up as the precautionary principle.

Take the issue of the plant protection products. We have abandoned the scientific principle of risk assessment. There is no detailed EU impact assessment and there is a lack of scientific definition of endocrine disrupters and an inconsistency of treatment between it and the REACH Directive.

We are bringing EU legislation into international disrepute and undermining its credibility by this growing lack of scientific rigour and lack of good science.

(BG) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the gas crisis which Europe finds itself in at the start of 2009 is quickly assuming the proportions of a disaster for Bulgaria, which does not have an alternative to relief gas supplies. I will not discuss the disgraceful, short-sighted decision taken by the Bulgarian Government that has made my country a hostage in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as this is obvious to everyone.

What is more important now is for us to decide what measures to take to overcome the crisis. In this case, this may mean that Bulgaria has to find an alternative so that it can break its external dependence. This is why I believe that it is essential for Europe and Balkan countries, like Bulgaria, to follow the example of Slovakia and make the decision to restart blocks I, II, III and IV at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant. At the moment, this is the only option Bulgaria has, enabling it to gain a modicum of independence and reduce both the direct damage and the damage that will be caused by using fuel oil at the moment as a substitute for gas.

(RO) Given that this year, 2009, has barely started, I would like to tell you all that, in my view, it is not any ordinary year.

2009 marks two decades since the end of the Cold War and since all the walls were knocked down that divided countries and Europe itself into east and west, with freedom and democracy on the one side and totalitarian regimes on the other.

As a Romanian MEP, but also a Romanian citizen who has known what dictatorship is, I believe that these two decades have marked a transition for some of us and acceptance for the rest.

I equally believe that, in spite of the current climate, 2009 should be the year when our actions as well as the European Commission's actions should be targeted at a single Europe for all Europeans. A Europe in which each of its 500 million citizens feels that their rights are guaranteed, that there is a real sense of solidarity, that no one can ever be discriminated against again, that no one needs to ever feel like an outsider or tolerated in a united Europe, that we are all European citizens who feel the same way, no matter where each of us was before 1989.

- (PL) Madam President, the European Parliament has dealt with matters relating to the environment on many occasions. I should like to highlight an issue brought to my notice by schoolchildren concerned about the natural environment. The rates paid for scrap metal, paper and bottles made of synthetic materials are falling dramatically. It is becoming unprofitable to collect such material. In addition, many cities have done away with the containers into which it can be sorted, or have ceased emptying them.

Recycling paper has been much in the news recently. The current situation in Poland in this regard may be summarised as follows. Those engaged in collecting scrap paper maintain that the prices are too low and that it does not pay to handle it. On the other hand, those who produce paper using recycled paper claim that the latter is too expensive for them and that the current prices mean it is not worth their while investing in equipment for processing it. I therefore appeal for environmentally conscious action to resolve this problem. As things stand at present, children are collecting scrap paper because the activity has educational value, but the paper is then being dumped on communal tips.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have done my utmost to ensure that as many speakers as possible take the floor.

This item is closed.

Framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides - Placing of plant protection products on the market (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

by Christa Klass, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the framework directive to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides (06124/5/2008 - C6-0323/2008 -;

by Hiltrud Breyer, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the placing of plant protection products on the market (11119/8/2008 - C6-0326/2008 -.

rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Vassiliou, Commissioner Dimas, ladies and gentlemen, today we have the result of many discussions and negotiations, which were, at times, conducted with great emotion, and we will have the opportunity to vote on this tomorrow. We have not made it easy for ourselves. We have struggled to find the right solutions in our negotiations with the Council and with the Commission. We have established that science does not always point us in the right direction with clear findings. Further scientific support will be necessary in order to analyse the effects of this new legislation. First of all, therefore, sincere thanks to all those who contributed to this positive result with constructive proposals, my fellow members here in Parliament, the European Commission, the French Presidency of the Council - it is a pity that the Czech Presidency of the Council is not here this evening - but thanks also to the staff.

With the current Directive on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products we are taking a giant step towards more commonality in European environmental and consumer protection. Sustainability as the overall concept for European agriculture will guarantee healthy food and a healthy environment. For the first time, the handling of plant protection products will be harmonised at European level. The basic principle 'as much as necessary, as little as possible' assumes comprehensive, sound knowledge. Plant protection products are, in fact, medicine for plants. They must be used correctly in order to be effective - the right product and the right dosage at the right time. This also includes the consideration as to whether chemical plant protection is necessary or whether mechanical measures would be better. The selection of the best technology and tested application equipment will protect the environment and the user and contribute to the success of the operation through good harvests. The Member States will establish measures in their national action plans to reduce the use of plant protection products.

Risk reduction is the primary objective. The use of the general basic principles of integrated plant protection will become mandatory for the entire European Union from 2014. Compliance with the stipulations of the Water Framework Directive is top priority. The Member States will establish buffer zones adjacent to bodies of water, which must be adapted to the conditions of the soil properties and geographical circumstances. The use of plant protection products by local authorities and in protected areas will be minimised or stopped, if necessary. There are regulations for checking equipment and regular maintenance intervals will be set. Risk reduction means that professional users must obtain sound and ongoing training in the use of plant protection products. Private users, who have no specific training and can cause damage in private gardens through incorrect usage, must be informed by well-trained salespersons on the use and risks when purchasing plant protection products.

This directive will mean that previously differing regulations in the individual Member States will be adjusted to a high, common level. The proposed measures will benefit the environment, consumers and users. Identical conditions throughout the European Union will guarantee identical safety standards and identical production conditions. Substances that are proven to be detrimental to health will not be licensed, on that we are in agreement. However, a ban must be based on scientifically sound findings and not on political dogmas. Exposure must also be taken into consideration because with pesticides, like many things in life, it is the dosage that creates the poison hazard. A headache tablet is a blessing, but if you take 20 it becomes dangerous, even life-threatening.

We have reached a good compromise. It will harmonise the environment and economic policy and I hope that we can emphasise our requirements in a unanimous vote tomorrow.

I will allow myself just one more technical point, which is to say that an error has crept into Article 14 Paragraph 4. Reference is made to the Internet portal mentioned in Article 4 Paragraph 3; but there is no Paragraph 3 in Article 4. This should be rectified.

rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, this agreement represents a milestone, a milestone for European health protection and consumer protection but also for the environment and the economy. First of all, sincere thanks to the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent collaboration. Many thanks also to the staff involved and to the Commission, to you, shadow rapporteur and Mr Dimas, and also the French Presidency of the Council, but also thanks to fellow members who were not intimidated by the completely exaggerated figures from industry.

We have adopted 200 amendments at first reading in the European Parliament and attempted to decisively improve the common position with this agreement. We will end this unscientific, never-ending game of numbers, this hocus-pocus surrounding limit-setting, with the clear cut-off criteria. Nobody can quantify the risk. Therefore, safety can only be achieved with an outright ban. Pesticides and other substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction have no business, no business at all in foodstuffs. We will ensure successful environmental protection with the cut-off for persistent, bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) substances. I am particularly pleased that we have succeeded in implementing and anchoring initial clear criteria for endocrinal substances, and I have confidence in the Commission's responsibility to come up with more criteria in the next four years.

However, I am also particularly pleased that the European Parliament has succeeded in anchoring bee protection as a licensing criterion for the first time. Leading scientists in France and Germany have estimated the economic value of pollinators at EUR 150 billion per annum and the damage at up to EUR 310 billion if we lost bees as pollinators. Therefore, I ask you quite particularly to reject, tomorrow, any amendments that have been submitted. They would dilute this compromise. This is a compromise to which the Council has already given its approval. It used to be common practice not to attempt to attack a joint compromise again. However, I am pleased that we have jointly achieved an improvement for immunotoxic and neurotoxic substances because, in a Europe that purports to be a knowledge-based society, we cannot afford to allow the development of a child's brain to be impaired primarily through neurotoxic substances in the long term. We can say quite clearly yes to harmonisation, however, without restricting the laws of the Member States and we will allow them flexibility with regard to procedures in the matter of licensing.

The triple legal basis also shows the high value we place on health and we have formulated exemptions from the ban with many restrictions, linked to a substitution plan, for example, so that the exception does not become the rule but vice versa. I am also pleased that we have succeeded in including animal protection in this regulation and that we were able to establish more transparency, although I would have expected more courage from the Commission. I hope that we will have more access to the application protocols and be able to introduce an electronic field pass. It is not only a milestone for environmental and consumer protection in Europe, I think it is also a magic moment for Europe. It is a magic moment for Europe because this decision to phase out highly toxic pesticides is unprecedented and it is unique worldwide, and we can thus put the European Union in the fast lane for ground-breaking health protection and Europe will be the trailblazer worldwide.

This regulation will also create added value for citizens who know that the European Union is primarily on the side of consumers and health and has not bowed down to industry. Furthermore, it is also a win-win situation for the industry, which will receive innovation incentives to produce better and safe products in the future.

Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, first of all I should like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Klass, the rapporteur, Mrs Breyer, and the parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on their excellent work on the proposals on the framework directive on a sustainable use of pesticides and to revise and improve the regulation.

The fact that agreement was achieved at second reading is particularly gratifying. This agreement safeguards the environmental integrity of the Commission's initial proposal and sets even more ambitious environmental targets for certain important points.

We are aware of the fact that the use of pesticides is a matter of particular concern to citizens. That is why we needed, firstly, to make the current legislative framework stricter by amending the 1991 Directive on the placing of specific products on the market and, secondly, to plug the gaps at Community level in the use of these products.

In achieving agreement on the directive, the European Union has proven that it has the political will to take effective measures to protect public health and the environment.

Parliament helped to make the directive more ambitious than the Council's common position on certain important points. Now the Member States will be obliged to prepare national action plans with quantitative targets both to limit the risks inherent in the use of pesticides and to reduce the use of certain products.

This was not easy, as the rapporteur had to persuade the Member States that, under certain circumstances, the best way of limiting the risk is to limit the use of specific pesticides, which she did with success. The agreement reached represents significant progress in the protection of public health and the environment in the European Union.

The European Commission is therefore in a position to accept the compromise package of amendments in order to reach agreement on the directive at second reading.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all, I wish to thank the rapporteurs Mrs Klass and Mrs Breyer, the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive approach to the proposal, the French presidency, and all of you who have contributed to the successful conclusion of the second reading of the Commission's proposal.

Plant protection products play an important role in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and gardening. However, they can also have an impact on human health, animal health and the environment. We therefore need to ensure they are regulated in an effective and balanced way.

In the preparation of the initial proposal, the Commission held extensive consultations of stakeholders from all sectors concerned and it carried out a comprehensive impact assessment. The top priority was - and still is - to achieve the highest possible level of protection for human and animal health, and the environment. I am pleased to see that this is also reflected in the outcome of the discussions between the EU institutions.

The draft compromise before us today would strengthen this high level of protection through several provisions. Clear and strict criteria would be set for the approval of active substances. Producers, suppliers and professional users would have to keep records to be made available upon request to third parties, such as neighbours, other residents or the water industry. Member State authorities would have to tighten controls on marketing and use, and the Commission would audit Member States' controls. Duplicative testing on animals would be completely avoided. To promote sustainability in agriculture, safer alternatives would substitute the more hazardous products.

In order to ensure comprehensive information, the Commission may also look into the issue of availability of existing alternative products to substances being known as endocrine disruptors. This would happen, of course, without prejudging the safety requirements of the Regulation.

As part of the overall compromise, I would like to propose the following text in relation to the risk assessment to bees: 'When revising the data requirements for active substances and plant protection products, as referred to in Article 8(1) (b) and (c), the Commission will pay particular attention to study protocols allowing a risk assessment which takes into account the real exposure of bees to these products, in particular through nectar and pollen.'

The draft compromise would create an even safer framework for the use of plant protection products in the European Union, and would strengthen our environmental safeguards, and the protection of our citizens' health. It also reflects the Lisbon Strategy, as it would reduce red tape. For example, the approval procedure would become shorter and more efficient. Furthermore, Member States would no longer work in isolation since mutual recognition of authorisations would become the norm rather than the exception. This should reduce fragmentation of the internal market and create wider availability of pesticides for farmers.

Finally, I would like to emphasise that it is fully compatible with, and complementary to, the proposal for a directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, which falls under the responsibility of my colleague, Commissioner Dimas.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioners, firstly I should like to thank the rapporteurs, the Commission and the institutions, especially the French Presidency. They have worked hard to reach this compromise, which strikes a balance between human health and agricultural production.

As far as farmers are concerned, harmonising the systems of the three zones will make it easier to access the products, and a fund for minor uses, as envisaged and guaranteed by the Commission, will mean that we have products placed on the market that are designed for minor cultivation and gardening purposes. We therefore have a guarantee that, by 2020, all substances with a proven harmful effect, such as CMRs and endocrine disrupters, will no longer be authorised to be placed on the market.

It follows that this proposal should significantly reduce the diseases and the many types of cancers for which a link to pesticides has already been scientifically proven, together with the degenerative diseases whose effects have also been proven.

One very important aspect that should be pointed out is that every effort will now be made to ensure better compliance with bee protection measures. The Commission has just made a declaration on this point. I should like to know, however, whether the Commission will reconsider Directive 2007/52 under the aspects it has just listed. Emphasis will also be placed on biological control methods and, in this field, this research, which has been supported and financed by the Commission, still needs to be marketed effectively. Moreover I am confident that this text will serve as a welcome and necessary incentive to stimulate research and innovation among the major producers of conventional chemical pesticides.

With regard to the Commission, the report provides for interim reports, meaning that we have a guarantee that monitoring will take place. I hope that the national bodies will also do their best to prove that this is a valid text.

Madam President, when the proposal from the Commission was published it prompted a headline in a major Danish newspaper. The front page of the newspaper read 'EU threatens Danish groundwater'. In Denmark, we are very proud of the fact that we have a huge amount of clean groundwater that we can drink completely untreated. Thus, the water that comes out of the tap is groundwater and we can drink it without having to treat it first. If the Commission's proposal were to have been implemented as it was originally presented, it would have meant that in Denmark we would have roughly doubled the number of pesticides on the market. This would very likely have also resulted in many of them seeping down into the groundwater - pesticides that we have currently declined to use because they would seep into the groundwater, with the effect that we would be unable to drink the water before it had been treated. Clearly, it would have been a disaster if the Commission's original proposal had been adopted, and not only for Denmark. Just as we, in my home country, have the groundwater that we want to look after, and that I choose to use as an example here, there are, of course, other countries with various other environmental and health-related matters that they would like to protect and the EU must never force a country to lower its level of protection. I am therefore extremely pleased that we have succeeded - not as a result of the Commission, not as a result of the Council, but as a result of Parliament's efforts - in ensuring a flexibility which, where there are special considerations, allows individual countries to say 'no' to pesticides that they do not want, as of course should be the case.

Another very positive thing that I am extremely pleased we have adopted is that we will now have a ban on, and can phase out, some of the most dangerous substances contained in pesticides. These are substances that have already been prohibited in other applications by means of the regulation, referred to as REACH, that we produced a couple of years ago. These are substances that are so dangerous that we will not permit them in textiles, we will not permit them in electronic goods, we will not permit them in toys or in all manner of other applications, but they are still permitted in pesticides, which then end up in our food! This is, of course, totally unacceptable and I am therefore extremely pleased that we will now be rid of these dangerous substances in pesticides.

A third thing that I would like to mention and that I think is extremely positive and something we can be pleased about is that we have now introduced reduction targets for the individual Member States. We have introduced action plans through which the individual countries are to achieve both a qualitative and quantitative reduction in the use of pesticides. Qualitative refers to the fact that there are clearly some substances that are more dangerous than others and we should, of course, be particularly careful with these substances, but it is also a good idea to reduce use in the quantitative sense, that is to say the overall use of pesticides, because this will obviously also result in a reduction in the use of these substances that end up in our countryside and in our food.

However, in conclusion I also have to say that there are things that could have been done much better. Neurotoxic substances, for example. These are substances that impair the development of children's brains. The fact that we are not phasing these substances out is, in my opinion, unambitious and a shame. I also think that it is a shame that we have included the possibility of exempting these dangerous substances if industry can demonstrate the need to do this. I think that we should have been more ambitious. However, when it comes to the bottom line, I am pleased and satisfied. This is a victory for health and for the environment.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, here we find ourselves, I hope, on the verge of adopting this pesticide package. The two compromise texts that will be put to the vote in this House seem to me to be balanced and worthy of our support, and this for several reasons.

The advances for producers and users are significant: the simplification of the authorisation procedures through, among other things, a division into three zones and the mutual recognition that goes with it. I should have liked to have had only one zone, to guarantee even more consistency on EU territory, but the Member States proved to be a little overcautious. Increased training requirements for sellers and users alike - teaching them how to understand and handle pesticides better - are guarantees not only of better health protection but also of economic gains.

The advances for those who protect animals are also significant, not least through the pooling of data derived from animal testing. The advances for health and environmental protection are very significant; in the long term, the most dangerous substances will be replaced by less harmful ones.

I must address the very controversial issue of endocrine disrupters. Until now there has been no definition of these. No legislative text dealt with this question. The compromise gives the European Commission four years in which to draft science-based proposals for measures intended to define endocrine disrupting properties. This scientific definition will enable products to be classified according to their disruptive or non-disruptive effects and, in fact, will provide the industry with the scientific legal framework that it requires.

The compromise text also takes account of the issue of bees and of their crucial role in the ecosystem. I believe, in fact, that the wording found in the compromise, combined with the European Commission's declaration, represents a major step forward. The effects of active substances not only on the overall development of bees, but also on nectar and pollen, will be taken into account. I should like to reassure certain stakeholders who have cast doubt on the availability of active substances and products. This compromise takes account of their fears. The three-zone system guarantees Member States the possibility of authorising a larger number of products. There is also the possibility of derogations.

As far as minor uses are concerned, Parliament has fought to have the Commission draft proposals in the short term to establish a European fund. There is also the review clause, which calls on the European Commission to analyse the impact of this legislation on the diversification and the competitiveness of agriculture.

Last but not least - and this has been pointed out by my fellow Members - we are encouraging pesticide manufacturers to develop new and effective products that respect human health and environmental protection.

To conclude, I should like to point out that plant protection products are medicines for plants and thus should be used only in a controlled and judicious manner. These texts recognise and are going to further accentuate the importance of integrated production when it comes to sound and sustainable agriculture. The two texts that we have arrived at manage to strike a balance between health and environmental protection and the availability of products for farmers.

I should like to conclude by saying what a pleasure it has been working with you, ladies and gentlemen, on this very sensitive matter. Our work has, I believe, been an exercise in listening, mutual understanding and cooperation. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and well done in particular to our two rapporteurs, Mrs Klass and Mrs Breyer, who were excellent negotiators in the search for a compromise with the Council.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - Madam President, we are speaking in this Chamber on the eve of a vote which is a critical one for agriculture, health and environment. Let us be very clear: any one of us legislators who has identified and raised problem issues during this legislation process has done so out of concern for agriculture and future food supply.

Of course I am concerned about any overuse of pesticides and about their effects. There is no doubt that rates of cancer have increased. We have increased residues in our air, water and food, which affect our health and environment. Also note, it is our farmers who are in most direct contact with pesticides. The intention of this legislation, which I applaud, is to protect our citizens' health and environment and agriculture.

As legislators, however, we must always seek out balance and base legislation on sound science. We cannot and should not legislate in the abstract. By moving away from the Commission's original scientific, risk-based approach to a hazard-based one, we fell at the first hurdle. Without a relevant impact assessment, which many of us requested repeatedly, nobody can state exactly how many substances will be banned.

Ireland has a unique temperate but wet climate. This makes our potatoes and winter cereal crops susceptible to weeds and disease such as blight. The removal of an estimated 22 substances, including Mancozeb and Opus, will affect product availability.

So, following the introduction of this legislation in 18 months' time, what is the view? Pesticides which are already on the market under current legislation would remain available until their existing authorisation expires. If in Ireland we can prove that a particular substance which should be withdrawn is necessary to combat a serious danger to plant health and that there is no safer substitute, this substance may be approved for up to five years repeatedly, despite the ban.

In theory this may work. In practice we need to make this work. In the present climate we cannot afford to decrease EU food production and be less competitive in our market-leading potential. We need to push and urge industry to invest in alternative, biologically sound products which are equally if not more effective. We have a precedent. We have all seen the case of the use of a non-chemical, natural, cheap and effective remedy spray used to protect white grapes worldwide.

I welcome Parliament's amendment which goes some way to protect bees, which are crucial for farmers and food supplies through pollination.

Finally, I would ask colleagues to support UEN Amendment 182 and to reject the package Amendment 169. The Commission, the experts, will come up with the proper scientific basis for endocrine disruptors in four years. We cannot prejudice this scientific assessment with a non-scientific-based definition.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, I actually wanted to speak about Mrs Klass's report, but will now take the opportunity to respond to the previous speaker.

You should read the agreement! What you just said was, we have introduced the amendment so that endocrinal substances will not be on the market for a further four years. Your amendment will bring about exactly the opposite situation. Please look at it again. Perhaps you could withdraw your amendment tomorrow, as it conflicts with what you have just said.

What the pesticide industry wants is that we do not set any criteria. Everybody in the House must, of course, ask themselves whether they have prostrated themselves before the pesticide industry or whether they are creating added value for citizens, health and the environment. This is the crux of the matter and nothing else. Otherwise, we have taken all measures to support agriculture as always. The Danish example, in particular, is very impressive: it has succeeded, within twenty years and without loss to agriculture, in halving the use of pesticides, doubling water quality and halving the quantities of pesticide residues.

And now to Mrs Klass, many thanks for your work! However, as a group we would, of course, have liked to have clear objectives and clear timetables. Nevertheless, we hope, of course, that this will be a spur for Member States to generate competition amongst themselves as to who is the most prepared amongst them to really take plant protection and sustainable management seriously.

And, of course, we would have liked more rights for the residents of areas adjacent to agriculture. I also hope, in this connection, that the ground-breaking judicial ruling by the British High Court to clearly encourage and support citizens in their requests for information may perhaps also be used to provide similar access for more citizens in their Member States throughout Europe. I also hope that we have made a little progress towards more transparency.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the dialogue on these measures - the pesticides directive and regulation - has been very difficult. Parliament rightly insisted on legislation that would be effective and suitable for the task. There has been debate in Parliament, but above all strong resistance in the Council, and economic powers have been mobilised in force in defence of vested interests.

We should, in fact, be concerned with general interests. Consumers should be able to eat foods uncontaminated by residues, citizens should be able to enjoy an environment unspoilt by these pesticides, and farmers should be able to work safely and towards a new quality of product.

There is an excessive use of chemicals in agriculture that damages all these things - our food, the environment and farmers are all forced to pay a high price for this industrial produce. The abuse of chemicals is linked to an old model of agriculture, where value is placed on quantity rather than quality and where produce becomes disconnected from the land, the seasons and the workers. It is a costly model for everyone, a harmful model also, because of the impact it has on the greenhouse effect. The legislation we are adopting is thus part of a movement to establish a more modern, healthier model of quality agriculture that meets the needs of citizens and the environment, with a greater commitment to labour and generating greater income.

I have to report that our efforts have borne fruit, thanks to the perseverance of both the rapporteurs and all the experts who worked together with their counterparts in the Council. The objective of reducing pesticide use, and not only the dangers associated with it, has been added to the list of commitments to be met under the respective national plans only. This chiefly concerns high-risk substances.

If priority is thus to be given to non-chemical methods, to the defence and integrity of the soil and water supply, avoiding any contamination of common resources such as water, then individual countries must have a sense of this great responsibility to reduce pesticides and move to sustainable use. Aerial spraying is virtually prohibited and - where there are no viable alternatives - local people must be notified in advance of the composition, times, intensity and schedule of the spraying. Progress has thus been made with regard to rights to information too, and access to data via the Internet.

We did want the regulation to abandon the idea of three rigid zones, but the Council did not agree, and so it has been retained. The outcome is nonetheless significant; these are measures that will be adopted to fight the contraband in illegal, counterfeit and dangerous substances, as well as others. We are taking a real step forward and I hope that the parliamentary vote will not come to blows!

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Madam President, the debate about the sustainable use of plant protection products and their admission on the market is a particularly complex one. It is difficult to strike a balance between good and bad. Whilst chemical substances cause damage to the environment and health, our agriculture cannot function without them, since the risk of crop diseases would increase too much. This, in turn, would have adverse effects on food production and the economy.

The most important task policy-makers and politicians have is to strike a healthy balance between sustainability and agricultural economics. In my view, the present compromise proposals go some way to achieving this balance, I can endorse them. I am delighted, for example, that the system of risk mitigation is being maintained, rather than relying solely on reduction in use alone, as, in practice, the reduction in use on its own does not always guarantee a reduction in risks. There are cases where the quantity of pesticides may be reduced, but when the product is then used in higher concentration levels, this is of little benefit to the environment or our health.

I am also pleased that the admission regulation has not become as restrictive as proposed in this House at first reading. Extra restrictions are now being imposed on the admission of products, and rightly so, but this will not harm agriculture to a disproportionate extent.

I should like to offer my sincere thanks to both rapporteurs for the cooperation and efforts in achieving this result.

Madam President, I have been deluged with messages from growers from all over the south-east of England who regard this proposal as near catastrophic. It will result, they tell me, in smaller crops and in higher prices, and it will open the way for importers who do not have the same criteria imposed upon them. There will be job losses, some units will become non-viable and production will stop. There will be closures in my constituency because there are, in some cases, no alternatives to key substances used by specialist growers.

There has been hopelessly inadequate impact assessment in many countries except my own, and the switch from risk assessment to hazards has already been commented on. If you are going to use hazards as criteria you might as well ban petrol and caffeine. Even the science is against you; pest resistance problems will be aggravated; there will be a loss of biodiversity. Integrated pest programmes have already decreased the need for pesticides. What is important are the options, not quantity. And you seem to have ignored the benefits of crop rotation. You have no right to destroy one of the few sectors of British agriculture still thriving just to appease Danish disinclination to process drinking water from the ground.

(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our rapporteurs have worked very hard on an agreement that deserves our support, primarily because it seeks to achieve ambitious environmental and health objectives but also because it remains agriculturally-economically rational, which means it has an eye for both the certainty of food supply and the viability of farming in the Union.

As ever, a compromise is about give and take. I still find it difficult to live with the cut-off criteria because I would have preferred to have seen a selection on the basis of a scientifically underpinned risk analysis, although I have to admit that the derogation option keeps things workable.

On the positive side, I would mainly like to highlight the following points. First of all, Member States have a margin when they determine the volume reduction goals. Secondly, the Union has been divided up into three zones where admissions are mutually recognised, which brings us closer to a unified market with less red tape and earlier availability of better plant protection products. Thirdly, I welcome the fact that Member States have sufficient flexibility to determine how buffer zones around watercourses are handled. Finally, what is also to be applauded is that Member States can take measures to make it easier to use plant protection products for minor crops. This is particularly important for countries practising intensive agriculture on small plots of land, and I therefore hope that the fund for minor users will be topped up sufficiently.

A good guideline for the use of plant protection products is: as little and as safely as possible, but as much as is needed for a safe and profitable crop. If we recognise and monitor sensibly, if efforts are made for professional and informed use and if we also take into account that agricultural production takes place within a global market, we strike the right balance, and that is why this compromise receives our support.

- (FR) Madam President, Commissioners, firstly I should like to thank the rapporteurs. We are conscious today that, although plant protection products have enabled a significant increase in agricultural production, in some instances they also have a very negative impact on health and the environment. That is why, aside from the legislation that will be put in place, there is also an urgent need for an epidemiological register making it possible to measure the impact caused by the use of various pesticides according to the way in which professionals and their families, and, of course, consumers, are exposed to them. In certain regions a particularly rapid increase in various types of cancer has actually been observed. Children of users and, in particular, of farmers, are also affected. Aside from this crucial issue of people's health, it is also the impact on the environment that should be measured. We are already aware of the harmful effects of certain chemical substances on groundwater and rivers. I might also add, on this issue, that I do not believe that the proposal to refer the buffer-zone matter to the various national arbiters is a satisfactory solution. Rather, I believe that the Commission will have to be extremely vigilant regarding this issue.

Today we are also seeing an increase in soil erosion, which could jeopardise the agricultural use of many areas of land across the European Union in the decades to come. The fertility of this land is greatly diminishing. The European Union is reacting to confront these risks; that is good, but it should also support farmers in a move to reduce, if not eliminate, harmful pesticides. The future common agricultural policy should integrate this objective and take better account financially of the link between high-quality production and agriculture. Research into agronomy and ecotoxicology, as well as training for farmers, should be used to support new production methods and should be adapted to the specific characteristics of the territories.

I shall conclude simply by quoting the title of a film that has just come out, which concerns the theme of this evening and which is called: 'Demain nos enfants nous accuserons' [Tomorrow our children will accuse us].

Madam President, let me join those Members who consider the second-reading agreement a well-balanced compromise, given the complexity of the matter. It shows the way for further improvements in the sector, towards more efficient and safer plant protection products, and is flexible enough to avoid situations in which the ban on certain pesticides would, in the final analysis, reduce the irreproachability of agricultural products.

In particular, I wish to welcome the improvement of the original Commission proposal aimed at avoiding the duplication of tests and studies and promoting non-animal tests.

I hope that this could have an impact on other, related sectors, such as plant protection product data requirements, which are right now moving through their own revision process.

Even if pesticides, in contrast to chemicals, are intended to be toxic and their safety assessment is therefore a special case, it does not mean that redundant animal testing should take place or that scientific knowledge cannot develop in ways that will identify further redundancies and that further potential reduction in animal testing will be possible in future. It should be noted that development and registration of new agricultural pesticides or plant protection products can use upwards of 12 000 animals in dozens of separate and often overlapping tests.

- (PL) Madam President, pesticides are harmful to the environment and to animals. I should like to point out that the conditions in which old pesticides are stored in many countries are such that the products represent a danger to the environment and to human beings. It will be impossible for poor countries to deal with this matter without Union aid.

Sustainable use of pesticides is an important issue. The provision of information and training for users is crucial, as is support for the latter by the agro-technical services. Some experts believe that the quantities of pesticides used are many times greater than is actually needed. This is commonest where small users are concerned, as these people lack the necessary agro-technical knowledge on many subjects.

Other important issues are placing the pesticides on the market, scientific research in this area and all types of action to reduce the impact of pesticides on health and the environment whilst still proving effective. I should like to thank Mrs Klass and Mrs Breyer very much for the reports they have prepared. I should also like to point out that these directives make a great deal of sense, provided that they are effectively implemented and become part of agricultural practice.

The Union for Europe of the Nations Group supports the directive.

(NL) Madam President, the Directive on the sustainable and risk-reducing use of pesticides and the Regulation concerning the placing of pesticides on the market are both extremely necessary and useful. The sustainable production and consumption of food is, after all, a basic human right. There are two compromises between Parliament and the Council before us. Our group will approve both documents, although we would have liked to have seen a firmer end result, of course. In fact, I was rather taken aback by the attitude of, and fierce protests from, the farming lobby and the pesticides industry in relation to this dossier, given that the laws on which we will be voting tomorrow will guarantee better protection of man and the environment and will also, in the end, lead to more innovation and safe replacement products.

Nobody can maintain any longer the criticism levelled by the farming lobby that more than half of pesticides will disappear. In fact, even agricultural organisations now admit that no more than 9% of products will need to disappear, and even then not right away, but phased over a period of several years. Crucial in this matter is, as before, the protection of public health against carcinogenic substances that can bring about changes in DNA, affect fertility or upset hormones. The compromises that are before us on this subject are honourable, with due consideration for the farming world. It has even been agreed that if a specific farming sector is at risk of running into difficulty, a separate plan may be drawn up to give that sector more time.

We are, in my view, presenting an honourable and acceptable compromise between ecology, on the one hand, and agricultural economics, on the other.

Madam President, there are plenty of examples of sound EU environmental polices which improve the lives of citizens across the Union and there are, of course, also many examples where unnecessarily bureaucratic measures come from the EU and restrict the potential to sustain our rural economy and way of life. Unfortunately, I believe this pesticide package may fall into the latter category.

In raising my concerns on these measures, I want to make it clear that I do not have industry in mind but rather the farming community - farmers who, I will remind the previous speakers, have as much concern with human health as any other citizen and who bear no malicious intent in that regard.

This package lacks the sufficient scientific rigour which is needed both to defend our health and our economy. The lack of a thorough impact assessment, taking into account effects on our environment, health, economy and the sustainability of our rural communities, is testament to this failure to apply sufficient rigour.

It is my fear that the package will have the opposite effect of the progressive intentions behind it. The well-intentioned attempt to create a more sustainable countryside may ultimately undermine the countryside by imposing overly stringent rules on an already struggling farming population.

I have listened intently to the arguments made unanimously by farmers in Ireland, and I believe that they are right to be concerned with this package and that the long-term interests of our citizens and of the rural communities are not protected in these measures.

The trialogue position does represent an improvement on the proposal but more needs to be done on the Regulation by way of amendment to meet these real concerns.

in writing. - (SV) Madam President, It is rare for a committed eurosceptic like me to be able to commend a proposal and recommend that the House votes in favour. The reason for this is that we are dealing with cross-border environmental problems and the ability of the internal market to function. Nevertheless, the proposals tend normally to be unreasonably bureaucratic - not so in this case.

This proposal avoids unnecessary bureaucracy. Our rapporteur is on the right track. This report proposes strict and tighter controls. The use of poisons such as alcohol and tobacco must be an individual decision. Collectively, it must be possible for us to be protected against toxicity. That is what is proposed.

The proposal offers flexibility, mutual recognition, division into zones and the national right to prohibit pesticides over and above those included here, which is absolutely excellent. Pesticides that have already been approved are not being withdrawn. I do, in fact, have reservations about that. We should be very strict when it comes to poisons of this kind.

I would like to remind you of what our fellow Member, Mr Mote, said about there being a risk of citizens buying products from other countries once we introduce stricter rules in the EU. I do not believe that that will happen. It is important for it to be stated that a product comes from the EU Member States. People will then choose to buy such a product in particular. I therefore recommend that the House vote in favour of this excellent compromise.

- (FR) Madam President, I should of course like to congratulate our rapporteurs, then to commend the agreement that has been reached thanks to the remarkable work that they have accomplished with the help of the European Commission and of the Council. We have here in fact what seems to me to be a particularly important agreement because it is a balanced agreement that takes account of everyone's interests, that is to say, it takes account of the protection of consumers' health - these consumers who become anxious as soon as pesticides are mentioned, who become concerned when they hear that pesticide residues contaminate fruit, vegetables and cereals. The reduction objective contained in the agreement, with the abolition of carcinogenic and genotoxic substances, is therefore very important.

Protecting the environment and biodiversity, with the incorporation of the bee problem, protecting water and protecting our land are of course key aspects. So too is protecting farmers, these farmers who are the first to be affected by the use of such pesticides, who will look on with satisfaction at the harmonisation of legislation and the simplification of procedures, and who will be able to continue to use certain substances that they require for agriculture, but for what we now hope will be a sustainable type of agriculture. The chemical industry, which agriculture needs, also has a duty to evolve and to find alternative solutions. With this text, there can no longer be any confusion between the concepts of danger and of risk. Pesticides are obviously dangerous, but it is their methods of use that determine whether they pose a risk to professionals, consumers and the environment. It is therefore important to ensure that professionals receive proper training, that the general public is given information and that a kind of school of best practice is introduced.

To conclude, I would say that import controls absolutely must be harmonised, since we cannot demand a number of things from our farmers and then continue to bring products into the European Union that do not comply with our legislation. There would be a risk there of unfair competition.

Madam President, I do not know what is going on, but I am reminded of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, one of whose most famous quotes is 'worse is better'. As I enter the last six months of my tenure in this place, I can see that is just what is happening. Worse is better! It is better from my point of view, because the sooner people realise just how damaging the EU is to their incomes, their livelihoods and food production, then we will be better off out - and that is what I stand for.

This report takes no cognisance of hazard or risk; it cannot identify between the two of them. Let me tell you now. It is icy out there - that is a hazard. There is a risk I will fall over when I walk home. You can legislate for neither of them.

It will damage food production. It will put farmers out of business. It will make food prices higher, particularly in the UK. I will be voting against this because worse is better and, when the message gets out, we in Britain will leave the EU.

(NL) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs alike. The compromise that has been reached is, to my mind, a step in the direction of more sustainable farming, and this is desperately needed. Needless to say, pesticides play a key role in preventing diseases and plagues of pests, but chemical pesticides also pollute the environment and can be harmful to health. This is why it is important to narrow the chasm between regular and organic farming in a responsible manner. That is precisely what this legislation does, and it does so mainly via three measures that are important in this regard.

First of all, some of the most dangerous chemical pesticides are being banned. Exceptions are allowed where no alternatives are yet available. The cultivation of tulips is not at risk, therefore, but it would not do it any harm if the level of toxins dropped slightly.

Secondly - and this is at least as important - incentives have been included in the legislation to promote the development of more sustainable products and products for minor crops. Minor crops are crops that are only cultivated in small amounts, such as tomatoes, Brussels sprouts and tulips. Many horticulturalists feared that these crops would come under threat as a result of this legislation, but, fortunately, this fear has proved unfounded. Quite the reverse, in fact, given that the regulation provides for the introduction of a special fund for the promotion of research into products that are suitable for minor crops.

A third measure that is also of significance is that Member States should, in this context, make plans to reduce the risks involved in using the remaining chemical pesticides. The use of chemical pesticides is being reduced everywhere, but particularly in sensitive areas, such as close to schools. That, too, is important.

These are all measures that benefit the environment and public health. If it was up to me, I would have banned the neurotoxic substances at the same time, as these can influence the functioning of the human nervous system and so should not be sprayed on agricultural crops.

- (FR) Madam President, the people of Europe should be pleased today with the very sound agreement reached by the Commission, the Council and, of course, our rapporteurs, on this issue of pesticides, and, going by what I have heard in this debate, it has been reached in a climate of very intense and particularly effective lobbying in the United Kingdom and in Ireland.

It is a legislative package, then, that reconciles health and the environment with competitiveness and innovation, instead of pitting them against one another, as is all too often the case. It is important to bear in mind that, although the some 800 chemical molecules concerned undeniably play a role in protecting crops against pests, there are many people today who are against exposing populations to avoidable health risks, and I am specifically thinking, of course, of farmers, who are more exposed than others to certain harmful substances, CMRs and endocrine disrupters.

The figures from the WHO are edifying: one million incidences of serious poisoning by pesticides, with some 220 000 deaths each year. It is this philosophy that consists in using chemicals for everything, in causing a cocktail effect and in taking a short-term view of agriculture that is today being called into question. A necessary change of direction is taking place which, tomorrow, if the compromise is of course accepted by our plenary, will formally bring an ambitious, realistic and resolutely modern pesticide policy into the world. It is ambitious, because Europeans want, as we do, to get rid of dangerous products; they also support a ban on aerial spraying and increased protection for public areas. It is realistic, because economic life cycles are respected, two-thirds of the substances placed on the market are safe and are therefore authorised for 10 years, on a renewable basis, and manufacturers have no legitimate cause for concern.

To conclude, Madam President, this pesticide package is modern because the integrated management of pesticides is an essential strand of a new agricultural policy, one that, for Europe, involves having fewer, but better, pesticides.

- (PL) Madam President, I should like to highlight three issues in the course of the debate on the reports on the sustainable use of pesticides and placing plant protection products on the market.

Firstly, the provisions under discussion only concern two stages of the use of chemical products, namely their placement on the market and their subsequent use. As yet, no appropriate regulations exist concerning the removal of such substances from the market and their disposal. In my country, Poland, the disposal of plant protection products is a major issue. Significant financial support is a priority, rather than additional legal provisions. The local authorities on whose territory the dumps for substances of this type are located require financial aid to be able to dispose of them. Secondly, it would be desirable if, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, the individual Member States had the final say concerning confirmation, restriction and denial of authorisation for the use of a chemical product on their market Thirdly, I would like to express the hope that the solutions adopted in Parliament will create a level playing field for all European farmers in relation to the use of plant protection products. I trust too, that illegal practices involving the trading and use of these products will be reduced to a minimum.

- (FR) Madam President, the report's proposals are along the right lines, and I should like to commend the rapporteurs on them. Although it is true, as the Commission says, that pesticides mainly concern the common agricultural policy, it is no less true that such a directive should aim to have the environment and public health as its main legal basis. Its scope cannot be reduced to a simple market-harmonisation or competitiveness problem. Proof of this is the case of the French outermost regions of Martinique and Guadeloupe where, in the case of Martinique, 20% of the land, 20% of the island's surface - that is, a surface area of 1 000 km2 - have been polluted indefinitely by the chlordecone molecule, the persistence of which is unknown. This is a molecule that has polluted not only the land but also the surface waters, some groundwater areas and the marine waters of the coastal region, greatly damaging our economy. Who is giving thought to the current public health problems? If it is not too late, I would advise Parliament to study the case of Martinique, which France is very aware of.

It is crucial for this directive to bring about a significant reduction in the use of chemical pesticides, not least through the promotion of sustainable alternative solutions such as organic farming and biopesticides. This will be a credit to Parliament. Lastly, let us not forget - and this has been pointed out many times - the ravages of pesticides on fauna, especially bees. It is also important for Parliament to be vigilant concerning free-trade products, in particular agricultural products sourced from countries that are not rigorous in their use of pesticides.

Madam President, what we have in common here is a desire to protect health, but we should remember that it is the farmers who produce the good, fresh, nourishing food that is the basis of our health. I come from a very wet country. My farmers struggle continually with fungal infestation. Fungi - unlike insects that come and go - come and stay. To ban, or impose diluted, fungicides could make potato and grain farming impossible in Ireland, but this proposed legislation is already having another effect.

Already in our media there are articles promoting GM potato-growing as an answer to the EU restrictions on pesticides. Which will be more damaging to bees and the environment: the continued responsible use of pesticides as practised by Irish farmers, or GM? We are told pesticides might disrupt DNA. GM is based on disrupting DNA. It is more necessary than ever that we start with a full impact assessment.

- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the wake of the trialogue between the Council, Parliament and the Commission, the text adopted on 18 December on the pesticide package seems to be well-balanced.

Indeed it takes account both of the interests of farmers and of the necessary protection of the environment, protected areas included. Having followed this matter closely, I am pleased with the result obtained, as it will allow farmers to pursue their economic activity without being penalised by the total elimination of pesticides and plant protection products, which will be strictly controlled.

I would point out in this regard that the producers of acid fruits and vegetables in my region of Normandy have been at the cutting edge of agro-environmental practices for several years now. Fortunately the Council and Parliament have found an extremely useful area of agreement in this period of uncertainty, which has been made worse by the CAP's closing balance sheet and by the threats hanging over the agricultural budget.

To conclude, we will always stand by farmers in defending their tool of work and their irreplaceable role in society, which consists first and foremost in feeding their fellow men and then in preserving the countryside and in developing the land to everyone's satisfaction. In the face of the irresponsible pressure exerted by ecologists, it is comforting that common sense has prevailed.

(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote on new regulations on the subject of plant protection, a subject that arouses a great deal of emotion in the populace. This was also reflected in the deliberations in Parliament. We would all like fresh, healthy, local food at affordable prices without hazardous residues from plant protection products. The result achieved in the trialogue will create the preconditions for this. The new Plant Protection Regulation is a great step towards more consumer and health protection.

Priority was given once more to scientific criteria rather than political dogmas when establishing the exemption criteria. The result of the trialogue is a giant step forward compared to the result of our Parliament at the first reading. Almost 80% of all active substances will no longer be affected but only those that constitute a risk to human health or the environment, and this is on a scientific basis. There will also be sufficient plant protection products available for sustainable management in the future. However, substances that are really hazardous will also be banned.

In future, there will no longer be 27 national licensing authorities but only 3 licensing zones for licensing plant protection products. The Member States within these zones must then mutually acknowledge their licences in principle. The new Plant Protection Product Regulation will provide the harmonisation required for a long time with justification in the plant protection product sector. We will then have a uniformly high level of protection without jeopardising sustainable agricultural production within Europe. We will now achieve a real internal market, uniform competitive conditions and a great deal of progress towards health protection. This is wonderful success for consumers and farmers. Thank you very much.

(RO) The use of plant protection products in compliance with efficient farming practices is vital to be able to produce a sufficient quantity of good-quality food, which will offer a high level of protection to the consumer's health and the environment.

Reducing the risks and impact associated with pesticide use and setting targets aimed at reducing how frequently these products are used will help guarantee sustainable farming.

The presence of a high level of pesticides in the food consumed in the European Union results from the dependency on these chemical products which, although necessary to help control any infestation and boost production efficiency, can have adverse effects on public health.

Some Member States, including Romania, are facing a high level of infestation affecting their agricultural land, with pesticide use seeming to be the best method for eliminating the pests.

For this reason, the proposals for implementing integrated pesticide management, the use of alternative substances and risk management will help yield suitable agricultural products which take into account the environment and public health safety, thereby reducing dependency on plant protection products.

At the same time, the large number of pests on Romania's agricultural lands means that we have to use treatments sprayed from airplanes. However, once the directive comes into force, these spray treatments will only be applied when there are no viable alternative solutions to combating the pests, in order to provide the environment with an adequate level of protection.

I am pleased with the compromise result, which has received the backing of the majority of political groups. It will also ensure a balance between the availability of plant protection products and, by implication, a sufficient quantity of food products, as well as help maintain European farmers' competitiveness and increase the level of protection for the environment and health.

(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, plant protection products were, and still are, essential agricultural resources. Farmers require a minimum selection of plant protection products because it is a matter of protecting the indigenous cultural landscape, producing top-quality food and protecting resources.

Our debates about chemicals are too often conducted on a very irrational level. We must think and act rationally if we are to achieve sensible results. The effects of Parliament's original position would have been fatal: a blanket ban on plant protection products would result in lower agricultural yields and, ultimately, rising food prices. Therefore, I am happy that an acceptable compromise was found in the trialogue negotiations. It is welcome that we have retained the three-zone ruling even with considerable exemptions for Member States. A courageous step to a consistent internal market solution would look different at this stage:

Alongside the acceptable compromises achieved, we should not second guess a final definition of endocrinically effective substances but actually allow the Commission its four years to produce a scientifically-based definition. Otherwise, we will overstretch the precautionary principle here.

I find it regrettable that we are not permitting any impact assessment of the agreement now reached.

- (PL) Madam President, our work on a further series of tasks aimed at regulating issues important for human health within the European Union is drawing to a close. I believe that the compromises we hope to agree on are sound. They should ensure that the restrictions introduced will promote health without threatening the development of European agriculture.

It is important to bear in mind, however, that all such changes aimed at tightening up safety conditions in agriculture result in significant cost increases. The latter have to be borne by our farmers, who are simultaneously being required to improve their competitiveness on global markets. Our farmers will have to pay more for safer pesticides. I shall reiterate what I have said in the House on many previous occasions. By all means let us introduce high standards for our farmers and food producers. Let us also, however, impose those same standards on importers of food from outside the Union, otherwise our efforts to raise standards will prove counterproductive.

Madam President, I do not accept that we have yet got a balanced package on this matter. For me this debate highlights two follies: first the abject folly of the EU, without pausing for even an impact assessment, dashing down the road of banning multiple plant protection products, not caring that there are no substitutes and that indigenous food production will drastically suffer, particularly in the cereal and vegetable sector, and thereby forcing ever-increasing dependence upon imports from countries who care nothing about these things.

Madam President, I have heard much talk in this debate about science, but what sort of science is it that does not subject itself to proper impact assessment?

The second folly is that of my country in particular, which is perhaps the most affected by these proposals, having subjected itself to qualified majority voting in the Council on these matters to the point where we are now probably going to be impotent to resist them. It is due to the idiocy of subjecting ourselves to qualified majority voting that we find ourselves in this position, and yet some under Lisbon would say we should hand over more and more subjects to that category.

(DE) Madam President, this is a balanced compromise and therefore I will support it. I would also like to say thank you, at this point, to all those involved. The dossier was, as we are hearing in this debate, created with a great deal of emotion, but nevertheless it succeeded in reconciling the different protection aims which we are pursuing with this legislation.

Europe purports to be one of the most advanced plant protection legislative powers worldwide and that is a great plus. It was important for us to find a balance between the protection aims in question and health protection, the internal market goals and, of course, environmental protection, but a balanced result between the specific protection aims has also been achieved. It was important for us to observe the various principles, for example, that the whole thing was based on facts and scientific principles and not on emotions, secondly, that we stayed with the risk-based approach and not the hazard-based approach as before. This is extremely important for the practicability of the whole legislative project and for its implementation at a later date.

At the same time, it should be remembered that we do not give preferential treatment to imports in the implementation and disadvantage national or European production. But in this instance the Commission still has a great task ahead of it. These principles were taken into consideration in a balanced manner, overall. Therefore, we can live with the compromise. As far as the details are concerned, it is particularly important for me that Member States are given the necessary flexibility and subsidiarity for groundwater protection, so that they are in a position to be able to respond to their specific circumstances. The Netherlands cannot be compared with Germany or with Malta or Greece in this instance. It is also important that the use of pesticides in Natura 2000 areas and in bird sanctuaries is reduced to a minimum. Member States will have sufficient room to manoeuvre to implement this accordingly. However, this is a compromise which should be supported by everybody.

- (PL) Madam President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteurs on their excellent reports. Time is short, so I shall only refer to the report by Mrs Klass and highlight certain shortcomings of the proposed directive.

The directive lays down a training and certification system for distributors and professional users of pesticides. The proposed arrangements should, however, provide for mutual recognition between Member States of certificates confirming completion of training in the use of pesticides. The directive also retains the regulations of the system of technical control and maintenance of equipment for the application of pesticides based on national legislation. I believe it would be appropriate to regulate this matter at Community level. If such control were based on international provisions there would be every reason for mutual recognition of the results by the Member States. This is particularly relevant in relation to the exploitation of fields located in borderlands and to official plant protection action. One final reservation I should like to mention is the failure to take account of the special circumstances of forest protection. Forests cannot be maintained without aerial spraying.

(NL) Madam President, as a Dutch MEP, I followed this legislation with due attention and care. In my low-lying country, the situation is very specific. Unlike other areas in Europe, it is impossible to work with buffer zones prescribed by Europe along all water courses. This would not work. It would make normal sustainable production in farming and horticulture impossible. The Netherlands, however, is also known for its minor crops, including tulips, onions and chicory. This is why we should pay specific attention to how the compromise is to be worded. The compromise that is now being struck is a great improvement on the one in Mrs Breyer's proposal, which was the subject of vote in the Commission. As a member of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I voted against on that occasion. There are now sound transitional provisions which, in combination with innovation and replacement products, can help industry along. Moreover, this fund for minor crops that is about to be introduced will give these alternatives a shot in the arm. Also, the three regulations, the three zones in Europe for recognition and admission are also much better aligned with actual practice.

I should like to add one area of concern, namely the admission of products from outside the European Union. We lead the way when it comes to striking a good balance between public health and practical applicability, but what happens with external imports? This competitive position, along with the parallel import and parallel trade should, to my mind, be raised in the WTO, where matters of this kind are discussed.

We can endorse the proposal. I should like to thank the rapporteurs and particularly Mrs Klass and Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges for their efforts in this respect. All that remains is this one area of concern that matters to farmers, namely we are practising sustainable farming, but what about everyone else? This problem remains unresolved for the time being, and I would appreciate hearing your reaction to this.

(HU) Fellow Members, food security is a major goal of the European Union, but this is a poor compromise. Hungary will oppose this report in Council, and the Hungarian Members of the European Parliament do likewise, because it is damaging to European agriculture.

We face two particularly important problems. The zone system is artificial and contrary to the European Union's principle of subsidiarity, and, as the remarks of my fellow Member from the Netherlands have just demonstrated, it makes flexible response impossible. It is further harmful to European agriculture because the level of risks increases, the danger of resistance increases, production costs rise, and because, as many of my fellow Members have mentioned, we will not be able to monitor the products of third countries. For this reason, this directive poses extremely serious dangers.

Finally, the consequence of radical environmentalist perspectives is that restrictions on plant protection products will make way for GMOs, which would not be desirable in Europe.

Madam President, I would like to thank those who worked on these two important reports. One would imagine from the contributions of some here this evening that the EU had absolutely no control currently on the marketing and use of these chemicals - we do! We have strict rules at the moment and, indeed, rules on residues and food. So I bow to neither side nor extreme of this debate this evening, particularly those who fail to see the need for plant protection products in food production and those who say that these two pieces of legislation are a disaster for farming and the food production in Europe.

I am a bit concerned about the comments of Commissioner Dimas when he says that people are worried about pesticides. Yes, that may be the case, but the question is: how justified are these worries? What have you done as the Commission to point out to consumers that the vast bulk of our food is produced using products to give us quality, safe food? Yes, some ingredients used in chemicals are very hazardous, but the risks of using them depend on how they are used and depend on compliance with maximum residue levels (MRLs) in our food. As far as I am concerned, those who use them are well-trained, in my experience, and we need perhaps to step up the training in other Member States.

Twenty-two substances are on the way out; in Ireland and the UK there are huge concerns about cereal production and potatoes. The questions are: will the agrochemical industry respond and produce new products? The Commission does not have the answer to that question. Will the derogations work? What happens if there are no alternatives? I think that that needs to be addressed, because we in Ireland want to continue producing cereals and potatoes. The question of imported food is a very real one, and I beg for five seconds extra on it. If the Commission would work with EU food producers on this, we could make progress. It is just not tenable that the Commission can sit here and say that we will ban the use of substances in Europe but that those outside the European Union can continue to send us food using those substances. It is not a competitive position, it is not tenable, and I ask you to address it here this evening.

(ES) Madam President, I would like to make reference to the Breyer report. It must be said that European farmers are fully aware that particular attention must be paid to human health and to the protection of the environment when using plant protection products. However, the industry is deeply concerned because the European Parliament does not understand the impact that this regulation may have in the future.

Assessments of its potential impact indicate that, due to the unavailability of plant protection products in the future, it is going to be very difficult to control pests and diseases that affect the cultivation of many foods - specifically, all Mediterranean produce - as well as the cultivation of ornamental plants and cut flowers.

I am fully aware that the agreement adopted in the trialogue was the result of hard negotiation and I therefore have to acknowledge the work the rapporteurs have done. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the temporary definition of endocrine disrupters will result in the disappearance of a large number of active substances, particularly insecticides, which are of utmost importance to farming.

The producers must have at their disposal a sufficient quantity of active substances in order to effectively and safely combat any disease or pest affecting their plants, bearing in mind that often the danger lies not in the product itself but in its misuse.

For these reasons, the Spanish delegation of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports the proposals requesting an impact assessment and will vote in favour of Mr Sturdy's amendments - which I have signed myself - relating to endocrine disrupters, and those in support of plant protection products being made available in an emergency.

Furthermore, if this regulation is adopted in the terms of the agreement reached, the outcome will be a reduction in food production and a rise in prices, which will result in our importing those same foods that we do not produce treated with the very products we are banning.

Madam President, on the Breyer report, I say to the Commission, why are you against an impact assessment? What is so vital or of so much concern that the Commission are opposed to an impact assessment?

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that some of the products that we have been using are dangerous to public health. Some of them are, but there are quite a few you propose to take off the menu that are not dangerous. I am thinking particularly here of one called Triasol which is vitally important to the production of wheat within the European Union. You have failed, and I mean this quite clearly, you the Commission have failed the general public when you failed to stop GMOs coming into the European Union, and the Commission admits this. You have admitted the fact that you have failed to stop GMOs coming into Europe. You failed when it came to the report that I did on maximum residue levels. We have a member here from DG SANCO - the Commissioner is busy talking at the moment, but when she has stopped talking she might just listen to what I have got to say. They have failed to control imports coming in with maximum residue levels of pesticides. They are being found on supermarket shelves.

So, if we are going to ban these products within the European Union, what are you going to do about the imports coming in? Are you just going to say: well, it does not really matter - these products are going to be coming in anyway? Let us leave it and just assume that people will not bother about it?

Farmers throughout the European Union have been the most responsible people when it comes to producing food and putting this legislation in place basically means saying to them that they are fools and they are not interested. No farmer in his right mind would use a chemical which is dangerous to public health. We have done a huge amount of surveys on this.

I leave you with one or two last thoughts on this. We are about to ban battery cages for the production of eggs and yet you will give a derogation on that. Yet that is fairly important to people. I worry about the fact that you, the Commission, have failed so far to put in place all the legislation which we have. It is vitally important here that you give the farmers the opportunity to prove themselves and prove the fact that these products are safe.

(SL) There are some alarming health trends which are largely due to the irresponsible use of pesticides. It is clear that an increase in health and a decrease in incidences of cancer is not possible when our food is becoming increasingly poisoned. I am talking about one of the key environmental and health issues, and that is why only a change in the development paradigm can help us, not mere cosmetic actions.

The work carried out by my colleague Mrs Klass and fellow Member Mrs Breyer, in conjunction with shadow rapporteurs, is a step in the right direction, and I wish to express my full appreciation for that. I am pleased to note that both reports identify a number of fronts for action, while also addressing the manufacturers, dealers and users of pesticides. At the same time, however, we request the introduction of national action plans with quantified objectives.

It seems to me very significant that the notification of neighbours has been included, as this could make an important difference, not only for humans, but also, in particular, for bees. This means that we can easily prevent harm, simply by focusing on those who might be causing it. In this directive it is stipulated that Member States may include provisions on the notification of neighbours in their national action plans. I would rather that it were stipulated that they must do this.

I am convinced that it is possible to allow plant protection with non-chemical, that is biological and mechanical, products to play a bigger role.

Madam President, Commissioners, can I say to you that less than a year ago we were debating in this Chamber what we were going to do about global food security, and was there enough food in the world, and we were terribly worried about it. Here we are, less than a year later, debating this legislation tonight, which has the potential of actually reducing food production in the European Union; and there is a morality about producing food because what you must remember is that if we in Europe do not produce food we can probably pay for it, but the developing world cannot.

Much of this legislation will affect our crops - not only wheat, as Robert Sturdy has said, but potatoes in particular. We have had two of the worst summers that I have ever seen in the last two years in northern Europe. We have needed fungicides to reduce blight and actually grow the potatoes. And if people in Europe do not eat potatoes, what do they eat, Commissioners? They eat rice and they eat pasta both of which - and certainly rice - the developing world is very short of.

Further to what Robert Sturdy has said, many of these pesticides and fungicides we are using, if they are used properly and you have the proper withdrawal period, pose no problems, and by using these particular chemicals we can produce very good food. And if you stand and tell me that you will stop imported food coming in that has been actually sprayed with these particular types of chemicals - you will not! For the simple reason that, if they had been properly applied, you can actually test your wheat as much as you like as it comes through the port of Rotterdam, but you will find no residue there. So I think we really do have to wake up to the fact that we in Europe need to produce food and we need to produce it safely, make sure that we reduce the amount of chemicals we use, which we are already doing, and we have got to make sure that we are training farmers to spray properly, which again we are also doing.

So, I would urge you: please, have a proper impact assessment, because it was two years ago you did your impact assessment. We have had two of the wettest summers on record; it is time for you to look again. We really do urge you to have a proper impact assessment.

Madam President, Mr Struan Stevenson has offered me his two minutes as he is unable to be here. May I take it is as PPE-DE time?

My pleasure!

Madam President, exaggerated claims have made it difficult to ascertain fact from fiction at different stages of this difficult debate. Yes, there is a need to control the use of agrochemicals - we all accept that - and, if not used sustainably, they can be hazardous to the user and the environment. But, if used sustainably, and if the maximum residue levels and withdrawal period are respected, they are of minimum risk, and of none at all to the consumer.

The proposal to base decisions for approval of an active substance on the intrinsic properties of the substance - the hazard-based approach - rather than basing it on the scientific principle of risk assessment is a major concern.

Alcohol, pure alcohol, is a hazard. If you drink pure alcohol, we know what happens. But when sufficiently diluted at 4% or 12% or whatever - when used sustainably - there is minimum risk. May I say that these are two different issues.

The EU impact assessment has been referred to. The scientific definition, and lack thereof, of endocrine disruptors has already been referred to. However, the positive note is that the derogation period will allow industry to invest in much-needed R&D and to develop new products and viable alternatives. I would invite the agrochemical industry and their CERP community to look into and invest in this area.

The anomaly of allowing imported food products using plant protection products generally, while we will not allow our farmers to use them, continues to be one of the mysteries and one of the major problems we have with legislation of this sort. However, on balance I think a lot of improvement is being made from the original proposal and I am inclined to support it.

Madam President, I wish to highlight the importance of explaining to affected stakeholders early on in the legislative process the reasons why it is necessary to regulate.

As a representative of a predominantly rural constituency, I have received a considerable number of representations from highly concerned constituents in the farming community on this particular dossier.

There is a general perception amongst this community that regulations are being arbitrarily handed down from Brussels without any input from the bottom up. Therefore, I firmly believe that Member State governments need to do a lot more explaining of these matters with affected stakeholders, rather than taking the easy route of foisting the responsibility on the so-called Brussels bureaucrats. After all, it is the Member States that have to implement these measures in the final instance, and it is the Member States that have the resources in terms of local representatives to explain these matters to farmers.

It is important that those who are producing food within the EU are not over-regulated compared to those who bring their produce onto the market from outside the EU. Any proposal must have balance for consumers, farmers and the environment, but we must also make sure that the correct information is made available to all of the stakeholders.

- (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, as a doctor I am acutely aware that it is our duty to European consumers to eliminate crop treatment substances that are shown to be harmful on the basis of scientific evidence. At the same time I appreciate that the rapporteurs have managed to find a balanced solution to the new regulation which will motivate industry to seek and develop safer alternative pesticides. Until then it will be necessary to grant the exemptions that are needed by countries with wet climates and southern countries simply must understand this. I insist that the Member States and also the Commission perform thorough and uncompromising checks to ensure that food and flowers imported from countries outside the European Union have not been treated with banned pesticides and fungicides. It is not simply a matter of measuring levels of residues in food. We must not permit such unequal terms of competition for European farmers. I also agree that the Commission should be criticised for failing to carry out an impact study as a result of which we are unfortunately unable to respond to all of the concerns raised by citizens over this regulation, although I am essentially in favour of it.

Madam President, the common agricultural policy has done enormous damage to British agriculture at enormous financial and economic cost.

Now we have these proposals on pesticides. It is estimated that this directive could mean the banning of 15% of pesticides. It is estimated that such a ban would cut wheat yield by 26% to 62%, potato yield by 22% to 53% and some other vegetable yields by 25% to 77%. This will have the effect of sending retail prices soaring, affecting worst those least able to pay.

I wonder whether the rapporteurs could give us the identity of just one person afflicted by, or who has died from, the effects of these pesticides? Probably not! But I could tell you of lots of my constituents who cannot afford to pay more for their food bills.

(HU) I am pleased that the Directive on the use of plant protection products has essentially placed this matter within the competence of Member States, especially as regards the size and designation of the buffer zone. I am in favour of prescribing action plans at national level and support the proposal that the law should put the reduction in the use of such products at its core. I am also pleased with the compromise reached on aerial spraying.

As regards the Directive concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, the proposal is fundamentally sound inasmuch as it addresses the prohibition and gradual replacement of products that have seriously harmful effects on human health. At the same time, monitoring materials arriving from third countries may raise problems.

I consider the authorisation of plant protection products in a 3-zone system unacceptable. One does not need to be a plant protection expert to be horrified at the thought that Hungary, for instance, would fall within the same zone as Ireland, which has very different weather and agricultural production conditions.

(DE) Madam President, I would like to address a subject which has not yet been discussed today in this connection. At the end of the day, we have again reached what it is to be hoped is a reasonable compromise in Europe. But what have we done along the way? Let us remember the discussions over many months with some extreme accusations by one side against the other and vice versa. All this has been devoured by the media with great enthusiasm. All that in the media has led to consumers being undermined and everyone agreeing again that 'Europe is doing everything wrong' and 'Europe is against rather than for the citizens'. Now, at the end of the day, we have reached a halfway reasonable solution, a compromise solution, but still one on which there will be a great deal of agreement. What will be left then, on average? Little to nothing!

- (PL) This is the first time the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament have adopted such a thorough and wide-ranging approach to provisions concerning the quality and safety of food. Tomorrow's vote in Parliament will conclude three years of work. Our task is to ensure that provisions are clear, safe, and knowledge-based, especially as regards such a sensitive area as food production. That is why, together with a group of Members, we are highlighting the need for ongoing monitoring of the effects of the regulation adopted regarding the use of pesticides.

We maintain that provisions based on sound knowledge will create trust amongst consumers concerning the use of pesticides on a scientific basis. The compromise reached will help improve the condition of the population's health, but will increase production costs. We should keep that in mind when discussing financial resources for the common agricultural policy. We also wish to enquire whether imported food will comply with the strict provisions that apply within the Union. I appeal for support for Amendment 179, Amendment 180 and Amendment 181, which we tabled jointly with other Members.

Madam President, I have to say I have grave concerns about this proposal that is before us here tonight and the effects it will have on the future of our agricultural industry.

I want to put on record that I support the amendments put forward by Mr Sturdy, which I have signed, and which I am happy to support. I think they will at least help give the industry some support in the future.

Yes, we do need and we do require legislation, but it must be good legislation. We do not need to damage production in the process. We need a strong impact assessment to know what effects this will have, and this is what is required and what is needed, and this we do not have at present. We must have more facts and not fiction, and we certainly should dwell on the facts.

There is no point in Europe legislating itself out of business because we cannot control what is imported in. This is where the Commission have total double standards on what they impose within the European Union and what they allow into the European Union, for all that will happen is that people will go outside.

Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, I should like to thank everyone who took the floor during today's debate for their very constructive speeches. On the basis of the agreed text, which is a compromise and a very successful compromise, the Member States are obliged to prepare national action plans setting out quantitative targets to limit risks.

Under these national action plans, the Member States are also obliged to monitor the use of pesticides which have on occasion caused specific problems and to set targets for reducing the use of certain pesticides. This represents significant progress which, in addition to protecting the health of European citizens and the environment, will bring about financial benefits, due to the reduction in national health spending, and the benefit of a reduction in the use of pesticides under the new legislation.

Apart from national action plans, the proposed compromise package also contains a number of other important aspects. The principle of prevention must be applied. Within the framework of integrated pest management, priority is given to other, non-chemical methods of plant protection.

Protection of residents and bystanders has been improved, in that national action plans may include provisions concerning information for persons who may be exposed to spray drift, while land sprayed from the air must not be adjacent to residential areas.

All pesticide distributors, not just those who sell to professional users, must ensure that some members of their staff have a special certificate of aptitude - which of course, as one Member commented, will be mutually recognised - to provide information on pesticides and are available to provide advice to customers. Only certain categories of small distributors will be exempt from this requirement.

As far as the ban on aerial spraying is concerned, a compromise solution has been found on the processing of exemption requests. Exemptions will follow a two-stage procedure. Firstly, the preparation of a general aerial spraying plan, which will be subject to express approval by the authorities, followed by the submission of special individual requests for aerial spraying, which will be subject to the conditions on which the general plan was approved.

To close, I should like to add that the Commission is satisfied with the outcome of negotiations and is therefore in a position to accept all the proposed compromise amendments.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, thank you all for your very fruitful participation in this very interesting debate. The Commission has attached particular importance to this file and I have been personally committed to the highest level of public health which it seeks to achieve. There have been long and difficult discussions during the trialogue which the rapporteur has steered with great dedication and skill, and I thank her for that.

The Commission supported the common position and can now support the proposal as it emerges from the second reading. All the innovative aspects of the proposal have been retained, in particular the approval criteria, which will ensure that dangerous substances which pose a high risk to public health are eliminated or substituted by safer alternatives, improved mutual recognition, and the substitution of some products by safer alternatives. Let me reply, however, to some of the comments that have been made here.

According to the Commission's estimate, only 4% of the substances currently on the market would disappear because they are endocrine disruptors and only 2% because they are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to production. The total number of active substances which are currently on the market and which possibly would not be approved under the new regulation is expected to be less than 25 substances.

This evaluation has been confirmed by a report from the Swedish Chemical Agency and is also in line with the revised impact assessment from the UK Pesticides Safety Directorate. Moreover, I would like to point out that the new criteria will apply to substances already approved only upon renewal of their approval, and for most of them the renewal date is 2016. The industry will therefore have ample time to develop other safer substances.

I would also like to make reference to some comments made about imported food. Let me remind you that, as from 2008, we have the regulation on maximum residue levels which is fully applicable. If an active substance is not approved for use in plant reduction products in the EU, the maximum residue level for this substance is set at the level of detection. This MRL is valid for EU production, but also for imported food and feed.

There are, however, several reasons why an active substance could not be approved in the EU, and the possible risk to consumers is only one of them. Others can be linked to environmental issues or the protection of workers, which fall under the sovereignty of third countries where the pesticide is used. In these circumstances the use of the pesticide could not be acceptable for us, but the treated crops would not necessarily pose a risk to EU consumers. The third country which wants to export commodities treated with such substances to the EU may therefore ask for an import tolerance as long as it can submit data proving that there is no risk to human health from the consumption of these commodities and that these data are favourably evaluated by EFSA and formally adopted in EU legislation. This is the position regarding imported goods.

Coming back to the directive which we are hopefully about to adopt, the Commission considers the final compromise to be properly balanced, to achieve the objectives of health and environmental production, as well as to ensure the availability of pesticides to farmers. We now look forward to the formalisation of the second-reading agreement.

This is certainly a very good way for the European Parliament and the Council to start a new year, and good for our citizens as it benefits their health. It is also, we believe, beneficial to our farmers as it ensures their own production through specific measures, such as the promotion of safer products. What was achieved is important. It was achieved by all of us together and serves as an excellent example of how interinstitutional cooperation can directly benefit our citizens.

rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is now possible to identify a sugar cube in Lake Constance using state-of-the-art analysis. However, we must also ask ourselves how we deal with these new discoveries, what we do with them.

We now need objective risk assessments to find a balance between the justified health and environmental requirements and the justified concerns of business and food safety, including within a worldwide comparison.

The questions, which colleagues have asked, have not been adequately answered by the Commission, in my opinion. It is not enough to say that four substances no longer apply or two substances no longer apply and there are only 25 substances in total. No, we wish to have an accurate economic assessment, an assessment that not only fulfils economic criteria but also health criteria. We still need an evaluation. The Commission must now thoroughly analyse the effects of this new legislation so that we know what effect it will have at the end of the day. We must continue to monitor this, as scientific discoveries will always continue.

The compromise which has been reached brings a new direction in European plant protection policy. It brings more common action Europe-wide and it requires targeted measures from Member States, which guarantee the sustainable use of plant protection products.

As rapporteur, I thank you for your support. We have managed to find a good compromise from different starting positions. I would like more positive thinking for the New Year. One thing that can be said is that I did not have enough positive thinking: plant protection products will ensure healthy and sufficient food and a healthy cultural landscape for us in Europe!

rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, I, too, would like to give my thanks for a lively debate. I would like to emphasise once again that I am still of the same opinion; this is a milestone for environmental and consumer protection and, most of all, it is a magic moment for Europe. Europe is now in the fast lane. Europe is showing that it is the world's trailblazer. This decision to phase out highly toxic pesticides is unique in the world and the European Union can profit therefore from this.

Now, with regard to the arguments put forward again and again in this debate that the matter of imports has not been clarified: that is incorrect, the matter of imports has indeed been clarified. With the ban on these highly toxic substances, they will become illegal in Europe. That means that when we have imports - let us take fruit and vegetables as an example - these imports must, of course, comply with European legislation and, specifically, by means of the Regulation on Maximum Residue Levels. If substances, such as pesticides, that have been banned in Europe are found in the residue quantity test, then the product is illegal. This means that bananas coming from Costa Rica and treated with carcinogenic substances that we have put on the index and that are therefore banned are illegal within the European Union. This is clarified quite clearly in the Regulation on Maximum Residue Levels. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to encourage further dissent, panic and fear!

All I can do is point out, once again, and thankfully the Commissioner has already highlighted this, that while the initial PSD study indicated that 80% of pesticides would disappear from the market, this figure has been considerably reduced in the meantime. Unfortunately, you did not mention this correction in the PSD study.

Therefore, please stop creating this fear and dissension. Let us now really celebrate the success we are all here hopefully achieving for the benefit of the citizens of Europe, for the environment and for health protection.

(The President cut off the speaker)

- Mrs McGuinness, you have a point of order.

Madam President, this is on a point of order, because I think people are talking and not listening.

I heard what the Commissioner said on the food import situation. I think you are missing the point and I think, with respect, our rapporteur is also missing the point. Farmers in Europe will be banned from using particular substances. Their cousins outside the European Union can use these products. We will not find residues in the food that comes in. We are talking about a competitive disadvantage for EU producers. Perhaps at another point, we could address the real world rather than this vague ether we are currently in. Sorry for the anger.

- The joint debate is closed.

We are not going to re-open the debate.

Mrs Breyer has the floor.

rapporteur. - Madam President, I and the Commissioner both explained the situation very clearly. If you do not listen - or perhaps you do not want to hear that we have solved the problem because it does not fit in with your campaign against this regulation - then I am at a loss! But I will state again that the problem is solved. In the European Union you cannot market a substance that is not allowed to be marketed in the European Union. Full stop.

- We are not going to re-open the debate. I would encourage you to continue it in the corridors, if necessary.

The joint debate is closed, and the vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - I support the compromise of the Breyer Report on the placing of plant protection products on the market because it will provide for greater stability and security for farmers and food producers.

However, the compromise agreement states that the new legislation would only gradually replace the existing EU law, and that pesticides already approved under current rules would remain available until their existing authorisation expires. Products that contain hazardous substances are to be replaced within three years if safer alternatives exist.

If voted, the report will be a step towards better health through environmental protection and a means of allowing the EU to move on to a better system without further delays.

I welcome the compromise text on the sustainable use of pesticides and I would like to congratulate Mrs Klass for the fine work she has done.

In my view, we have before us a balanced text, which will ban the use of certain harmful pesticides, but without harming European farming.

Furthermore, I would like to say how pleased I am to note that among the non-chemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management suggested, the use of GMOs does not feature as an option. They could have been included among the non-chemical methods.

In this case, an avenue would have opened up in the future for marketing in the EU food products containing GMOs. The compromise text proves to us that this is not the case.

Once again, the European Parliament is saying a categorical NO to the use of GMOs. Therefore, the united voice of 58% of Europe's citizens is making itself heard again. On this occasion, we also have the Member States on our side, represented by the Council.

The regulations governing pesticides are important as a means of reducing the risks involved with pesticide use to the population's health and the environment. However, the measures adopted with this aim must be reasonable and take into account both production quality and achieving maximum harvests.

In the current economic crisis, boosting food production may be one solution. As Mrs McGuiness noted in the report presented at the end of last year to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the price of wheat has risen by 180% in two years, while food prices in general have risen globally by 83%. These high prices are generated by the stringent standards which we impose on European producers.

Without disputing the need for better regulation of pesticide use, I still feel that one of the measures proposed will lead to a reduction in the number of plant protection products available on the EU market. The upshot of this will be a fall in productivity in certain sectors, such as the cereals sector.

Certain provisions of this legal act will affect producers due to the fact that they entail a ban on the majority of pesticides available on the market, favouring instead the marketing of products regarded as being safer, but much more expensive. Consequently, production costs will grow, which will put farmers from new Member States at the biggest disadvantage.

If all the players involved approve this recommendation, this will ensure the conditions required to harmonise the principles relating to environmental protection and animal welfare with the efficient operation of the internal market.

The provisions concerning mutual recognition and the zoning system have been accepted by Romania, given that clauses have been included in the text, allowing Member States (MS) to take measures aimed at adapting the terms for authorising plant protection products (PPP) in order to take into account the specific conditions, along with clauses refusing recognition in specific justified cases.

This version is considered therefore to offer sufficient guarantees. This entails the additional benefits of reducing the administration burden as the PPP evaluation will be carried out in only one state within each zone, which will take into account the specific conditions in all MS in the zone.

As a social-democrat MEP, I believe that we need to make sustained efforts to protect the environment, human health and animal welfare, without however compromising agricultural production.

Action Plan on Urban Mobility (debate) 

- The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Mr Costa, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and Mr Galeote, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the action plan on urban mobility - B6-0002/2009).

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission, which you, Mrs Vassiliou, are a part of, has announced the publication of its Action Plan on Urban Mobility several times. The plan was due to be submitted to the Council and Parliament last autumn. The Commission made this commitment at the conclusion, last March, of the consultation on the Green Paper on Urban Mobility, which was launched in 2007, and again in the 2007 Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan, and in its Communication on a strategy for the internalisation of external costs and transport in 2008.

Time has passed, but the action plan is yet to see the light of day. As we near the end of the current legislative term, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, which I represent, is concerned that much of the work put in over the last few years may come to nothing. Can you reassure me, Commissioner, that the action plan is ready? Can you tell me that it will be made public in the next few weeks, to enable Parliament to finalise its recommendations, as contained in the Rack resolution 'Towards a new culture for urban mobility', passed by this House in July 2008?

Mrs Vassiliou, urban mobility is without doubt an issue affecting the local, and on which local competence will always take precedence over national or Community competence, but that does not mean that it should be tackled without any state or Community intervention whatsoever. Who if not the European Union can and should define the Community's role in this? Who can and should interpret the limits imposed by the principle of subsidiarity in this field?

The Commission's - and therefore the EU's - evasion of this subject does nothing to help solve the problem of urban transport and citizens' mobility, nor the problems of air pollution in cities - we know that 40% of CO2 emissions are caused by urban transport and that 70% of other transport pollutants are urban. Nor does it help the problems of road safety - we know that 50% of fatal accidents take place in cities - nor those relating to the production of consumers, less able citizens, whose mobility is dependent on public transport.

Can we accept that there should be differences between Member States? Between cities, in standards of protection for the urban environment? In road safety standards in cities? In standards of citizens' access to mobility? Or are they not fundamental rights that the Union should help to guarantee for all Europeans? Well then, we need to establish standards and uniform minimum objectives, but also best practices and financial incentives. We need coordination and innovative projects, and to develop and share reliable and comparable statistics.

If the Union takes it on, will this not help in realising those subsidiary solutions that Member States and local communities have every right to be protective of? Mrs Vassiliou, it may be that you are about to give us a list of good reasons for the delay, and even the failure to present the Action Plan on Urban Mobility. If you want to try and defend the failure to keep this commitment, before you do so, ask yourself - are these genuine reasons and not banal excuses? Do not contribute, Mrs Vassiliou, to the idea - which has become popular recently - that the Commission has become so afraid of disturbing the Member States that it has given up on solving Europeans' problems. It would be a suicidal move for an institution such as the Commission that has not been strengthened by the French Presidency's successful term.

Delivery, delivery, delivery: that is what European citizens want, and for that reason alone they are ready, I believe, or they could be, to look on our institutions with a more friendly eye. The small example of the urban mobility plan could be a real help in addressing this much larger problem.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all I would like to convey the regrets of Vice-President Tajani for not being with us. He is on a very important mission to Japan.

Let me go straight to the point. The Commission remains fully committed to developing an EU policy in the field of urban mobility because it is convinced that, although responsibilities for urban mobility lie primarily with local, regional and national authorities, in some specific areas there is an added value of action at European level.

As a matter of fact, although cities are all different, they face common challenges. The problems in urban mobility are significant and growing and affect many citizens and businesses, which are confronted with traffic safety problems, with limited accessibility of public transport, with congestion and health problems caused by pollution. To illustrate the importance of urban mobility, let me provide you with some figures: 60% of the population lives in urban areas and 85% of the EU GDP is created there. However, cities also generate 40% of CO2 emissions, and two out of three road accidents take place in urban areas. Finally, congestion, which is one of the main problems that citizens have to face everyday, is responsible for the loss of about 1% of the EU's GDP every year.

Sustainable urban mobility is therefore a key element to achieve our goals with respect to climate change, economic growth and road safety. This is why the Commission has been launching actions in this field since 1995, in order to promote the exchange of best practices. The highlight has been the extremely successful CIVITAS programme that started in 2000.

The 2007 Green Paper 'Towards a new culture in urban mobility' then identified broad areas for potential complementary action at EU level to promote greener and safer cities and smarter and accessible urban transport.

But what can be done concretely at EU level? We can help local authorities to implement related EU policies and to make best use of EU funding. EU-wide dissemination and replication of innovative approaches can give authorities the possibility to achieve more and better results at lower cost.

We can help foster markets for new technologies, for example clean and energy-efficient vehicles, and facilitate harmonised standards for broad market introduction of new technologies. Finally, the EU can guide authorities towards solutions that are interoperable and facilitate smoother functioning of the single market.

The Commission will therefore continue to act, because we think, as a large majority of stakeholders do, that there is much to be gained from working at EU level to support initiatives at the local, regional and national levels.

Now let me answer your question: why the adoption of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility has been delayed. Unfortunately, the conditions were not appropriate for the adoption of a comprehensive action plan by the Commission before the end of 2008.

But my colleague Vice-President Tajani would like to reassure you that he remains committed to working towards the adoption of the Action Plan and to develop an EU policy in the field of urban transport in full respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. To this purpose, it is not the intention of the Commission to propose a one-size-fits-all solution; on the contrary, we would like to develop a toolbox, including short- and medium-term practical actions, in order to provide cities with the tools to address, in an integrated way, specific issues related to urban mobility. Then, it will be up to local authorities to decide what is more suitable for them, according to their own objectives and needs.

In order to address the concerns that might still exist regarding the strategic role of the EU in urban mobility, Vice-President Tajani's intention is to demonstrate with concrete actions how the EU can add value and quality to urban mobility in Europe. On the basis of the responses to the Green Paper and many discussions with stakeholders, a number of actions have been identified and will be launched later this year.

To promote innovative solutions and new technologies, we have already opened a call for proposals, closing at the end of March, which will provide up to 50% funding to the projects selected. Once the Directive on the promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles comes into force, around March, we will initiate the development of an internet site to facilitate joint clean vehicle procurement.

On information and exchange of approaches, we intend to start up, around April, a website providing information on urban mobility legislation and funding in Europe, as well as on good practice. We will also reflect with stakeholders on the future of our CIVITAS programme and how to build on the vast knowledge and experience generated in the CIVITAS-funded actions.

Finally, to help increasing knowledge on sustainable mobility policies, we will launch a study on aspects related to green zones and a study on the opportunities for making public transport systems more interoperable. We intend also to establish an expert network for considering aspects of urban road pricing and internalisation of external costs.

I am convinced that this package of actions, which will be soon undertaken at EU level, provides an important basis for moving forward in the field of urban mobility.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, with all due respect to the Commission and to you as a person, you have not really answered Committee Chairman Costa's question. You had already given us a good intimation when you indicated - and this is something that was already evident in the Green Paper on Mobility in the City - that we need common European solutions to a problem that almost all European cities have in one form or another, some quite different and some quite similar. We welcomed that at the time, a few months ago, and we have looked forward eagerly to the proposals from the Commission that we were promised. They have not materialised, And if there was an intimation in your statement, then I have noted it now as follows: there will be no comprehensive action plan. Why not?

If we believe what we hear - and we hear a great deal in this House and in the institutions of this European Union - it means that there is one Member State or perhaps a few Member States who have caused anxiety, and unfortunately, also caused anxiety to this Commission, with the pretext that subsidiarity could be infringed. The European Parliament has stated expressly in its proposals that it does not wish to interfere with subsidiarity. You have emphasised once more that you do not wish to present a uniform plan to suit everyone, but presenting no plan at all is not a solution. Let us take this step, keep this promise! The re-election of the Commission will not be guaranteed by doing nothing and by one or more Member States not being insulted, but re-election will be guaranteed if something positive is submitted and presented.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, you have just supported us in the initiative that we, the European Parliament, plan to take on this issue. You have just told us that, for obvious reasons, that is, because of the importance of urban transport in the transport field, and because of the objectives of the European climate-change plan, the European Union cannot fail to take an interest in urban transport. Mr Barrault, before you, took the initiative of introducing a Green Paper, with the promise of an action plan. You cannot today deny us this action plan and explain to us that you are implementing it on the quiet, without Parliament's deliberations, without Parliament's control, without any visibility.

It is for this reason that I managed to get my fellow Members - and I must thank them, especially Mr Rack, who did a huge amount of the groundwork - to agree to the European Parliament's doing something completely out of the ordinary and producing the action plan that you do not want to produce, in an own-initiative report, before the elections. This entirely heterodex initiative will carry considerable political weight, since it will involve questions being put to the new European Commissioner for Transport, who will be heard by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and it will therefore carry a great deal of weight in terms of his approval by the European Parliament. I find it regrettable in fact that, today, the European Commission should give in to any old objection from any old Member State.

And it is precisely because we are concerned about this development, which is an institutional drift, whereby the European Commission has decided no longer to play the Community card, but the strictly intergovernmental one, that we are today validated in our desire to negotiate an action plan among ourselves, to submit it to you and to ensure that the next transport commissioner makes a clear commitment regarding the follow-up action to be taken on it.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, with all due respect to your position and to you personally, Commissioner, I should like, if I may, to say two things in response to your speech. You have tried to sidestep the issue and you have done a balancing act.

You have pointed out to us what the various chapters that were due to appear in this action plan were, and I believe that my fellow Members and I can only be pleased to have actually found the bulk of our proposals in this list. You have therefore furnished us with proof that, within the Commission, you possess all the elements needed to publish this action plan in all its parts.

For my part I believe that there could be four explanations to account for your first sentence of part two, which says, if I have correctly understood the translation, that the conditions are not favourable.

Possibility number one: is there a shortage of technical information within the Directorate-General for Transport? The particulars provided by Mr Barrot, within the context of the Green Paper, seem to suggest that, on the contrary, the Commission is very well equipped with technical information.

Possibility number two: you say that the conditions are not favourable. Are some Member States opposed to this plan? As far as I know, though, Commissioner, the Commission is independent of the Member States. I do not for one second believe that you would have bowed to the pressure of certain Member States.

Possibility number three: are there differences of opinion within the Commission itself that would prevent you from submitting this action plan to us? My goodness, I hope not!

Lastly, are you refusing to hold the debate with the current European Parliament so as to postpone it until next year? Given the excellent reports that bolstered our relations with Vice-President Barrot during the drafting of the Green Paper, I dare not believe this.

Commissioner, we are a few weeks away from the elections. This action plan is in my view an excellent example with which to demonstrate to our fellow citizens that, at the same time as it shows respect for subsidiarity, Europe is very in touch with their health problems, and so on, which you have listed.

I deeply regret this delay and, like my fellow Members, I hope that you will be able to remedy it as soon as possible.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the constant delay and your answer, Commissioner, are not acceptable. Time is running out.

Urban traffic plays a key role in the context of climate change. It is responsible for about 70% of all greenhouse gases in cities. The EU will only succeed in achieving its own climate protection goals if it changes its transport policy. The greatest potential lies in the cities because 90% of car journeys made in cities are less than six kilometres long - distances which could easily be covered by taking the train or bus or by cycling or walking.

I hope that the Commission has used the delay to consider how the EU can effectively help governments and cities. There is actually no European added value when the report is as vague and non-binding as the Green Paper and the Rack Report.

We Greens request that EU Cofinancing be redesigned to be environmentally friendly. To date, 60% of EU money has been used for road-building projects, while only 20% goes into public transport and rail. We want at least 40% for rail as decided by Parliament in my report on the first rail package.

Secondly, we only want to grant EU money if cities can present a sustainable mobility plan. Thirdly, we want to increase road safety with a general speed limit of 30 km/h with the possibility for cities to set higher speeds for specific roads independently.

That is not only good for the climate, it will also reduce accidents because 40 000 people die on Europe's roads every year.

- (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is clearly a great pity that there has been a delay in the publication of this document and the action plan. Let us not forget that 70% of people in Europe currently live in cities and it must be our aim to secure as soon as possible urban transport which offers greater levels of accessibility, safety and especially reliability while also taking far greater account of the environment. I therefore expect that the published document will not only include new trends but will also evaluate new approaches and measures such as support for healthy forms of transport, for example cycling and walking. Individual communities would then be able to select from this list the most achievable and appropriate options for themselves. In my opinion this is the basic approach. We should ensure support for it, which must of course come from the structural funds in such a way that the resources will serve the desired objective.

(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I very much agree with those who have spoken before me: in this day and age, the urban environment plays a fundamental part in all our lives and not just the lives of those who live in cities or large towns.

The data provided by the Commission in the Green Paper 'Towards a new culture for urban mobility' clearly show that 60% of Europeans live in an urban environment, and that these areas generate a large percentage of European GDP. These statistics were also cited by Mrs Vassiliou.

These figures have not changed in recent months, and we must in fact take account of the growing problem of traffic congestion in large cities, as well as the environmental crises that remain a pressing hot topic, just as we cannot overlook Parliament's recent efforts on the climate change package.

There have been steps taken on urban mobility under European Union regional policy, and there are numerous forms of EU funding: in the last parliamentary term, EUR 2 billion were spent on the Regional Development Fund, and a sum of approximately EUR 8 billion has been earmarked for 2007-2013. The Cohesion Fund may also support this work.

I therefore believe it is truly important for the Union to adopt a common policy, an overall action plan, respecting of course the principle of subsidiarity and the authority of Member States and local bodies. The benefits that would stem from this are plain to see, indeed it is hard to understand why a plan of this scope has not been published before now.

This is the position expressed in the oral question tabled by the Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and supported by the Committee on Regional Development. In view of the fact that we are almost at the end of this parliamentary term, I hope that there will be a re-think and that the Commission will actually publish the Action Plan on Urban Mobility, which will have such a positive impact.

- (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, clearly, issues relating to urban transport are very important in terms of both economic development and environmental protection. There can be no doubt of that and it hardly needs to be debated.

Problems of a different nature have arisen, however, in the course of the European Parliament's work on the text of the Green Paper. These problems have already been mentioned and mainly relate to the division of power between local authorities, national authorities and authorities at European level. Doubts have arisen as to whether the European Union should be involved in local matters, or whether it should leave those to national and local authorities.

In this connection, I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in the course of this debate, the question also arose as to whether this Green Paper will lead to action that will somehow assist the cities, or whether it will lead to action that will bind the cities to take certain action. We agreed that these actions should be supportive, in other words, that they should involve assistance. The question that now arises in view of the delay is as follows. What was the European Commission aiming at by presenting the Green Paper? What was its long term plan? Did it really wish to engage in dynamic action, or was it merely interested in sounding out opinion on this matter?

In the light of events, it seems to me that, following the initial very sceptical reaction, the Commission slowed down the process of further work considerably and is still considering how to proceed in relation to the action it began. It is high time for unequivocal decisions.

(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to endorse what has already been said by my fellow MEPs. I am very disappointed with your response. You stated that the Commission will, of course, come up with a number of proposals concerning urban mobility. Whilst this is self-evident, if you ask me, it is not what we have asked for. What we want is a cohesive vision, an action plan detailing measures and proposals which the Commission will be launching in the next few years so that we can discuss these, not just among ourselves, but also with the public and with any stakeholders and affected parties.

Consequently, I should like to ask you to report to your colleagues after all, to insist that a few matters be reconsidered following this debate, and to come up with a proposal very quickly, before the elections and before this Parliament adjourns for the summer, at any rate.

As our fellow Members have said many times before, urban mobility is something that affects everyone in Europe. In all our cities, we face problems of mobility. At European level, the Union can play a very positive role to resolve this issue and related problems; as an investor in new technologies, as a body that lays down and disseminates new technological standards, as the authority that is, indeed, best placed to spread new ideas and good practices, that can promote the fleshing out of mobility plans, that can launch new funding mechanisms, and suchlike.

In this light, I would very much urge the Commission to reconsider its response and to come up with a plan of action soon.

(RO) The action plan on urban mobility is a must for the EU's urban communities. 67% of European citizens expect a European policy to be developed in this area.

What response can we give to Europe's citizens?

The costs resulting from urban traffic congestion are rising to approximately 1% of European GDP. In order to reduce the pollution level in urban environments and traffic congestion, we need to invest in public transport and in intelligent transport systems.

Last year we approved the report on promoting the use of green vehicles in public transport.

Prague is the capital city which has set an example, with its purchase last year of green buses for its urban public transport system, using state aid.

I call on the Commission to also give due consideration to urban mobility during the mid-term review of the framework for the utilisation of structural funds.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I really appreciate your contributions. I shall certainly convey all your concerns to Vice-President Tajani, who, I know, remains committed.

The Action Plan is, in fact, included in the Commission's work programme for 2009, and I know that Vice-President Tajani is personally committed to progressing with the Action Plan. Therefore, I have no doubt that what you have said will be seriously taken into account by him. I know that the impact assessment has been completed and, as I said, the Action Plan is in the legislative programme and hopefully will proceed this year.

- The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

In the 2007 Green Paper, the Commission points to the legitimacy of the debate concerning the need for it to be involved in the issue of increasing mobility in cities within the Union, on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity. Pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity the Union acts in the framework of its competences only when its action is essential and brings added value to the actions of Member States. The aim of the principle of subsidiarity is ensuring that decisions are taken as close to the citizen as possible. This is achieved by constantly checking that action to be taken at Community level is justified in relation to the possibilities that exist at national, regional or local level. The role of the Member States regarding the legitimacy of also involving the European Union's institutions at local level is further strengthened in the Treaty of Lisbon, currently at the ratification stage.

In the package under debate concerning possible action aimed at increasing the level of mobility in urban conurbations, innovative technologies tend to be dealt with separately from intelligent transport systems. The synergies between these two areas should be exploited to draw them together in order to increase flow along streets and make travel more comfortable. Other benefits would be better travelling conditions, shorter journey times, energy saving, fewer emissions, less expenditure on managing the vehicle fleet and on the maintenance and renewal of the surface. Road safety would also be improved.

In the light the above, the foundation for the Commission's action plan on urban mobility will be completion of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and implementation of the Czech Presidency's programme. The latter deals with improving the operation of the Union's internal market in transport as a matter of priority.

Revision of the Broadcasting Communication - State aid for public broadcasting (debate) 

- The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Mr Visser, Mr Belet and Mrs Hieronymi, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on the revision of the broadcasting communication - State aid for public broadcasting - B6-0495/2008).

author. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, it is unfortunate that Mrs Kroes is prevented from being here this evening because of an accident. I should like to take this opportunity to offer her my sincere wishes for a speedy recovery. Politically, though, I fundamentally object to her interfering with national, public broadcasting.

Last Thursday, together with Mrs Hieronymi and Mr Belet, I organised a hearing for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats about the Commission's public broadcasting communication. I can tell you that the interest from the sector and the Member States was considerable. Even the Directorate-General for Competition attended in great numbers. This subject is obviously high on their agenda. The Director-General for Competition was present all morning as a panel member.

Madam President, the Commission proposal reviewing the rules for public broadcasting is unacceptable as it currently stands. Public broadcasters play a crucial role in the protection of cultural diversity, linguistic diversity and media pluralism. I am vehemently opposed to the Commission's plans. First of all, we need to realise that public broadcasting corporations are a national preserve and that, consequently, it is the national authorities, and not the European Commission, that should stipulate their policy. This is also clearly enshrined in the protocol on public broadcasting in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Member States organise and finance the public broadcasters as they see fit. Commissioner Kroes's plans seriously undermine the principle of subsidiary and the Member States' freedom of movement and replace them with European interference. I am very surprised that, as a Liberal Commissioner, she should opt for this route.

Secondly, I am apprehensive about the proposal to introduce a prior market test conducted by an independent supervisor. This would give commercial channels considerable input. Is that what we want? A market test will inevitably increase the level of paperwork. It is very much the question whether the smaller broadcasting corporations will be able to afford extra manpower, and who will absorb the extra costs involved? Should the broadcasting corporations foot the bill? Or the taxpayer, perhaps? This initiative is not workable in small Member States. Moreover, this test is very detailed; the proposal is lacking in flexibility. As a consequence, Member States will no longer be able to adopt policy and procedures that tie in with their national systems. Moreover, it is very much the question whether a prior assessment of the market impact and a public evaluation of the new services will not give commercial competitors too much of a head start.

Thirdly, the proposal fills me with worry because the public broadcasting systems are not organised in exactly the same way in every Member State. There is technological diversity, as well as differences in broadcasting systems, organisation and scope. There are also differences in terms of language and culture. The 'one size fits all' rule that is proposed in the report certainly does not work in this case. The proposal takes no account of this.

Having got my concerns off my chest, I should now like to provide a brief outline of what happened at the PPE-DE Group's hearing last Thursday, where the Commission's attitude was very positive. The Commission admitted that the proposals were probably excessively detailed and that the wording needed editing. The Director-General informed me that it is possible to delay the final communication until after 5 March, the day on which the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be organising a second hearing on this subject. After the hearing, the Director-General said that the Commission might have to draft a fresh version based on this new information, before it submits its final communication. This was an excellent result.

You will understand, Madam President, that I am pleasantly surprised with these pledges. This means, after all, that the Commission is opening its eyes and is prepared to listen to the voice of the sector, the Member States and Parliament. Excellent.

I should like to ask the Commission a few more questions. First of all, will the Commission stand by this prior detailed market test, conducted by an independent supervisor - a question you may be able to pass on to Commissioner Kroes - is the Commission prepared to abandon this idea of an independent supervisor and this prior market test, or does it insist that it stays?

Secondly, how can technological impartiality be guaranteed? Does the proposal not imply that a difference is drawn between the current services of the public broadcasting corporations and the new media services?

Thirdly, further to the comment by the Director-General for Competition, is the Commission prepared, based on the new information, to draw up a new proposal?

Fourthly, what does the Commission intend to do about the Court of First Instance's judgment in the Danish TV2 case? Will it include it in the new proposal? If not, how will it be implemented?

My final question is, is the Commission prepared to involve Parliament in the follow-up procedure and to await further discussion with Parliament?

I hope for excellent cooperation between the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Member States so that the final version of the communication can be thrashed out.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, as has already been mentioned, my colleague Ms Kroes had a small accident so that is why she cannot be with us.

On 4 November 2008 the Commission published, for consultation until 15 January, a draft new broadcast communication. We are serious about the process of wide consultation. Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education has scheduled a hearing for 5 March and, as has already been mentioned, the PPE-DE Group already held such a hearing on Thursday, last week, in the presence of the Director-General for Competition, Philip Lowe.

This dialogue between the Commission and Parliament is important. We stand ready to listen and to reply to your questions. We also know that Parliament agreed in September 2008 that state aid to public broadcasters should be delivered so that they fulfil their function in a dynamic environment, avoiding the use of public funding for reasons of political or economic expediency. This concurs with our views; both public and private broadcasting are important. The dual system of broadcasting is an answer to Europe's media landscape which must be safeguarded on all platforms.

The draft broadcasting communication therefore seeks to consolidate the Commission's state aid case practised since their existing 2001 communication. The draft ensures that our rules reflect the rapidly changing new media environment. The objective of modernising the communication is to increase transparency and legal certainty. The draft communication clarifies that public broadcasters shall provide audiovisual services on all media platforms while leaving private operators sufficient incentives to stay in the market. This is ensured by the so-called Amsterdam test, which balances the value and the negative effects of publicly financed media services at the national level.

Why do we have these tests? Because having these tests at the national level helps to avoid Commission intervention. The Commission increasingly receives complaints about borderline cases where a public media activity may have no clear value for citizens but where the market impact appears considerable. The Commission, however, feels that repeated interventions in this sector would not be in the spirit of subsidiarity. This is why we want Member Sates to share the Commission's responsibility for controlling the market impact of state finance media services.

The Amsterdam test will ensure that new media services of public broadcasters satisfy the social, democratic and cultural needs of viewers and listeners while limiting the collateral damage for state aid for private operators to a minimum. We cannot agree that the Amsterdam test would involve an unjustifiable administrative burden. Of course, any test involves work but the minimum effort we require is reasonable and necessary. Firstly, the test is only foreseen for important and truly new services; and here our draft leaves a large margin of appreciation to Member States. Each Member State can decide when a new audiovisual service actually merits being tested. Secondly, the draft exempts pilot projects from the test. Public broadcasters can therefore continue experimenting with new media without any preliminary tests. Thirdly, the draft leaves Member States full freedom to choose their adequate procedures and institutions which apply the test. It is finally worth mentioning that smaller Member States, such as Belgium and Ireland, already implement such tests. The solutions found in these countries are proportionate to the resources available. As the test is quite broad there is also no possibility of infringing on editorial freedom. The test merely requires that a public media service satisfies the social, democratic and cultural needs of society and that its impact on the market is commensurate. To safeguard editorial independence we also open the possibility in the draft that, under certain conditions, the test is done by a public broadcaster itself.

In summary, I would say the Amsterdam test should be seen as an opportunity rather than as a threat. It will help to maintain media pluralism in the new media environment by safeguarding fairness and certainty for both commercial media, including online newspapers and our excellent public media.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, good evening, I should first of all like to ask you if you could pass on our good wishes to Mrs Kroes. We hope that she makes a speedy recovery, as we gather that she missed the bend on a slippery surface. We hope, naturally, that Mrs Kroes will be back with us as soon as possible.

Obviously, Commissioner, we agree that you as a Commission guarantee, now and in future, a level playing field for all players in the audio-visual field, namely both the public and private broadcasting corporations. This is crucial for a balanced supply, and it also benefits quality.

What the Commission has now presented, though, is diametrically opposed to this for various reasons, as Mr Visser has already made quite clear. I should like to start by making a brief comment, Commissioner, in relation to what you said a moment ago. This market test that you propose is already being applied in Belgium, among other countries. Well, to some extent, this is true, but not entirely. This market test, or impact analysis, is indeed already being applied to some extent, by the broadcasters themselves, among others, but not according to the modalities as these have been set out in the Commission proposal, which look somewhat different.

I should like to share our reservations with you regarding the proposal. My main objection is that it clashes with the Lisbon Strategy. Indeed, it is the case today that in many Member States, it is precisely the public broadcasting corporations that bring about and encourage innovation in the media. This should, obviously, stay this way. We are, to my mind, moving in the wrong direction with the patronising administrative attitude that holds back innovation. New platforms, particularly in the digital context, on broadband, on the Internet, and suchlike cost a great deal to develop. Investments of this kind are ideally spread as widely as possible and developed in concert. Private and public broadcasting corporations can then offer content on a shared platform, and it is in terms of content that competition should come in, so that the customer can derive maximum benefit.

Do not get us wrong, though. We are 100% behind balanced competitive relations between the public and private broadcasters. There should be room for both to be able to provide quality content. It is obvious, in this connection, that the public broadcasting corporations should account for the government funds they spend and with which they work, even though we are convinced that there are better ways of doing this. In this connection, we would refer to the British example of the BBC, where alliances have been proposed between different partners in terms of development, production and distribution. This is a good example, to my mind, and I would kindly invite the Commission to start thinking with us along those lines.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the revision of the basic guidelines on state aid for public broadcasting put forward by the French Presidency is an extremely topical debate both internally in numerous Member States and for the position of the mass media at European and international level.

At the same time, however, the revision of the telecommunications package, which basically restructures the way in which and the criteria by which the radio spectrum is allocated at European level, has demonstrated that the rules governing the financing of broadcasting services are now of fundamental importance to the future regulation or deregulation of services relating to the information society, innovation and services of public and economic interest. This is the political question which we are basically required to resolve.

Clearly the debate on state aid focuses primarily on so-called public service broadcasters, as defined by each Member State, given the basically minimal resources which they have at their disposal and, above all, the important public service role allocated to them. The important role of broadcasters is mentioned in the UNESCO Convention, the Amsterdam Protocol and in the 2001 Commission communication. In other words, there is already a platform on which the role of the public mass media is clearly defined.

However, the dossier has been opened on the state aid debate and we must take account of certain new circumstances, as you stipulated, and of certain actions which are being taken either wittingly or unwittingly, due to the confusion which often exists between public and private agencies.

I should like to mention certain points: firstly, the question of the definition of the public service mandate should not be confused with the question of the financing mechanism selected in order to provide such services. While public-sector television may engage in commercial activities - such as selling advertising time - in order to generate revenue, this has been condemned by certain governments, such as the French Government, and is being overturned on the basis of national legislation.

On the other hand, commercial broadcasters required to provide a public service also play an important role. The coexistence of private and public service providers is a basic component of the European market.

I should like to close with one other point: the ex-ante procedures proposed by the Commission for examining state aid should worry us, not because subsidiarity is being suspended or superseded, but to see if they are compatible with the terms of state aid.

Finally, I would note that the question of national aid to radio stations and the mass media should be examined within the framework of international relations, because European organisations have to compete with international behemoths and strict legislation will damage European achievements and the acquis communautaire.

Mr President, I shall try to be brief and, of course, I must begin by also extending my warmest wishes to Commissioner Kroes in the hope that she recovers from her fall. Here, at least, the doorway to the building has been gritted with lots of salt, but I see that there was not enough salt in other places.

The debate we are having is of the utmost importance and, in the end, therefore, its basic objective is to demand, to request, that the Commission involve Parliament. That is the reason for our debate: not to end it here but, rather, to make sure, before the Commission's communication is formalised, that we really are going to have a debate here and that we will all be involved.

Why? Because it is not only our television model that is at stake here; a great deal more is at risk because television broadcasters are not - as we all know, and as we were well aware in our debate on the Audiovisual Media Services Directive - the same as they used to be; what they do, in fact, is process content that they supply via a linear or non-linear platform, and everything interacts perfectly in both areas. Therefore, it is no longer appropriate to talk about public service broadcasting as if this debate were being held in the 1970s or 1980s.

On the other hand, it is clear that this debate must take place, since not everything that is labelled a public service today is actually a public service, and it does not always make sense to use public money to do what certain television companies are doing with public money. At the same time, however - and this is the core of our concern, I believe, and I understand it is also that of some of my fellow Members - public television broadcasters are absolutely vital in protecting our cultural and linguistic diversity and ultimately in binding our societies together because, in theory, they are looking for something more than direct profit.

This financial balance, therefore, must be protected. We must look for new models of financing; we should be creative and open up this debate, but we cannot do so in such a way that we risk something so vitally important to our societies - namely, our current public television broadcasters.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Barroso Commission had announced the abolition of European over-regulation as one of its major political goals. We get the impression with the proposals you are making now that you are actually encouraging over-regulation. The hearing held by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats last week made it clear that there are grave doubts regarding how much you are now interfering in the competences of the Member States. What is now on the table has the stink of over-regulation, and that is not something that we can approve of.

It is correct that we must find a balance between the possibilities for developing public and private broadcasting services. But this also means - particularly in the digital age - that public broadcasting, which stands for quality, cultural diversity, cultural and social cohesion, must have opportunities for development in the digital age. We require this as part of the Lisbon Strategy. If public broadcasting is denied this opportunity, it will be turned into a dinosaur. Then it will not be able to develop well.

When we think of our economic and financial crisis, we have all come to the conclusion that markets must be regulated. Social and ecological regulation is not a position against markets but in favour of fair markets - and that means regulated markets. The same applies to the relationship within which the private and public sectors are able to develop in future if we want to be successful in the digital world.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Madam President, for 80 years, public broadcasting has had the task of informing the public in the broadest possible sense. This service can survive by public funding that may be collected via a separate radio and television tax and that may be topped up with membership contributions to broadcasting organisations, as has been the case in the Netherlands for a long time.

Alongside this, in recent decades, public broadcasting has been encouraged to earn its own money. This is achieved not only through advertising time but also by making much of the information material collected by the broadcasting house available in the form of audio and video material. It is expected that, as a result, viewers and listeners will feel more closely associated, new target groups will be reached and government costs will be limited. This task, which has grown over the years, poses no problems as long as commercial channels do not feel adversely affected.

From the perspective of commercial channels, the much older public broadcasters may be seen as competitors that are given a serious advantage as they collect funds through taxpayers' money. The question is now whether the public broadcasters' right to exist should no longer be derived in the first instance from their usefulness to society as a whole, but from the possible distortion of competition in respect of commercial channels. As public and private interests no longer clash, the European Commission is faced with conflicting demands.

The future of public broadcasters will be in the balance if their room to manoeuvre is limited in favour of commercial companies' scope for profit. Things will be even worse if this is done without this Parliament's involvement, with the express objections of 19 of the 27 Member State governments being dismissed.

Over recent years, I have asked the Commission a number of times to abandon this fatal plan. This appears to be the only possible solution to me, given the current widespread concern. Moreover, this is a matter that falls within the competence of the Member States, not that of the European Union. I endorse the questions and position adopted by Mr Visser and the other speakers.

(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, as my fellow Members who signed the oral question have emphasised and as distinguished speakers stated in greater detail at the public hearing in Brussels last week, we all need to look on public-sector television as a medium for supplying a service to our citizens which will, to a great extent, coincide with the obligation to operate it.

The public dialogue, the independent supervisory authority and the diversity of programmes, in keeping with the history and culture of each Member State, need to be protected in the wake of the development of new technologies and the host of companies that spring up on a daily basis.

Within the framework of healthy competition, the Commission needs to promote new ways of protecting the public interest and public broadcasting.

Mainly, the definition of the public mission of broadcasters needs to be made clear; we need a better evaluation of state aid but also, as regards the rule of transparency, we must not impose pointless administrative and financial burdens on the Member States and public broadcasters in the ex-ante evaluation carried out by the Commission.

More effective control mechanisms also need to be adopted in the new mass media environment. Furthermore, given that public broadcasts play a decisive role in cultural and linguistic diversity, all these media, as well as the public corporations and public television, are obliged to provide quality programmes and, at the same time, within the framework of competition with other similar bodies, they must be able to respond positively to the challenges of the times by broadcasting events of global interest, such as the Olympic Games, the World Cup and so on. Unfortunately nowadays this is something that tends to be prevented simply by reason of the fact that, as private companies have more money, public television cannot afford them. Consequently, citizens will not be able to watch these events alongside other programmes.

To finish, I should also like to point out that what is currently available on the market and the interests of commercial media in defining the scope of the competence and activity of public broadcasters is not, by the same token, conducive to the more general interest, with of course a few exceptions, and the Commission needs to take serious account of that fact.

(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, may I also wish Mrs Kroes a swift recovery.

I would like to make a few general comments on the review of the communication on broadcasting. Firstly, I would like to say that I consider this review initiated by the Commission to be positive, insofar as it will enable the content of the 2001 communication to be adapted to the changes that have occurred both in the field of technology and in Community law.

Furthermore, it retains the main thrust of the 2001 communication, which recognised the essential role of public service broadcasting in guaranteeing quality of democracy and pluralism. I am basically referring to the principles whereby the Member States should define and delimit the supply and content of the public service licences taken up by the corresponding public bodies, and should have the freedom to choose the funding model, thereby avoiding any distortions to free competition.

Furthermore, the licence should be assigned to a specific corporation or group by means of a formal resolution and there should be external, independent supervision of the licence; on this point, I wish to stress the vital role of the regulating authorities for the audiovisual sector.

As far as the most significant additions to the proposal are concerned, I welcome the ex ante controls on public broadcasters' provision of new services, but only if enough flexibility is retained for these controls to be adjusted to the institutional model of each State and adopted gradually.

Finally, I believe there must be a very careful assessment of the possibility that certain services that come under the umbrella of public service audiovisual provision may be subject to remuneration or valuable consideration on the part of the citizens who use them, taking into account both the free and universal nature of traditional public service audiovisual broadcasting and the risks of exclusion that may come about should this method of funding be accepted. I hope that the Commission will take these comments into consideration.

Mr President, it is clear that the issue at stake here is the tension between the public interest and its role in society against the impact on fair competition and the functioning of the internal market. The borders between public service broadcasting and private broadcasting, but also other media, are increasingly blurred and this is particularly the case when new media such as internet, iPods, SMS etc. are at stake.

As some people have said, public broadcasting is often the leading actor in innovation in services, but it is clear that this is an impact which is cross-border and across media sectors. Therefore, it is important to have consistency between the broadcasting communication and the general framework of services of general economic interest. This is an important issue which we have dealt with in Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In particular, the PSE Group Members on this committee have stressed that it is important to create more legal security for services of general economic interest, and we would like to see a framework directive and sector legislation on this decided at a political level.

The consultation on the draft communication, which is now before us and has been presented by the Commission, can be commented on until 15 January, and it is important to give a clear signal again that this more horizontal general framework would be an important tool to place discussions like this discussion on public broadcasting in a broader context.

It is important to see who decides the rules and what balance exists in the rules between market interests and public interests. I have the implicit feeling that the market test mentioned in the communication should give primacy to market and commercial considerations instead of these public considerations. This was our intention with the new horizontal rules on services of general economic interest.

I am a bit surprised that the PPE-DE Group is now focusing so much on these specific issues, whereas they were quite hesitant in supporting our appeal for the more general framework. Here is a clear example - also in this case of broadcasting - that, if you do not have a broader clear framework which places more emphasis on and gives more dominance to the public interest aspects, it is always the market interest that will dominate in this type of discussion.

I would like to take the opportunity to repeat our appeal for this framework of service of general economic interest, which, horizontally, should reinstate the balance between those interests in favour of the public interest.

(NL) Mr President, public broadcasting stands for pluralism, diversity, cultural diversity in Europe, the heart of democracy - I did not make this up, the Commission can confirm this - and public broadcasters are of national importance. There are now plans afoot to introduce a market test that is to be conducted beforehand, particularly for new media activities. I do not think this is a good idea, because Brussels should not dictate beforehand how Member States should organise their public services. How the public interest is served should, in my view, be assessed at national level and no compulsory market test is necessary for that purpose.

I should also like to say a few words about the red tape. Whilst I am in favour of checking things through, we should ensure that we do not end up with more rules and more costs for the various Member States.

Moreover, as for supply, I think that we should not draw a distinction between old and new services because, in practice, the lines between the two are blurred. It is not a case of either/or; television programmes often go hand in hand with new services and vice versa. So, just as in Europe, the two are intertwined. It is not just about the market, but also about the public importance of our public broadcasters, which is universally acknowledged, not least by the Commission. I should like to hear from the Commission whether this will be included in the adapted version of the communication and whether the responsibilities will be assigned appropriately, namely to the Member States, even though these will be accompanied by rules for services of general interest that should be drawn up in consultation with the European Parliament and the Council.

(DE) Mr President, public broadcasting is more than an economic factor. I was at the hearing held by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats last week in Brussels. The importance of information and of the diversity of European culture and education was noted. If 22 Member States are against revision or intensification because we have different framework conditions and different markets, then it is quite wrong to want an extensive administration, a time-consuming test procedure such as this obligatory ex-ante test, or European interference with an unwieldy bureaucratic concept.

There are already controlling bodies for public broadcasting: the broadcasting councils. We monitor the adaptation to technological change. We monitor the measures in order to ensure fair competition. I am a member of such a body, as the representative of the Union of European Federalists at Hessian Broadcasting [Hessischer Rundfunk]. Our independence is guaranteed by law. We are in turn completely and rightly controlled by the public. This is how an effective media policy works.

- (CS) Mr President, the state agrees with my fellow MEPs that state support for public interest broadcasting requires legislative clarification. We have been calling for this in the European Parliament for a long time. However, I would still like to draw your attention to further urgent matters that the Commission must resolve as quickly as possible. Out of the many problems I will mention three. Firstly, there is a need for the general introduction of shared television aerials to include digital broadcasting, particularly on blocks of flats owned by housing cooperatives, in accordance with the exceptions under Article 5 of the information guidelines, as this is a problem for millions of citizens in the new Member States, including the Czech Republic. The second point is support for greater cooperation between the national councils for radio and television broadcasting and the European institutions in order to achieve better application of public service provisions. The third point is to improve coordination between national monitoring authorities for television broadcasting in respect of fines for inappropriate broadcasts that threaten the moral development of children and young people.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I thank you all for your very fruitful discussion, which I will certainly convey to my colleague Mrs Kroes.

Let me comment on some of your remarks. The Amsterdam Protocol points to the need to balance financing with state aid and effects on competition. We want Member States to take the lead on this, because otherwise we will have to do it in Brussels on the basis of complaints.

Our aim is to give Member States more possibilities to develop public service broadcasting, as long as the Treaty provisions on competition are respected. Public service broadcasting should continue to innovate, educate and, of course, entertain. The Commission agrees with these goals.

It is up to Member States to decide on how to finance public service broadcasting. This is clearly stated in the Amsterdam Protocol. Public broadcasters will be able to experiment freely with new projects. The draft communication makes clear that pilot projects are exempt from the tests. We have always recognised the possibility of providing funding for a public service mission, which includes a wide range of varied and balanced programming by public service broadcasters. This will also remain the case for the future.

The Commission also wants to guarantee a mixture of public and private. The Commission aims at promoting public broadcasters to benefit from new technologies in order to serve the social, democratic and cultural needs of society.

The Amsterdam test allows Member States to provide funding for new media services by public broadcasters. It protects the ability to keep up with changes in our fast-moving media environment. At the same time, it is also in the public interest to maintain the incentives for private operators. Innovation by both public and private broadcasters is important for realising the Lisbon objectives, and it goes without saying that public broadcasters will also remain free to launch any kind of new service on a commercial basis in the future without prior assessment.

I want to assure you that we take the consultation very seriously. We will review the text to take into account legitimate concerns. I will ask our services to take Parliament's and Member States' proposals into account as we review the draft.

The debate is closed.

Trade and economic relations with Western Balkans (short presentation) 

The next item is the report by Mr Belder, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on trade and economic relations with Western Balkans.

rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, I should like to take this opportunity to present my report on trade and economic relations with the western Balkans.

It is not without a reason that I started this report by reiterating the European perspective of those countries. The Union cannot continue to faithfully repeat past promises, such as that made to the western Balkan states at the Thessaloniki European Council of 2003 that they would join the European Union. No, the western Balkans would be better served by tangible action and tailored accession procedures than by well-nigh dutiful rhetoric.

You may well ask why I hold the accession prospects of those countries so dear. First of all, I am wholly convinced that the Union has a debt of honour to repay. This reminds me of the debate on Srebrenica which will hopefully be held in this House on Wednesday evening this week. Moreover, that region is of major strategic significance for Europe. The specific proposals in my report are as follows. I argue in favour of further consolidation of the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). This is an important tool to enhance regional integration in that area, which is, in turn, important preparation if those countries want to integrate in the European market and join the Union in three stages. The European Union should mobilise pre-accession funds through aid across a wide front so as to promote the reform process in those countries. The Member States can also play an important role in this by providing specific training to local public servants. This will grant those countries more official capacity to formulate their own ambitious projects that are eligible for EU funding.

Mr President, when I first started work on this report, the first thing I did was pay a visit to my country's Economic Affairs Department in the Hague, where I was pleased to hear that the Dutch Government had taken on board a government-to-government approach. This is something I described in my report as an example that is worth following, not because it is a Dutch approach, but because it is tailored to, and meets the calls from, the western Balkan states themselves to support the accession process actively and appropriately.

I should like to mention one specific item from my report, namely energy cooperation with the western Balkans, which is, I believe, a highly topical subject. On account of its strategic location, that region could well play a significant role in the transit of crude oil and natural gas. The Union should endeavour to adopt an external energy policy. I am also member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. A number of years ago, we adopted a solid report with a view to adopting a European external policy in the area of energy. Well, just look at the present situation, reinforcing, as it does, this appeal from the European Parliament to the Commission and Council. Surely Brussels should not leave its own Member States out in the cold, literally or otherwise.

I should like to finish off by saying that, as an ex-journalist, I have travelled to the Balkans many times. As a result, I feel much empathy and involvement with that region. In connection with writing my report, I used my travel budget for study trips; together with the Committee on International Trade, and its staff member Roberto Bendini, in particular, together with my own member of staff Dick Jan Diepenbroek, I have undertaken valuable trips to Serbia and Kosovo, and next week, I am hoping to travel to Albania. In short, I may be concluding this report this evening, but the work is not done by a long shot, not for me and not for the European institutions. If we really want to bring that region closer to Brussels and actually demonstrate this by our level of dedication and active support, we have every right to demand that the reform process, the accession, be met with commitment, and this should also be evident. It was a real joy for me to work on this report, and I hope that it will be followed up in separate reports for the individual western Balkan countries.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all let me congratulate Mr Belder for this very good report. Your report comes at a time when the Western Balkans are moving closer and closer to the EU and provides a comprehensive overview of the issues at stake in EU-Western Balkans economic and trade relations. Allow me to focus on some points highlighted in your report.

The Western Balkans, as a region, is a key and valuable partner for the EU. The last Commission communication on the Western Balkans in March 2008 reiterates the EU's strong commitment to the European perspective of the region and confirms, among other things, the importance of the Central European Free Trade Agreement for the economic development of the region. The Commission agrees with the rapporteur that the perspective of EU membership can act as a catalyst for sustainable economic development and for securing peace and stability within the region. The Commission also agrees that the individual fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria is of the utmost importance when judging the readiness of countries in the region to join the EU. The EU is the Western Balkans' main trading partner. Deeper economic ties between the EU and the region are therefore vital for boosting the region's economic growth.

As rightly pointed out in your report, trade liberalisation and integration is a cornerstone in the stabilisation and association process, and the EU has pursued this objective with the Western Balkans at three levels.

Firstly, at the bilateral level, the EU has granted unilateral trade preferences to the Western Balkans since 2000 so as to facilitate the access of their exports to the EU markets. The Commission has negotiated free trade agreements as part of the stabilisation and association agreements to create the conditions for political and economic reforms and to set the basis for the integration of the Western Balkans into the EU, for example by means of alignment to the acquis.

Secondly, at the regional level, the European Commission acted as a facilitator in the negotiations on the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) and decided to provide financial support and technical assistance to the CEFTA Secretariat and to the parties to help implement the agreement. At the same time, the European Commission values highly the regional ownership of the agreement and acknowledges that CEFTA is fundamental for deeper regional economic integration and for preparing the ground for the eventual full participation of the Western Balkans in the EU single market. Moreover, CEFTA created all the necessary structures to discuss trade-related issues at the regional and bilateral level. This is essential for facilitating and deepening regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations. The European Commission will continue to monitor implementation of the CEFTA and will continue to report on this in its yearly report on the accession and pre-accession process.

Thirdly, at the multilateral level the Commission has supported the accession of the countries in the region to the World Trade Organisation as this is an absolutely fundamental step for effective participation in the globalised economy. The EU has mobilised all available policy instruments to support the countries of the Western Balkans in their endeavours for reforms and regional cooperation. The instrument for pre-accession assistance is important for addressing the region's long term development needs. The total funding for the current financial framework for 2007-2013 is EUR 11.5 billion. Last but not least, the European Commission has started dialogues with all the countries concerned in the region to establish roadmaps for lifting the visa regime.

In the light of what has been said, let me assure you that the Commission is taking all the necessary steps to enhance trade relations and to bring the Western Balkans' economy as close as possible to the EU. In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur again for this good report and I am pleased to say that the Commission shares its general approach.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.

Written Statement (Rule 142)

I would like to express my support and appreciation of the report presented by Mr Belder as it recommends specific economic measures aimed at the European perspective of the peoples of the Western Balkans. I would like to draw your attention to three aspects:

1. We need to realistically acknowledge that Serbia is a key player in the success of the Stabilisation and Association Process, while the EU needs to continue to make efforts to win the confidence and long-term friendship of the Serbian people.

2. In the future, ethnic separatist trends and unilateral declarations of independence should no longer be allowed for territories such as Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus etc. The principle of states' territorial integrity is sacred and must be respected in the future.

3. At the same time, we need to give strong backing to compliance with European standards concerning the rights of persons belonging to national minorities in the Western Balkan states, including the rights of the Romanian-speaking communities in Valea Timocului, Vojvodina, Istria and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These rights must be respected, excluding any trends towards territorial autonomy on ethnic grounds and aspirations to collective ethnic rights, which have already demonstrated their potential for conflict and for triggering bloody wars.

The common agricultural policy and global food security (short presentation) 

The next item is the report by Mrs McGuinness, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the common agricultural policy and global food security.

rapporteur. - Mr President, when I initiated this report the issue of global food security was very high on the political agenda and, to some extent, it has slipped from the highlights. But it is certainly an issue that is of concern because there are still upwards of one billion people globally who suffer hunger or malnutrition. Thirty thousand children die of hunger and poverty-related illnesses a day. These are horrific statistics and it makes the issue of how we produce sufficient food and give people access to that food a key issue.

I would like to thank the Commission for working with me in drafting this report and also the very many committees in the House, in particular the Committee on Development, which were obviously involved in its production.

In four minutes it is impossible to do justice to what is in the report, but let me just highlight some of the issues which I believe are of importance. Firstly, the fact that I have put the common agricultural policy and global food security in the one heading suggests that the old practice of bashing the common agricultural policy and blaming it for all the ills of the developing world has moved on, and that we are now aware that the common agricultural policy has provided food security for European citizens, and that as a model it can provide lessons for what we need to do in the developing world in terms of food production.

It is very clear that we have allowed agriculture development to slip down the political and development agenda over the last decade or so. There was a time when much of our development aid money went to stimulating agriculture and to projects on food production. That is not the case today, although I think, since the food price hike, we are beginning to refocus on agriculture, both in the EU and globally.

That means allowing those countries which have the resources to grow food to do that, to help them and their small-scale farmers produce food locally to meet their needs. It involves not just the provision of the basis ingredients of food production, such as seeds and fertilisers, but also the know-how, the advisory services, the assistance to farming families in the developing world to allow them to produce to meet their own needs.

It can be done. We have examples of Malawi and other countries that have managed to come from situations of extreme famine to producing food. It takes public policy initiatives to do it. It also requires that the European Union, given its huge involvement in the developing world, urges countries to look at their agriculture and begin stimulating food production in their own countries.

The issue of supply and demand is a very delicate one because there is a growing world population - it will increase by 40% by 2050 - so we are going to have to look at these issues. The problem of competition - as we have witnessed - between food production, feed production and fuel, is obviously a key concern. I suppose, driving all of this, we need to look at the issue of research and development.

I believe that we have not done enough in terms of research and development. We, in Europe, had looked towards producing less food and therefore perhaps had not looked at the need to look at the efficiencies of agricultural production and the need to produce more into the future.

One of the key messages that I really want to get across in the short time I have is to say that farmers worldwide will produce food if they can make an income from doing it, so the pressure on policymakers is to get that right, to provide the policies that will give farmers stable incomes. How do we do that? By providing stable prices and also looking at the costs of food production. Unless farmers get that income stimulus, they will pull back.

I give a warning. Well over a year ago we were talking about high commodity prices. Today there are surpluses of grain, for example, in store and no market for them. Those farmers will not produce as much in the next season, and that could exacerbate the longer-term problem of global food security.

There is a lot in this report. I hope colleagues can support it and again I thank the many people who took a great interest in it.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the report prepared by Ms McGuinness and the intense debate which has taken place in the various EP committees on the elements surrounding this very topical subject, which range from trade to biofuels, price monitoring, investment policy, the financial crisis, climate change and water use in agriculture.

The Commission shares the broad analysis on the causes of the food crisis which hit many developing countries in the first part of 2008. The Commission will continue to analyse the link between food prices and energy prices. The causality issue is a highly complex one as it involves the interplay of a number of demand and supply factors. Energy prices constitute only one of these factors but one which has both a direct and indirect impact. The topic of biofuels was discussed in detail during the various EP sessions. There is a clear difference between EU and US policy on the extent to which cereal production is being diverted to biofuels. EU biofuels policy does not reduce the availability of food, as the quantities of feedstocks used are very small on a global scale.

Even if the EU moves closer to its 10% target, the impact on food prices will be limited, in particular for two reasons: first, more and more biofuels will come from non-food feedstocks or will be made from residues or waste. Second, the efficiency of techniques for producing biofuels will further improve, and average yields can also be expected to continue to increase.

A sustainable EU biofuels policy is overall a pro-poor policy. It will provide additional opportunities for the two thirds of the world's poor who live in rural areas and thus depend on a thriving agricultural sector. However, not all groups will benefit to the same extent. The Commission is committed to closely monitoring the effects on food security and on food prices.

The EU has already taken steps in order to address global food security by adapting the CAP to the changed market and global situation. The health check which was recently agreed will modernise, simplify and streamline the CAP and remove restrictions on farmers, thus helping them to respond better to signals from the market and to face new challenges.

The agreement on the health check abolishes arable set-aside, increases milk quotas gradually leading up to their abolition in 2015, and converts market intervention into a genuine safety net.

New challenges, such as climate change, water management, renewable energy and biodiversity, which will have an impact on developing countries, have also been addressed in it.

The CAP will not remain static after 2013, and the preliminary debate has already been engaged since the informal agricultural ministers meeting in Annecy in September. The future CAP has to be seen in the context of a broader vision in which sustainable development, competitiveness and global food balances will form an integral part.

Various high-level events have placed global food security high on the international agenda. There is a clear understanding and recognition internationally to place agriculture and rural development higher on the policy agenda at national, regional and possibly at continental level. For example, we have discussed in detail the topic of agriculture and food security during our college-to-college meeting with the African Union in October, a debate which we intend to intensify in the course of this year.

Last but not least, the Commission needs to follow up on the G8 leaders' statement on global food security. In the run-up to the adoption by the Council of the food facility on 16 December, the European Commission has already had very fruitful discussions with the UN high-level task force.

The European Commission looks forward to the implementation of the comprehensive framework for action. The Commission is convinced that the global partnership on agriculture and food security which is gradually taking shape will have a key role in implementing the various recommendations made in this report, including how to support smallholder farmer production and what type of trade policies should be adopted to contribute to food security, especially in the most vulnerable communities.

Evidently, export restrictions and bans should be avoided and the way forward is more rather than less trade liberalisation. Enhanced trade flows are part of the solution towards food security.

The Commission hopes that the bold step taken by the European institutions to mobilise the one billion euros which will complement other financial instruments which have been earmarked to respond to the food crisis - of both a short- and medium- to long-term nature - is followed up by other donors.

The Madrid Conference on food security for all on 26 and 27 January is certainly a key event to move the debate to another level, one that seeks to identify the key priorities to address world food hunger.

The European Commission will continue to play a proactive role in contributing to global food security and the McGuinness report has certainly been a good analysis to look at some possible avenues which could be considered by the EC and the broader international community.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - (FR) The action taken by Parliament in the wake of the food riots has enabled EUR 1 billion to be released to combat the food crisis. This emergency measure aside, I should like to stress the need for a long-term international strategy that is based on local and subsistence agriculture and that is appropriate to the needs of populations and to the potential of territories.

Indeed, the world population increase, global warming, the uncontrolled production of biofuels and aggressive speculation are so many factors that are increasing the tension on the agricultural markets. These elements indicate that the crisis will not be short-lived and that public policies as a whole will have to be rethought in order to improve production methods and the regulation of international markets.

I believe that the CAP, with its excesses and imperfections ironed out, could become an example of effective, fair and responsible policy, rising to the food challenge and uniting at the same time the economy, society and the environment. It should also help developing countries by sharing European techniques, knowledge and experience. However, Europe should first and foremost work on reforming international trade rules so that they do not oppose the right of countries to support their agriculture in order to guarantee their food security.

in writing. - (EL) International and regional agreements to date have proved incapable of normalising market supply and trade and safeguarding transparent and stable prices for agricultural produce.

The regulation of agricultural markets should be based on a long-term strategy of effective measures and on organising and informing producers in terms of the state of and prospects for the market.

The basic principle of such a policy is to establish an income safety net against risks and crises arising either from adverse natural phenomena or from market distortions and an unusually long and widespread fall in prices.

Integrated and effective policies are needed, such as:

European and international systems for monitoring production and the market as an early warning system for identifying production trends;

a global food and food reserve inventory;

a European system for monitoring the market and recording changes in prices of agricultural product and inputs, which could be combined with a similar international system under the auspices of the FAO.

It would also be a good idea for the future agreement on the Doha Round to include emergencies during which food aid can be provided, because the provisions to date are not binding.

The conclusions drawn by Mrs McGuiness in her report about global food security are now also evident in Romania. We are facing a rise in the prices of all basic food products, as a result of the devaluation of the national currency, the rise in the cost of raw materials and of the loans taken out by processing companies.

In addition, as a result of global warming, we have seen increasingly frequent incidences of crops being destroyed by natural disasters. In fact, farmers from the new Member States are the most disadvantaged in these situations as the level of grants they are awarded is lower than in the other Member States.

This is why, based on the amendments proposed, I have called on the Commission to examine the possibility of creating certain intervention mechanisms at Community level, independently of any specific aid granted for crop insurance, to prevent and combat the effects of global warming.

The Community standards imposed on food producers are stringent, which is why food prices in the EU are high. I strongly believe however that agriculture can provide the launch pad for the recovery of the European economies affected by the global crisis and the development of renewable energy sources can have a positive impact on the agri-food sector.

If we take the necessary precautionary measures, we can achieve growth in biofuel production without endangering the environment or the food stocks required globally.

in writing. - (FR) This report on the CAP and global food security provided us with a fantastic opportunity to reflect on how we can ensure that European agriculture plays a full part in achieving the planet's food balance. Indeed, although food needs to continue to increase in the world, the proportion of development aid devoted to agriculture has, for its part, been on a constant decline since the 1980s. That is why I tabled a number of amendments within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development that are aimed at making this report more ambitious and, in particular, at proposing that the European Commission adopt a comprehensive strategy on food security issues, thus making the Union's Community policies as a whole more consistent.

While I am delighted that this text emphasises the CAP's crucial role in achieving the objective of food security, I regret that the rapporteur is in favour of aligning agricultural policy more with the market and that she accuses environmental protection initiatives of being responsible for a reduction in agricultural production within Europe. This statement is in my view completely misguided, and, on the contrary, I feel it is necessary to take hold of the climate-change problem in order to develop new models that are designed to produce more and better.

in writing. - (FR) Today the EU must urgently improve its food safety and rise to major challenges. Firstly, agricultural production will have to double in 30 years since the world's population will reach 9 billion people by 2050. The fact is, 860 million people continue to starve. Such development will have to be sustainable and will have to rely first and foremost on local agriculture.

The huge fluctuation in the global prices of foodstuffs, together with the proper management of global stocks, represent a further challenge. In order to guarantee European farmers a fair income, I support the idea of insurance policies providing a higher level of cover for farmers against price fluctuations, as well as the initiative of setting up a global food inventory regime.

Lastly, in view of the increased trade in animals and plants, the EU has a duty to implement an effective strategy to prevent all health crises in Europe. This strategy should be based on prevention, traceability and responsiveness. In this respect, the recent decision of the Council of Ministers to strengthen and harmonise the import control arrangements will mean that our fellow citizens can be given a better guarantee of the quality of foodstuffs.

Now more than ever agriculture is playing a central role in the areas of growth and development. We must therefore protect it at all costs!

The global food crisis, caused by the constant rise in the price of maize, wheat and energy, the growth in the world's population and climate change have sparked a series of riots and unrest which, if they are not resolved in the near future, could destabilise countries and regions around the globe. What is alarming is the gap between the rate of population growth, which could reach more than nine billion inhabitants by 2050, and the reduction in global food stocks. This kind of situation will most probably lead to conflicts over oil being superseded by conflicts over drinking water and food or by a fight for survival. At the present moment, the European Union is the main donor of humanitarian aid, but the food stocks are starting to become depleted and developing countries, especially in Africa, need more support to help them fight poverty and chronic hunger. Reducing agriculture's dependency on fossil energy sources, using organic products, maintaining fertile soils and adapting the common agricultural policy to the food crisis situation are some of the key elements which need to be taken into consideration in order to break this deadlock.

in writing. - (HU) The most important question facing the European agricultural sector in 2009 is how the global economic crisis will affect the conditions for the production and consumption of agricultural products. The question will be a central topic of the Second Hungarian Agrarian Academy which I am organising jointly with State Secretary Zoltán Gőgös of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on 17 April 2009 in the town of Pápa. Since 2006, the price of corn has risen threefold, and the price of wheat by 180% on the international market, while overall food prices have increased by 83%. By 2050 the population of the world will have grown to 9 billion, and in order to provide for their needs we will need to double the level of agricultural production; the days of cheap food have thus come to an end. Therefore it is extremely important to preserve, and where possible increase the agricultural capacity of the European Union. It is unacceptable that as a result of the sectoral reforms of the CAP, agricultural production should have decreased in the European Union. Good examples of this are the sugar reform, which has led to the disappearance of the Hungarian sugar industry, and the subsidies given for the grubbing up of grape vines in the context of the wine reform policy. The separation of direct agricultural funding from production is likewise heading in this direction.

We need to find the appropriate balance between food production and biofuel manufacture, and the latter must not threaten global food security. The United States' bioethanol programme contributed significantly to sending food prices soaring in 2008; based on those experiences, the European Union must re-examine its earlier commitments with regard to biofuel ratios. Finally, I urge speedy action at EU level against the creation of monopolies among food retailers, in order to protect producers.

The rise in energy prices, adverse meteorological events and the increase in demand for energy due to world population growth have produced high food prices. I urge the Commission to examine the link between high food prices and growing energy prices, especially for the fuels being used.

The agricultural sector needs to improve its energy efficiency. Increasing the proportion of crops for biofuel and using renewable energy could have a positive impact on the agri-food sector, which has been affected by high prices for fertilisers and pesticides, as well as by the increased costs of processing and transport. I urge the Commission to closely monitor the effects of increased biofuel production in the European Union and in third countries in terms of changes in land use, food product prices and access to food.

Incentives to encourage sustainable cultivation of energy crops should not jeopardise food production. I believe that agricultural research is required in order to boost farm productivity. I also invite Member States to avail fully of the opportunities offered in this respect by the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development and to adopt measures that will improve agricultural output in a sustainable, energy-efficient way.

Developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon (short presentation) 

The next item is the report by Mrs Grabowska, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are changing the subject to discuss contact between the European Union's institutions and its citizens. These contacts are inadequate. There is a deep divide between the Union and its citizens, yet Jean Monnet pointed out that the Union was being created for the citizens rather than for countries and governments.

The Union is enlarging and acquiring more citizens, but its institutions have difficulty in establishing contact with the citizens. This became evident through the painful experience of the French and Dutch 'No' to the Treaty of Lisbon. It is true, nonetheless, that the Union's institutions are endeavouring to improve their contacts with the citizens. They are opening up to them, and are clearly recognising the role of civil society. There is an ever increasing range of Union communication policies in this area. The new term civil dialogue has even been coined to describe these policies. More is required, however. The European Parliament is therefore endeavouring to rise to this challenge, and attempting to create a suitable mechanism for the purpose and promote contacts of this nature between the European Union's institutions and its citizens. This would resolve the issue of lack of democracy and demonstrate that the citizens also play an important role in the decision-making process within the European Union.

Article 10 of the Treaty of Lisbon states that 'Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.' There is also an additional provision making it possible for one million citizens of the European Union to take a legislative initiative. Following entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, one million citizens will be able to approach the European Commission and invite it to submit a legislative proposal on a subject of importance to the citizens.

That is why I refer to civil dialogue in this report. The latter is a dialogue that is not defined in law. It is essential, however, and I would like it to be guided by the following principles, or rather to guide itself by them. Firstly, I have introduced the principle of civil society representation into this report. I would like civil society to be suitably represented at the level of the European Union, that is to say, I would like it to be represented by partners that reflect and represent the interests at issue correctly.

I would like civil dialogue to be a reciprocal, two-sided process. This means it should not just involve the European Union approaching citizens, and the latter responding. The Union should also inform citizens when their views have been taken into account and explain what the implications of those views have been. That is why we also need feedback from the Union to the citizens.

I would like civil dialogue to be based on the principles of clarity and transparency. We should be governed by clear rules when inviting representatives of society to engage in dialogue with us. We should systematically publish the list of organisations involved in consultation. It would be wise for the Union to appoint a contact person responsible for this area, namely dialogue.

It is not easy to establish rules governing this area. The European Commission already drafted principles for strengthening a culture of consultation and dialogue back in 2002, and I therefore hope it will be prepared to draft the appropriate principles. These would become common principles for all the institutions. I should like to add too that the Member States should also be required to promote civil dialogue. I have been unable to mention every part of this report. I would, however, like the content to be put to the test at the first available opportunity, namely during the 2009 European election campaign. I would like us to take advantage of that occasion and take a first step towards contact with European citizens, making them aware of the best the Union has to offer and learning from them what we should be fighting for in this House.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all the Commission would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Grabowska, as well as the Committee on Constitutional Affairs for their excellent report.

We agree that civil society plays an important role in European integration. It is one of the key tools for communication between European institutions, EU society and EU citizens. It helps citizens to exercise their right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.

The Commission has a long and healthy tradition of interaction with civil society organisations. This cooperation between the Commission and civil society has grown, covering a wide variety of issues from policy dialogue to project management, both within the EU and in our partner countries.

The Treaty of Lisbon would put our existing practices on a more formal footing and provide a fresh impetus to further enhance them. It would also open the door to another option for civil society to operationalise its views through the Citizens' Initiative.

Involving interested parties in an active dialogue requires the provision of appropriate instruments for civil society to express its opinions and be heard. The EU institutions also need equally appropriate instruments to ensure that what we hear from civil society and citizens is properly picked up and put into the system. The Commission welcomes the fact that the current report supports many of the ideas the Commission is already putting into effect.

Through its mandate, the current Commission has taken a series of initiatives to involve civil society organisations and individual citizens in a public debate on EU issues. One of the more innovative examples of these efforts has been the citizens' consultations, experimenting with deliberative polling and face-to-face consultations.

To understand people's needs and expectations, over the past 35 years the Eurobarometer has been developed into a very valuable tool for monitoring public opinion in Europe. Neither the Commission nor Parliament can, however, single-handedly organise a Europe-wide public debate. This will only be possible if EU institutions and Member States work together. That is the purpose of the political declaration on 'Communicating Europe in Partnership' signed by Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 22 October 2008.

In this context, the Commission and Parliament are already coordinating efforts with the Member States via the management partnerships, which include regional and local campaigns on specific issues, linking up with action by local authorities and NGOs. Eleven new management partnerships in 2009 will make this approach even more effective.

The Commission shares the view that fruitful dialogue depends on the active participation of all sides: the EU institutions, the Member States and civil society. The Commission hopes that the Lisbon Treaty will come into force and stands ready to take the necessary action to put its provisions into practice and to continue developing civil dialogue.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

If the European Union is to be truly democratic and close to its citizens, close cooperation is required at local, regional and national level between the Union's institutions and its Member States on the one hand and civil society on the other.

Civil society represents many non-governmental and not-for-profit organisations established by the citizens of their own free will. It plays a vital part in the process of European integration as it makes the positions and wishes of the Union's citizens known to the European institutions. It is therefore very important to provide the citizens with effective and reliable information and to make civil dialogue more popular. This is particularly so regarding the promotion and dissemination of the European Union's actions and intentions, the development of a European network of cooperation and strengthening European identity amongst civil society.

Greater political awareness, a more effective civil dialogue and broader public debate are needed if the Union is to achieve its political aims and intentions.

The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens citizens' rights in relation to the Union by making it easier for them and for associations representing civil society to participate in debates on the so-called citizens' Europe.

The institutions of the European Union should cooperate more closely in order to develop European civil dialogue and encourage Union citizens to engage more with Europe. It is essential to encourage wider participation by the citizens in European debates and discussions. The citizens should also be actively involved in the coming elections to the European Parliament. After all, as Jean Monnet stated, we are not creating a Union for countries and governments, we are creating it for the citizens.

Membership in a civil society organisation provides European citizens with the opportunity to take active part in policy-making. In view of attaining EU goals, the active involvement of citizens in this process and the creation of concrete, tangible opportunities for them to take initiatives, provide feedback and express criticism and contrary opinions present a true challenge. However, since there is no single, precise legal definition of a civil society organisation, this can present difficulties.

In order that EU citizens might recognise the advantages the European Union offers them, we need to continue to expand democracy, increase transparency and improve the effectiveness of the EU's operation. The democratic deficit in most cases results from the fact that citizens do not always have access to essential information. Some of the documents relating to the Community decision-making process are still not accessible, and thus we need to continue the process aimed at further increasing the accessibility of Community working documents.

The mechanism of consultation forms an integral part of the activities of European institutions. We need to lay down general principles and a minimum set of rules regarding consultation and to establish a framework for consultation that is consistent yet flexible enough to adapt to the particular expectations of the parties concerned.

in writing. - (DE) This report sends a clear signal for bringing the EU closer to its citizens and proposes tangible steps towards making this goal a reality.

We call upon all EU institutions to make dialogue with civil society an important across-the-board task in their political work.

People only support the EU if they are informed about political projects and activities and are able to participate in decision-making, for example through consultations. With the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland we have seen what negative consequences deliberately disseminated misinformation can have for European integration. This must be prevented in future by a pro-active information and dialogue policy. This also applies particularly to the Council and to the governments of the Member States, which should make a more active effort to provide better information about the EU.

Access to documents from all the EU institutions must be made easier and improved so that every citizen can obtain an impression of their work.

Our aim is to build a strong European civil society as the basic prerequisite for the development of a European public area. Therefore, we demand the creation finally of the necessary framework conditions, which means, primarily, a charter for European associations, as well as the necessary basic infrastructure for active citizens at European level.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mrs Grabowska on the perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon is an example of a waste of time and resources. A fundamental question therefore arises. What is this debate actually all about? After all, the Treaty of Lisbon is dead. Ireland rejected it in a national referendum. This means that the aforementioned document does not have legal force. Building anything on it is like building on sand, without foundations. To build upon a treaty that does not really exist because it was rejected is a violation of democracy and of equal rights for free nations. This all brings to mind the definition of democracy. As I understand it, democracy is a free choice, not something that is imposed and which disregards the will of the people. It is the people who are sovereign in a democracy, not a particular interest group. The supreme expression of the will of the people is a referendum, not a decision taken by a ruling clique, contrary to the will of the people. Is that so difficult to understand?

I would like to congratulate Mrs Grabowska on her wonderful report which I am sure will contribute to improve and develop civil dialogue. There is a great deal that can be said about the development of dialogue between the European Union's citizens and its institutions. As chairwoman of a citizens association in Bulgaria, I firmly believe that this is one of the most important elements for the future development of Europe which needs to be urgently reformed and improved.

I believe that this report will enable the European Parliament to give the necessary guidelines and recommendations to the other institutions, but also to the civil organisations because, without their cooperation and participation, we will be unable to achieve the objective that we have set ourselves.

The report proposes an equal dialogue, taking into account the differences between and independence of the many associations. It will promote civil participation in the political process with a view to tackling the serious challenges it is facing, both at a national and European level. This is why it is vitally important that we find a differentiated approach in order to produce results at a local level because of the different level of development, both in different countries and in different sectors.

I am counting on the other institutions and the Member States taking into account our recommendations as soon as possible, even if the Lisbon Treaty does not come into force soon.

Public finances in the EMU - 2007-2008 (short presentation) 

The next item is the report by Mrs Gottardi, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on public finances in EMU 2007-2008.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, exactly one year ago we took the decision to combine the reports on public finances for 2007 and 2008. There were at least two reasons for this: to try to speed up the process and to take account of the signs of change taking place. We did not know the full extent of the changes at the time, but it was already obvious that by analysing two years together we would gain a more comprehensive and accurate assessment. And we were right! The report we will be voting on tomorrow has been constantly updated.

The tight link between public finances and the financial and economic crisis is very clear. Simply consider the resources allocated to bail out banks and big businesses, the support for manufacturing, and bear in mind the calls chiefly from small and medium-sized enterprises, and the protection for citizens from the fallout of the recession. All of these measures have been brought to the attention of the European institutions and individual Member States, however they should not undermine or weaken our outlook and our commitment on behalf of future generations.

The report involves at least two levels: that which is general, stable and valid in all situations, and that which is an emergency response to the current crisis. The principle remains intact, even strengthened, that high-quality, sustainable public finances are indispensable not only for individual countries but also for the solidity of the economy and the European social model. As regards revenue, steps must be taken to broaden the tax base, without however weakening the principle of progressive taxation, and to reduce the tax pressure on work, above all for mid to low-level salaries and pensions. As for expenditure, action must involve an assessment of the context, requirements, the composition of the population, with due consideration for gender policies and demographic change. Rather than introducing indiscriminate reductions, the aim should be to reorganise expenditure, partly by reallocating budget items and modernising public administrations.

A useful way of doing this is through gender budgeting, a method favoured and promoted by the European Parliament for some time, though still far from being the norm. It increases transparency and comparability, is more readily recognised by citizens and thus builds trust and a sense of ownership.

Today's unprecedented instability calls for determined action. If public sector intervention has become central and essential once more, we must not make the same mistakes again - that would be even more unpardonable. Instead, we must steer the crisis towards a new model of development that is genuinely sustainable, both environmentally and socially.

When we talk about European coordination, we should be thinking of having our own counter-cyclical governance, moving together and in the same direction, stepping up the fight against evasion and tax havens and linking national plans together. When we intervene to support businesses, we must assess the impact on competition, the level playing field and the functioning of the internal market, guaranteeing supervision, accountability, restrictions and consequent behaviour. The review of the Stability and Growth Pact permits controlled flexibility, to be used with care and long-term perspective.

The macroeconomic policies and joint investments should be re-launched in strategic, pre-determined sectors using instruments such as the Eurobonds, while keeping a close eye on the sub-national level and regional stability plans. There was a broad consensus on the report within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as most political groups shared this vision. I really hope that this is a prelude to a good result at tomorrow's vote.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the Gottardi report and the substance of the report fits well with that of the two earlier Commission reports on public finances in the EMU released in June 2007 and 2008. The Commission also agrees with the three latest amendments tabled by the rapporteur on 7 January.

The European Parliament's report confirms that the revised Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), so far, has been working as it should. In particular, many Member States have made considerable efforts to meet their obligations with regard to the Pact. Since the reform of the SGP, both the corrective and preventive arms have been applied in full accordance with the provisions of the reform pact and any leniency in enforcement has not occurred.

However, the report also emphasises the very negative economic outlook for the EU and the euro area for 2009. Growth has slowed down considerably, to the point of turning into an outright recession this year. The overall economic prospects for 2010 are also discouraging, so the Commission agrees with the European Parliament that supporting demand by making use of discretionary fiscal policy measures is now essential.

Nevertheless, fiscal policy should be maintained on a sustainable course, anchoring expectations of an ordered resolution of the crisis. In this respect the Commission shares Parliament's concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of public finances and continues to put emphasis on its assessment.

A new report on the long-term stability of public finances in the European Union will be issued by the Commission in autumn 2009. The Commission also takes the European Parliament's view that public expenditure has to be reoriented in order to improve the quality of public spending in line with the Lisbon Strategy. Such a policy orientation is indeed part of the integrated policy guidelines adopted by the European Council. Work is ongoing at the Commission for a more systematic assessment of quality of public finance developments including aspects of performance-based budgeting.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.

Written Statement (Rule 142)

In the spring of 2006 twelve Member States were going through an excessive deficit procedure. As a result of implementing the recommendations and decisions issued by the Council in the case of countries with excessive deficit, two and a half years down the line the number of Member States going through an excessive deficit procedure is approaching zero. This achievement has been possible thanks to the presence of favourable economic conditions in 2006 and 2007. During the 2008-2009 period we are facing an economic crisis which has already sparked in many Member States economic recession, a rise in unemployment and large numbers of company bankruptcies, especially among SMEs. The European economic recovery plan provides for major public investments for modernising transport and energy infrastructures. Member States are developing programmes aimed at supporting SMEs to allow them to stay in business. In these conditions, Member States in the euro zone, as well as all Member States, will find it difficult to meet the convergence criteria. I believe that measures need to be adopted at European level to enable Member States to face up to the current challenges such as an ageing population, migration, climate change etc. Agriculture, education, health and transport, which are key areas for the EU's economic development and European citizens' quality of life, must benefit from specific public policies.

The transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directives 2005/29/EC and 2006/114/EC (short presentation) 

The next item is the report by Mrs Weiler, on behalf of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directive 2005/29/EC, concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, and Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising.

rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before I come to my report, I would like to say once more that we have not conducted ourselves correctly with our decision to debate our own-initiative reports. When I see how the debates proceed - without dialogue, without controversy, without conflicts - I do not feel this to be a proper parliamentary debate and I hope we will put that right quickly after the European elections.

Nevertheless, I would like to express my thanks to fellow Members who are not present. We have worked very well together on the production of the report. I would also like to thank the Commission and the committee secretariat.

We have made many new joint discoveries during the debate in committee. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has consciously put the debate on implementation relatively early on the agenda because the deadline for implementation by Member States was the middle to the end of 2007, which to date is not much time for a directive involving an enormous and significant element of harmonisation. Nevertheless, some Member States have not undertaken transposal. Certainly, this has to do with the complicated procedure, but it is interesting that three Member States who have not managed it are some of the founding Member States. Therefore, we cannot assume that they are lacking in knowledge of European law. Three Member States have not yet transposed the directive, four have done so deficiently and inadequately and three Member States have received communications from the Commission that could potentially lead to proceedings at the European Court of Justice. There are a large number of cases of deficient transposal. We established during our hearing that two countries have transposed the directive with a great deal of commitment and creativity, namely the United Kingdom and Austria. It is possible, then.

The benefits of the internal market should be in the interest of the Member States. The aim of this directive should be to clarify consumer rights and to simplify cross-border trade, to introduce reliable and fair regulations and, of course, to strengthen legal certainty.

A very important point for us, as parliamentarians, was the protection of citizens and consumers from fraudulent practices. This applies not only to consumers but also to small enterprises and tradespeople. Our aim, Commissioner, should perhaps be to put these two directives together in the medium term because very many small businesses are confronted by the same irritations in the internal market as consumers. We know of many examples, such as annoying advertising and misleading and aggressive business practices. We all know the address book fraud that is a widespread problem throughout Europe. We know about cheating on the lottery and much more besides.

I would also like to thank the Commission for rigorously introducing the new sweep and search system in airlines and ring-tone advertising. We hope that it will continue to work on this. We expect that it will implement stronger networking with national offices and ensure that black lists are not undermined and sanctions are actually a deterrent - a quite significant point for us as parliamentarians.

I would like to say, in closing, that successful transposal requires cooperation between the Member States and between national and European parliamentarians and, entirely in line with the Treaty of Lisbon, which has been mentioned here, I would also like to argue in favour of national parliamentarians exercising more control over their national governments. These two Acts would be a good start.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Weiler, for her report, the contents of which of course will be carefully considered by the Commission, but also to thank her for the comments she made regarding this procedure.

The Commission fully agrees that it is now very important that Member States adequately transpose the new concepts introduced by the directive on unfair commercial practices and that national authorities also contribute to uniform implementation of the directive right across the EU.

As far as transpositions are concerned, two Member States are still late: Luxembourg and Spain; the Commission referred these cases to the Court of Justice in June last year.

The Commission also coordinated cooperation on transposition in order to avoid incorrect transpositions. Nevertheless, some problems remain in a limited number of countries mainly because of their reluctance to comply with full harmonisation. For those cases the Commission will not hesitate to launch infringement proceedings.

The report mentions the need to protect not only consumers but also SMEs against unfair commercial practices. On this point the Commission reminds the European Parliament that a full harmonisation directive on unfair business-to-consumer practices was already a very ambitious proposal which would have failed if its scope had been extended to business-to-business unfair competition practices.

It has been concluded from the consultation leading up to the proposal and from the deliberations in Council that there was little support for extending the scope of the directive to cover business-to-business unfair commercial practices.

As regards aggressive practices which were regulated for the first time at EU level through the directive on unfair commercial practices, it was considered that such practices occur almost exclusively in business-to-consumer relationships. Misleading business-to-business practices are already covered by the directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising. Such practices should continue to be regulated solely by this directive.

As regards enforcement of consumer protection legislation, the Commission will continue to coordinate enforcement actions through the consumer protection cooperation network.

In this context the Commission notes that Parliament's support for the 'sweeps' as an enforcement tool. The Commission intends to further develop this mechanism and has planned a further sweep for later this year. Further to the request from Parliament, the Commission is also pleased to add that the forthcoming second version of the consumer scoreboard will contain data gathered during the sweeps carried out so far.

As the report mentions the need for information campaigns to raise consumer awareness of their rights, the Commission would like to inform the members of its recent 'Is it fair?' website which includes for example educational material on the blacklist of banned practices.

To conclude, the Commission would like to assure this House that it will continue to work closely with Member States to ensure adequate and effective enforcement of the directives on unfair commercial practices and misleading comparative advertisement.

The database containing national transposition measures and case-law will be set up this year and will serve as a useful tool in this respect.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.

(Following upon Mrs Weiler's comments, the President read out the provisions of Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

Written Statement (Rule 142)

in writing. - (SK) European consumers are often confronted with unfair commercial practices and deceptive and misleading advertising. The category of vulnerable consumers, which includes children and senior citizens in particular, is most exposed to the risk of fraud.

I welcome the Commission's effort to assist Member States in transposing a directive which will help to increase confidence of both consumers and traders in cross-border transactions. It will ensure greater legal certainty for consumers and, at the same time, protect small and medium-sized enterprises against aggressive unfair commercial practices.

This directive will be crucial for the future development of consumer rights in the EU and for fully developing the potential of the internal market. Since some things still remain unclear in the transposition of this directive, I welcome the report of Mrs Weiler drawing attention to the problems with transposing the directive into national legislations.

In order for us to be successful, judicial authorities will have to reinforce cross-border cooperation regarding misleading database services. I attach great importance to information campaigns for heightening consumers' awareness of their rights because these are a key factor in providing them with greater protection. Only a well-informed consumer is able to detect misleading advertising and avoid the disappointment it may cause.

I believe that the 'blacklists' will enable us to uncover unfair commercial practices and completely prohibit misleading advertising.

CFP and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (short presentation) 

The next item is the report by Mr Guerreiro, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the CFP and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

This Commission communication raises a diverse range of questions as part of the debate on a possible reform of the common fisheries policy by 2012.

My report, which has been adopted by Parliament's Committee on Fisheries, puts forward a number of factors that we consider important in the context of this debate.

Fishing is a fundamental activity for guaranteeing human beings' food and survival, and this is the primordial objective of any fisheries policy.

In this context, it is worth underlining the importance of fishing in the waters of each Member State's EEZ for its sovereignty and independence, particularly in terms of food.

The common fisheries policy (CFP) should promote the modernisation and sustainable development of the fishing industry, safeguarding its socio-economic viability and the sustainability of fish stocks and guaranteeing the supply of fish to the public as well as food sovereignty and security, the preservation of jobs and improved living conditions for fishermen.

Taking account of its own objectives, a CFP must therefore not be subordinate to other Community policies that have since been defined.

In other words, a fisheries policy is not and cannot be a policy for the oceans or for the marine environment.

Since fishing is an activity that exploits a self-renewable resource, the first and principal task of fisheries management is to control total fishing effort in such a way as to guarantee the maximum sustainable catch.

A policy for fisheries must start from the assumption of an interdependence between the welfare of fishing communities and the sustainability of ecosystems, of which they are an integral part, in particular by recognising the specific features and importance of small-scale inshore fishing and artisanal fishing.

The application of an ecosystem approach to marine management necessarily requires multidisciplinary and intersectoral action between the various measures that have an impact on marine ecosystems, going far beyond and upstream of those adopted in the area of fisheries.

The proposal for an ecosystem-based analysis of the assessment of fishery resources must be based on validated scientific data, rather than on hunches based on preconceived ideas.

It must also be recognised that there are significant differences between the various marine areas and the resources that occur in each of them, between the various fleets and gear used and between their respective impacts on ecosystems, which requires fisheries management measures that are diversified, specific and adapted to each case, with fishermen being compensated for their socio-economic consequences where necessary.

In order to guarantee the sustainability of resources, fishing activity and the respective local communities, we believe it is vital that the Member States should exercise their sovereignty over their 12 miles of territorial waters and for the area corresponding to the EEZs of the outermost regions to be considered an exclusive access zone.

In this context, there is some concern at proposals regarding access to resources that aim to promote a system of transferable individual quotas, which would have consequences in terms of the concentration of fishing activity and the individual appropriation of fishing rights.

It should also be pointed out that a policy that encourages the indiscriminate scrapping of vessels, that takes no account of the specific features of fleets, resources, needs as regards consumption in each Member State and the socio-economic impact, is inappropriate and unjustified.

Lastly, I should like to emphasise that the sharp decline in income in the industry stems not only from restrictions on fishing activity, but in particular from the stagnation/fall in first-sale prices, accompanied by the increase in production costs (diesel and petrol).

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the report presented and the support given to our perspectives regarding the ecosystem approach.

One of the main messages the Commission gives in its communication is that, while fisheries depend on healthy marine ecosystems, fisheries management cannot take on the role of overall ocean management on its own. Healthy marine ecosystems can only be safeguarded through a policy which involves all sectors which impact on these ecosystems.

This is why the Commission sees the maritime policy, and especially its environmental pillar, the Marine Strategy Directive, as key to the implementation of an ecosystem approach. This approach will give assurances to the fishing industry that all human impacts on marine ecosystems, not only fisheries, are addressed in a proportionate and coherent way. This is also the overall thrust of the report and we appreciate the agreement on this point.

I will emphasise that this does not mean that one policy is subordinate to another - that we, by taking this approach are establishing a hierarchy between, for instance, the Marine Strategy Directive and the common fisheries policy.

The Marine Strategy Directive serves the common fisheries policy by being the necessary integrative instrument to safeguard the resource base for fisheries in the future, and the common fisheries policy will contribute to the Marine Strategy Directive by putting in place management measures necessary to support the objectives for healthy marine ecosystems.

As stated in the report, meeting food needs, safeguarding fishing industries and fishing communities, and preserving the sustainability of marine ecosystems are not irreconcilable. On the contrary, in the long term there is a synergy between these objectives.

The report touches on many questions regarding the specific instruments to be utilised in the future. These are important and pertinent questions which we will address in the debate regarding the reform of the common fisheries policy. I will therefore not comment specifically on these questions here.

I will, however, point out that there are a couple of points where we may be in disagreement. It is indicated that fishermen affected by management plans and measures to protect ecosystems should be subsidised or compensated. We do not think that direct subsidies is a way forward, but that the solution is to help the industry to be more economically resilient and to help coastal communities diversify into other economic activities.

It is also indicated that restocking from aquaculture may be an instrument to replenish wild fish stocks. Although this may be an option in a few very specific cases, we do not think that this is the way forward in general. Fish stocks should be rebuilt by proper management of the human impacts on the marine ecosystems, including the impacts of both fisheries and other sectors.

We will return to a more detailed debate on the instruments for fisheries management in the context of the debate and development of the common fisheries policy reform, starting with our publication of a green paper in April. In the mean time, I thank Parliament for its support for our approach as expressed through this report.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.

Written Statement (Rule 142)

Current fish stocks in European Union waters are continuing to dwindle, both due to excessive fishing and the use of unsuitable equipment and to the impact which other sectors, in particular tourism, are having on marine biology life. Scientific research into identifying the factors that influence marine ecosystems, including the impact of climate change, will provide the opportunity to determine the development of fishery resources and ensure that precautionary measures are taken to prevent the rapid, continuous depletion of fish stocks.

As fishing is an essential activity for guaranteeing food and man's survival, managing the fishery resources' sustainability becomes vitally important at a time when marine biodiversity is deteriorating. For this reason, social, economic and environmental aspects need to be taken into account in all the initiatives promoting the sustainable development of the European Union's coastal areas.

Equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (short presentation) 

The next item is the report by Mrs Riera Madurell, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on transposition and application of Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, the directive referred to in the report is an amended version of a 1978 directive on the same subject, prepared in the light of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the case-law developed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the new social realities. It is a version that incorporates key elements of the improvement in women's rights, which are those assessed in this report.

The legal text presents the definition of direct and indirect discrimination, assault and sexual assault; it requires Member States to encourage employers to adopt measures that prevent all forms of gender discrimination; and it safeguards workers' rights following maternity or paternity leave.

By implementing this Directive, the Member States not only commit themselves to establishing equality bodies that promote, assess, implement and support equal treatment, but also undertake to instigate social dialogue, with the aim of promoting equal treatment in the workplace through collective agreements, in a planned manner. They also commit to strengthening the role of NGOs in promoting equality, to establishing effective measures to penalise those who do not abide by the provisions of the directive, and to implementing protective measures for those who provide support to victims.

If the Commission had been able to draw up the report which, according to the directive itself, is mandatory every four years, our evaluation work would have been relatively simple. For that to have been so, all the Member States should have transposed the directive within the given time period, done so properly and submitted all the information to the Commission. That, however, was not the situation we found ourselves in when we began.

When the deadline for transposing the Directive had passed, nine Member States had not provided information on the measures they had adopted in order to transpose it. The Commission had then initiated infringement proceedings and, in May of last year, proceedings were still underway against two Member States. Furthermore, due to the directive's complexity and the new elements it contained, the Commission had detected problems with its transposition in 22 Member States, although it was expecting to resolve many of those through dialogue.

In order to make a report that was thorough, useful and as complete as possible, we needed to have more data available and therefore also decided to request information from Member States. With the information provided by the Commission, that received from Member States - through their equality bodies and national parliaments - and the contributions from my colleagues in the various groups, we were able to write this report, which now provides a clear idea of how the transposition process is progressing in each of the Member States.

After this experience, I would like to stress that collaboration between the national parliaments and the European Parliament was fundamental in enabling us to do our job properly. Without the information provided by the parliaments and equality bodies, we would not have been able to write this report, at least not as thoroughly as we have done; nor would it have been possible without the mutual collaboration that we have been able to establish with the Commission, or without the invaluable help provided by the services of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, my office and the services of my parliamentary group. I would like to extend my thanks to all of these women. I also wish to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their contributions and their willingness.

From the very beginning, our aim was for our work to be not merely thorough and useful, but the result of the broadest possible consensus, since we needed to gain an accurate picture of how the transposition was progressing. This directive is highly important, since it equips the European Union with very effective tools that enable Member States to strengthen their legislation on equal treatment in the workplace - something that is fundamental if we are to achieve the goals we have set ourselves as Europeans.

We should not forget that even today in the European Union there is a 28.4% difference in employment rates between men and women, that we are a long way off the Lisbon target of achieving 60% female employment by 2010 and that, in addition, women earn on average 15% less than men.

If this report also serves to further awaken people's consciences on this matter in Member States, then we can be doubly satisfied.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes Parliament's report on this important Directive, and we thank Mrs Madurell for her hard work on this.

Directive 2002/73/EC is an important tool for fighting gender discrimination in access to employment, vocational training, promotion and working conditions. It has significantly improved Community law in this field, with clearer definitions of types of discrimination and a number of innovative legal solutions. They include provisions for the protection of pregnant women and women on maternity leave, the involvement of social partners and NGOs in ensuring gender equality in the workplace, and the establishment of equality bodies.

This report is of special importance given the many inequalities still affecting men and women in the area of employment. It draws the attention of the Member States, the Commission, the social partners and civil society to the Directive's key provisions and stresses the need for full implementation. It can therefore contribute to greater compliance with the Directive and to greater awareness of the Community legislation on equal treatment of men and women.

As the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission continues to monitor closely implementation of the Directive in the Member States. It is keeping up the dialogue with the Member States in connection with infringement procedures, with a view to ensuring the Directive is properly implemented.

In fulfilment of its reporting obligation under the Directive, the Commission will adopt a report in the first half of this year on the Directive's application in all Member States and will communicate this to Parliament and the Council.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - The Irish Equality Authority is considered to be a model of good practice. Yet, the Irish Government has recently cut its budget by some 43% and fast-tracked the decentralisation of the Authority, at a time when the Government's overall programme of decentralisation of public bodies is being halted.

Indeed, Mr Niall Crowley, Chief Executive Officer of Ireland's Equality Authority, has resigned as CEO stating 'the Equality Authority has been rendered unviable by the decision [...] to cut its funding by 43% and to continue the decentralisation of its staff' and that '[T]he work of the Equality Authority has been fatally compromised'. Moreover, a further six members of the Equality Authority's board have now also resigned.

This report urges Member States to develop capacities and ensure adequate resources for the bodies promoting equal treatment and equal gender opportunities provided for in Directive 2002/73/EC. It also restates the Directive's requirement of ensuring the independence of those bodies.

The Irish Government is clearly in breach of the directive because it evidently has no intention to either adequately resource or ensure the independence of an authority whose funding it has almost halved forcing the resignation of half its board.

in writing. - In light of the persisting gap between men and women in terms of employment rates, wages and access to management positions, I call on Member States to speed up the implementation of Directive 2002/73/EC, while ensuring that its provisions are fully and effectively transposed in the national legislation. With a financial crisis unfolding, I am concerned that a slow or low quality implementation of this directive is likely to exacerbate the gender inequalities, endanger the fulfilment of the Lisbon strategy goals and prevent the EU from developing the full potential of its economic capacity.

Regrettable is also the choice of certain Member States to limit the scope of the prohibited types of discrimination, thus only partially complying with the Directive 2002/73/EC. It is disappointing that despite numerous studies on the subject, some national lawmakers are still neglecting the destructive effects of discrimination and sexual harassment on employee morale and productivity.

To better implement anti-discrimination and harassment practices it is necessary to engage stakeholders at grass-roots level, through information campaigns, use of NGOs, and also by more formal instruments such as including special provisions in collective agreements and national legislation relative to gender equality.

in writing. - (SK) The adoption of a piece of European legislation initiates the process of transposing and applying the directive in each Member State. The European Parliament carefully monitors the transposition of every directive, one example of which is the report from my fellow Member Teresa Riera Madurell examining the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women.

The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality works intensively to draw attention to the fact that gender-based discrimination still persists in many areas of social and political life . Slow and low-quality implementation of Directive 2002/73/EC puts at risk the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy and the development of the full potential of the EU's social and economic capacity.

I call on the Commission and Member States to introduce clear, detailed and measurable equal treatment indicators and standards for evaluating gender relations. I believe that the gender institute which is coming into operation will greatly contribute through its activities to the field of gender equality.

I firmly believe that a successful transposition of this directive can be achieved by sharing best practices and adopting positive measures in areas where discrimination has been identified.

I was pleased to read on the European Parliament's website that the topic of equal treatment for women and men is in a distinguished third place among the most read news items in 2008. The huge interest in this topic shows us however that there is still a great deal to do, especially in the area of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion. In this respect, Teresa Riera Madurell's report is a success thanks to clarifying the role of employers and civil society in promoting gender equality.

I think that the Commission has an extremely important role to play in the battle to establish equal treatment for women and men in the workplace. It needs to verify primarily the way in which EU Member States have taken positive action in relation to the disadvantages women have encountered during their professional career. I am also referring in particular to the integration and observance of the principle of gender equality in the Member States' administrative and political decisions.

At the same time as submitting the reports to the Commission every four years, each Member State needs to offer a coherent presentation of the actual sanctions to be imposed for infringements of this directive, which would very much help to establish the exchange of experience and good practice.

Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 10.45 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 09.00.)

Documents received: see Minutes

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (debate) 

The next item is the report by Wolf Klinz, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) - C6-0287/2008 -.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in July 2008 the European Commission presented its proposal for a revision of the existing Directive on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS), thus providing the basis for what we are debating today. We needed to stick to an extremely ambitious timetable if we wanted to ensure that we could actually succeed in revising the UCITS Directive, which has been in place since 1985 in its initial form, by the end of this parliamentary term.

The clear aim of these reforms was to improve the competitiveness of the European fund industry, to enable it to reduce its costs, to develop and make use of economies of scale, to ensure that all fund providers do indeed have access to all markets in the European Union, and to achieve all of this without reducing protection for investors: on the contrary, we wanted to improve protection for investors. In other words, we had a very ambitious programme, and I have to say that I really do appreciate the fact that, in cooperation with all the institutions involved, we have managed to conclude this project within such a short period.

Investment funds provide small investors with the option of investing small sums of capital in a diversified, professionally managed portfolio. In the past, European UCITS have already proven to be a great success story. Collective investments in transferable securities are not only sold in Europe, but are also, to a not inconsiderable extent, exported to regions outside the European Union - particularly to South America and Asia - where they are very highly regarded. That is why it was so important, when revising this directive, to ensure that we did not damage the status of these UCITS.

The UCITS Directive has been amended twice in the past, and on this occasion too, the Commission has tackled the revision with great care. It carried out a consultation process, presented a green paper and a white paper, and undertook in-depth discussions with all those involved in the market. The Commission proposed a total of six measures in this revision, which should help to achieve the aims I referred to earlier.

These include, firstly, introducing a management company passport; secondly, facilitating cross-border mergers of funds, in order to reduce the number of funds provided in the European Union and thus resolve the imbalance that can currently be seen between Europe and, in particular, the United States; thirdly, providing the possibility of master-feeder structures, in other words the option of investing one fund in another master fund and having that master fund manage the investments; fourthly, developing a short - only two pages long - information document, known as the key investor information, containing the most important information for small investors; fifthly, simplifying the notification procedure in order to ensure that, when a fund requests authorisation in a country where it is not yet authorised, this does not de facto result in a new re-authorisation; and, finally, strengthening supervisory cooperation.

The fund industry has not escaped unscathed from the financial crisis. A lot of money has flowed out, and in these circumstances it is absolutely vital that we make decisions as soon as possible, in order to strengthen the credibility of the funds and to ensure that small investors do not lose confidence in these investment instruments.

I would just like to conclude with two final comments. The first is that the Commission has established a group, chaired by Jacques de Larosière, to examine the issue of supervision in Europe. I hope that the conclusions drawn by this group and the proposals it develops will ultimately be taken on board by the Commission and will find favour here. Secondly, particularly in the case of cross-border mergers of funds, we are still seeing differences in the tax treatment of cross-border mergers and national mergers. Here, too, we call on the Commission to make sure that we have the same conditions for both, not different treatment.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am pleased to express the Commission's support for Parliament's amendments to the UCITS IV proposal. This will facilitate the adoption of UCITS IV modifications in a single reading. Such an outcome will be a very welcome development for EU fund markets which have recently been confronted with many tough challenges.

The proposal adopted by the Commission last July is the outcome of a thorough process of consultation. It started before the financial crisis. It sets some clear objectives for improving the functioning of the UCITS Directive. Bearing this in mind, the Commission wanted to simplify and stimulate cross-border sales of UCITS, provide fund managers with effective tools for increasing the size of their funds and benefit from economies of scale. However, it is not only about being competitive. The Commission also wanted to put in place effective rules on investor disclosure ensuring that anybody wishing to invest its savings into a UCITS should receive essential, clear and understandable information before taking his or her decision.

I am pleased to note that the goals set by the Commission proposal have been met. Parliament and Council have adjusted the Commission's proposal on mergers, master-feeder-structures, fund notification and key investor information, but the high-level ambitions set by the Commission in its original proposal was fully respected.

The Commission is very pleased with the outcome of the codecision process as regards the chapters contained in its July proposal. On the subject of the management company passport - which became an important part of the proposal - initially at the time of the adoption of the proposal, the Commission had serious concerns about the potential negative impact that an insufficiently prepared management company passport would have for the security and retail investors placing their money in UCITS funds.

Looking back, I am convinced that our decision to consult the Committee of European Securities Regulators on these issues was the right one. It helped Parliament and the Council to design sound provisions which would protect the interests of unit-holders. This was my one and only consideration dealing with the management company passport.

We have come a long way since July 2008. The CESR advice has provided the basis for a comprehensive set of provisions that clarify respect for responsibilities, ensure full information flow and underpin the necessary cooperation and support to EU Member State authorities. This is true at all stages: initial authorisation, ongoing supervision and enforcement. The Commission can now sign up to the compromise text.

Our work in this is, however, not finished. The success of the management company passport depends on our ability to deal with some remaining complex issues, like risk management via Level 2 measures. This work will also provide the occasion to tackle weaknesses in risk management that have become apparent in a small number of cases in recent times.

Very strict deadlines have been imposed on the Commission in delivering these measures. We have expressed our concerns on the feasibility of these deadlines. We will need time and resources to carefully prepare these measures, to consult stakeholders and adopt them. The Commission will endeavour to start this process as quickly as possible. We will also need the full and active cooperation of all actors, including this Parliament, to be able to deliver on time.

I would like to warmly thank again the rapporteur Mr Wolf Klinz and express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of this file by Parliament. All three institutions can be satisfied with the consensus that has been achieved in the space of only a few months. You have shown that Europe can move speedily to bring about useful regulatory improvements. You must build on this achievement now and complete the ambitious programme of implementing legislation.

Finally, let me conclude by making two statements which the Commission agrees to make in relation to the adoption of this report.

Firstly, regarding the issue of taxation of cross-border mergers. The Commission will undertake to examine the potentially adverse impact that national taxation systems may have on cross-border mergers and use its funds once the proposed provisions are adopted. The Commission will in particular examine the potential cases of adverse tax consequences for investors.

On the issue of supervision, I have been vocal about the need to strengthen supervisory cooperation. In Solvency II and in the amendments to the capital requirements directive, the Commission has, on my recommendation, put forward proposals to strengthen supervisory cooperation. I therefore have no difficulty in agreeing on the need to push forward in this crucial domain. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency and coherence in all relevant financial sector regulation, the Commission agrees, on the basis of the conclusions of the de Larosière report, to examine the need to strengthen the provisions of this directive related to supervisory cooperation arrangements.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me first of all to salute the remarkable work accomplished by our rapporteur, Wolf Klinz, who has managed to find broad agreement within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and negotiate a completely satisfactory compromise with the Presidency.

The Committee on Legal Affairs, when asked for its opinion, made known its views and these were taken into account. The original UCITS Directive was the key to development for European investment funds. In June 2007, the assets managed in UCITS represented EUR 6 000 billion and UCITS accounted for around 75% of the investment fund market in the European Union. The internal guarantees provided by UCITS explain why they are recognised by investors well beyond Europe's borders. However, the regulations must change to promote the development of these funds.

The changes made in 2001 opened new investment areas for UCITS but they left behind several bottlenecks. The Green Paper led to a public debate. In 2005 it was followed by a White Paper.

Today, we can welcome the major advances in efficiency offered by the proposal that we have before us. The most significant progress is the recognition of a European passport for management companies. The proposed provisions will allow the implementation of this passport for management companies, whilst guaranteeing adequate protection for investors. It is a complete passport and we welcome it. The supervision measures it includes will certainly be effective in removing any doubts which might have been expressed.

The proposal also makes major technical improvements, for example, notifications, cross-border mergers and the grouping of funds via master-feeder-structures. The harmonisation which will be thus achieved will also guarantee equitable competition conditions across the European Union, provided, as our rapporteur has stated, that actions are taken at a fiscal level to avoid distortions.

Mr President, Commissioner, more than ever, I have very mixed feelings about the proposal for a directive on which Parliament is preparing to vote. It is true that the rapporteur, Mr Klinz, has been working for many years on this and has negotiated with talent, especially during the trialogue. It is also true that the directive will make some significant advances in the operation of the internal market and in the collective management of financial assets, and these have been welcomed by Europe's investment fund industry. It is still the case that the debates and discussions in the Council and Parliament have never been totally free, as the result was known in advance: for some players it was essential, at any cost, to introduce the European passport for management companies.

On the principle, there is no more to say; the passport is its own defence. However, it is necessary to ensure that the introduction of the passport for management companies is accompanied by the necessary guarantees, especially as regards the supervision of funds, as it leads to dissociation of functions beyond borders. I note with regret that the system as implemented is not only complicated but also subject to different interpretations. There is a risk that it will soon run into practical difficulties that will damage the European export fund industry, especially for export to third countries.

I have indeed noted that my position is in the minority, although I do not feel ill at ease. In normal times, I would have been tempted to say that only in practice will it be possible for definitive conclusions to be drawn on the issue and therefore to decide who is right. Is it those who trust in the abilities of market operators to adapt or those who insist on a more prudent approach? I do not exclude the possibility of success, but it is not guaranteed either. Given the latest news, especially the Madoff scandal and its implications for the collective financial assets management industry, we are unlikely to be reassured.

My scepticism gives way to concern. The investment fund industry will not be spared by the financial crisis; we know that now. It may be that fundamental questions need to be asked. In this deep crisis, making choices that dilute the responsibilities of stakeholders or assume perfect cooperation between the regulatory authorities may really lead to incongruity.

I am saying what I think: this directive is also from another era, from before the crisis. It is marked by a certain nonchalance. The financial system, in fact, is experiencing a lasting and fundamental crisis of confidence, and entire chunks of its architecture must be reconsidered. Let us not forget that the first duty of money market funds is to protect the investor by diversifying the risks and by establishing strict rules. By voting for this text as it stands, without really knowing where we are heading, we make it look as if nothing has happened. This withdrawal from reality will lead to no good, so I will abstain, even though I have signed the compromise amendments negotiated with the Council. Given the circumstances, the improvements made seem to me to be of little import compared with the questions of principle that I have just raised.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to vote on the new directive on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities. This directive has been extremely important in the past and will continue to be so in the future.

Things have changed so quickly since the first directive, which dates back nearly a quarter of a century, that we now need to coordinate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, as the title states, and request a radical update to take into account new needs, which I think should be seen in terms of greater fluidity and mobility, as well as greater supervision and control.

The work in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs went ahead in a spirit of excellent cooperation due to the positive attitude of the rapporteur, whom I cannot thank enough, and the Council, perhaps because we realised that we were touching on an area that is closely connected to the financial crisis and that we urgently needed to come up with some timely and appropriate answers. I think it is important at this stage to sum up a few points on which we reached a good understanding and, I hope, good results. This is the case with management companies, particularly as regards identifying the applicable law - the law of the Member State where the fund is or where the management company was set up - in order to take us toward a clearer, safer and more efficient supervision system. It is also the case with the agreement on the Level 2 measures that the Commission has been asked to adopt by July 2010 without fail.

It also applies to the understanding that makes the management company responsible for procedures, mechanisms and contact names to enable consumers and investors to obtain specific information, not least if they have complaints to make, if the management company is not based in their Member State. We should view in a positive light the possibility of further strengthening cooperation in terms of supervision, with bilateral and multilateral agreements between the competent authorities of Member States on UCITS and management companies, and also the agreement on merger and master-feeder-structures that make it possible to operate throughout the full extent of the internal market. We still have some differences of opinion, however, on the timing of the notification procedure, because we would have liked and would still like this to be longer and more appropriate, as laid down by the Council.

Lastly, I would like to mention the progress made on the prospectus, the key investor information for consumer protection, noting that in this case as well we would have liked a hard copy of the prospectus to be circulated automatically due to its small size, and not solely on request. To conclude, I feel there should be broad agreement on the need to complete this dossier at first reading.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mr Klinz, for his excellent work. In such a turbulent time as this autumn has been, the rapporteur has succeeded in finding a reasonable compromise, as we have already heard. Even without the financial crisis, these issues are difficult to deal with. I know this only too well, as I was responsible for steering through UCITS in 2001.

The aim of UCITS funds is to create not only a better and larger funds market, but also an open and consumer-friendly market. This has largely happened. Many obstacles were removed in 2001. I would like to remind everyone that it was not particularly easy then, either. It was also prior to the Lamfalussy process. A few obstacles remain, however, and it is these obstacles that are being dealt with now. There will be an improvement in marketing. There will be greater protection for investors. The merger of funds and master-feeder-structures will be possible, and cooperation between supervisory authorities will be strengthened, something that was also mentioned by the Commissioner.

The rules concerning the management company passport have been a sensitive issue. We have already heard comments on this. We are aware of the different opinions. However, I think that the present proposal is a good one. Competition and openness are always good in a well-organised market.

Another important issue was the key investor information, which replaces the simplified prospectus. A balance must be achieved between relevant information and effectiveness. Too much information is not good but neither is too little. The question of language is, of course, a sensitive one, but I believe we must have the courage to deal with this issue if we want to make more headway with cross-border trade. A reasonable balance is also required in this area.

As became evident in the autumn, Europe needs a financial market that functions effectively. UCITS have cleared the way and become a success and an esteemed trade mark outside Europe, too. Let us safeguard this development, which is also something this proposal does.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr Klinz, the rapporteur, on his excellent report. He has worked extremely hard to get an agreed compromise, and I congratulate him on that.

The revised UCITS directive will, when it enters into effect, serve to reduce much burdensome red tape and unnecessary costs.

During compromise negotiations, certain specific concerns of some Member States were recognised, allowing for the production of a strong and widely supported proposal. I believe it not only protects consumers but is also good for investors. As some speakers have already said, an open market is a positive thing and can be a very good thing for all of us if it is well regulated.

UCITS revision is yet another recognition that the financial markets of today are so integrated that we need common rules and standards for the effective regulation and operation of the global financial services industry. That is recognised not only in Europe but also globally, as we go through unprecedented financial times. It is very important that we work together at a global level to try and resolve the problems.

Let me just say that today is a great occasion: we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the euro currency, which itself serves as an illustration of the importance of economic cooperation. It is fortunate that my own country, Ireland, is a member of the euro zone as the current currency has been a source of stability for Ireland and other countries at a time of unprecedented turbulence and during the current global recession. If Ireland were not in the euro zone, we would probably be in the unfortunate position of Iceland - but that is not the case.

I would like to remind some of the Irish Members in this House - Sinn Féin in particular - that if they had had their way, we would not be in the euro. They described it at the time as a backward step. Ireland would not be in the monetary union and Ireland's economic position would be as bad as Iceland's.

I would like to remind those who opposed the European project in Ireland that many countries around the world are now using Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty and exploiting the confusion over its possible or perceived repercussions to win over new contracts at the expense of Ireland. Economically, Ireland must stay at the centre of decision-making in Europe, where we have traditionally been and where our enterprise needs and wants Ireland to be.

Mr President, with all the controversy currently surrounding regulation of the financial services industry and the headlong urge to rush towards over-regulation, this is a welcome example of common-sense, appropriate and measured regulation of the industry. Mr Klinz and the Commission have done a good job and I happily support this report and the proposed revision.

UCITS are a vital part of the European - and, yes, of the Scottish - investment management industry. They are a vitally important savings vehicle for savers and investors, not just in Europe, but all over the world. Imitation is surely a sufficient compliment and, even in the US, the UCITS is the model to be aspired to. Mr Klinz has incorporated much of what I consider to be vitally important, such as diversification into new investment products and techniques with reasonable security at a common-sense level. Most importantly, we have to achieve greater economies of scale in Europe. Many of our UCITS are too small and there are too many of them, so we must facilitate mergers. Personally, I would have liked to have seen that go even further to allow UCITS with different investment objectives to be able to merge more easily, provided that the investor was adequately protected and informed of such changes.

Thirdly, the management passport is a vitally important new provision which will allow for greater economies of scale, greater efficiency and the reduction of red tape. This must only be in the interests of the investor. The revision will therefore be good for the industry but, even more importantly, it will be good for the investor and the saver, not just in Europe but all over the world. I am very glad to support Mr Klinz's report and the UCITS revision.

(FR) Mr President, Mr Klinz, thank you for your work, your commitment and your negotiating skills. UCITS are in some way a trade mark for the European financial markets; they are a good export product. However, there are imbalances in the European Union, as it is an area in which there are producer countries and consumer countries, so there are different strategies.

One of the aims in revising this directive is to organise, in these conditions, an internal market in UCITS which really works. Now, there are four questions at this stage: the first, which has already been raised in this debate, is evidently that of the management passport and I heard the Commissioner tell us about his fear of seeing this passport badly prepared. However, Mr McCreevy, there needs to be a will to prepare it: I have sometimes had the impression that it was not something the Commissioner was set on achieving. I am therefore pleased about the negotiations that have begun on the initiative of the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that, when the UCITS Directive is revised, we will adopt a real management passport which will allow the European Union's internal market to function in normal conditions.

The second observation relates to the issue of retention. If, when the Capital Requirements Directive is revised, we require the banks to hold 5% of the securitisations that they place on the market, it will be necessary immediately to harmonise, and under similar conditions, the retention obligations in the UCITS field, because the same risks must lead to the same rules.

My third observation relates to the issue of supervision. I do not think anyone here will doubt our determination to seek improved supervision conditions. We are all awaiting, on the initiative of President Barroso, the results of the working group led by Jacques de Larosière. I believe that the stakes are such that we cannot wait much longer for the results of this working group to be implemented. That will have an impact on the conditions for organising supervision between the stakeholders, in other words the producers and the consumers of UCITS. We thus need the supervision issues in this area to be defined.

Finally, my last observation is about tax regime issues. The rapporteur has mentioned them and the Commissioner has made a commitment. There is, behind the issue of tax regimes, hidden protectionism which we must denounce, which we wish to overcome. To do so, the Commission must take initiatives so that the tax regime allows truly free movement of UCITS products, with no protectionism.

(LT) I would also like to underline our rapporteur's excellent work and ability to find a suitable compromise. However, like some of the speakers, I also have a few doubts. Those doubts concern the provision that EU Member States will have to prepare all the documents related to investment business, as stated in the document, 'in a language customary in the sphere of international finance', and this means in English.

I spoke in favour of creating an opportunity for business to reduce costs which would not be regulated in detail, but fund managers with one language, in this case English speakers, should not receive priority and a competitive advantage. We should also avoid creating legal uncertainty.

How can a consumer defend his rights if the document creates prerequisites for ambiguous interpretation of financial business responsibility? I am in favour of clearly defining financial business responsibility and the competitive conditions which investment business follows.

(PL) Improving the effectiveness of the mechanisms by which UCITS function should, in my opinion, be a priority of Parliament's work. In order to increase the benefits and competition in the European fund industry, costs to investors should be restricted, guaranteeing them at the same time the same high level of protection. I agree with the rapporteur that the existing prospectus should be replaced by a free document containing key information for investors.

It is also extremely important to continue work on the directive in the area of taxation of fund mergers in order to remove tax barriers. Furthermore, and like the rapporteur, I take the position that practical use of the management company passport, which is intended to give management companies the right to offer group portfolio management services in the whole of the EU, would contribute to the creation of a true common market for the fund industry.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, once again I express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of this file by Parliament. It is a result of a remarkably quick consensus.

As has already been mentioned, this is not yet the end of the story - much still needs to be done at Level 2. Member States will also have the task of transposing this new set of rules - Level 1 and Level 2 - altogether before the summer of 2011. Arrangements for cooperation between national supervisors will have to be put in place. These are key to the good functioning of the management company passport.

I can assure you that the Commission will play its role in order to facilitate this progress and to put these badly needed changes to work in the EU fund industry.

Mr President, first of all, I agree with the Commissioner that this is indeed not the end of the story. We now need to get started on implementation, and one reason why we have set relatively tight deadlines for Parliament and for the Council is that we want to ensure that we do not have to wait too long for implementation. We need to keep up the pace, because we can see that the markets are changing at a tremendous pace, and if we are constantly lagging behind we will not be able to achieve our targets fully, or perhaps not at all.

Today's debate has shown that we have broad cross-party support for the compromise we have negotiated here. I acknowledge that Mrs Lulling sees things a bit differently in this respect, but I am reasonably confident that the future will show that her concern that Luxembourg's position as one of Europe's central investment fund centres could be damaged will prove to be unfounded, and that, on the contrary, this new UCITS directive could also provide opportunities for this financial centre.

Mrs Berès is absolutely right: what this is really about is finally creating a real internal market in the investment funds sector. This sector is an example of the fact that, though we talk about the internal market, in many cases we do not yet have one. That is crucial. No one disputes that it will lead to a completely new and very ambitious level of cooperation, including between the supervisory bodies, but we need to achieve that in any case. In other fields, too, the supervisory bodies need to work more closely and more constructively together, and trust each other more, than they have in the past. If the UCITS directive can give a gentle nudge to encourage that, then in my opinion that is all to the good.

The Level 2 measures to which the Commissioner referred are legion, and need to be dealt with within a short time; that much is true, but we all have an interest in ensuring that this does happen.

That, however, is not the end of things: the industry itself also needs to do its own homework. The Commission, and we here in Parliament too, have deliberately chosen not to raise the issue of fund processing at all, because we are working on the assumption that the industry will keep its promise to deal with this matter on its own, without legislative pressure. It has been working on this for quite some time now, and we still have nothing concrete to show for it. I hope that it will soon be able to put something on the table, otherwise we will have no choice but to take further action in the foreseeable future.

In conclusion, I would like to thank not only the Commission but also, and in particular, the Council for their cooperation and for their active support. I am also grateful to all the representatives of the other groups, particularly Mrs Berès, Mrs Gottardi, Mr Gauzès, and also Mrs Lulling, who, as we have seen again today, defended her interests valiantly but was still perfectly willing to compromise where possible. Thank you very much.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

(The sitting was suspended at 09.40 and resumed at 10.00.)

Formal sitting and debate - 10th anniversary of the euro

The next item is the formal sitting and debate on the 10th anniversary of the euro.

(Film)

Mr Juncker, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, Mr Trichet, Mr Almunia, Mrs Berès, ladies and gentlemen.

The first of January 2009 was the 10th birthday of our currency, the euro. Here in the European Parliament today, we are celebrating one of the most important and historic decisions that the European Union has taken so far. In a European Union that was growing ever closer economically, the creation of the euro was a logical development in strengthening the common market and simplifying trade within the internal market; even so, when the currencies of 11 sovereign states were replaced by a single currency 10 years ago, there was a great deal of scepticism as to whether the planned single currency would be a success. Its introduction required courage and decisiveness.

Ten years on, we can see not only that the euro is just as trusted as the currencies previously used in the euro area, but also that it has, without doubt, brought about considerable advantages for people and businesses in the European Union.

The euro area has become a rock of macroeconomic stability. In view of the size of the economy of the euro area and the fact that the majority of its trade is internal, the euro area has proven to be much better equipped to withstand economic shocks than the Member States previously were with their national currencies.

Particularly in the recent months of the global financial crisis, the euro has proven to be an important stabilising factor: the single currency has protected us from the worst effects of the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s.

Without the European Central Bank and the European System of Central Banks acting as a stabilising factor, the situation in the European Union last autumn would have been considerably worse.

Just look at Ireland, a country that was particularly badly affected by the financial crisis: its membership of the monetary union protected it from a crisis of even greater proportions.

Monetary union represents a hopefully irreversible step towards deeper economic and political integration; it means being part of a 'Union with a common purpose'. Like a family, all the members of the euro area talk to each other and adopt the best approach to benefit each and every one.

However, the creation of the euro was not just a decision with economic and financial effects; it also sent a very clear signal that the European Union is in a position to implement far-reaching decisions in order to build a common, prosperous future.

Today, the single currency is seen, by many citizens in the euro area, as one of the most positive results of European integration. In order to ensure that this continues to be the case, we must hold tight to the stability of our common currency: it is the only way of making sure that the euro continues, in future, to be a stabilising factor and a point of stability in a turbulent world.

Today, well over half of the Member States of the European Union have introduced the euro. A few days ago, we welcomed Slovakia as the 16th member of the euro, and I am confident that, by the time we are celebrating the next big birthday of the euro, it will have even more members. The aim must be for all the Member States of the European Union ultimately to join our single currency, on the basis of the stability criteria.

I am convinced that this step-by-step expansion will help to strengthen the entire euro area, as well as being a symbol of a common, peaceful European future, particularly for young people in the European Union.

The former President of France, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, is here with us today, and he is very welcome. Together with the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the former Luxembourg Prime Minister Pierre Werner and others, he is one of the architects of our single currency. A very warm welcome, Mr Giscard d'Estaing.

(Applause)

I agree with Helmut Kohl, who, along with François Mitterrand and Jacques Delors and others - we just saw Jacques Santer in the film - contributed to the ultimate introduction of the euro, when he said in 1998 that '... a currency is of course a means of payment. But a currency is also far more than a means of payment. It has something to do with cultural identity and it is a measure of political stability ... Imagine what a marvellous achievement it is that in the European Union ..., with all our intelligence, creativity and colourful variety, and in spite of all the difficulties ..., millions of our people should have a single currency.'

On behalf of the European Parliament, I would very much like to thank all the architects of the euro, and all the people who prepared the way for it, in particular the European Central Bank, its current President Jean-Claude Trichet and his sadly departed predecessor Willem Duisenberg for their historic achievements. The importance of the European Central Bank simply cannot be overestimated.

(Applause)

Our thanks also go, in particular, to Alexandre Lamfalussy, the President of the European Monetary Institute, whom we met yesterday evening, and who is also taking part in a colloquium now.

The European Parliament and its committee responsible for such matters, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, chaired at the time by Karl von Wogau and then by Christa Randzio-Plath, have also had a part to play as a driving force in this historic project over the years leading from the currency snake to the creation of the single currency. The same applies to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in its current incarnation, chaired by Pervenche Berès, to whom we are grateful for the idea of this celebration.

Since the euro was launched 10 years ago, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup have cultivated an increasingly close relationship with the European Parliament. I would like to thank the presidents of the two institutions, Mr Juncker in his capacity as President of the Eurogroup and the President of the European Central Bank Mr Trichet, most warmly for their excellent cooperation with the European Parliament.

On the occasion of its 10th birthday, we wish our single currency, the euro, many more successful years with a bright common future for our continent of Europe.

Mr President, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, Mr Juncker, ladies and gentlemen, it is an immense honour and a great pleasure to participate in this ceremony to celebrate the euro, one of Europe's main achievements.

Jean Monnet, the founding father of Europe, once said: 'When an idea matches the needs of the time, it ceases to belong to the people who invented it and it is stronger than those who are in control of it', and he added, 'there are no premature ideas, there are opportune moments that you have to know how to wait for'.

Over the decades, the single European currency was an idea shared only by a few. Many more thought that it would never happen or that it was doomed to failure. Today the single currency is a reality for 329 million of our fellow European citizens. One day, the creation of the euro will be seen as a decisive stage in the long march to ever closer union for the peoples of Europe.

I cannot help but think about our founding fathers - Robert Schuman, Walter Hallstein, Alcide de Gasperi, Pierre Werner, Sicco Mansholt and Paul-Henri Spaak - who, as we saw a few moments ago, were visionaries to whom we owe the European Union.

I also remember the statesmen, the heads of state and government who were determined, convinced and courageous Europeans and who are today represented by Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Without them, there would be no euro.

Since the introduction of the euro, our fellow citizens have known a level of price stability that few in the euro area had achieved before. This price stability is an advantage for all European citizens. It protects income and savings, helps to reduce the cost of financing, and encourages investment, job-creation and medium- and long-term prosperity. The single currency is a factor for dynamism in the European economy. It has increased price transparency, strengthened trade and promoted economic and financial integration.

(DE) The last few months have demonstrated another advantage of the euro. The financial crisis has shown that, in times of turbulence, it is better to be in a large, safe ship than in a small boat. Would we in Europe have been able to act as quickly, as decisively and as consistently without the single currency to bind us together? Would we have been in a position to protect our individual national currencies from the impact of the financial crisis? We can be proud of how Europe's parliaments, governments and central banks have responded. Together, we have shown that, even in very difficult circumstances, Europe can make decisions.

(Applause)

We owe the historic success of the euro, not only to the determination and perseverance of visionary leaders - and I mention them - we owe it also to the effective interplay between European institutions.

The European Parliament played a crucial role at the pioneering stage. Parliament was the first institution in Europe to make proposals for a single currency, back in 1962. In the past 10 years, since the establishment of the ECB, our institutions have maintained a very close and fruitful dialogue. This dialogue has involved over 50 hearings of the members of the Executive Board of the ECB before this Parliament and the committees mentioned by the President. The dialogue between Parliament and the ECB is very important in terms of accountability, allowing the ECB to explain its decisions and actions to the general public through their elected representatives.

During its first years of existence, the euro had to face three major trials: the establishment of a sound and credible central bank, the creation of a stable new currency and inspiring confidence. These challenges were successfully overcome and the euro is firmly established today. This is a time for celebration and, as I said, I am very moved. But this is no time for complacency. Current challenges are pressing and new challenges will arise. The continued success of EMU depends on how these challenges are addressed.

I would like to mention three of them.

Firstly, the financial crisis. The crisis has revealed fundamental weaknesses in the global financial system. We are playing a very active part in the global efforts to address these weaknesses and redesign the regulatory and institutional framework.

Secondly, monetary union. The solidity of the single currency rests on two pillars: a monetary policy geared towards price stability and a set of sound economic policies - which are very much in defence of the Eurogroup, Mr Prime Minister. The particular challenges on the economic front include the firm and credible implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact, constant efforts to render our economies more productive and dynamic, and the avoidance of major competitive divergences within the euro area.

Thirdly, enlargement. When we started out 10 years ago, we were 11 countries. We are now 16 countries. This says a lot about our historic endeavour. Handling enlargement in the best fashion possible is a very inspiring and demanding challenge for all of us, particularly for the Executive Board and the Governing Council of the ECB.

The euro is an historic achievement. What matters most today is our responsibility for the future. New challenges are arising. If these challenges are faced with utmost lucidity and audacity, they can generate the powerful ideas which Jean Monnet referred to and which have advanced us so far on the path of stability and prosperity in Europe.

Mr President, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, Mr Trichet, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, over the last 50 years Europe has often proved its capacity for setting out grand ambitions and for developing the spirit and the determination needed to implement in practice the ambitions it cherishes.

The European Union itself is the best example of this, along with the internal market and enlargement, in other words, with the renewal of ties between Europe's geography and history, and along with the Economic and Monetary Union, whose 10th anniversary we celebrate today.

The path which led to the creation of the Economic and Monetary Union and the introduction of our single currency was a long one, and the genesis of the Economic and Monetary Union after the initial impulse of the Werner report in 1970 demonstrates this. It was a long genesis which went via the monetary snake, the European Monetary System, the creation of the ecu in 1979, the 1989 Delors plan, the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and also the Danish 'no' and the French 'yes', which at the time was said to be small, without forgetting the 1993 crisis in the European Monetary System. The journey has not been without its difficulties and shocks.

At the time, there were many who criticised the single currency both in the political and academic worlds, without mentioning the notable number of central bankers who felt that the Economic and Monetary Union could not or should not be achieved and that if, despite everything, it were to come into being, the single currency, in brief, would be weak and without a future.

It is important for me to take advantage of the 10th anniversary of this key event in European integration to pay homage, in my turn, to those men who created the euro, such as Pierre Werner, Helmut Kohl, François Mitterrand, Jacques Delors, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and others. I would like, once again, to applaud their vision, their determination and their unfailing commitment to Europe. Those I have mentioned, and many others who accompanied them, could not have imagined the rapid success of their political project. Since 1 January of this year, 16 Member States have been participating in the Economic and Monetary Union and the euro is the currency of almost 330 million European citizens. The euro, then, has become the most tangible sign of European integration. As a tangible sign recognised around the world, the euro is a measure of stability. It is protecting its citizens from the most serious consequences of the economic crisis. After 10 years, it has to be recognised that the euro is an unquestionable success. Now, anniversaries only have value if they are bridges to the future, as we have to recognise that, despite our collective indulgence as we congratulate ourselves, the true tests for the cohesiveness and coherence of the euro area await us. This year, 2009, will be an extremely difficult year for the euro area economies and for European citizens and there will be many challenges facing us, both internally and externally.

Internally, euro area governments will have to act together to contain the effects of the economic crisis and invest in the structural bases of the economy to build a bridge to the post-crisis world. Exceptional situations demand exceptional measures. We must not lose sight of the fact that the euro, this protective screen we have built around our economies, did not just fall into our laps. The euro area economies are better protected against negative economic developments because being part of the euro area is a mark of quality certifying that its members have a real capacity for implementing prudent macroeconomic policies and policies based on sustained growth and prosperity for its citizens. The protection afforded by the euro is therefore directly linked to our credibility, which rests on the ability to implement such policies. This credibility is the foundation of the benefits of Economic and Monetary Union and we must maintain it to continue fully to profit from the benefits of the single currency.

Externally, we have to learn the political lessons from the international financial and economic crisis. There is a direct causal link between the current crisis, with its origins in the United States, and the persistence of major world imbalances. The lack of sufficient transparency, responsibility and integrity in the financial sector therefore acted as a catalyst for the crisis. The re-establishment of stability in the financial and the real economy on a world scale implies a profound reform of the financial system and the elimination of the major imbalances in the mix of global consumption and global saving. This balancing demands the active cooperation of the major economies in America, Asia and Europe. Despite noticeable progress, the euro's international image remains, too often, overly fragmented and national interests too often win out over the common interest, preventing the euro area from fully assuming the political responsibility that corresponds to its economic importance and from achieving all of the economic benefits deriving from Economic and Monetary Union. Economic and Monetary Union is, of course, an economic project, but it is, first of all, a political project. As a result, we must take advantage of the euro's second decade to perfect the Economic and Monetary Union by strengthening its political bodies, both internally and externally.

Mr President, Prime Minister, Chairmen of the committees, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure that I am echoing the views of the vast majority of this Chamber in saying that, 10 years after its launch, I, as a European, am proud of the success of the euro.

I would like to congratulate Parliament on its initiative to commemorate the 10th anniversary of our single currency here, in this Plenary Chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

The euro and Economic and Monetary Union have undeniably been a success. Over these 10 years, the euro has brought many benefits to all its members and continues to do so today amid a deep economic and financial crisis.

Within the short period of a decade, the euro has earned a well-deserved reputation for strength and stability. The euro is the second of the world's currencies and, thanks to its role in the international economy, is already comparable in some respects to the dollar as an instrument of commerce and means of payment in international finance.

Above all, though, the euro is part of the daily life of nearly 330 million people in 16 countries of the European Union. We all carry in our wallets this symbol of a shared European identity: because the euro, as well as being a currency, is a central element of our European project, reminding us in a tangible way of the benefits of the integration process that began over half a century ago.

The euro has given us low inflation and low interest rates, thanks to a macroeconomic framework directed at stability. The euro has provided a clear boost to trade and investment among its Member States. The euro has also facilitated the creation of 16 million jobs over the last 10 years in the euro area, three times the corresponding figure from the previous decade.

The euro has encouraged financial integration and the development of the single market; it has protected the members of the euro area from external disruption; and it has been and continues to be a pole of stability, not just for the European economy, but also for the global economy.

The crisis is, without a doubt, a touchstone for the euro. However, those who think that the Economic and Monetary Union is not ready to face the consequences of this crisis are quite mistaken. On the contrary, if the single currency did not exist, the adverse effects of the crisis would be much greater.

Many Member States would now be facing great volatility in their exchange rates and, possibly, might even be suffering speculative attacks on their currencies. The spread of their public debt securities would be much greater than currently, and their margins for combating the crisis through fiscal stimuli would be narrower.

The Stability and Growth Pact, reformed in 2005, has encouraged governments to sort out their public accounts, leading in 2007 to the lowest budget deficit for 25 years, which is now enabling them to face the crisis in a better situation.

Throughout this crisis, the actions of the European Central Bank have done nothing but reinforce the solid reputation that it had already earned in the early years of Economic and Monetary Union.

By decisively adopting the necessary measures and taking the lead in cooperating with the other central banks in industrialised countries, the European Central Bank has served as our guide throughout this period and has substantially contributed to preventing huge financial collapse.

The economic situation is not as we would have hoped as we celebrate this anniversary, but events are highlighting more than ever the advantages of Economic and Monetary Union. For those countries which have not yet joined, the euro area is an increasingly attractive option, as demonstrated last week in Bratislava when we welcomed Slovakia as the newest - the 16th - member of the euro family.

The European Commission and Parliament must continue working with Member States, the Eurogroup, the European Central Bank and the international community in order to place our economies on the path to the sustainable resumption of growth.

In this regard, the Commission's recommendations in the report that we submitted a few months ago on the first 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union, which was recently debated in this Chamber, are as valid or even more valid today than they were last spring.

Increased budgetary vigilance, its extension to other macroeconomic aspects, the link between macroeconomic policies and structural reform, the external image of the euro and improved governance of the Economic and Monetary Union are, and must continue to be, the core themes on which to base the euro's second decade, with at least as many successes as this first one.

Mr President, I would like to conclude by paying tribute to the vision and ambition of the founding fathers of the euro, whose imagination and resolute action bequeathed to us a currency of which all Europeans can be proud. We must safeguard the foundations of this success.

The crisis has opened up a new chapter for the global economy, in which the Economic and Monetary Union must continue to play a relevant role in serving the common interests and ambitions of all Europeans.

Mr President, Mr Juncker, Mr Trichet, ladies and gentlemen, everyone who has been involved in creating the European currency is grateful to you, Mr President, and to you, ladies and gentlemen, for this very fine initiative which you have taken in commemorating the 10th anniversary of the birth of the euro.

I am one of those people who think that it is better to avoid the ever-increasing number of commemoration ceremonies, but this one is justified because it marks the greatest contribution to European integration since the election of the European Parliament by universal suffrage in 1979. We have certainly come a long way and perhaps this pleasant, friendly gathering does not paint the whole picture.

I would like to pay tribute to all those who mapped out this course and those who have followed it. We can find its distant origins in the report from the Luxembourg prime minister, Pierre Werner, your predecessor, in 1970. It was, however, the monetary crisis in the years that followed and the currency flotation which triggered action in this area. As long as the currency exchange rates were fixed, the monetary system did not upset our attempt to create a common market. However, as soon as they were floating, this problem raised its head.

After the unsuccessful attempts to create a monetary snake, the strong momentum from France and Germany between 1975 and 1980 led to the meeting in Bremen, in northern Germany, and the decision to create the European Monetary System and introduce the ecu, the euro's precursor. This move had the backing and support of our partners in the Benelux countries and Italy.

After a period of little activity between 1980 and 1988, the process was given new impetus with the creation by the Council of the committee chaired by Jacques Delors, resulting in the signature of the Maastricht Treaty.

Let us salute the pioneers who have been involved in this along the way, as you yourself have recently, Mr President, as well as my friend, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and his Secretary of State, Manfred Lahnstein; Bernard Clappier, the governor of the Banque de France at the time and co-author of Robert Schuman's Declaration in 1950; Alexandre Lamfalussy, who provided us with his great, almost unique expertise during the work of the committee on European monetary union which we set up with Helmut Schmidt to relaunch the project; Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission, who took over; and, last but not least, the negotiators and signatories of the Maastricht Treaty who drafted an excellent text, which has not actually been touched since then, headed by Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President François Mitterrand, whose determination must be mentioned in particular, along with their other colleagues. Today we must say a big 'thank you' to all of them.

On this occasion of the 10th anniversary, being celebrated at a time of crisis, what can we say in support of the euro? What fine words can we use in our anniversary toasts? First of all, the euro's success has exceeded expectations, not only of all its opponents, of course, but even of all its supporters. I will not go into detail as you have only given me five minutes. During the conversations which I had with the most eminent monetary experts between 1995 and 2000, they were all sceptical about the possibility of introducing the euro and making it a success.

In 10 years the euro has become the number two currency in the world and, as has been mentioned just now, one of the most respected currencies. Its sound management has provided a protective shield against the crisis and a platform for non-inflationary growth. Without the existence of the euro, mainland Europe would be currently turned upside down by a monetary tornado, which would deepen the economic crisis.

We are expecting the monetary policy to try to contain, within the limits of the currency's power, the depressing impact of the crisis and to pave the way for the return to non-inflationary growth, which we are not tackling yet, by which time the sizeable public deficits and level of debt triggered by the crisis ought to have been cleared. In this respect, we are putting our trust in the managers and staff at the European Central Bank, who have demonstrated their considerable expertise since the start of the crisis. We also respect their determination and independence.

I would like to finish with two remarks. We must be careful not to try to give the euro a global dimension, which would flatter our vanity, but would multiply the risks we face. The euro is Europe's currency and must express its distinct culture, promoting a rational and stable model among the world's other currencies.

Finally, I do not think that the general public will need to wait too long for banking regulation to be restored in the euro area. It seems to me that we could call on the European Central Bank to carry out this process of restoring order and supervise its implementation, according to Article 106(5) of the Maastricht Treaty. Indeed, we need a strong impetus, expertise and a decision timetable which the European Central Bank could draw up and which the Council of Ministers for the euro area, presided by your good self, Mr Juncker, could then adopt and implement.

I will conclude, Mr President, by saying that the symbol of integration represented by the euro's success must give us the courage to take the next step in creating this increasingly united Europe as recommended under the various treaties and which we are endeavouring to achieve. Let us counter the inevitability of failure with the energy of success. That success today goes by the lovely name of the euro.

(Applause)

Mr President, the euro is the successful outcome of a vision and political will, and not the product of the market. It demonstrates the best that Europe can achieve when everyone joins forces.

I also want, of course, on this occasion to salute and thank on our behalf, on our children's behalf and on everyone else's behalf, the founding fathers and the architects of this success: Pierre Werner, who is with us, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, President Giscard d'Estaing, the President of the European Commission Jacques Delors, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, President François Mitterrand, Baron Alexandre Lamfalussy, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Philippe Maystadt and everyone else whom I have not mentioned. I would also, however, like to pay tribute to the actions of your predecessors, Mr President, the actions of my predecessors, Karl von Wogau, who is still with us, and of Christa Randzio-Plath, who is also with us today. The actions of this Parliament played a crucial role in that, at the time of the transition to the euro, we were not only concerned about the transfer of accounts in the banks but also about our citizens, so that they could adapt to, get used to and adopt this new currency which was going to be theirs. I also believe that this action by our institution must be recalled and given credit.

I am also pleased that this ceremony can take place here, in the European Parliament, the home of democracy for all Europe's citizens. After all, the euro is first and foremost the concern of us all, and then of the banks. It is certainly the concern of Europeans, as they are happy to tell us. Some governments are loath to provide Europe with symbols. However, Europeans themselves have adopted the euro as a symbol of belonging to the European Union.

Of course, we are not all using the euro. There were 11 of us to start with, and now there are 16. We are expecting others to join us. However, I do get the feeling that this crisis is tempting some countries to reconsider whether they should belong to the euro area or not. I think that this is the best proof of our success. Europe makes progress, as is so often the case, by demonstrating its efficiency and on this occasion to mark its 10th anniversary, we can clearly see that the assessment of the euro is largely a positive one. Some countries which were hesitant could now knock on the door of the euro area. We can only encourage them to do this under the terms of the Treaty, which have never been revised and which are useful terms allowing Europe to progress in economic and monetary matters on the basis of the two pillars of consolidation and enlargement.

However, an anniversary is also a time for looking to the future. The euro, which has been enriched by these last 10 years, must now open up new areas for development, not that we have not dealt with these at all, but simply because they are still work in progress ahead of us.

On the subject of economic cooperation, Jean-Claude Juncker described the crisis that we are going through. It is not a normal situation. In this current crisis we all know that, if we had made progress in the Economic Union as quickly as we have in the Monetary Union, we would be even better off today. Let us learn then the lessons from this. It is not normal for us to focus on the budget deficit balances and not on the quality of public spending. Governments must learn to talk together about their economic policies. It is not normal for Member States to borrow at such different rates of interest when they have the same currency and the same rate of interest set by the European Central Bank.

The same applies when it comes to supervising the financial markets. President Giscard d'Estaing mentioned Article 105(6), which is our common platform, allowing us to make progress. I think that one of the lessons from this crisis is that it actually shows that the European Central Bank will need to have a supervisory role. We do not want to disconnect the supervision of the financial markets from macroprudential supervision. However, to achieve this, we will also need, as political leaders, to think about achieving a balance. If the European Central Bank sees its responsibilities strengthened, it will have to be indicated how the institutional balance on the whole needs to be established in the future.

I would like to make one final remark on the international role of the euro. I agree that we must not demand the exorbitant privilege of being the reserve currency. However, it is not normal either for us to have taken 10 years to create the euro and then, 10 years after the transition to the euro, we are still passive in the international arena and the strong voice of the euro is not being heard more clearly in the process of restoring some balance to the global monetary system.

Finally, I believe that the euro is much more than just a currency. This is why it is a major issue for this Parliament. It is a tool at the service of our citizens who are going through the deepest crisis in years. We must then use this wonderful creation, this symbol of Europe to help our citizens come through this crisis in the best conditions possible.

Mr President, 10 years of the euro is indeed a reason to celebrate. Anyone who had said 10 years ago that the euro would have developed as splendidly as it has done would have been laughed at. Many people have contributed to this success, and I remember many sceptical voices - it was referred to as a premature baby and an unviable project - and today we know that it was a vision to which many people contributed. The previous speaker reminded us of all those who contributed to this, of the milestones, of the European monetary system, which was an agreement with the European Central Bank to create central rates, of the Delors report, which provided for the introduction of the monetary union in three stages, of the Treaty of Maastricht - only two years after the fall of the Wall - and of the transitional periods. Many people have helped to make the euro the successful project it is today.

As the committee chairman, Mrs Berès, has already said, during this period, in particular from 1994 when the implementation of the Treaty of Maastricht began, and up to 2002, Parliament actively cooperated in the introduction of the notes and coins, and in many reports, discussions, opinions and also proposals, and I would like specifically to thank the two committee chairmen from that time, Mr von Wogau and Mrs Randzio-Plath, who also represented Parliament to the outside world and who gave this project, although originally created by the governments, the parliamentary support it needed. We are working today, too, under the chairmanship of Mrs Berès, for the same representation.

On 18 November Parliament adopted, with a large majority, a report in which we describe the successes, challenges, risks and problems, and I would like to mention just a few things in addition to what Mrs Berès has said.

The euro has been a great success, and it is a unique project: a central monetary policy under the management of the European Central Bank and local budgetary and finance policies. It is important that, in future, the connection between these two levels of responsibility in the Stability and Growth Pact are retained also during times of crisis. Without this Stability and Growth Pact, without stronger coordination of the budgetary and finance policy, the euro would also in future face risks that are avoidable. In this regard, I appeal in particular to the Member States of the euro area, but also to the whole of the European Union, to take this discipline, this coordinated cooperation, more seriously than has been the case in the past in connection with certain issues.

The euro has pushed down inflation considerably and so created confidence and stability, and it has become the second most commonly held reserve currency in a space of time that no one thought it capable of. The euro has increased the pressure for structural reform in the Member States and therefore, even in the age of globalisation, has become a 'fitness programme' for undertakings and for nations. The institutions of the euro area - several were mentioned by the previous speaker - the Ecofin Council, the Euro Group and many other institutions have created the necessary conditions together with the Commission and the European Central Bank, because they were already operating, because they were in place, because they worked independently in order to react quickly, reliably and correctly in the economic crisis.

We have experienced the euro as a lever for creating a European financial market. The political conclusion from these common successes is that states with a common currency and a common internal market have achieved a unique level of integration that will secure peace and prosperity.

However, we cannot necessarily take the euro for granted in future. There are numerous specific requests and demands to take the risks seriously: the drifting apart of the national economies, which is associated with considerable risks in connection with the growth of wages and with budget deficits, should not be concealed on this anniversary.

An entirely different aspect is the varying development of the interest rates for government bonds. We are currently seeing the interest rate margin, which has no doubt decreased, increasing again, bringing the possibility of new problems in this regard for individual Member States within the euro area.

I would remind the House that, particularly in connection with the expansion of the euro area, no special rebates may be given and that all states that are members of the euro area can, and must, comply with these conditions of the Treaty of Maastricht.

The euro has been well-received by the public. It has gained the world's trust. It has passed the first test and has provided a unique contribution to the permanent integration of our nations in Europe. That is something we can all be proud of. Thank you.

(Applause)

Mr President, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, Mr Juncker, Mr Trichet, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, many good points have already been made.

In 10 years, the euro has become a strong symbol for Europe. Yet the idea that Europe could create a single currency, whose foundations were laid especially in the Bremen agreement on the monetary system in 1978 and the creation of the ecu, would have been met at the time with scepticism from the markets and the main monetary authorities outside Europe. We should warmly thank and congratulate all those who made the decision and whose names have been mentioned here.

The creation of the euro is the best proof that Europe is capable, given the political will, to take long-term decisions for a common, prosperous future. This anniversary, then, gives us a particularly apt message of hope for today's times.

It must be said, however, that among our fellow citizens and until recently there were mixed perceptions of the euro. For those who travel, the advantage of a single currency was obvious. For those who do not, the euro was associated with price rises. Studies have, in fact, shown that in most countries inflation was felt even though the official figures showed that, due especially to the action of the European Central Bank, monetary stability had been ensured. The reality is that some definitely took advantage of the euro to round up some prices and perhaps consumers were not vigilant enough.

When the euro has risen against the dollar, we have also heard comments from some manufacturers who for the most part produce in the euro area but sell outside this area. The European Central Bank has not been without its critics, who have not called into question its independence but rather its policy on interest rates, which seemed to be too high.

Today, the crisis has changed many of these perceptions. We all understand that the euro is a determining factor in restricting the European repercussions of a crisis imported from the United States. The European Central Bank has certainly been the most responsive central bank. Its particularly pertinent decisions have been welcomed unanimously. What would the situation have been if the various Member States had each had to defend their own individual currency? Devaluations would have been inevitable and we would not have avoided a currency crisis.

The welcome results of the euro must encourage us to continue and to broaden the coordination of economic policies and to respect the principles of the Stability and Growth Pact. It is true, at present, that exceptions may and perhaps should be accepted, but they can only be temporary and the objective of balanced public finances must be retained. High-quality public finances and economic policies are, in fact, in the long run, more than ever necessary. They are the guarantee of effectiveness, competiveness and growth. They are the condition for the solidity of our currency, the euro.

Mr President, during these times of uncertainty, it is important to be able to count on something with a reliable value: the euro. As I was able to play a bit-part as a member of the Ecofin Council during the period of preparation for the future single currency, I could see the doubts on both sides of the argument and the pussyfooting of the Member States, which ultimately made the Eurogroup into a stronger forum for cooperation ahead of its time. Furthermore, two of Europe's finest achievements came about through the determination of a few states to forge ahead in making integration something real for all our fellow citizens. I am referring to the Schengen Agreement entailing the free movement of Europeans, which was implemented on the initiative of five states: France, with President Mitterrand, Germany, with Chancellor Kohl, along with the Benelux countries. Switzerland has now become part of the Schengen area, but the British and Irish are still shying away from this people's Europe.

President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl were also the political architects of the euro, even though there were many who supported this monetary success, starting with Jacques Delors. The first lesson I would like to draw from this is that anyone who wants a better Europe must not be afraid of intergovernmental action, especially if there is a coalition of states which really want to move Europe forward. The Prüm Treaty, which is intended to combat serious crime, is an example of this positive enhanced cooperation for Europe. At a time when the Constitutional Treaty is dead and buried, following the 'no' vote from a strange coalition of political forces not only in France but in the Netherlands too, and when the indigestible piece of legislation known as the 'mini' Treaty of Lisbon is being blocked in Ireland and possibly in the Czech Republic as well, we should prove that Europe is still functioning by relying on the huge area of enhanced cooperation.

In any case, the attraction of the euro remains intact. Following Slovenia, Slovakia has just joined us. Others are fretting about not being able to benefit more from the protective shield provided by the euro. Even in the UK voices are being raised, questioning the country's splendid isolation in the face of the pound's collapse, which has seen its status fall from that of the world's reserve currency to a run-of-the-mill currency in less than a century. Thanks to the consistent actions of Wim Duisenberg, Jean-Claude Trichet and the likes, the euro has become the world's second reserve currency in 10 years. Of course, the dollar remains king for global transactions, still providing a safe investment, but the colossal debts accumulated by the United States in getting the rest of the world to finance their lifestyle will increasingly sow the seeds of doubt as to the ability of the number one economic power to honour its commitments. In fact, the financial world is tending towards a euro/dollar duopoly. Any monetary duopoly regularly goes through parity adjustments which often occur suddenly. In these times of widespread recession, the world needs stability and new certainties. The euro will have a key role to play in this new stability. The European Central Bank (ECB) has done what it needed to do in the face of a global financial crisis 'made in the USA'.

As Jacques Delors said, the euro is the shield to protect the whole of Europe, but the euro has not stimulated the European economy enough so far. The ECB is only in charge of monetary policy. At the end of the day, the Commission is only a first-class consultant making suggestions which are generally useful, but the real economic players remain the states themselves which, unfortunately, are operating in a disorganised manner. Although the effective harmonisation of the cumulative economic power of 27 states could work miracles, the Eurogroup, in spite of the commendable efforts of Jean-Claude Juncker, still only remains an informal discussion group. In the spring of 1999, I was able to witness the attempt made within the Eurogroup by a few finance ministers, including Oskar Lafontaine, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Carlo Ciampi and a few others, to establish economic and monetary cooperation between the European Union and the European Central Bank. Wim Duisenberg made the cutting retort: 'there never will be any ex-ante coordination with the European Central Bank as you are always going to have to react ex-post to our decisions.' The reason for this is obvious: the ECB is and will remain independent in conducting its monetary policy, but independence does not mean a ban on constructive dialogue between institutions tasked with defending the interests and common destiny of 500 million Europeans. There is nothing to prevent states from organising themselves better with regard to achieving proper coordination of their economic policies, whether it is inside the EU or especially when representing Europe externally, as Jean-Claude Juncker so sensibly concluded just now.

Mr President, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, Mr Juncker, Mr Trichet, Mr Almunia, ladies and gentlemen, I find it very regrettable that relatively few Members are here today for this formal sitting, because it really is a historic event. We have already heard from the various previous speakers how much scepticism there was when the euro was first introduced. It was felt that the logistical challenges involved in introducing billions of banknotes and coins alone would be unmanageable, and the idea that we could combine a common monetary policy with separate fiscal policies in the Member States was seen not just as a major challenge but as simply impossible.

Today, the facts tell a rather different story. European monetary union is a reality; the euro has been in existence for 10 years today. This is something of a minor political miracle, and once again the words of Walter Hallstein, the first President of the Commission, have proven to be true: 'Anyone who does not believe in miracles in European matters is not a realist.'

The doubts of the citizens, many of whom, in many Member States, initially believed that the euro would result in huge price hikes, have now disappeared. The euro has now been accepted, and even enthusiastically welcomed by many citizens. It has become something of a visible European identifier: besides the anthem and the flag, it is one of the few symbols we have today.

It could, I think, be said that, in the European Central Bank's first few years, Europe and the European economy were sailing in relatively calm waters, so that the bank found it pretty easy to pursue a policy of stability. Even so, it is worth pointing out that the mean inflation rate over the first 10 years of the euro has been approximately 2%, in other words more or less on the target that the European Central Bank set itself. The German mark, on the other hand, which was always held up as a poster child for stability, had a mean inflation rate of 3% over its 50 years of existence. It can therefore be said that the European Central Bank has performed very well.

However, it is now, in this time of crisis, that the European Central Bank is showing its true strength, its true quality. It has a hugely important role to play here. It has proven itself to be independent, efficient and self-confident, and it acts decisively and quickly. It has become an example for some central banks, both in those European countries that are not yet part of the euro area and outside Europe. It has made it quite clear to the Federal Reserve in the United States that it can pursue a successful policy, not despite its independence but precisely because it is politically independent and not subject to instructions from various governments.

We now know that at the moment, after the banking sectors in the individual Member States have been brought under a protective umbrella, the Member States are in the process of developing various economic stimulus plans to absorb the negative impact of the financial crisis on the real economy. This will present the European Central Bank with further challenges, because there is a risk that the differences in approach will result in distortions of competition, and that the convergence we have, in part, now achieved between the members of the euro area will be lost and we will see increasingly divergent developments. This needs to be counteracted, which is why it is so crucial and so important that the Stability and Growth Pact must not be undermined or discarded. Quite the reverse: we must ensure that it remains valid. That is why it is also so important for the necessary structural reforms, which the Commission and the European Central Bank have repeatedly called for in the past, actually to be pursued in the individual Member States.

The European Central Bank will gain a new task in the coming years. The crisis has taught us that we need some kind of European supervision of the financial market, and this is an area where the European Central Bank can play a major role. It has signalled that it is, in principle, willing to introduce some kind of central European supervisory system analogous to the European System of Central Banks. The euro's international role needs to be further strengthened. The euro area needs to speak with one voice, and also be represented as a unit in international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

It is still true that a single currency without a single fiscal economic policy is, and will continue to be, a risky undertaking. This is no mere bagatelle. The EU is still facing some major challenges: we are facing high, and unfortunately rising, levels of unemployment, demographic changes, migratory pressures, increasing poverty in some sectors of society, and stiffer competition in the context of globalisation. The euro area will only be able to meet these challenges if the economic policies of the Member States can be more closely interlinked. The appointment of a president of the euro area was the first step in this direction, but it is only the first step: more is now needed.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after 10 years, the growing space carved out by the euro in international trade and its use as a reserve currency show that it has become a world benchmark. It has guaranteed monetary stability and has helped integrate the economies of the Member States that have adopted it, despite some errors of judgment that created problems for citizens both because of the actual exchange rates between national currencies and the euro and because of the few checks subsequently carried out on the prices of goods and services.

The euro was created without being imposed from outside and without any wars of conquest or political hegemonies. It was the result of the free coming together of 11 governments who believed in the creation of an economic and monetary union, as laid down in the Treaties, as an essential step in attempting to achieve the political union that still unfortunately remains out of our grasp.

Some problems that have occurred are due to inefficiencies in a system that was unprepared for the task of guiding the other great associated phenomenon; I am talking about the increasing pace of internationalisation and the great changes in the way trade is conducted at international level. The euro has made it possible to face up to a series of difficulties, the most severe of which is the current financial crisis, and it has protected us against the great stresses that have ravaged the markets. Were it not for the euro, we would have repeated the experience of 1992, only worse.

We mark this 10th anniversary by warmly welcoming the entrance of Slovakia, the 16th country to join the euro area. The measures introduced by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Commission to combat the current crisis have acted as a buffer and a form of containment but we still maintain, as we have often done in this Chamber, that we find it inconceivable to have a monetary policy disconnected from economic policy. Admittedly, the actual situation is somewhat anomalous: 16 Member States with the single currency, 27 national economic policies coordinated by the Commission as well as it can, and 11 Member States with national currencies.

Coordinating a monetary policy with an economic policy that does not actually exist is certainly no mean feat, but if the institutions responsible for economic policies in our countries do not communicate with the central banks and the ECB, which has to pull all those policies together, and vice versa, the European Union will find new difficulties in jointly facing up to the current crisis and also the continual challenges that the outside world and globalisation bring home to us.

We hope that recent experiences convince people of the need to face up to change in Europe, restoring the real economy to the centre and ensuring better cohesion and connection between the ECB and the European institutions responsible for laying down political and planning strategy. The very recent energy crisis has also shown us that a common economic policy on the main strategic topics is of vital interest to the public and cannot be delayed. If the political will is present, the introduction of such a policy will be facilitated by the growing power of the euro.

Mr President, Mr Giscard d'Estaing, Mr Juncker, Mr Trichet, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you how, in 1992, when it was still completely dubious as to whether the French would vote in favour of the Maastricht Treaty, Jacques Delors spoke to the general assembly of the French Green Party, which managed to deliver the missing 1% or 2%.

He said to us: 'Vote for the euro, then we will have a political Europe, because if we do not create a political Europe to control Europe, the people will not accept it; they will never accept it.' He did not persuade us. The Maastricht Treaty was approved, but no political Europe was created. This is the very problem which we are facing today.

Why were we against the euro at that time? There were basically two reasons for it. Firstly, it seemed to us that the Maastricht criteria were going to drag Europe into at least five years of pro-cyclical recessionary policy and, secondly, the way in which the monetary policy was incorporated into the general economic policy by the Maastricht Treaty was not satisfactory. For the sake of the European Central Bank's independence, we would separate monetary policy from the rest of the policies.

I must say quite honestly that, even if I am still not convinced by the Maastricht Treaty today, like all the other Greens, I am rather attracted by the changes which the legislation and application of Economic and Monetary Union have undergone.

Three major changes have taken place. Firstly, price stability has been established at a level of slightly less than, but close to, 2%. This target may seem a bit absurd. At the moment, when the world is being threatened by deflation and the situation is being aggravated by the tendency of some countries to hastily cut their VAT rate as part of a Keynesian policy, it is obvious that setting this target of 2% is no longer just for show. If we fail to keep to this 2% target we run the risk of having very high real interest rates being forced on us.

The second major reform is obviously the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact carried out in 2005, which allows us today to have a policy that is contracyclical and aimed at countering the crisis.

The third major transformation is the change to how things work in practice. This permanent dialogue, as highlighted once again in this Chamber, between Mr Trichet, Mr Almunia, Mr Juncker and Mr Barroso, is, strictly speaking, contrary to the Maastricht Treaty itself. I regard this form of cooperation between Mr Trichet and Mr Almunia, for example, to be the equivalent of that between Mr Bernanke and Mr Paulson, which is a positive and desirable development. What remains to be done then? All I would say is that we need to apply properly the good aspects of the Maastricht Treaty.

We have a real problem in defining the exchange rate, which has been mentioned on several occasions by my predecessors. The task of setting the exchange rate is assigned to the Council. We must find the means to ensure that the Council sets an exchange rate for Europe which does not derive randomly from the interest rate chosen by the European Central Bank, but properly reflects an industrial policy. We must find the proper instruments to do this.

Secondly, the European Central Bank's objective is not only to maintain a rate close to 2% but also to apply Europe's policy, by that I mean the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies. We need to have a policy for refinancing and rediscounting private debts by the European Central Bank according to the Gothenburg and Lisbon Strategies.

Lastly, as has already been mentioned, there needs to be supervision at a European level and the European Central Bank is in the best position to perform this function.

It is regrettable that we are not taking advantage of this opportunity for an in-depth examination of the consequences of implementing neoliberal and monetarist policies - using the euro as an excuse - which have contributed to the current serious social situation and to increasing inequality, unemployment, precarious and poorly paid work, and poverty.

It is unacceptable that we are holding onto ideological dogmas, such as price stability and the irrational criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact, which are being used as a pretext in order to pursue privatisation and remove responsibility for social functions from the state. This approach also involves the idea of the minimal state and the greater efficiency of the private sector, with the aim of imposing acceptance of so-called wage restraint, which actually results in low, nominal wage rises and even a reduction in real wages, as the Portuguese case regrettably clearly demonstrates.

We cannot agree with the false independence of the European Central Bank, which is dragging its heels on the decisions to reduce interest rates and which is keeping the euro overvalued solely to protect those countries with more developed economies and the more powerful economic and financial groups, thus worsening the hardships of the more fragile economies and those people with fewer financial resources.

This European Central Bank policy has resulted in the contraction of the European economy, clearly demonstrating the need for further reductions in the reference interest rates. As the purchasing power of workers, the retired and pensioners has fallen over the last 10 years, the profits of economic and financial groups have reached their highest level in 30 years, resulting in the joy and satisfaction that we have heard in this Chamber. Even now, in the crisis situation that they have caused, what they are doing is nationalising the damage in order to then privatise the profits, whilst workers, micro- and small entrepreneurs, the retired and the unemployed suffer the consequences of the crisis, with the right, in the best-case scenario, only to a few scraps. Look at what is happening in the financial sector, where certain banks have already increased their spreads more than once since the start of the financial crisis and where the margin charged has doubled in the space of a year, thereby penalising new credit even more.

We therefore insist on the urgent need for a proper break with these neoliberal and monetarist policies, putting an end to the Stability Pact, tax havens and the false independence of the European Central Bank. We therefore insist on the need to significantly increase the EU budget based on a fair distribution of income and wealth, so that there is a real policy of economic and social cohesion and so that we reject measures that are just more of the same, in other words 'save yourself if you can' measures, allowing the richest to become ever richer and the poor to become ever poorer, as clearly demonstrated by the increasing inequalities and disparities among the euro area economies.

We therefore insist on the need to support production and micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises; to promote quality public services; to facilitate credit and improve the purchasing power of families, and not just the most disadvantaged, but also the middle classes; to create more jobs, and to reduce the poverty and misery of millions of people in our countries.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, do enjoy the 10th birthday of the euro because I very much doubt you will be celebrating the 20th. What we have seen this morning has been reminiscent of the old Soviet times. Do you remember when the five-year plans were announced to be successes often before they were even launched, with much talk of record harvests and wonderful production figures for tractors? Much like those days, we have been treated this morning to a succession of unelected, ageing bureaucrats telling us what a great success the whole thing has been. It is all delusional stuff.

The idea that the ECB has done a good job is extraordinary. It was last July when the European Central Bank put interest rates up, just at the very moment that the markets were going into meltdown and rates were being slashed across the rest of the world. Of course none of this surprises me because what this euro is all about is a political class imposing its will upon the peoples of Europe. Remember that only two countries - Denmark and Sweden - had a referendum on the euro and both of them said 'no', that little word that you try and avoid if you possibly can.

The euro zone has never been tested but it is about to be. Spain is in economic trouble. Italy, as German economists at the time said, should never have joined the euro, but the situation in Greece is, I think, where we should focus our attention. Thousands of young people out on the streets demonstrating, demanding their government does something, demanding that their government cuts rates, demanding that their government devalues. But the Greek Government is stuck inside the euro straitjacket. There is nothing it can do. There is nothing that a future general election can do in Greece to change anything. When people have taken away from them the ability to determine their own futures through the ballot box, then I am afraid that violence becomes the only logical alternative.

What you have done with this euro is you have trapped people in an economic prison. You have trapped people in a Völkerkerker from which it will take great courage to get out. It will take leadership, or possibly the inevitable economic meltdown. You can boo, you can jeer, but remember this: Britain outside of the euro has been able to devalue, has been able to slash interest rates. We have been able to do the things that we need to do. Jeer on if you like, but have you noticed that on the bond markets this morning Greek bonds are trading 233 basis points higher than German bonds? Now I know that most of you in this room will not even know what that means and those that do will do their best to ignore it. You can go on burying your heads in the sand if you want. You can ignore the markets if you want to, but in time the markets will not ignore you.

Mr President, in the last 200 years there have been at least half a dozen attempts to create single currencies or fixed exchange rate mechanisms. All have failed, all have damaged the participants, and so it is with the euro. The imbalances long predicted by sceptics are starting to bite. Italy's competitiveness is shot to pieces. Spain's experience is like the bull in the corrida: proud and strong to start with, but bleeding to death in the sand by the end. Greece's recent unrest is clearly linked to unemployment, resulting from an overvalued euro. Bond spreads between Greece and Germany have reached unprecedented levels - over 200 basis points.

The markets are speculating on a euro break-up. We in Britain can thank heaven that we kept our own currency and are not part of the euro zone's slow-motion train wreck. Happy birthday to the euro!

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - The tenth anniversary of the vote on the proposal, presented to Parliament, on behalf of the Council of Ministers, by Gordon Brown (then president of the Council), to lock exchange rates at that day's level and to create the euro, is an opportunity to celebrate ten years of success, stability and strength of what is now one of the two leading currencies in the world.

The current economic crisis would have been compounded by turmoil on currency markets had we still had the peseta, lira, drachma and so on as separate currencies fluctuating wildly against each other. The euro has been a rock of stability for its members, as illustrated by the contrasting fortunes of Iceland and Ireland.

The anniversary is also an opportunity to debate whether Britain's long-term economic future lies with euro membership. Of course, Britain can manage in the short run outside the euro, but over time, we stand to lose out: our businesses are handicapped in the European market by conversion costs and hedging costs that their competitors in that market do not face; and inward investors into the European market will prefer to be in the major currency area rather than the smaller one.

The formal sitting of the European Parliament marking the 10th anniversary of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) at a time of serious crisis in the capitalist system follows repeated resolutions and reports by the European Parliament on the same subject and is yet another attempt to gild the pill of the anti-grassroots, anti-labour policy of the EU which, following the demise of socialism, proceeded to the Maastricht Treaty and its all-out attack on labour rights and freedoms.

EMU, the establishment of the European Central Bank and the launch of the euro are necessary links in the chain of capitalist restructurings being promoted by capital in order to defend itself against workers' claims and safeguard its profitability by stepping up the exploitation of the working class and grassroots classes.

The arguments about price stability, reducing inflation and protecting economies from risk and crisis have proven to be stale arguments. EMU protects the profits of the monopolies and facilitates privatisation and merger.

This past decade, workers have seen their incomes shrink, industrial relations worsen, their insurance rights evaporate and health and education services deteriorate and made into privatised commodities.

Workers reject the European one-way street and its supporters, and also the Lisbon Strategy and the Lisbon Treaty, and are fighting against EMU and the EU itself for grassroots power and a grassroots economy.

In the debate about the euro I want to draw attention to three negative aspects of its performance.

Firstly, from the moment when the euro was introduced, in other words from 2002 to 2007 inclusive, the three Member States which were outside the euro area (England, Sweden and Denmark) developed faster than the countries which were in the euro area. Gross national income in those countries grew almost twice as fast as the average for the euro area, and the level of unemployment was lower.

Secondly, the battle with the effects of the current financial and economic crisis is clearly more effective in those countries than in the euro area. The central banks of England, Sweden and Denmark very quickly and clearly reduced interest rates while ensuring liquidity to commercial banks. It also seems that the fiscal policy pursued by these countries will be more effective than the fiscal policy in the euro area.

Thirdly, new Member States which are preparing to enter the euro area have to comply with many monetary and fiscal criteria two years before entry. Some of these criteria are mutually contradictory, such as the need to be present in the ERM II system - and therefore the need to maintain the national currency's exchange rate against the euro within a fluctuation band of ±15% - and at the same time to maintain a low level of inflation. Counteracting devaluation pressure on the national currency means the need for intervention by central banks, which means putting greater amounts of the national currency into circulation, which obviously increases inflationary pressure. As the Commission wants to encourage new Member States, it should consider eliminating this obvious inconsistency.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, European Economic and Monetary Union began on 1 January 1999, and 11 EU Member States adopted the single currency at the same time. The euro was 10 years old on 1 January 2009. At the same time, Slovakia became the 16th country to use the euro.

Just as Mr Juncker stated to Parliament in his speech, the euro is very definitely an 'anchor of stability'. This is something the countries that have been left out of the euro area have been made painfully aware of.

Although the 10th anniversary of the euro is overshadowed by worries of a possible deepening of the recession, I trust in the euro area's ability to emerge from the crisis. This will nevertheless require considerable effort on the part of the Union. According to the latest estimates, the effect of the agreed stimulus package will be considerably less than the 1.5% of gross domestic product planned for the area. According to current estimates, it will be around 0.6%. An additional stimulus is needed.

The euro has been an unquestionable success, but would not have been but for the continuous efforts made. Now we need to strengthen Europe's role in the supervision of the financial markets. We have to keep to the basic principles and criteria of Economic and Monetary Union.

On 1 January 2009 the euro became the official currency of Slovakia. From that date, the double cross on three hills from the Slovak flag has also appeared on one-euro and two-euro coins and has been put into circulation across the euro area.

That day was a historic moment for Slovakia and we Slovaks are very proud to be the first country from the former Socialist bloc to introduce the euro in this symbolic year of the 10th anniversary of the euro area.

I am appreciative of the fact that the current Slovak Government has subscribed to the commitment of Mikuláš Dzurinda, whose cabinet, in autumn 2004, adopted a plan to replace the koruna with the European currency and fixed the beginning of 2009 as the target date.

It also seems appropriate here on the floor of the EP to thank the Slovak people because it was they, as the main actors in the challenging but necessary 'Dzurinda' reforms, who persevered and helped Slovakia to become a successful European country.

From 1 January 2009 the euro will link the people of Slovakia to the Union every day.

Goodbye koruna, welcome euro.

The introduction of the European single currency 10 years ago marked the completion of a process whose implications go far beyond the economic sector. The finalisation of the Economic and Monetary Union process demonstrated Member States' commitment to safeguard the EU's economic and political unity.

The euro's success therefore means success in the process of building an entity designed to promote European values at international level and confirm the European Union as the main player in business and financial relations within the global economy.

I believe that the benefits offered by adopting the euro, involving macroeconomic stability, a significant reduction in price fluctuations, the promotion of job creation and support for productivity growth, all underpinned by strengthening resistance to external shocks, justify all the efforts made by the new Member States, especially Romania, to meet the convergence criteria as soon as possible and join the euro area.

Since the euro was launched on 1 January 1999, the single currency has, in many respects, proven to be an important factor in the stability of the EU economy. The single currency is, first of all, a driving force for European exchanges: the disappearance of exchange rates in the euro countries is an important and visible benefit for citizens, and promotes mobility within the EU.

In addition to the obvious benefits, the euro has also emerged as an anchor in the financial crisis. Only a major currency used by many Member States and national economies is able to cushion the dramatic effects of economic collapse. Monetary union means that macroeconomic levers can be applied at international level and active responses can be made to the financial crisis.

Finally, though, the euro is also a symbol of European integration and the long road that the European people have already travelled together. Monetary union is the next logical step after economic union, and should also pave the way for deeper European integration.

Nearly one year ago, when marking the 10th anniversary of the creation of the European Central Bank (ECB) and Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), we highlighted the fact that: 'In the ten years it has been in existence, the results achieved by EMU are a resounding success.'

I think that this assessment is quite appropriate as I am a strong believer in the importance of the solidarity which Member States need to show in their joint actions to combat the effects of the financial crisis and reduce the adverse impact of the global economic crisis. Europe is in its most precarious economic situation since the end of the Second World War. In this climate, marking the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the euro must refocus our attention on the major European integration projects.

The introduction of the European single currency and the creation of EMU were joint decisions made through harmonisation and solidarity based on European values. This is the kind of attitude which we also need this year in order to devise and successfully implement measures to combat the financial crisis. Europe's competitiveness has to be maintained within the euro area and must be boosted in Member States which are preparing to join the euro area. Furthermore, EMU members' diverse interests must take secondary priority to the EU's common economic interests.

The next item is voting time.

(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)

1. Cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety (

2. Common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin (Codified version) (

3. System of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of a registered office (Codified version) (

4. Language arrangements applicable to appeals against decisions of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (

5. Trade and economic relations with Western Balkans (

6. The Common Agricultural Policy and Global Food Security (

7. Developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon (

Madam President, we do seem to be having rather a lot of roll-call votes at the moment, which is a little irksome for people like me whose machines are not working. Could I therefore record 'yes' votes for everything and ask for a technician?

8. The transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directives 2005/29/EC and 2006/114/EC (

9. CFP and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (

10. Framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides (

11. Placing of plant protection products on the market (

12. Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (

13. Public finances in the EMU - 2007-2008 (



(DE) Madam President, I have the following request. When we have formal sittings here, there is always a camera in the middle of the seating area. It is not always exactly easy for the camera operators to work there; it is also, however, a problem for Members if there is a camera where we want to work. Could we not amend the allocation of seats if we want to have the cameras here? If not, someone really needs to come up with a better technical solution.

We will consult the competent authorities.

Madam President, I have been trying to wave to an usher throughout the voting procedure in order to give explanations of vote, but because you conducted votes so brilliantly and we got through them so quickly, an usher has not quite made it too me yet. I am holding a piece of paper asking to give two oral explanations of vote on the McGuinness and Breyer reports. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to do that.

Madam President, likewise, if I could have the same forbearance. My request is on its way to you as well.

Voting time

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this great parliamentary Chamber, crowded by Members from all 27 of our Member States. I rarely get such an opportunity to make myself heard by so many.

It falls to me on this occasion to explain my vote in favour of the report by Mr Belder on trade and economic relations with Western Balkans. I am absolutely in favour of the European Union making it as easy as possible for these Balkan states to join the European Union. I believe that it is important for economic aid to be higher than that allocated to date, and that we should make it possible to increase links between the Balkan states and Europe, develop tourism and allow all Balkan citizens, young and old, to live a better life than they have until now.

Madam President, first, I just wish to record the fact that I pressed the wrong button on the McGuinness report. In fact, I completely support the McGuinness report on food security - but I will check that with the services later.

I particularly agree with the point that we need to adapt the CAP to meet food security concerns and the fact that farmers need a stable policy environment in order to plan for the future. We cannot have certainty, but we certainly need to have some stability.

In addition, I support the fact that the market alone cannot provide income security for producers and also the call for a detailed impact assessment, in particular, let us say, on the implications for food security. If we look at particular EU proposals, for example on plant protection, again we need a proper detailed impact assessment on that, and we need to take food security into consideration when we conduct that assessment.

Madam President, I would like to thank colleagues for their endorsement of this report and Marian Harkin for her words of support.

It presents a clear statement of the view of this House on agriculture policy, not just at the European level, but also at a global level. In particular - and this is important - it calls for a refocus on agriculture policy in the developing world, providing assistance to those who can produce food to do so locally. I believe the EUR 1 billion that the European Union will provide for this purpose is a step in the right direction.

Obviously, I supported my own report. I believe it is a blueprint for the future in terms of how this House views agriculture. While the food security debate has gone off the political agenda, the problem of 30 000 children dying of hunger and starvation every day remains with us.

Madam President, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to explain why I abstained on the McGuinness report. It focuses on a very important aspect of the European Union and that is the absolute essentiality of ensuring food supplies to those who are starving or those who do not have a proper food supply. Nobody could be against that, and I am certainly not against that. But the problem with the report, in my view, is that it looks and refers to the common agricultural policy and does not address the fact that there is an urgent need for the reform, and further reform, of that policy.

It is not serving the people of Europe well; it is not serving the farmers of Britain well. Until that burden is taken away from the European taxpayers, then we are going to be in difficulties. Yes, the objectives of the report are right, but I am afraid that it fails very badly in addressing the core problem.

(PL) I fully endorse most of the proposals and statements contained in the McGuinness report, which was adopted a moment ago. Sudden fluctuations in food prices are going to occur in the global market with increasing frequency, which will have negative consequences.

Price rises are felt most by low-income families, who spend a significant proportion of their budget on food. It is just such people who deserve help: the most needy people, both in developing countries and in the European Union. I agree that the common agricultural policy should be adapted to the new conditions in order to better address the problems of food security, and this is why the removal of instruments which manage markets and a reduction in the level of EU expenditure on agriculture in the future financial perspective should be opposed.

It is a good idea to establish an international body which will observe the prices of agricultural products and factors of their production under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization, in order to monitor these data on a world scale and to be able to react rapidly to fluctuations. I think the establishment of a world system of storing food supplies should also be considered.

Madam President, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain why I also abstained on this report.

I think most people in this Chamber, from whatever part of the political spectrum they come from, would agree that food security is very important. The problem is that we do not agree on what food security is. To many of us, food security is making sure that there is enough food for the people of the world - wherever they come from. For others, it is an excuse for protectionism. Food security to them means only food produced in the EU for Europeans. 'Local production' is a phrase that I often hear used. I hear people using the excuse of food security to keep out imports from the rest of the world, thereby condemning the high-quality exports that we see from many of the poorer countries of the world and condemning many more farmers in poorer countries to poverty.

To say that a common agricultural policy should be the cornerstone of food security is an amazing statement which needs to be shot down.

Madam President, I concur with the comments made by my excellent colleague Mr Syed Kamall on this matter. I abstained because it was my party's whip to abstain on this report, but everybody knows that food security is a very important subject to us all, which is why I am bemused by the way that this place deals with such a matter.

In this particular report - which I believe we all voted for - we mention the problem we were just about to create for ourselves by voting for the plant protection products directive. We have just undermined European food security. About three minutes after we voted for this report we were basically ensuring that our farmers would not be able to grow enough food for our continent in the future. I find this bizarre. It is a shame that nobody else seems to read some of these reports that go through this place.

Madam President, one of the biggest concerns and one of the keys in relation to global food security is to ensure sufficient, sustainable production and, indeed, food security in the so-called developed world, such as here in the EU, so that we can export our surplus production and are not competing ourselves on world markets for food, thereby increasing the prices for those in regions who do not have the climate, the soil, the know-how and the investment to produce their own food.

We have to be very careful with our policies to ensure that we are responding not only environmentally but also globally to the necessity for sustainable food production.

(SK) I voted for the report on the common agricultural policy and global food security because it deals with issues that I have consistently been raising in the European Parliament as matters of priority.

The first issues involves the reduction in producer costs, which will lead to greater global competitiveness. The second issue is the reduction in the volatility of food markets, especially by increasing stocks. The third issue concerns halting the decline in the social importance of agriculture by increasing public awareness of its unique and irreplaceable role. The fourth issue concerns ending the random operation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) by implementing a systemic organisation of the policy with a focus on long-term objectives. The fifth and final issue involves putting a stop to the agricultural decline in the new Member States caused by the CAP's discriminatory principles, while significantly boosting utilisation of wasted agricultural potential in these countries, the new Member States.

Madam President, this goes to the core of this whole European Union. Here we are approving more money to try and persuade the public to vote for the wretched Lisbon Treaty. The public, on being given a chance in the Republic of Ireland, made it absolutely clear that they do not want it and if the people of Britain were to be given a chance - and they should have been because they were promised it in the last general election by the Labour Government - they would also vote overwhelmingly to reject this Treaty.

The message should be heard loud and clear in the European Union, it really should: people do not want it. People do not want more control in Brussels and Strasbourg. People want their own governments and their own legislatures to be making the decisions that affect them. Until that message is received we will keep pumping more taxpayers' money into forcing people to the polling box in the pretence that you actually persuade them to change their minds. They will not do so.

Madam President, first of all I would like to say that this is an excellent report. We are always speaking about connecting the EU to its citizens and the fact that the EU project cannot proceed without the involvement of EU citizens.

There are two types of democracy: representative, which we have in this House, and participative, which is what this report is all about. However, it is important to understand that civil dialogue is two-sided. It is reciprocal. Therefore, the concerns and ideas put forward by citizens must be taken into consideration by the EU institutions. I think we have an excellent example of that in the one million signatures for disability and the document that we are debating in this Parliament at the moment.

I disagree with the last speaker because I believe, if we do pass the Lisbon Treaty, that it gives us the opportunity to connect citizens to the EU in a much more meaningful way. Our role in this House is to ensure, if we pass the Lisbon Treaty, that it works effectively.

Madam President, much can be inferred from the title of this report: 'Perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon'. Never mind that, as it seems periodically necessary to remind this House, the Treaty of Lisbon is not in force. It has been three times rejected in its several forms by 55% of French voters, by 62% of Dutch voters and by 54% of Irish voters.

Focus rather on the Orwellian Ministry of Love bit of the title 'Perspectives for developing civil dialogue'. Now, ordinary voters unversed in the peculiar idiom of the European Union might not understand those words, as we in this House do, to mean creating a new propaganda budget to try and convince people to change their minds.

I have to say that not every euro in the vaults of the European Central Bank will serve to convince people of an intrinsically bad idea.

Dialogue by definition involves two parties. The EU has to be able to receive as well as transmit. That means putting the Treaty to a referendum. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!

Madam President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the way I voted on this report.

When I read the title of the report, 'Civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon', it reminded me of a phrase by Mahatma Gandhi. When he was asked about Western civilisation, he said, that 'that would be a good idea'. Therefore, when I read this title, 'Civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon', I thought, 'that would be a good idea, would it not?' If only we had civil dialogue. If only we had two-way dialogue. One of the previous speakers said that dialogue is very much a two-way process, but if we look at some of the civil society organisations being funded in order to promote the Treaty of Lisbon, we only see organisations that are fully signed up to promoting this fundamentally undemocratic Treaty. How many organisations that are against the Treaty will be funded or will be allowed to be promoted? There is no two-way dialogue, and that is why the citizens of the EU, when they are given the chance and asked about the Treaty of Lisbon, will choose to reject it.

Madam President, thank you all for your patience in the Chamber. I wanted to speak on this but I have just got too much to say today, I am so excited by all the votes that have been going through the Chamber today. Yes, the common fisheries policy; yes, let us talk about sustainable development - but the two are inherently contradictory. If you want to look at a sustainable fisheries policy, you have to look at property rights and market-based solutions. Look at those countries where fishermen are given rights that are tradable and passed on from generation to generation. That is the best way to make sure that we have sustainable fish stocks, not some artificial communistic method where you have central planning in fishing. That is why we are seeing great depletion of fish stocks, and we will all suffer in the end.

We will now suspend the sitting. We will return to the explanations of vote after the formal sitting.

Formal sitting - Latvia

Mr President of the Republic of Latvia, the right honourable Valdis Zatlers, it is a very great pleasure for us all to be able to welcome you today on your first visit to the European Parliament. I should like to start by thanking you, as the President of a country which is still a relatively new Member State of the European Union, for accepting the European Parliament's invitation to address us today, the day on which we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of our common currency, the euro. Today is a premiere in every sense of the word, as this was the first time that the European hymn has been played to welcome a guest to plenary here in the European Parliament.

(Applause)

May I take this opportunity to mention once again today the historic significance of the enlargement of the European Union in 2004. It took over 60 years to bring your country back into a free and democratic Europe and unify our continent.

We live today in peace, freedom and democracy. Our citizens enjoy prospects that our forefathers could only have dreamed of. We must and should rejoice in that.

It is true that today the European Union faces new and serious challenges. Even the people of Latvia have come to feel this quite clearly, for example as a result of the financial crisis, which has also hit your country hard, Mr President. The gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine is also giving the citizens of Latvia justified cause for concern.

It is precisely in times of crisis that we understand the value of membership of a European Union based on the principle of solidarity between its peoples. It is precisely in this time of crisis that we all feel the need for community and cooperation between our countries and the European institutions.

Together we are stronger, together we can defend our interests and values better throughout the world. That is also why the European Parliament hopes the Lisbon Treaty, which gives the European Union a stronger capacity to act to overcome these serious challenges, will shortly enter into force.

In this respect, the European Parliament elections due to take place in June this year are immensely important, because we want to push ahead with the success story of the European peace and unification project together, in a democratic European Union with a European Parliament with codecision powers in nearly every area.

I truly hope that the citizens of Latvia - and of all the other Member States of the European Union - will understand that their vote is important because it gives them European powers of codecision and in this sense will turn out in force during the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament.

Mr President, it gives me great pleasure to invite you now to address the European Parliament. May I warmly welcome you once again to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the President for his kind words of introduction and his invitation to address the elected representatives of the nations of Europe. I am honoured to have this opportunity. I take great pleasure in addressing the European Parliament in my mother tongue, especially because for five years now, Latvian has been one of the official languages of the European Union. I am speaking to you today at a time when the term of office of the first Members of the European Parliament to be elected from Latvia is drawing to a close. I thank you for having carried out your duties with distinction.

Dear friends, this year, 2009, is a very significant year for Latvia. It is five years since Latvia acceded to the European Union and to NATO. Membership of these international organisations became a strategic aim for Latvia following the restoration of independence in 1991. Latvia clearly expressed its wish to participate in European and transatlantic economic and security structures. The enlargement of the family of European democratic nations in the first decade of the 21st century represented the most dynamic changes in Europe since the foundation of the European Union. These were significant changes. European structures were joined by nations that had long been isolated by force from them, even though the values that lie at the heart of the European Union had historically been rooted in these nations.

On 18 November last year, Latvia celebrated the 90th anniversary of its proclamation. That anniversary was highly significant for our people. It once again affirmed our steadfast will to live in an independent, free and democratic nation. In the act declaring the Republic of Latvia in 1918 it is written that: 'All citizens regardless of their ethnic origin are called on to give their assistance, for all human rights shall be guaranteed in Latvia. It shall be a democratic and just nation, where there shall be no room for oppression and injustice ...'. I am very proud of these words. Thirty years before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Republic of Latvia declared its loyalty to its fundamental values and principles.

Latvia has always felt itself to belong to Europe and its values, even when Latvia and other Central and Eastern European nations were long bound to a state where many values were looked at through a special ideological prism. Peace reigned among the nations of the Eastern bloc, but it was the peace of the prison courtyard. It was brought about by the presence of tanks, repression and threats. Last year, ladies and gentlemen, both you and the whole of Europe were reminded of the inhumanity of totalitarian ideology by Edvīns Šnore's film 'A Soviet Story'. We have a common history, but our fates have been diverse. You have to look back into the past in order to understand one another and look to the future together. That is why I should like to thank the European Parliament for the declaration adopted on 22 September last year to proclaim 23 August as the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. This declaration reminds the people of Europe of these tragic events in the history of Latvia and the whole of Europe.

Today, I should like to look at much more recent history. This year marks five years since Latvia became a member of the European Union and of NATO. What sort of time has this been for Latvia? What has our nation gained? What have our nation's achievements been and what are the challenges still ahead of us? Firstly, the aspiration to become part of Europe encouraged the consolidation of democracy in our society and contributed to the development of democratic institutions. With our accession to the European Union, Latvia signalled its determination for its own future, its determination to found its future on a European identity and on our common values: freedom and democracy, accountability, the rule of law and human rights, equality, tolerance and prosperity. Secondly, membership of the European Union has improved the investment climate in Latvia. 'European money', as we commonly call European Union structural funds, has contributed significantly to the development of Latvia's economy. Thirdly, we can enjoy the privileges afforded by the free movement of persons. Free travel in the Schengen area has become so customary and self-evident; it has become so natural to learn, work and gain experience in other European Union Member States. Fourthly, the free movement of goods and services has opened up new opportunities for business. Every entrepreneur and consumer can operate in a free environment without borders and without customs duties. For us in a country with a small internal market, this is particularly important. Fifthly, and most important of all, Latvian voices are heard in Europe and European voices are heard in the world. We can be proud that we have at our disposal such a unique mechanism of collaboration. It allows all of us to search together for active solutions to global challenges, climate and demographic change, the reinforcement of energy security, the problems of migration, and in the case of financial crisis, on a worldwide scale. Latvia now has at its disposal new political and economic instruments, but it must be noted that our nation's responsibility for the common future of Europe, a responsibility before all the people of Europe, has also significantly increased.

Looking back at our achievements, we must also be critical and own up to mistakes that have been committed. After accession to the European Union, the Latvian government lapsed into a sense of a 'job well done'; it had achieved its goal. We did not recognise that we were only at the beginning and not at the end of the process. The European Union offers great opportunities, but each nation and each society must grasp them by itself. We in Latvia have not grasped all the opportunities; we have not always wisely implemented cohesion policy or made use of the financial opportunities we have been offered. Our state institutions had to learn how to live in the European Union. We have not been sufficiently determined to adopt the euro; that is one of the greatest mistakes we have made in the euro integration process, something that is acutely evident today in the circumstances of the financial crisis.

Yet even the most hardened Eurosceptic must admit that Latvia's membership of the European Union has on the whole been positive. Is there anyone in Latvia who wants to return to a Europe where there are customs barriers between nations? No! Is there anyone who wants to wait in a queue at the border in order to enter a neighbouring country? No! Is there anyone who wants to return to a world where there are restrictions on the free movement of workers, on their education and on their gaining experience? Of course not! Even Eurosceptics soon get used to good things, and become simply sceptics.

Ladies and gentlemen, the deterioration of the situation within the financial system and economy in recent months has irreversibly changed the role and significance of national governments within economic processes. Until now, the financial markets were able to develop very freely. We were persuaded that the laws of the market would by themselves be sufficiently efficient in promoting economic development. We believed that the market alone would put everything in its place. That is indeed what happens. The market regulates itself. What we can see from this global crisis, however, is that our financial systems and our economies are suffering from that market, and most important of all, real people are suffering from the crisis. The course of events at the end of last year has shown us that it is essential for national governments to play a more active part in the economic process. The previous approach, of nodding off at the wheel of economic management, was irresponsible. Unfortunately, we have awoken too late. Late enough to still espy the obstacle - the financial morass - on the road ahead of us, but no longer able to avoid it.

In this situation, a complex approach at national, European and global level is what is needed. At the global level, coordinated action to restart economic growth is essential. That will only be possible by designing a new architecture and mechanisms for the financial system. It will be vital to supervise the system strictly, without simultaneously limiting initiative or market processes. The most difficult challenge will be to strike precisely this balance. At the European level, we have a significant advantage, for we can implement coordinated measures, take united action and achieve a sustainable solution. We welcome the Commission's European Economic Recovery Plan. It is an important step out of the morass in which we find ourselves at this time.

I shall spend a little more time on national-level solutions. The global financial crisis has also hit Latvia. There is a school of thought which suggests that Latvia is currently undergoing one of the most dramatic rescue operations of any financial system in modern European history. Currently, Latvia is working on measures to stimulate the economy in order to stabilise the financial and economic situation swiftly and effectively. It is a difficult task, but we shall succeed in overcoming the crisis only by seeing a clear way out of it, and not by mistaking short-term solutions for a long-term vision of economic development.

At the end of last year, six political parties represented in the Latvian parliament, from both government and opposition, agreed on a common stance of support for the economic stabilisation plan drawn up by the Latvian government. This agreement provides for special attention to be paid to monitoring how the loan granted to Latvia is utilised. The plan defines the medium-term priorities for Latvia's economy: support for exports, the promotion of free and fair competition, a significant reduction in the current-account deficit in the balance of payments, and the introduction of the euro in 2012. Accession to the euro area has become one of our nation's most important strategic goals. It is important for Latvia not to be left alone in this situation. We are being helped to overcome this difficult time not only by international financial organisations but also by the institutions of the European Union and by the nations of Europe. Latvia is grateful for this expression of solidarity.

Ladies and gentlemen, each enlargement has not only brought the European Union new Member States, but it has also introduced new accents into its agenda, including its foreign policy. Latvia's accession to the European Union took place at a time when Europe's Neighbourhood Policy, its goals, principles and implementation mechanisms, were being drawn up. Since that time, there has been a particular increase in the European Union's foreign policy activity towards its eastern neighbours. This has happened thanks to the engagement and experience of the new Member States. Latvia has always seen neighbourhood relations in a wider dimension. Latvia will continue to play an active part in the determination and implementation of this policy in the future.

This policy is not just a matter of the European Union's relations with particular states, that is, with those states with which it shares a land or maritime border. In the context of this policy, we must address the European Union's place and role in the world. Together with other like-minded nations, Latvia has actively encouraged a closer involvement by the European Union in its eastern neighbourhood region. A new political initiative, the 'Eastern Partnership' has come about, whose mission is to reshape Europe's common neighbourhood policy and adapt it to the specific characteristics of this region, thereby making this process more active, more courageous and more ambitious. Latvia notes with pleasure the European Commission's proposals in this regard. In its practical work, the Eastern Partnership must strengthen the political and economic relations between the European Union and the states in this region, and also strengthen the mutual cooperation between those states. In developing the Eastern Partnership, attention must be paid to the differentiation principle, individual assessment and the attitude towards each of the partners. Each of these states is following its own path of development. There are those states who wish to see themselves in the European Union, and there are those states that have chosen other goals for themselves. Our policy will succeed only if we are able to work together with all the states of this region, helping with understanding where necessary. I also received positive signals for extending and deepening cooperation on my visit to the Central Asian nations last October, when I visited Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Latvia will continue to be an active supporter of Europe's Neighbourhood Policy and play an active part in implementing it. Every European nation has its own experience of history and its own opportunities to work on our common project for the benefit of the European Union. Latvia's particular contribution to the eastern dimension is the mutual trust demonstrated by our bilateral relations, which are rooted in a shared period in history, and the expertise born out of that trust. Latvia's duty is to make use of this special circumstance which could be lost within the next 10 years. After several decades, to eastern eyes, Latvia will be only one of the Member States of the European Union, not the gateway to Europe. Making use of these advantages, Latvia will maintain an active political dialogue in order to encourage a better understanding of the European Union and its values in the neighbouring states and so clarify the goals of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. That is of mutual benefit, and we have an opportunity to hear how neighbouring states perceive their future relations with the European Union. I am convinced that Europe's interests would be best served by an early inauguration of the Eastern Partnership during the Czech Republic's Presidency.

Ladies and gentlemen, the question of energy security has very recently become topical during the first days of the Czech Presidency. The financial and economic crisis is cyclical in its own way. Questions associated with energy security and sustainable energy sources are, however, always on Europe's political agenda and that of the world. They are becoming more and more urgent. Energy security has a pronounced external dimension. This means that this question cannot be viewed divorced from the world situation. The recent events in Ukraine and the conflict in Georgia are proof of this. Even quite recently, European Union Member States regarded energy as an issue to be resolved at the national and not at the European Union level. The events of the last year in the energy sector, the interruptions to energy supply, the shrinking of energy resources and price volatility have helped to create a common understanding in European Union Member States of the need for a common energy policy. At the intersection of energy and politics, our main task is to secure a regular, sufficient, economic, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy supply.

You have to admit that the European Union has had only mixed success in this sphere. On some issues, of which the development of an environmentally friendly energy economy is an example, we have adopted ambitious goals at the European level, which we must now begin to achieve. On other issues - diversification of energy sources at European level and creation of a single energy market - we are right at the beginning of our journey. The events of the last few days, involving a cut-off of gas supplies from Russia, has opened eyes to the need to find the quickest possible solution at pan-European level. All of us have the responsibility of applying this common understanding to create a truly integrated and diversified European energy market. We must not allow our resolve to vanish along with this spring's snow. The energy security question can only be successfully resolved by an active dialogue with the transit and supplier countries for energy resources. The European Union has the foreign policy instruments to resolve this issue. Our responsibility is to make use of them.

A further direction where we must make serious efforts is the integration of the Baltic energy market with the Scandinavian and Central European energy markets. Integration in the Baltic region is patchy. Trade and transport in the region are developing apace. The energy market, however, is stagnating. Here, the European Commission has done noteworthy work. Its initiative to improve energy security and solidarity also includes the development of the interconnection plan for the Baltic energy market. This will allow for a progressive integration of the Baltic States into the single European energy market. I hold Sweden's involvement in the strategic discussions on the Baltic Sea region in high regard. Sweden will shortly have the opportunity to put it into practice during its presidency in the second half of this year. I am convinced that strong regions from the Mediterranean to the Baltic Sea make for a strong European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, the initial aim of the European Union - the security and wellbeing of the people of Europe - has not altered. What has altered is the environment in which we must achieve this aim. The global economy is much more closely linked than it was half a century ago. At the same time, powerful new economic players have appeared on the world scene. It is only with coherent, far-sighted and, most important of all, common action by the European Union that we can hope not to be the losers in this global competitive struggle. Only together can we fulfil the promises of security and wellbeing for our citizens. Only thus can we attain the goal for which the people of our nations have cast their votes, in support of our participation in the European Union.

The European Parliament has already shown that it has a broad vision of the future of the European Union. This is especially true of its uniform and balanced approach to the Union's enlargement policy. Europe's dynamic growth has given Europe the opportunity to compete globally. This growth is Europe's potential, which it must exploit, so that the Union can, even several decades from now, be an equal economic partner for the rapidly growing Asian and Latin American economies. It is you yourselves in particular, as the democratically elected representatives of Europe's nations, who feel the responsibility for this process most acutely. It is also impossible to overestimate the significance of the European Parliament in bringing the European project nearer to our people and extending its democratic legitimacy. In the future, the role of the European Parliament will become even more important.

It is important to unite in our multiformity and diversity. It is important to continue working on improving the European Union. That is a task that all Europeans must take on together. That is our common responsibility towards Europe. It is essential to prevent fragmentation of the European Union. Member States must seek solutions and avoid the development of a multi-speed approach to the European project. The agreement reached in the Council last month for the furtherance of the Lisbon Treaty is welcome. The Lisbon Treaty is the legal precondition for the future fully effective functioning of the European Union. Only by putting the principles of the Lisbon Treaty into practice shall we be able fully to realise the positive potential that the new, united Europe offers. How effectively the Lisbon Treaty will work in practice depends on the political will of the Member States and institutions and their ability to unite in achieving Europe's goals.

Ladies and gentlemen, until 2004, Latvia's goal was membership of the European Union. Since that time, we have shaped Latvia's goals in the context of Europe's goals. We can no longer consider and perceive ourselves separately from Europe. We can define and achieve Latvia's goals only if they match Europe's common vision of the future. For their part, Europe's goals are attainable if they correspond to the vision of every Member State. The European Union was built and must be strengthened on a base of common values. Only public discussion can tease out those values that are common to all of us. Only in unison can we agree on those values that we are going to place alongside those on which the European Union was founded. It is the task of all politicians, but especially of Europe's leaders, to define European values and initiate discussion on them.

Let us look into the future. How do I see the European Union and Latvia in the longer term? In 2015, say? The post-crisis economic world will have coalesced into several economic power centres. One of them will be the European Union. Europe will have the will and the ability to be united, for only union will afford us the chance to fulfil our tasks. Moreover, the European Union will still be open to all those Europeans who accept its values. This unity in diversity will be the key to the growing importance of Europe's role in the world. The European Union will have expanded, but it will not lose the capability of effective action. The European Union will be able to look after its own security and provide for stability in its neighbours. Education and culture will be the bridge joining the different experiences of the European Union's Member States and that will help to regain Europe's leading role in the world in the realms of science and culture. There will no longer be old and new, small and large European nations. In Europe, nations will be judged according to their achievements, not by geographical and geopolitical criteria. Europe will be united, and this unity will be secured by powerful regions, which while defending their own interests will work closely together with others, thereby creating a network of wellbeing and development throughout Europe. Every nation will contribute to this development according to its own abilities and particular knowledge.

What will be Latvia's role in the European Union of 2015? That will be a time when Latvia will have emerged from the crisis. Latvia's capital city, Riga, will be one of the flourishing centres of the Baltic economic region. Latvia's economy will be more balanced, more competitive and structurally transformed. In 2015, for the first time in the history of the independent state, Latvia will be entrusted with solving questions on the European and global scale as the presiding Member State of the European Union. Our contribution to Europe will be our special relationships with the Eastern Partnership nations. Latvia and our region will be the bridge to the East, just as the Mediterranean states will join both shores of that sea. Our vision of an open Europe and our experience of integration will be the spur to Europe's openness.

Ladies and gentlemen, 2015 is not far away; only six years stand between us. A century ago, the Latvian poet Rainis wrote: 'What changes, endures'. Those are still wise words today. I am convinced that Europe will change materially. It will grow more powerful in its economy, welfare and mutual cooperation. It will consolidate its value system. Europeans will be proud that they live in Europe and yet belong to their own nation. Unity in diversity, development, preservation of values and every citizen's responsibility towards his or her nation and for the European family as a whole, that is Europe's future.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe's development and prosperity is the yardstick of our success. It is how our work will be judged. It is our responsibility. I call on you, as Members of the European Parliament, to encourage Europeans' understanding of our common goals and of how they will affect the life of every European in his or her own home. The support of European citizens for the idea of Europe is the strongest guarantee of Europe's future. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your work in this session. I wish you success in your further work and in the next European Parliament elections.

Mr President, may I thank you on behalf of the European Parliament for your address, for your European courageousness and for your European determination. We were of course glad to hear that you value the European Parliament, and rightly so.

I still remember very clearly that, during accession negotiations in the second half of the 1990s, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia were initially excluded. It was the European Parliament that called on the governments to include Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia in the negotiations. As a result, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia were able to become members of the European Union on 1 May 2004.

You addressed the energy question and I shall reply to you very briefly. We have a very responsible Commissioner, a compatriot of yours, Andris Piebalgs, who acquitted himself admirably last week and during the gas dispute with Russia and Ukraine, but especially with Russia. I should like to thank Andris Piebalgs for his work in the presence of his President.

(Applause)

Mr President, my closing remark is this: you spoke about how you are learning and Latvia is learning. That is certainly true. Yet even those who belonged to the European Community, to the European Union, from the beginning are learning from you and your historical experiences. If we are prepared to listen to each other and to learn from each other, then we shall all be the better for it. On the basis of our common values, we are strong, democratic and free. Thank you, President Zatlers, it was a joy to welcome you here today. Thank you.

(Applause)

Explanations of vote (continuation) 

(CS) Madam President, I welcome the compromise, which will force governments of EU countries to create a timetable and draw up action plans to limit risks from the use of pesticides. The restrictions on spraying by aircraft will surely be welcomed by EU citizens, as will the buffer zones for protecting drinking water and aquatic organisms. I voted for the directive because it is in line with my views on health protection.

Madam President, I voted in favour of this compromise because it makes sense that we have sustainable use of pesticides. I think the real problem is that there are such different rules across Member States: some countries apply training and education of operators in a very strict way and, therefore, have good sustainable use of pesticides, but not all countries do so. I think this piece of legislation will make it appropriate that we have higher standards across the European Union. That is good both for those who operate sprays and for those who come into contact with them.

I think we are talking about a very sensible package here, so I was very happy to support it, and I congratulate the rapporteur.

Madam President, I also supported this vote. There is no question that we need a regulatory system for pesticides. This is not in dispute. The Klaß report extends the range of controls and limits the use of PPPs to essential use.

Interestingly, while there was a very vexed debate on hazard-versus-risk on the Breyer report, I have always felt that this issue is more suitable to the actual use as distinct from placing on the market - in other words, this report. A wide range of common products can be hazardous if the handling and usage instructions are ignored. Being on the market in itself is not a risk to the consumer, the environment or the user of such products. Pesticides are only hazardous if the handler does not know what he or she is doing, if the application equipment is faulty, if the aquatic environment is ignored or if they are improperly stored and not part of an integrated pest-management plan. The concept of quantitative use reduction needs careful management, as less frequent spraying with higher concentration of pesticide could result.

At the end of the day, these substances must be used to the least extent possible, as every farmer knows.

(CS) Madam President, I would like to respond again to yesterday's plenary debate. I supported the new regulation because in my opinion it constitutes a tool for pursuing new and safer alternatives for protecting plants. I consider the mutual recognition of approved pesticides according to geographical zones to be a positive achievement for our Parliament. The preparation of a list of banned substances is also a step forward - these include carcinogens, genotoxic substances and also substances with neurotoxic and immunotoxic effects - and is based on scientific knowledge. As the Commissioner said yesterday, it seems that it applies to a relatively small percentage of the substances still used today. I would like to mention that we must apply these requirements strictly to imported goods as well. Commissioner, I also wanted to have a say on other reports but I was not given the floor. These reports have already been used for explanatory purposes or they have already been debated here, so I believe they will be adopted in their written form.

Madam President, I have a confession to make. Since I was a child there has been one vegetable that I hate: peas. But I have the misfortune to represent Britain's largest growing pea-growing area, which has given me a huge problem with the Breyer report. I agree with the aims of this report. I agree with the aims of the legislation to promote the health of our environment, the health of us as individuals, but it really potentially threatens a huge agricultural industry in my region.

After much soul-searching, I have abstained, but I wish to make it clear that I think our legislative procedure in this respect was flawed. We had so much information at the end - conflicting and otherwise - that I, and I think many others, would have welcomed the possibility of a third reading, or of conciliation, to make sure that we have protected all interests.

Madam President, I too found this a particularly difficult decision. I felt that the report was, in general, very well-balanced and constructive, and it was certainly designed to ensure a high level of protection for human health, animal health and the environment.

However, I have concerns about the situation where we are making decisions for approval of a particular substance based on whether that substance is a hazard or not, and we are not taking possible exposure into account. I think we need impact assessments conducted on a scientific basis.

One of my concerns is that, when I talk to citizens about the EU, one of the issues they constantly raise with me is that, at times, the EU's legislation is not always proportionate. While I believe there is flexibility in this report, I think we needed a little more, but crucially we needed further scientific evidence to support the case. Yes, there is the precautionary principle, and we need to be mindful of this, but decisions also need to be evidence-based, and I would have liked a little more evidence in this matter.

Madam President, the efficient and effective use of pesticides is a necessity. Whilst the protection of the environment and safeguarding of public health go hand-in-hand, I believe we have to balance the needs of consumers and producers. Whilst I welcome the aims of the Breyer report to reduce red tape, I am not able to support this.

I have met with a number of experts and farmers and NFU representatives in my West Midlands constituency who all have deep reservations about the effects that this report will have on crop yields. I share their concerns. My biggest worry is that there has not been a proper impact assessment by the Commission and there is no clear indication of what this report will mean for agriculture.

At a time of rising food prices around the world, I do not think that now is the time for us to have a knee-jerk reaction to introduce measures which may have adverse effects on food production. That is why my delegation introduced an amendment for a thorough and long overdue impact assessment.

Madam President, like other colleagues, I should like to say that this was a very difficult dossier. While Diana Wallis was concerned about peas, you can imagine that, in Ireland, potatoes were certainly on our menu and on the agenda. Overall, however, I believe that what we voted on is a much better proposal and package than the original one on the table - and I compliment those who worked on it.

Let me say a few things about this - and I will end up with the key point. I think we are now in a position where farmers need to lobby the agrochemical industry to produce safer alternatives so that they can continue to produce food, and I think as much energy should go into that lobby as has gone heretofore.

When it comes to food imports, the Commission need to address the genuine concerns of EU farmers and producers that they will be banned from using certain substances but third countries continue to use them. We need an explanation of that in order to bring farmers with us.

Madam President, I voted against this simply because the proposal has been hijacked in effect by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and Commissioners. The rapporteurs yesterday boasted about standardisation, and yet this is allegedly a Union of diversity. If there were one area where judgement, discretion and diversity are needed, it is perhaps this.

This was essentially an agricultural issue, but the Danish Commissioner for agriculture was nowhere to be seen at any time, and that is a disgrace. The reason, of course, is because of a conflict of interests since the Danes fail to process their drinking water after it comes out of the ground.

Farmers in my part of the world feel totally let down and frankly insulted by the fact that there are some assumptions here that they do not know what they are doing, and they need to be told. Essentially you have added yet another group to those in the UK who frankly loathe the European Union's interference.

Madam President, exaggerated claims have been made and fears expressed by all sides on this report. It is has been difficult to distinguish fact from fiction and to come to a decision on how to vote.

While I recognise the concerns of the soft fruit industry, the potato industry and the cereal farmers in Ireland who have spoken to me about this, I supported the compromise. I feel the improvements made were worth our support, even though I still have some concerns. I supported the vote as, in my opinion, the worst of all outcomes would be to deliver this report to conciliation. The five-year derogation, renewable if necessary for essential plant protection projects, is an important safety net and also encourages the agrochemical industry to research and produce alternatives.

Madam President, I think that, when one considers the European project, there is a dialectic at its heart. We talk about democracy, yet we ignore the democratic will as expressed in referenda in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. We talk about food security, yet we vote on a report which has the potential to undermine food production in the European Union. We talk about helping citizens and farmers in poorer countries, yet there will now be, as a result of this vote, a call to ban imports from farmers who have used pesticides that are now banned in the European Union.

I simply have a plea to my colleagues in Parliament and to the Commission: Please, let us think in future about the unintended consequences of our legislation. I agree with Mrs Wallis about the legislative process and that there should have been a third reading. I agree it has been rushed through and I think we all agree that there has been an insufficient impact assessment on a scientific basis. Let us make sure that does not happen again.

Madam President, I tried to undermine the compromise by voting against those parts of this report. I will explain why by reading out a letter to me from James Mowbray, who is a farmer near Skegness in my region.

He said, 'I have personally been involved in the application of crop protection products for over 40 years. I have always applied products with a sensitive approach to other human beings as well as wildlife. I have incurred no apparent detriment to my health or the wellbeing of the environment. I therefore find it distressing that the possible withdrawal of many products, including the triazole fungicides, is based on less than scientific arguments and will make my business not particularly viable and reduce the availability of home-produced food'.

I received these comments from him and from literally hundreds of other people, from Empire World Trade, based in Spalding in Lincolnshire, John Manby in Parker Farms in Leicester, John Clark, who is based in Nottinghamshire, Jonathan Reading and hundreds more names. That is why I voted to undermine the compromise.

Madam President, now that this vote is over and the arguments have been made, I would like to come back to something that ran through the debate here and in the committee. This was the noticeable mistrust of farmers and an assumption by many that farmers are somehow enemies of health and the environment. In my experience this is the opposite of the truth. Farmers in Ireland are, and have been, stewards who for thousands of years have protected and preserved the environment, keeping it alive, clean and productive. Similarly, farmers have also been the basis of our health. They produce the good food that is the basis of our good health. I would urge you to renew our faith in our farmers, who are doing their best to feed us in very difficult situations, circumstances of weather, pest and, of course, EU policy.

Written explanations of vote

in writing. - We have just voted on an agreement for civil aviation safety. Although travel by air is one of the safest means of travel, however, one can never take measures which are too safe.

Linked to this discussion is that related to security. Since the horrendous terror attack on the twin towers, innumerable security measures have been put in place. Just like the issue of safety one can never be too secure. Indeed, it is when we feel too secure that terror strikes again.

Of course, one has to find a balance between civil liberties and rights and security measures; however, when it comes down to a choice one has to prioritise. For instance, there has been a substantial deal of opposition to the sharing of passenger lists on the basis of data protection. But surely such security measures will enable an in-depth analysis not possible at the frontiers.

We are living in a new era. Innocent civilians are purposely targeted and the civilians of certain countries preselected. In such an environment surely we are not expecting these countries to abstain from doing all that which is possible to protect the interests of its citizens.

I voted in favour of this report because the aviation industry in Romania will benefit directly too. The negotiated agreement reflects by and large the structure of a conventional aviation safety agreement; it is based on mutual trust in each other's systems and on the comparison of regulatory differences. This entails obligations and methods for cooperation between exporting and importing authorities. However, the means of achieving this objective, namely cooperation and mutual acceptance of each other's certification findings in the areas of airworthiness and maintenance, are set out in the annexes to the agreement, unlike in conventional agreements, where these measures are usually set out in separate non-binding agreements at civil aviation authority level. The annexes broadly reflect the content of the Community's Implementing Rules on airworthiness (Commission Regulation No 1702/2003) and maintenance (Commission Regulation No 2042/2003) to be modified by the parties based on a decision of the Bilateral Oversight Board.

The origins of the aviation agreements between the European Community and the United States (US) lie in and are based on the liberalisation of air transport.

These agreements established at EU level (or rather, by the European Community - the only body that exists in law - and its single Community market, which they intend to fully liberalise) are meant to prevail over any bilateral agreements established between various Member States and the US.

As in other resolutions previously adopted by the European Parliament, we would highlight that we are obviously the first to be interested in ensuring a 'high level of civil aviation safety' and measures 'to minimize economic burdens on the aviation industry and operators from redundant regulatory oversight'. However, we must safeguard two important aspects: (1) the objective and presumed basis of these processes must not be to create and facilitate the conditions for increasing the liberalisation of air transport, through the harmonisation of standards; (2) these processes must not promote harmonisation through a lowering of safety standards and rules, in particular where, when safety, minimisation of burdens and liberalisation are mixed together, it is profit and concentration that prevail.

We believe that air transport must be defended as a public service, provided by public companies in each country, which guarantee quality and safety in the services provided to citizens.

I agree in principle with Paolo Costa's report on civil aviation.

It is important for the EU and the US to agree on a common line with the help of this agreement. However, it is vital in this overseas partnership that we are real partners, not just on paper. Criteria must be found to which both parties must adhere.

In the event of contempt on the part of either the EU or the US, a rescindable variation in the agreement will be indispensable.

I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety. I agree with the rapporteur's proposal on the conclusion of this agreement.

I think that the objectives of the agreement, namely facilitation of trade in the goods and services covered by the agreement, maximum limitation of the duplication of assessments, tests and controls to significant regulatory differences and use of the certification system of either party to check conformity with the requirements of the other party are legitimate objectives.

I hope that the reliance on mutual trust of the other party's systems will favour the implementation of this agreement.

As the European Parliament's rapporteur for the legislative report on the expansion of the European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) powers, I welcome the negotiated agreement with the United States on facilitating mutual acceptance of civil aviation safety certificates.

This agreement marks an important step in expanding transatlantic cooperation, which is a priority objective of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. It establishes sound conditions for boosting trade in goods and services in the civil aviation sector between the European Union and the United States, which undoubtedly benefits Europe. The agreement offers enhanced guarantees as regards safety and reinforcement of the compatibility of products, components and aircraft with the increased demands of protecting the environment. In these conditions, we can hope that the European Single Sky principles will be extended in the future to apply to transatlantic cooperation and that cooperation will be widened in the field of research, as well as the implementation of new technologies in this field, based on collaboration between SESAR and NextGen.

I believe that this agreement will facilitate in the long term the mutually beneficial extension of the cooperation framework between the EASA and the FAA, from which airlines, the aviation industry and, more significantly, passengers will directly benefit.

The future of the external transport policy requires good relations between the European Community and the United States. As a result, one of the fundamental points of this cooperation agreement on the regulation of civil aviation safety is mutual trust in each other's systems and the comparison of regulatory differences. The objective of this agreement is to facilitate trade in goods and services in the aviation sector, by limiting as much as possible the duplication of assessments, tests and controls to significant regulatory differences between the two parties. We therefore believe that a framework is being created which will work smoothly on a daily basis and which will allow technical issues arising from its implementation to be solved through a system of continual cooperation and consultation. This agreement is another fundamental step in the external dimension of the European transport policy, which is why I voted in favour of this report.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to state that I voted in favour of Mr Costa's report on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety, as set out in the proposal for a Council decision.

I concur with the rapporteur in considering that Parliament must declare itself in favour of the conclusion of the agreement because this would clearly streamline the trade in goods and services between the parties in the airworthiness and maintenance sector, avoiding the redundant duplication of assessments and checks on compliance with safety requirements, which until now have had to be repeated even if they are very similar to one another. I believe, however, that the agreement should be applied provisionally at first, so that we can identify any practical and implementation difficulties and remove them before proceeding to final approval.

I voted in favour of this report for better legal regulation of companies within the EU.

I voted in favour of the report on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States as these legal transactions result in fundamental changes to commercial companies' legal status. The European Union also needs to take the necessary measures to provide uniform, harmonised but effective regulation.

I also supported it because I am a lawyer and I will continue to support in the European Parliament every effort made to harmonise and codify at European level fiscal, economic, civil and criminal regulations.

I voted in favour of this report as the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance lack any provision as to the language required to be used in appeal proceedings (against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal). There is, in fact, no equivalent to Article 110 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Madam President, following the last armed conflict in the Balkans, European states made widely differing statements on the subject. However, by its active engagement in the situation which existed, the EU confirmed that the Balkans are an important region for us and are an integral part of Europe. We are therefore obliged to support these countries in their efforts to achieve stability and full democracy. I endorsed the Belder report because it underlines the need to assist the Balkan states, while treating them as individual, independent partners.

Furthermore, it is good that the report underlines the need to establish a common energy policy. The diversification of sources is urgently needed, and this would benefit not only the EU, but the whole of Europe.

in writing. - The report by Mr Belder considers the current situation of the European Union's trade and economic relations with this increasingly stable region, where many countries hold candidateship for EU membership. The role of the EU as a major partner for the area in maintaining trade and economic relations while pushing for a stable, lasting peace in the area is a very important one.

The EU's strength as an economic partner, but also as a model for a strong civil society, government and dynamic institutions, should be used to push for the development of the region. A threefold and differentiated approach, taking into account the relative differences between countries in the region as well as association agreements and further support, provides a clear way to address issues of underdevelopment and shore up intensive regional and international economic cooperation.

As a means of cementing a lasting peace and promoting the ideals to which we are all committed, I support Mr Belder's report.

I know the Belder report only deals with the economic and commercial relationships with the Western Balkans and the evident need for the European Union to assist in their reconstruction, in the economic, legal, political and social fields.

I am surprised, though, that, despite the statement that this aid, as well as the accession processes, must be differentiated and adapted to each country, the report does not really take into account the specific situation of each country. Serbia, for example, is not even mentioned.

Above all, this Parliament, always quick to condemn violations of human rights around the world or to demand 'human rights' clauses in international cooperation agreements, has achieved the master stroke of voting for a report on the Balkans without once mentioning the dramatic and inadmissible situation of the Serb populations in Kosovo, who have become pariahs in the historical land of their fathers. Meanwhile, it congratulates itself on the hundreds of millions of euros given to the authorities who provoke, organise or tolerate this situation.

The consolidation of economic relations with the Western Balkans is of immense importance both to the EU and to the Western Balkans. I therefore welcome the fact that the European Parliament is working intensively on this issue and that we adopted the Belder report today. In light of the fact that the future of the countries of the Western Balkans lies with the EU, their economic and political rapprochement to the EU is very important. In order to tie these countries to the EU in the long term, the development of their market economies and regional cooperation must be fostered.

That is why constructive and positive signals from the European Parliament are also important. It is in the interests of the EU to champion the creation of political stability, legal security and hence good framework conditions in these countries for foreign investment. The Belder report underlines the fact that the level of economic relations depends on progress in each individual country. Moreover, it should be the EU's objective to diversify the national economies of the countries of the Western Balkans. All these important aspects are reflected in the report. I am convinced that a positive development in economic relations between the EU and the Western Balkans will be of benefit to all countries on the continent of Europe and I await the implementation of our proposals with anticipation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Belder on trade and economic relations with the Western Balkans.

I agree with my fellow Member in considering that the European Union has a vital part to play in the process of economic and political revival of countries in the Western Balkan area, with a view to their membership of the European Union, firstly in terms of stabilising the political situation and secondly in economic and trade terms.

I would nevertheless like to emphasise the need for the Union to conduct an in-depth analysis of the situation with regard to respect for human rights and democratic principles within each country. I refer in particular to Croatia and the numerous Italian expatriates who continue to be clearly discriminated against in that country, despite Croatia's official application for admission to the EU. This aspect is, in my opinion, at odds with the situation of Serbia, a country that has only been granted the status of potential candidate and to which the Union should be more open than it has been until now.

I voted for this report on trade and economic relations with the Western Balkans as the motion for a European Parliament resolution also includes the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and that of the Committee on Regional Development of which I am a member.

Economic growth and development in the Western Balkans region will provide the conditions for constructive partnerships with the EU's eastern Member States, which ultimately includes Romania too.

At the same time, linking the economic and trade policies of the countries in the Western Balkans to the European Union's policy will support the stabilisation and association agreements signed between the EU and these countries.

I voted in favour of this report because economic stability may also lead to political stability in this area, which has been particularly troubled over the years.

The EU should use all available means in order to motivate the Western Balkans region and persuade it to carry out essential reforms. The expansion of regional economic cooperation appears to be especially significant in this context, as also is the prospect of membership for states in the region. Extensive and stable economic contacts between particular countries would lead to specific economic integration, which would definitely help to limit the threat of conflict in the future. A realistic perspective of membership can also prevent this. The Balkans have already made huge advances on the road to rapprochement with the EU, but the prospect of accession will most certainly encourage states to continue their efforts at integration with the Community.

I would like to emphasise, however, that alongside instruments of economic support, initiatives which aim to integrate Balkan society with the EU are equally significant. Therefore the introduction of changes, which should be as far-reaching as possible and which would make the movement of people easier, is very important, as also is broad support for the region's young people. Only if the people of the Balkans feel that they have equal rights with the other citizens of Europe will we be able to say that we have achieved success.

I totally agree with what Mr Belder had to say and with his recommendations on how to improve trade and economic relations with the Western Balkans. The EU has a key role to play in the recovery of that region. The stabilisation and association agreements, the trade preferences and technical and financial support are the three pillars on the basis of which the EU hopes to bring stability to that region. It is true that the level of development and adoption of the acquis communautaire is not the same in all the countries of that region, and so, in defiance of having a single strategy, it is necessary to choose specific approaches, which must be tailored to the needs in question. Albania is not Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina is not Kosovo.

The progress of the accession negotiations (or their opening in the case of potential candidate countries) with the Western Balkan states should, obviously, depend on full compliance with the Copenhagen criteria and unconditional respect for the principles of democracy and human rights. Let it be clear, though, that all those countries have a future in the EU and that their membership will ensure that the dreadful conflicts which have typified that region for centuries are now a thing of the past.

The European Union has played an immensely important role in the process of economic and political reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia. However, it has undertaken an enormous responsibility with regard to the whole of the Western Balkans. In connection with this, the EU is currently faced with the difficult task of reconstruction of the entire region.

The EU has become the main trading partner of all the countries in the Western Balkans. The three most important pillars of this cooperation are: stabilisation agreements, trade preferences, and technical and financial support. The process of stabilisation should above all be directed at raising the living standard and ensuring permanent economic development in the Balkan states. In undertaking its actions, however, the EU must bear in mind the membership of some of the countries in the EU and the status of the others as potential candidates for membership.

It is difficult not to agree with the rapporteur that a basic condition for development of the countries under discussion is membership of the World Trade Organization (Croatia, Albania and the former Yugoslavia are already members). For full integration with the world system of trade to take place, it is essential that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro also join the WTO.

While appreciating the progress already made in terms of modernisation in the region, full integration of the Western Balkans with the EU economic system should be pursued.

in writing. - (SV) The report on the common agricultural policy and global food security discusses important issues such as the consequences of rising food prices in poor and rich countries and the importance of securing access to food for everyone.

We Swedish Social Democrats decided to vote against the report, as it contains problematic wordings in relation to agricultural policy. Among other things, we would like to see a reduction in the proportion of the EU budget allocated to agricultural policy, the retention and development of cross-compliance and the adaptation of the system to the market. The report is not in line with these views and we are therefore voting against it.

in writing. - Securing sustainable food supply is one of the greatest challenges that faces us. This challenge will continue to grow as the world's population expands. The current population growth rate is over 70 million per year. This means providing food for 70 million more people every year. How will we manage this when already over 850 million people in the world are undernourished?

While securing sustainable food supply is one of our greatest challenges, the EU is one of the greatest success stories of recent times, having brought peace, stability and prosperity to the region. The EU is the largest giver of ODA and is a model for international cooperation, and can put this experience to good use globally.

The EU cannot afford to follow policy lines that are narrow in scope. Just as international fortunes are intertwined, there is more and more overlap between policy areas. This report is an acknowledgment of this and a recognition that the EU's high standards and wealth of agricultural experience can be of a wider value in addressing global food security, including by providing funding for fertilisers and high-yield seeds, as well as training and practical support for farmers and food producers.

in writing. - (DA) Anne E. Jensen and Niels Busk have voted in favour of Mrs McGuinness's own-initiative report on the common agricultural policy and global food security, as the majority of the report is excellent and it is only possible to vote either in favour or against. However, we cannot support paragraphs 63 and 64, which raise doubts about free trade in agricultural products. We are strong supporters of free trade and believe that it is absolutely right to work to bring about a situation in which trade in agricultural products is based on free market principles.

in writing. - (DA) The Danish Members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have voted against the own-initiative report on the common agricultural policy and global food security, as the report opposes the liberalisation of agricultural policy and criticises EU rules on the restriction of pesticides. We believe it is necessary to have balanced access to the global food supply, but that this will not be helped by either maintaining or extending the EU's agricultural aid.

The global food problem is increasing rather than shrinking and affects all grassroots classes, not only in the less developed countries, but also in the more developed countries.

The main cause of this situation is that the basic criterion for the production of agricultural produce and food is profit rather than global food requirements.

The trading of foodstuffs on international exchanges has resulted in spiralling price increases and, hence, spiralling profits for the food multinationals, a perceptible reduction in rural output and global food reserves and an increase in the number of malnourished people.

In order to address this unacceptable situation, which condemns one billion people to malnourishment and starvation, the report confines itself to wish lists which are cancelled out by its insistence on abiding by the same policy: support for the common agricultural policy and its reviews and 'health check', the completion of negotiations in the World Trade Organization, the decoupling of aid from production and the continuing production of biofuels, on the pretext of the environment and using land which could be used to produce food.

It barely touches on the principles of food sovereignty and security and the right to self-sufficiency in food.

The MEPs from the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report because, despite its findings and 'wishes', it supports the anti-grassroots, pro-monopoly policy which is condemning more and more people to malnourishment and starvation.

in writing. - (SV) It is important that we combat and alleviate starvation. In this respect, I welcome the content of Mrs McGuinness's own-initiative report on the common agricultural policy and global food security.

I have, nevertheless, chosen to abstain, because the report was strongly protectionist in places. Subsidising and regulating our domestic agriculture does not promote our goal of an open, green, safe and enterprising EU. A freer world market for agricultural products would make it easier for people in poor countries to develop their agriculture. We are seeing this now in large parts of Africa, in particular.

We agree with various aspects highlighted by the report, in particular:

the fact that the policy shift has resulted in a loss of potential market opportunities for EU producers and has led to increased reliance on imported food from outside the European Union, produced to very different production standards, thereby placing EU agricultural products at a disadvantage;

the concern that dramatic increases in agricultural production costs may result in less usage and reduced output, which will exacerbate the food crisis in Europe and the world;

the need for policy instruments aimed at averting such large and damaging price fluctuations;

the concern about increasing market concentration in the food retail sector, which has led to the development of monopolies, and the need for alternative solutions in negotiations with retailers, in favour of small farmers.

However, there are also aspects with which we cannot agree:

the increased orientation of the common agricultural policy towards the market and the devaluation of food sovereignty, with the emphasis solely being placed on food security, forgetting that this is difficult without food sovereignty.

That is why we abstained.

The McGuinness report tackles an issue that I regard as strategic: food security and the importance of strong and competitive European agriculture in a globalised world.

Following the recent crisis in food prices, food security should be an EU priority. Despite the fact that another food shortage crisis is not foreseeable in the short term, it is likely that one will occur in the future, if we take into account the negative effects of climate change on agricultural production and the constantly increasing demand.

Bearing in mind that developing countries will probably not be able to produce food in sufficient quantities to supply their increasing populations, the industrialised countries will continue to have the important task of producing and exporting food.

The common agricultural policy must therefore once again become a European priority and form the basis of the European food security policy, given that, in a time of financial and economic crisis, it is more important than ever.

The Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) delegation has voted in favour of the McGuinness report on the common agricultural policy and global food security, despite the fact that it disapproves of some of the content in this report. The VVD delegation would have liked to have seen the report clearly stipulate that the barriers to trade in the developing world should be phased out with reciprocity. Alongside this, it would have liked the report to have argued in favour of a special, faster procedure for the authorisation of cisgenic products. These still fall under the same procedure as ordinary biotechnological products, despite the fact that they make use of genetic materials from within the same species.

in writing. - The McGuinness report deals with issues of immense global importance. In two years world food prices have increased by over 80% and cereal stocks have fallen to dangerously low levels. Pressure on global food stocks are also coming from relatively new sources such as the move towards increased use of bio-fuels. I welcome the general thrust of this report and, accordingly, voted in favour.

Madam President, I voted in favour of adopting the report by Mrs McGuinness, but I would like to draw attention to the following issues in particular.

For the first time since the 1970s, we have been facing an acute worldwide food crisis. This crisis actually began before the present global economic crisis, at a time when world maize and wheat prices skyrocketed in a very short time. The food crisis may have changed its name to economic crisis, but the former has unfortunately not gone away. It is dreadful to think that, even before the problems posed by the current food crisis, around a billion people worldwide suffered from chronic hunger and malnutrition.

Food security - access to a sufficient, safe and nutritious food supply - must now become a key political priority both here and elsewhere. We cannot tolerate a situation where, while worldwide famine increases and the price of food soars, we in Europe are winding down agriculture drastically and for the oddest of reasons. In Finland, as in the other Member States, people must have the right to engage in profitable agriculture both now and in the future.

The food industry has a massive impact on employment, as it provides work for more than four million people in Europe. The entire food chain in Finland is estimated to employ approximately 300 000 people, which is some 13% of the employed workforce. There is an unquestionable need to protect these people's jobs during these times of food and economic crisis.

in writing. - (SV) It is interesting to note that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has not chosen to include in its report a key issue proposed by the Committee on Development, which reads: 'the European Parliament calls on the Council and the Commission, in close consultation with the ACP countries, to give priority to the question of the impact on the ACP countries of EU subsidies on the export of EU agricultural products and to commit to providing specific, sustainable responses aimed at avoiding dumping, in compliance with the commitments made in this area.'

However, in the report it is claimed that the EU has addressed the potentially trade-distorting elements of EU agricultural policy that can negatively impact on farmers in the developing world. The report complains that non-EU countries produce food to very different production standards, thereby exposing EU agricultural products to unequal terms of competition.

These two claims in the report are controversial, to say the least, and not something that all the political forces within the EU would agree with. If this were the case, could the Committee on Development's proposal not also be included in the text of the report?

The report is also against reductions in aid payments within agriculture and is opposed to any reform of the common agricultural policy. Moreover, it proposes a citizen information policy regarding the common agricultural policy, which I view as political propaganda for a system that is very controversial, particularly in my country.

I have therefore voted against this report.

The recent extraordinary surge in food prices rightly prompted a discussion on agricultural policies, food security and development. Regrettably, the issue of international trade is often missing from such debates, thus leading to the search for solutions which ignore the positive potential that increased world consumption can have.

Although initially this food price inflation poses a threat of famine for countries and populations without resources, and demands increased humanitarian aid, it subsequently stimulates a global increase in food production capacity and a rise in global trade. This is an opportunity for the agricultural populations of the world, of which full advantage must be taken.

As for Europe and the common agricultural policy, our adaptation to this new world context - with a potential for slower growth than expected - should not occur at the cost of either protectionism and new barriers to trade or market distortion. The medium- and long-term profitability of European agriculture and rural development should be the criteria used in the common agricultural policy and its reform.

This report looks more like a defence of the current common agricultural policy than a comprehensive overview of food security in a starving world. Despite this I have supported it, because it draws attention to the importance of securing access to credit for farmers in developing countries so that they can modernise agricultural production and increase the output and quality of their food. I regret that the report paid little attention to the risks of land being bought up in the world's poorest countries for growing and exporting the cheapest possible food to the rest of the world, at the expense of the economic development and needs of local populations in countries suffering from chronic food shortages.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs McGuinness on the common agricultural policy and global food security.

I share the concerns expressed by my fellow Member and draw attention to the need, which is more pressing than ever, for appropriate measures to be taken to guarantee all citizens access to healthy, nutritious food, whether they are resident within the European Union or elsewhere in the world. I wish to emphasise that our efforts must be viewed from a medium- to long-term perspective and not focused merely on the short term.

It will not be enough to earmark substantial funding for poor and developing countries unless this is backed by a serious commitment by industrialised countries to ward off the speculation on the prices of staple foods that we have seen recently and introduce international agreements that take into account the very varied situations of countries that belong to the World Trade Organization. Otherwise the negotiations, which have already broken down, will continue to have little likelihood of success.

in writing. - The issue of the CAP and global food security is important. We must make sure that we play our part in the EU ensuring that the hungry across the world are fed. It is a disgrace that there are people in this world starving to death due to our lack of political coordination.

The purpose of the common agricultural policy is not only to increase agricultural productivity and ensure rational development of farming production through optimal use of production factors, especially the workforce, but also to provide rural populations with a suitable standard of living, guarantee security of supplies and ensure reasonable prices for supplies to consumers.

Access to sufficient supplies of safe and nutritious food is currently a key political priority at EU and world level.

It is disturbing that food prices are higher than in previous years, and world food stocks have fallen to a critically low level. There is a danger that the world financial crisis may induce developed countries not to honour their obligations in the area of aid to developing countries.

Medium- and long-term action is needed to safeguard world food production and to support those people who are most seriously affected in terms of basic nutritional needs.

The greatest challenge now is to develop a policy for agriculture and food which will meet the needs of the increasingly numerous world population, which, according to estimates, by the year 2050 will have grown by 40%, while world food demand is expected to double in the same period.

Development of a policy which will ensure farmers a decent income from the food they produce is a key political issue. This is of fundamental importance in terms of safeguarding food production. If the market is not able to ensure this, it should be done through appropriate policy.

in writing. - The Labour delegation will be voting in favour of the CAP and Global Food Security report, despite the strong reservations we have on the stance taken on the CAP.

We do not agree with the prominent role attributed to the CAP in ensuring food security nor with the criticism of the CAP reform, which has seen a shift away from quantity to quality production, the implication being that this has undermined our food security. Our position is that we need to modernise our agricultural policy, and not return to a production-based policy that encouraged massive over-production and a distortion of markets, undermining the ability of other countries to produce and trade agricultural goods.

We do, however, feel that the report raises many very important points on the issue of global food security, such as recognising the importance of food security as a key political priority for the EU, urging for greater cooperation on a global level, calling for more investment in developing countries to build up their production capacities, and urging for agriculture to be placed at the heart of the EU's development agenda. All of these points are equally important and demand that we look beyond the narrow focus of those using this issue as justification for a more interventionist and protectionist CAP and that we support the report.

in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report by Mrs Grabowska on the perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon. Strengthening the dialogue with civil society is important for creating an EU that listens to and represents the views of its citizens. We also agree with the demands in the report for work in the Council to be more open in order to enable civil society to participate in the dialogue in a meaningful way.

However, we would like to make it clear that we believe it to be wrong for churches and religious communities to be given a special status among civil society organisations. Churches and religious communities should take part in the dialogue with the Union's institutions in the same way as all other organisations.

Madam President, every initiative which aims to bring citizens closer to the institutions which act on their behalf should be supported. However, care should be taken to ensure that the proposed initiative is not by its own momentum transformed into another institution. I endorsed the report because every step taken to bring citizens closer to the authorities which make decisions for them is a step towards a better and more transparent democracy. However, I want to emphasise that, as is the case in every dialogue, so also in the one concerning the Lisbon Treaty the opinion of every party should be taken into account.

in writing. - This report refers to the Lisbon treaty, which, let me remind you, is not in force. It is therefore highly presumptuous, not to say arrogant, to be invoking the name of the Lisbon treaty as if it was already a fact of life.

In case you had forgotten: the Lisbon treaty was sunk by the democratic will of the people of Ireland. They put the brakes on the project because they wanted a different kind of Europe. In voting the way they did, the people of Ireland also spoke for the citizens of every other Member State, including my own, who were denied a referendum by their governments.

Ireland has been bullied into holding a second vote, but the Irish people are unlikely to take kindly to being treated with such contempt.

In future, we should avoid bringing ourselves into disrepute by discussing hypothetical scenarios such as the Lisbon treaty. It merely serves to expose the EU's arrogant disregard for democratic opinion.

I voted against this report.

in writing. - (NL) I may be living on a different planet, but I seem to remember that the Dutch and French people rejected the European Constitution in a democratic referendum in 2005. That Constitution is dead and buried, at least if we call ourselves democrats. The cursed Treaty of Lisbon, which is simply an airbrushed version of the Constitution, suffered exactly the same fate, rejected, as it was, in a democratic referendum by the Irish people.

Europe, however, refuses to accept the opinion of the people and wants to ram the Constitution down the throats of Europeans through the backdoor, pretending that everything in the garden is rosy and talking of a so-called 'dialogue with the citizen in the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon' with the greatest cynicism.

This is supposed to be a 'dialogue with the citizen', 'a strong culture of consultation and dialogue', whereby the rapporteur, in her cynicism, quotes once more Article 10 of the Treaty on European Union: 'Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union'. This may be true, but Europe does not take any notice of the democratic voice of the people.

in writing. - This report by Genowefa Grabowska provides for increased mechanisms of participation and for vehicles for civil dialogue within the European Union. It addresses the gap between members of the Union and the relationship they have with the institutions that serve them. It recognises the need to increase civil dialogue to maintain true engagement with the aims of the European project.

The recent rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland was in part due to differences between the perception of the Union and the reality of the Union. Addressing the generalised lack of information is key to achieving a genuine democratic partnership. Central to this proposal is the insistence that dialogue is reciprocal, that the opinions expressed need to be heeded and respected.

For this report, Ms Grabowska highlights both transparency and representativeness as essential components of active civil dialogue and a genuine participatory democracy. A more open and accessible Council, increased and more integrated inter-institutional cooperation, better use of new media as a means to connect with citizens and providing assistance to civil society institutions will help bring Europe closer together. For these reasons, I support Ms Grabowska's report.

in writing. - We support any and all efforts to empower citizens, communities and civil society organisations with regard to political decision-making processes, including the EU.

However, we do not believe that the Lisbon Treaty provides any real advance in this field. Furthermore we believe that for the proposed Citizens Initiative to be meaningful, the Commission should be under a legally binding obligation to produce a White Paper outlining a response to the proposal, or the Treaty basis for not taking action.

This report is yet another one which goes against the majority of the European Parliament in its efforts to try and 'sell' the Treaty of Lisbon project at any cost, a task which has not proved easy, judging by the results of previous referendums. These repeated efforts have at least one merit: they clearly show how difficult and even painful it is for the Treaty's advocates to find arguments to promote it.

No propaganda exists - and this is the subject of the report - which can disguise the anti-democratic nature of the insistence by the EU's leaders on forcing another referendum in Ireland in order to impose this proposed Treaty. We do not share the narrow view of those who consider that developing a 'civil dialogue' or a 'citizens' initiative' is sufficient to counteract the nature of a proposal which, as a whole, prevents the citizens of each Member State from defining their collective future, and which insists on measures resulting in precarious jobs, increased working hours, easier redundancies and the privatisation of public services.

No propaganda exists which can conceal the neoliberal, federalist and militarist content of this Treaty project. That is why we have voted against.

Mrs Grabrowska's report recommends permanent dialogue between all the European institutions and the 'representatives' from civil society to define policies and draw up legislation at EU level, in other words a formal, compulsory organisation of participatory 'democracy' at Union level.

The trouble is, participatory 'democracy' is merely a front for those who reject true democracy: it allows dialogue to be restricted to the most active organisations, which are rarely the most representative, and it appears to test citizens' views in advance, the better to be able to refuse to consult them properly later on.

If the Europe of Brussels wishes to hear the citizens, let it take note of the French and Dutch 'no' to the European Constitution and abandon the Treaty of Lisbon, which is a mere copy of the Constitution. If opinion polls ought to be taken into account, as the rapporteur would like, put a stop to the negotiations for Turkey's membership, because the majority of Europe's citizens oppose it. If it is right to respect the principle that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizens, let Europe cease to rule over our daily lives. Then it would have some credibility when it spoke of democracy.

in writing. - (SV) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Grabowska on the perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon. I believe that it is important to strengthen the dialogue with civil society in order to create an EU that listens to and represents the views of its citizens. I also agree with the demands in the report for work in the Council to be more open in order to enable civil society to participate in the dialogue in a meaningful way. However, I believe that the inclusion of the Treaty of Lisbon was unnecessary, as it is no longer relevant after the Irish 'no' vote in the referendum.

It is also wrong for churches and religious communities to be given a special status among civil society organisations. Churches and religious communities should take part in the dialogue with the Union's institutions in the same way as all the other organisations.

I agree with the report on the perspectives for developing civil dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon.

I consider civil dialogue to be very important, so that the citizens of the EU can gain an insight into the areas of activity of their elected representatives.

I should like to highlight the comment that dialogue between the EU and the Union citizens should be a two-way dialogue, because it is not enough to inform our home countries about the implementation of projects; we also have to listen to individual people and take their opinion seriously.

in writing. - (SV) The Treaty of Lisbon has not been adopted. It was rejected by the voters of Ireland in a referendum and therefore must be considered dead. What was, essentially, the same draft treaty had already been rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands.

However, the European Parliament's federalist majority is unwilling to listen, insisting, instead, on a Union that is governed to an even greater extent at the supranational level, despite the fact that its citizens have shown their scepticism in multiple referendums and that, given the chance, they would show this scepticism in even more countries, too.

The way of working demonstrated by the European Parliament's federalist majority shows what sort of a civil dialogue it is that they want. They only want to listen to those parts of civil society that fit into the federalist mould.

Outside the legislative procedure, the report we have before us is not particularly impressive. Paragraph 9 of the report states that all EU institutions should maintain up-to-date registers of all relevant non-governmental organisations. This entails an unnecessary increase in bureaucracy that leads nowhere. Furthermore, paragraph 11 of the report talks about promoting an 'actively European mindset' among EU citizens. How would this mindset be defined?

However, the worst aspect of the report is the call, in paragraph 22, to give European associations and European civil society organisations a shared legal basis at EU level. This proposal is yet another step towards constructing an EU state.

I have therefore voted against this report.

It may sound really nice to talk of a public debate on the Treaty of Lisbon in all the languages. Despite all the camouflage manoeuvres, the people have understood full well that a treaty that is 95% in keeping with the rejected EU Constitution is no Columbus's egg, even if the EU establishment is trying to market it as such.

It is also interesting, given that we want to conduct this dialogue in all the languages, that we are not even in a position to ensure that the President-in-Office of the Council has an integrated website in the most widely spoken languages in the Union, namely English, French and German. We must also look particularly ridiculous to our citizens in praising the new civil initiatives provided for in the Constitution as a step towards more democracy, given that referendums are being repeated until the result wanted by the EU is obtained. As this initiative can only be yet another pure pro-EU-Constitution campaign, on which enough money has already been spent, I voted against the Grabowska report.

I voted in favour of this report as civil society plays an important role in Europe in the European integration process, by passing on the opinions and requests of EU citizens to Europe's institutions.

For the European Union to be able to achieve its aims and objectives, it needs a broader public debate, a more effective civil dialogue and development of political awareness, all aspects recognised in this report.

The report also highlights the importance of the expertise which civil society makes available to institutions and emphasises the role and significance of functions for informing and raising awareness involved in civil dialogue.

I hope that the EU's current initiatives, which promote greater involvement by civil society in the European integration process, will continue in the future as well. I am referring in this instance to initiatives such as Europe by Satellite, Citizens' Agora and other citizen forums on various topics.

I hope that this report will encourage the European Union's Council to facilitate and simplify access to its proceedings, as this is a basic condition for initiating a proper dialogue with civil society.

Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the fact that the report draws attention to the need for social dialogue at a time when European countries are experiencing a democratic crisis. People either do not understand or are not interested in topics unrelated to their everyday concerns. The low turnout in European elections is a logical consequence of the fact that European citizens do not know what positive contribution European legislation can make to them and they do not believe their vote can have any influence. It is little known that the Lisbon Treaty strengthens participatory democracy. I agree with Mrs Grabowska that the Member States should provide more fundamental support to non-governmental organisations. However, it is necessary to ensure that they are representative and transparent. I have backed the report also because it includes a request for the Commission to publish lists of the non-governmental organisations that have applied its proposals during the legislative preparations. This will certainly reduce the anonymity of the whole process and contribute towards the non-governmental organisations being more representative. I also take the view that the election campaign for the European Parliament provides a great opportunity for responsible MEPs to explain what decisions we make in Strasbourg, how civil society participates in our work and how it will be able to participate following adoption of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty accords dialogue with citizens the status of an imperative. This is binding on all EU policies and spheres of activity.

The success of dialogue depends on representativeness, and therefore on the strong commitment of key entities. National, regional and local authorities should use the method of dialogue, so that citizens can experience participatory democracy working in practice.

It should be admitted that the European Union has a lot of ground to make up in the area of communication, and indeed especially in the area of dialogue with citizens.

The citizens of the EU must be sure that no decisions at European level will be made without their involvement, and that by voting in elections they will have a real influence on the form of those decisions.

I fully support the call by the rapporteur to encourage the promotion of initiatives in the area of dialogue with citizens.

in writing. - It is premature to be talking about what will happen once the Lisbon treaty comes into effect. The treaty remains in limbo and is still subject to a possible second 'no' vote by Irish citizens in another referendum later this year.

While this remains the case, we should not be acting as if the Lisbon treaty is already in force. Doing so lays us wide open to accusations of arrogance and contempt for the democratic process, which must still be concluded one way or another.

Furthermore, I am not in favour of EU funds being spent on promoting the Lisbon treaty through civil dialogue or any other means. We have free media and vigorous democracies in the Member States and are quite capable of conducting this debate on our own terms without the Commission trying to influence matters. In fact, in my country, the UK, the Commission's attempts to promote further EU integration tends to be counterproductive.

I, like other British Conservatives, want to see the European Union going in a different direction by doing less and doing it better.

I therefore voted against this report.

The Grabowska report is yet another example of the scandalous way in which this Parliament handles the principles it claims to serve. 'Dialogue with the citizen in the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon': what a joke! The Treaty of Lisbon, which is the ex-European Constitution in disguise, was consigned to the waste paper bin in referendums in the Netherlands and in France, and subsequently also in Ireland. Other countries dare not even organise a referendum.

If it is dialogue with the citizen that Europe is after, then it should start respecting democracy. If the outcome of a referendum is not to the liking of the Eurocratic nomenclatures, this does not necessarily mean that the voting public is lacking in brain cells. The reverse is true! At any rate, I emphatically voted against this report again. Nec spe, nec metu or without hope or fear.

The European authorities must be open to dialogue and cooperation with the citizens and with organisations from civil society. Anyone may contribute to the common good.

However, particular interest groups, lobbies that do not represent the common good, should not be allowed to infiltrate the legislative process under the guise of a dialogue with civil society. Access to the dialogue must be equitable.

I insist that dialogue should be especially with associations that give a voice to the poorest individuals and families. The fight against extreme poverty and social inequalities will have no lasting success without a permanent dialogue with the families and individuals who experience extreme poverty in their daily lives. This dialogue is difficult but also a necessity. The European, national, regional and local authorities cannot take the easy route when we are building an inclusive society and a Europe for all. In terms of best practice, we should recognise the work of the European Economic and Social Committee and the International Movement ATD Fourth World which, since 1989, have been organising European sessions of Fourth World People's Universities, which allow structured dialogue between representatives of the authorities and people with direct experience of extreme poverty.

in writing. - I abstained on this vote because, although I and the UK Independence Party fully support equality between men and women, the UK already has equality legislation which can be changed or improved when required by our own democratically elected and accountable Parliament. The EU is anti-democratic and undemocratic and is not a legitimate guardian of anyone's rights.

I endorse the Weiler report and express support for measures aimed at transposing the directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. The idea of creating a blacklist of unfair commercial practices, not only for business-to-consumer relations but also for business-to-business relations, is laudable. I also support the mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement of the implementation of legal regulations in the area of consumer protection concerning unfair practices, and I support the initiative to open a publicly accessible database of national measures adopted in transposition of the Directive concerning unfair commercial practices. From the point of view of the Polish and the European consumer, the initiative is valuable.

We abstained on the Weiler report on protecting consumers and companies against unfair practices and misleading advertising as we have major criticisms of it.

The first is that the European legislation on these issues is presented as a directive, in other words the Member States are relatively free in the resources they implement to achieve the objectives assigned to them. The rapporteur's wish for uniformity, both in the substance and in the form of national legislation, will remain a wish unless there is unacceptable interference by the European Union in the legal and administrative systems of the Member States, with no real benefit to consumers.

The second is that the main added value that the European Union brings to these areas is the help in resolving cross-border disputes. This issue has not been properly resolved either in the current applicable texts or in those called for.

The main objective of this legislation should not be to exist per se but to protect consumers and companies.

The Directive concerning unfair commercial practices and the Directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising have immense significance in terms of giving consumers more confidence and ensuring legal certainty for businesses in the internal market. This has particular significance in relation to cross-border transactions, which are increasingly common in the European market. National consumer protection authorities are still encountering difficulties in taking appropriate action in the target country in the case of such transactions.

Proper transposition, implementation and enforcement of these directives are essential for achieving the goals of the directives. Unfortunately, a number of Member States have not yet fulfilled this obligation, which does not contribute to the building of appropriate relationships between businesses and consumers.

In 2007 the European Commission used for the first time the 'EU Sweep' as a tool to check and enforce the implementation of consumer protection legislation as regards airline websites. Irregularities were confirmed on as many as 43.6% of the websites reviewed, which only confirms the necessity of greater monitoring in relation to the enforcement of existing provisions.

I welcome the Commission's initiative concerning the creation of a publicly accessible database of national measures adopted in transposition of these directives.

in writing. - The EU has made significant progress in improving consumers' rights. It is disappointing that some Member States have yet to transpose the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive; and this House has today sent a clear message that those Member States should address this shortcoming.

We adopted an EU directive protecting consumers from unfair commercial practices and misleading advertising back in 2005. However, we still refuse to protect citizens from Internet callers, unwanted advertising calls and Scammer & Co. Rip-off companies hide behind post office boxes, front men and name-changing.

If you manage to catch any of these companies, they are sentenced to ridiculously small fines, which have no deterrent effect whatsoever. Fines here need to be drastically increased, especially for repeat offences. It is important for customers who have been ripped off to be able to file a compensation claim, otherwise we are just hanging them out to dry. The planned changes will improve the situation for consumers, which is why I voted in favour.

I welcome the debate on the report on the transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising. While these directives form the backbone of consumer protection in the EU, they must be consistently applied in the Member States, especially for Internet purchases. The internal market must not be fragmented and businesses and consumers must come under the same rules and protection regardless of which Member State they are buying or selling in. I must draw your attention to the fact that some Member States, including the Czech Republic, have been late in transposing the directives into their national legislation. The most important thing now is whether the national supervisory authorities will actually force unfair businesses to put these rules into practice. The post-Christmas sales provide an excellent opportunity for checking. It is also necessary for European institutions to support greater cooperation between the national councils for radio and television broadcasting which have to monitor compliance with the directives in the mass media and it is in our interest for the supervision to be applied consistently across the entire EU.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of Mrs Weiler's report on the transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising.

I am firmly convinced that the proper implementation of the directive will make it possible for the public to be fully aware of their rights. The extension of consumer rights through the Directive on unfair commercial practices must be backed by the measures required to facilitate the exercise of those rights.

I agree with the rapporteur when she states that appropriate transposition, implementation and enforcement of the Directives on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and on misleading and comparative advertising are of fundamental importance to the achievement of the aims laid down in the Directives, particularly in the light of the different application and implementation methods and systems used in the Member States, the complexity of some of the legal concepts contained in the Directives, the quantity and exhaustive nature of national standards governing unfair commercial practices and misleading advertising and also the extensive range of application of the Directive. Lastly, I am delighted by my fellow Member's initiative, the aim of which is the legal regulation of a topic that is of paramount importance to the Community.

I definitely endorse Barbara Weiler's report on the transposition, implementation and enforcement of the Directive concerning unfair commercial practices in the internal market and the Directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising.

The issue of misleading and comparative advertising in business-to-business transactions has been regulated by the introduction of a single, consolidated directive. The issue of unfair commercial practices in business-to-consumer relations has been regulated by Directive 2005/29/EC.

The Directives were prepared to give consumers more confidence (their protection has increased due to the drawing up of a 'blacklist' of commercial practices which should be prohibited, and thanks to better harmonisation of the protection of consumers against unfair practices) and also to provide businesses with greater legal certainty.

A greater degree of protection could have been achieved if the provisions of the Directive were accompanied by legal measures allowing effective enforcement. Member States must therefore screen their legal systems and increase the clarity of the transposition process.

The changes introduced must be supported by clear procedures for implementation and effective measures for redress, which will give consumers the right to bring claims for damages for losses incurred in connection with unfair commercial practices, like the mechanisms for monitoring consumer protection in relation to airline websites first used in 2007. At the Member State level awareness campaigns and campaigns which improve levels of consumer education on the subject of consumer rights and their use should be considered.

in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted against the report on the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. We believe that the report does not make it clear that the fisheries policy must be devised with environmental and sustainability criteria as the starting point. In addition, the report focuses far too much on holding back on the necessary reforms of the fisheries policy and protects the interests of the large-scale fishing industry.

Summarised very briefly, this own-initiative report of the European Parliament aims to integrate the Community requirements for the conservation of the marine environment with the common fisheries policy (CFP), which has, as one of its operational objectives, the gradual application of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

The fundamental points of this report that I should like to highlight are the fact that it considers that the present system of total allowable catches and quotas does not serve the aims of the reformed CFP, having proven inadequate for both the Community fisheries sector and the conservation of stocks.

Alternative management systems should be quickly established and, against this backdrop, I consider that the EU should be swifter in discussing alternative approaches, given that some, such as management based on fishing rights (for example), form the cornerstone in countries such as the United States, New Zealand, Norway and Iceland, all with a strong tradition and great potential in the fisheries sector.

Reformulating the recovery plan for hake and lobster is another fundamental point which should be considered.

I voted in favour of this report.

Although I do not agree with the whole content of the adopted resolution, it does contain a series of important objectives and principles that should prevail in a fisheries policy.

It will be particularly important to reaffirm and defend these objectives and principles (as the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) has consistently done), many of which are not respected by the common fisheries policy (CFP) (even though some are included in it), when the European Commission announces the presentation, next April, of a green paper on the future of the common fisheries policy, indicating a possible reform of this policy by 2012.

Given the objectives and intentions which have been set out by the European Commission and other EU institutions on the future of the fishing industry, this sector in Portugal - which is in deep crisis, the causes of which lie in the onerous policies followed for decades at national and Community level - should be alert to and should mobilise against new and even more onerous measures. If adopted and applied, these would bring about the destruction of a large part of this strategic sector, with negative consequences for Portugal.

Such a policy is not a foregone conclusion.

There are alternative policies for the fishing industry in Portugal.

These are policies which the PCP has been proposing and defending at both national level and in the European Parliament.

in writing. - I voted in favour of Mr Guerreiro's report. The report correctly notes that EU fisheries policy should promote the modernisation and sustainable development of the fishing industry, safeguarding its socio-economic viability and the sustainability of fisheries resources, and guaranteeing the supply of fish to the public and food sovereignty and security, the preservation of jobs and improved living conditions for fishermen. This is the opposite of what the CFP has achieved over the last three decades, and accordingly I support the repatriation of fisheries management.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Guerreiro's report on the CFP (common fisheries policy) and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. It is of fundamental importance not to confuse sea or ocean policy with fishing policy: I totally agree with the rapporteur on this score.

A fishing policy must be based on the principle that an interdependence exists between the wellbeing of the fishing community and the sustainability of the ecosystems of which they form an integral part, particularly by acknowledging the specific nature and importance of small-scale coastal fishing and artisanal fishing.

I also agree with my fellow Member when he states that the main and paramount task of fisheries management, as an activity involving the exploitation of a renewable resource, is to control (directly or indirectly) the total fishing effort in order to guarantee the maximum sustainable catch. If we adopt this approach, we will take a further step towards achieving the goals laid down by the European Union.

In this case also, the final compromise has ended up taking into account several of the criticisms that we made about the initial proposal, specifically with regard to reduction indicators and targets, measures and timetables to reduce the risks and dangers associated with pesticides and the dependency on pesticides. In our opinion, it is more reasonable not to quantify these targets from the outset, so as not to create ever more obstacles to small-scale agriculture.

We also welcome the fact that the exemption from mandatory inspection of the equipment and accessories covered by the Commission's initial proposal is maintained and that the mandatory inspection of everything, including equipment and accessories used on small-scale family-based holdings, has been dropped.

We consider that this differentiation - in practice and in principle - between family-based holdings and intensive agro-industry should be present in all decisions. Incidentally, it should always be remembered that it was not family-based holdings and the non-intensive method of production which led to BSE, dioxins, nitrofurans and other food disasters ...

That is why we voted in favour of the compromise.

I agree with the rapporteur and congratulate her on the final report.

The entry into force of this directive will be extremely important in terms of increasing pressure for the urgent amendment of the pesticide risk reduction policy, which in the EU has been characterised by a certain lack of information and inspection of practices and products. To protect human health and the environment, it is vital to help change the approach to agricultural pesticides.

This document is fundamental because it lays down rules on informing and training people who use pesticides and requires the inspection of equipment. It also prohibits aerial spraying (permitted in cases of absolute necessity and where there are no alternatives). Another positive aspect is the possibility for each Member State to define protection areas and risk areas.

I abstained from voting on the 'pesticides package' to protest against this anti-democratic method of submitting compromises to the European Parliament negotiated in informal trialogues between the Council, the Commission and representatives of the European Parliament, which are based solely on compromises reached in a single parliamentary committee. In fact, by dispensing with proper democratic debate during a first reading, not only is every Member's right to make amendments removed but this also produces European legislation which is conceived in defiance of any democratic transparency.

In addition, the legislation finally adopted is in many ways excessive, bureaucratic and counter-productive.

Madam President, I consider the adopted reports on pesticides and plant protection products to be the best we could achieve, as well as realistic and fruitful, and that is why I gave them my support.

Although at the last moment in plenary some Members tabled amendments that they thought would have ensured that the legislation was founded on stronger scientific evidence, at the same time allowing the possibility of derogations for individual Member States, it was clear to the majority that it would be audacious to start disregarding the outcome of negotiations between Parliament and the Council, even if the amendments were valid.

It was the report on the placing of plant protection products on the market that particularly aroused passions. Differing national interests and approaches and the consensus that was absent in the Council were reflected in the mood of Parliament. The debate was a heated one within our group too. Nevertheless, the feedback from stakeholders in the sector shows that the legislation is consistent and will enable the realisation of the EU-wide targets set for them to improve and protect both the environment and public health.

Impact studies carried out by French technical institutes and centres show that the draft revision of the European directive on pesticides could lead to the disappearance of many products currently on the market.

It is important that this draft gives farmers in the Union the means to protect their crops. Without this, crop production will fall off markedly and there could also be a noticeable impact on livestock production.

Entire agricultural sectors could be condemned in France and in Europe and the very role of agriculture, which is to feed our citizens with healthy and varied produce, would be threatened.

Without questioning the need to protect consumers and users, the new regulation must not threaten innovation or the diversity of chemical families. It must therefore immediately include alternative solutions.

This is the only solution to avoid the migration of a large amount of agricultural production and the jobs and wealth that go with it.

Faced with these crucial challenges for farmers, as the producers of vegetables, fruit and cereals, we need to remain vigilant in the face of the current reforms and the measures taken to apply them at national level.

I voted in favour of both the compromises reached in the difficult trialogue negotiations between Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Pesticides are unavoidable in modern farming. They guarantee optimal use of farmland in Europe, thereby ensuring a high standard of food production.

I am, of course, satisfied that account has been taken of my resolution adopted in November, so that particular care must be taken when licensing pesticides which are toxic for bees to ensure that pesticides which are proven to harm bees are not licensed.

The objective is efficiency, which means as much as necessary and as little as possible. A linear reduction in the number of products would be insane. Farmers need sufficient different products, if only to prevent resistance from building up.

I still of course have concerns about the actual effects of the regulation on agriculture, viniculture and horticulture in terms of their supply with pesticides and the prices of them and we are still in the dark as to the effects on the industrial sectors affected. A follow-up assessment here is indispensable.

I am delighted that Luxembourg now lies in the same zone as Belgium and Germany, with farmers and vine-growers able to use the same products on either side of the border. The problem with France must be solved with understanding.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report presented by Mrs Klaß on the framework directive for the sustainable use of pesticides. I am fully in agreement with the adoption of the European Parliament and Council directive.

The aim of the directive is to reduce the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment: a quantitative reduction in pesticide use should therefore be one of the practical aims, to be achieved by specifically setting targets and implementing national action plans. Controls must also be much more restrictive in order to fully protect public health. I also believe that the labels placed on such products should be clear and comprehensible to all so that implications associated with the use of each individual element are known.

Yesterday I mentioned during the debate that I consider the present compromise to be an honourable one and that the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament will be endorsing it. I wish to stress, however, that, in order to reach agreement with the farming lobby and the pesticides industry, we had to make a few concessions. I still regret the fact that we dropped the 50% objective.

As a result, everything is left to the ambitions of the individual Member States. It is perfectly possible for Member States not to be too ambitious, which can lead to too much reserve. In addition, the result achieved in relation to the establishment of buffer zones adjacent to waterways has been moderated. This, too, is now being left to the Member States. A European minimum distance would have been preferable from an environmental and public health point of view. What is positive, though, is that public places frequented by vulnerable groups (parks, sports and recreational areas, schools and suchlike) will be better protected. This area had already received attention in Flanders and is now set to receive attention from all the governments of Europe.

in writing. - This legislation has the EU written all over it - a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Its effect on farmers and horticulture businesses in north-east England, the region I represent, will be considerable.

Undoubtedly, businesses will shed jobs and even cease trading altogether. Undoubtedly, our hard-pressed farmers will be faced with yet more bureaucratic headaches. Undoubtedly, agricultural yields will go down. The fact that we are also debating global food security this week is therefore richly ironic. Pesticides are essential for growing food, and they are already subject to a stringent safety regime.

No-one disputes the importance of protecting the environment but this legislation is unbalanced. It is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility. The Commission has failed to carry out a sufficiently comprehensive and up-to-date impact assessment study.

For these reasons I voted against this proposal.

in writing. - (SV) We have today voted in favour of Mrs Breyer's report on the placing of plant protection products on the market. The regulation, which seeks to improve both food safety and the impact on the environment of plant protection products, is sound and important.

Since its first reading in the European Parliament, analyses have shown there to be a risk of the regulation being extremely far-reaching and inflexible, and it may make the commercial-scale cultivation of common crops (carrots and onions, for example) impossible in Sweden. The situation is not improved by the fact that the impact assessments of the rules differ in respect of important conclusions, for example between those of the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate and its British equivalent, the Pesticides Safety Directorate. We regret the fact that in this second reading in Parliament there has been no opportunity to vote for clarification of this, but we would point out, at the same time, that the adopted text contains improvements on that from Parliament's first reading.

We would have liked to have seen the agreement reached between the European Parliament and the Council taken into account, which would have the effect of clarifying the regulation so that dangerous use would be more clearly prohibited while plant protection that is necessary, responsible and safe - which is now at risk of being prohibited - would continue to be permitted.

The compromise that has finally been reached in the European Parliament represents a climbdown from the maximalist proposals that were made on the elimination of active substances, particularly from the negative implications that these proposals would have had with regard to insecticides and pesticides. This is particularly true in countries such as Portugal, which is seriously affected by certain insect pests on fruit and vegetable crops, potatoes and olives and by certain diseases such as pinewood nematode and chestnut blight, and where, not least due to the lack of effective plant protection campaigns, these pests and diseases are causing serious damage, particularly to family-based holdings.

Although we have many doubts about certain specific aspects of the compromise, such as the issues of non-chemical methods of control or prevention, and of pest and crop management, we feel it is correct to apply the principle of mutual recognition of plant protection product authorisations and the creation of zones encompassing regions with similar soil and climate characteristics.

However, we insist on the need for studies to give us a true picture of the consequences of these measures on productivity and, as a result, on farmers' incomes, so that this cost can be shared by the whole of society, given that we are talking about environmental and food safety requirements.

in writing. - I voted against the amendments to the Breyer report. There has been a degree of unnecessary scaremongering in Britain about this report meaning 'the end of conventional agriculture as we know it'. This is not the position taken by farmers in other Member States.

Nevertheless, the real impact is unclear with the failure to provide a satisfactory impact assessment on the proposal in its current form. I therefore support the idea of a derogation post 2015 when current authorisations lapse in the event of any Member State having serious concerns about the availability of a pesticide having serious effects on crop yields.

This document will help to harmonise the legislation on pesticides.

I agree with the report adopted, particularly because the application of the principle of mutual recognition of plant protection product authorisations will end the competitive imbalances that exist between different Member States (with different sizes of market) and will especially reduce environmental and food safety concerns. The creation of three zones encompassing regions with similar soil and climate characteristics is very positive. There would be a risk in lumping together completely different situations.

The issue of endocrine disrupting substances has, in my view, a fundamental basis: the proposed text is based on scientific opinion. The problem with endocrine disrupting substances is that, unlike carcinogens or mutagens, they do not have toxicological parameters, but produce a variety of effects ranging from minor hormone imbalances to genital malformations and/or cancer.

It is important to regulate substances which have a proven adverse effect on human health.

The regulation has a triple legal basis (agriculture, internal market and public health) which, in my opinion, is very positive.

In recent years the Union has constantly increased the limit values and a reduction was therefore long overdue. That pesticides which are hugely harmful to health can finally be banned is progress, although there is still far too little research here. The cumulative use of pesticides, which can be used to circumvent the limit values specified, still gives cause for concern. We still know far too little about the possible interactions and legal specifications here are overdue.

The extent to which documentation and traceability are really effective is open to doubt. The meat scandals in recent years show quite clearly how easy label fraud is. Last but not least there is still the problem that, although we may impose pesticide specifications on our producers and farmers, we then import products from countries with laxer requirements. The Chinese toy episode should be a lesson to us. The planned regulations are a step in the right direction, which is why I voted for them, but far more is needed.

in writing. - I voted against the conclusions and recommendations of the Trialogue between Council, Commission and Parliament because:

this legislation was to be passed in too much haste, because both Parliament and Commission finish their terms of office this coming summer which is not a sufficient reason to legislate in a hurry;

there has been no Impact Assessment of the proposals;

the recommendations are not based on sound science, but more on emotional fears about the causes for the alarming worldwide disappearance of honey-bees and on fears about human health;

the farmers whom I represent in Lincolnshire and in the East Midlands unanimously asked me to resist the proposals, and being practical people who grow our food their opinions should be respected.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report presented by Mrs Breyer on the placing of plant protection products on the market. I agree with the purposes and goals, which are to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment.

The European Union has always placed particular emphasis on topics relating to the environment and this regulation is another strategy designed to achieve this aim. I am also convinced that it is right to provide for experiments on animals to be kept to a minimum and carried out only in the event of absolute need and for the use of alternative methods to be promoted so that animals are spared needless suffering.

in writing. - I have decided to vote against this report for two reasons.

Firstly, we need to give our farmers the tools they need to do their job and this proposal will limit their ability greatly, especially for those farmers who work in damper and wetter climates and need to use pesticides to protect crops and their livelihood. I am not aware of any farmer who wants to use pesticides, but they are an essential part of ensuring food for our population at an affordable price.

Secondly, no impact assessment has been done on this legislation which I find outrageous due to the serious implications it could have on the agriculture sector.

Yesterday I mentioned during the debate that I consider the present compromise to be an honourable one and that the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament will be endorsing it. I wish to stress, however, that, in order to reach agreement with the farming lobby and the pesticides industry, we had to make a few concessions. Whichever way you look at it, what was achieved in terms of the cut-off criteria is a watered-down result when compared to the EP's position at first reading.

Derogation options were expressly created for 12 substances. We also had our reservations with regard to the zonal approach. The idea of three zones across such a vast expanse strikes us as problematic because the environmental circumstances within any of those zones can vary enormously. What is positive, though, is that the legal basis is founded on agriculture, the internal market and public health, with the concern for public health being given top priority in the relevant recitals and in Article 1. Equally, the cut-off criteria for substances that have unacceptable effects on bees are a welcome addition. The requirement to replace dangerous products with safe alternatives more quickly was also complied with. Whilst the outcome could have been better, we voted on an acceptable compromise.

in writing. - I was disappointed to see the common position amended. I would prefer the common position as it would give a better balance between public health and food production.

in writing. - The continued lack of a thorough impact assessment means that the EPLP is unable to support the compromise package negotiated between the Council and the European Parliament rapporteur, as there is no clear indication of its impact on food production.

Labour MEPs do wish to see better and safer pesticides, but we also have a responsibility to both producers and consumers to be sure what the eventual effects of the current proposals on agricultural production and food prices would be.

Whilst the deal certainly would not have the catastrophic effects that have been predicted in certain quarters, the uncertainty involved is great enough for the EPLP to be unable to support the compromise package.

in writing. - Today we have abstained from the vote on this plant protection legislation.

It is a very difficult vote. We have been involved in all parts of the intense negotiations on this controversial package right up to this point.

The emphasis of this legislation is clearly on health and the links between chemical substances and cancer. Farmers are most affected due to direct contact. While this package seeks to limit the availability of carcinogens, Member States may allow substances on the market where there is a serious threat to plant health. The proposal seeks to protect bees and reduce red tape for substance authorisation. With a gradual withdrawal of substances until 2016, we would urge industry to come up with biologically sound and effective products.

We cannot vote in favour of this legislation. Despite repeated calls for a more recent impact assessment, none was forthcoming from the Commission. We cannot legislate in the abstract! Products will be banned based on hazard as opposed to scientific risk, which would be based on use and exposure. In addition, the definition of "endocrine disruptor” has not been agreed at scientific level and we have tabled amendments to await the opinion of Commission experts to address this.

With this text limiting the production and sale of pesticides, and the accompanying text setting out the framework for their use, Europe has finally achieved exemplary standards for pesticides. Hiltrud Breyer's report is on the right lines. Whilst allowing low-risk products onto the market, it bans 22 substances deemed to be very harmful.

If we are to hope eventually for rational agriculture around the world, we must welcome this advance by the European Union. European agriculture, which makes abundant use of plant protection products, will not be weakened. However, with these texts, the EU will have the most rigorous legislation in the fight against toxic pesticides.

in writing. - The legislative regime for pan-European investment funds, Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS), has been subject to a considerable review. These are formed of collective investment schemes, which, having obtained an authorisation in a Member State, are able to use this 'passport' across the Union without the need for further examination. In these times of generalised financial insecurity, the regulation of financial dealings must be fairly and consistently applied to bolster confidence in the sector.

Wolf Klinz's report proposes the introduction of 'passports' for management companies (MC) which are engaged by UCITS fund promoters. This proposal allows for the cross-border management of funds without the current requisite for fully functioning management companies being set up. It is vital that sufficient fund managers are available to maintain a proper watch on MC passports.

Mr Klinz has presented a compromise document that I can support.

UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) are a harmonised investment fund product that invest according to defined investment policies. The UCITS framework Directive, to which the Klinz report refers, ensures cost transparency - and something which is particularly important at a time of economic and financial crisis in the EU - a high degree of investor protection. The Directive sets basic requirements on the organisation, management and oversight of investment funds.

It is true that, in comparison with the American market, European investment funds are characterised by their small size, a consequence of which are the high costs for investors. There is therefore a need to review the UCITS package, adapt it to investor needs and ensure the competitiveness of the EU fund industry.

The changes proposed by the rapporteur are primarily the introduction of new provisions concerning fund mergers (so that they will be treated as domestic mergers and will retain tax-neutrality), the introduction of a document which provides key investor information (replacing the simplified prospectus) and simplification of the existing notification procedure by using direct regulator-to-regulator information exchange.

in writing. - (SV) We support the report, as we believe that sustainable public finances are very important. However, we object to the wording in paragraph 8, which states that a gradual and sharp reduction in the tax burden on mid to low-level salaries and pensions must be introduced, with tax deductions, revised tax rates and compensation for fiscal drag. We believe that these are matters that should not be dealt with at EU level, but are issues that the Member States should decide on themselves.

The report on public finances in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) adopts the anti-labour decisions made by the Council and the Commission which are designed to strengthen the competitiveness of monopolies in order to safeguard the profits of capital and shift the burden of the deep capitalist crisis onto the workers' shoulders.

The anti-grassroots framework shaped by the EU with the Stability Pact and the Lisbon Strategy for the Member States, especially those in the EMU, in order to exercise financial policy is being strengthened.

The European Parliament, like the Commission, is trying to contain the centrifugal trends and the logic of 'every man for himself' by calling for even greater dedication to completing the internal market, harmonising taxes and strengthening competition and the rules of the market.

Criticism of the fact that the huge sums made available to deal with the crisis are not reaching small and medium-sized enterprises, let alone the workers, is misleading. The outdated and failed models of state intervention to cover the shortcomings of the market are wishful thinking and an attempt to disorientate the workers by seeking social consent to a rotten system.

The only solution is for the workers to fight for grassroots power and a grassroots economy to overturn capitalist barbarity.

It is actually quite interesting that the report recognises that the analysis of the public financial situation in 2007 and the first part of 2008 'clearly shows a change in the economic trend and the looming prospect of a slowdown in the economy and growth, coupled with a continued lower rate of inflation and increasing income disparities'.

However, to tackle the crisis, it then fundamentally sets out the same recipes that led to the current situation, instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to propose changes to the neoliberal and monetarist policies that have contributed to the current serious social situation of increasing inequality, unemployment, precarious and poorly paid work, and poverty.

It therefore insists on price stability and the Stability and Growth Pact, albeit with a degree of flexibility, and on the Lisbon Strategy, which, as we know, has been used as a pretext in order to pursue privatisation and remove responsibility for social functions from the state. This approach also involves the idea of the minimal state and the greater efficiency of the private sector, with the aim of imposing acceptance of so-called wage restraint, which actually results in a loss of purchasing power for wages.

That is why we have voted against.

What I take from Mrs Gottardi's report on public finances is that it has learned no lessons from the world crisis.

Mrs Gottardi qualifies as 'market failure' and 'insufficient supervision' what is in reality the failure of a system which, for years, has been imposed upon us: that of deregulation, of extreme world-wide free market philosophy, of absurd financialisation of the economy, where the market rules and is supposedly self-regulating. The vague cosmetic touch-ups decided on at the G20 or in Brussels will not fundamentally change the situation. We need to call into question the economic dogmas to which we are still subject. The crisis has shown that complete freedom of movement for goods, services, capital and people leads not to prosperity but to catastrophe. It has also shown that the Nation-State is the appropriate and effective level for decision, action and reaction, even if Mr Sarkozy felt he had to be accompanied everywhere by Mr Barroso to make people believe that the European Union was useful in this situation.

In this context, the rapporteur's good advice on the management of public finances and her call for compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact are, unfortunately, of little use.

in writing. - We welcome some of the positive elements of this report, and in particular the recognition of the need to spread the tax burden more fairly, the importance of public expenditure and sound economic governance. However I abstained in the vote because of the report's adherence to the flawed Lisbon Strategy, emphasis on competitiveness, support for flexicurity and the implicit threat to pension schemes, public health and long-term care under the guise of 'structural reform'.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States - C6-0359/2007 -.

Mr President, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal we are discussing today is aimed at changing the regulations approved in 2004, which improved and harmonised the security regulations relating to the protection of EU citizens' passports and travel documents against fraudulent use, at the same time as it introduced elements of biometric identification. Contrary to the procedure in 2004, we are now in codecision. I want to thank the French Presidency and Commissioner Barrot for the enormous commitment they have made in this case with a view to reaching agreement at first reading. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their work and their cooperation, which have been indispensable in obtaining this result.

This solution was necessary, if we bear in mind that this regulation came into force in 2004, and as from June this year at the latest, all the Member States would have to collect the fingerprints of children from birth. However, according to the existing studies resulting from pilot projects conducted in several Member States, it is very difficult to take or even rely on fingerprints of children under six years of age. It is true that the national legislature could create derogations from this obligation. However, that would mean that up to the age limit for which that exemption was granted only temporary passports could be issued. It would be an excessive burden for parents to have to obtain a passport for each of their children whenever they wanted to travel outside the Schengen area.

We therefore succeeded in reaching an agreement stipulating a period of four years during which the age limit will be set at 12 years, with an escape clause which should allow those States which have already adopted legislation enshrining a lower limit to apply this, provided that limit is not lower than six years. A revision clause was also expected, taking into account the results of the study which we requested the Commission to carry out concerning the credibility of children's fingerprints, stipulating that the age limit will be definitively set and harmonised for all the Member States in four years' time.

A second derogation was introduced relating to persons who, for various reasons, are physically unable to provide fingerprints. The International Civil Aviation Organization's 'one person-one passport' recommendation was also accepted. As the European Data Protection Supervisor said, it is a further benefit in the fight against child trafficking.

With the goal of protecting children, we also obtained an interinstitutional agreement, concluded between the three institutions, to develop a common position on the adoption of the necessary rules to protect children against abduction and trafficking. The respective initiatives should be introduced by the Commission within the framework of the respective area of civil law.

I must confess that we are struggling with the issue of the Union's reduced competence in this matter: the issuing of passports is a national prerogative and the European Union can only intervene with regard to the reinforcement of biometric data in passports and travel documents, with the aim of improving the security of those documents within the framework of border control.

I have to say that we have established rules that safeguard the exercise of the Community competence, determining which types of data will be included - fingerprints and photographs - and also the limits on the use that will be made of them. They may only be used for the purposes provided for in this regulation - border control - and to verify the authenticity of the document and ascertain whether whoever carries it is or is not its legitimate bearer.

We also reached agreement on two studies: one on the so-called 'breeder documents', to guarantee that the documents which enable passports to be issued deserve the same trust as the passport we want to safeguard, and another on data matching in border controls, in order to be able to study the false rejection rates. As a result of these studies, and bearing in mind the four-year revision clause, at some point the necessary changes should be introduced through a codecision procedure, without forgetting that it is important to consult the European Data Protection Supervisor, a rule which was unfortunately not taken into account when drafting this proposal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I firstly wish to thank the chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I also wish to warmly thank the rapporteur, Carlos Coelho, for his remarkable report and also for the excellent cooperation maintained with the Commission on a delicate and sensitive issue.

The Commission proposal is to introduce harmonised exceptions to the requirement to collect fingerprints, so that all European citizens receive equal treatment. In addition, the Commission wanted to protect children from human trafficking by making the internationally recognised principle of 'one person-one passport' legally binding.

I welcome the European Parliament's efforts to achieve an agreement on this proposal at first reading on the inclusion of fingerprints in passports issued by Member States by 28 June 2009 at the latest. Had an agreement not been found, everyone would have been obliged to provide fingerprints, including the new-born, whenever they travelled abroad with a passport. I, therefore, truly wish to express the Commission's satisfaction with the negotiated compromise proposal. Now the Commission will set about the task of the report requested and required by the European Parliament as efficiently as possible. I do not think I need to go on further. I will now listen with interest to the contributions from the Members and I again thank your rapporteur, Carlos Coelho, who has done an excellent job.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I am happy to support the proposals presented today.

I believe there is an urgent need to create a common set of standards for the verification of biometric data. Colleagues may not be aware that at present there are wide discrepancies between countries as to how rigorously, for example, they verify passport photographs. Many countries require that the citizen applying for a passport actually present him or herself in person, together with their documents and photographs, and in these cases the officials at the passport-issuing office can see if that person bears a resemblance to the photo presented.

However, in some countries - maybe most notably in the United Kingdom - applications by post are the norm, and the authenticity of the photo is only confirmed by a so-called 'professional person' who has known the applicant for at least two years. The list of persons eligible to do this in the United Kingdom makes for fairly interesting reading. This verification can be made by your optician or your dentist, but also by a professional photographer or a fire service official - no disrespect to members of these professions.

It is also interesting that fairly lax rules on verification exist in the United States. Verifications of photos for passports for first-time applicants can be carried out at so-called 'acceptable facilities'. In fact, this means the staff at the local post office. It seems incredible for such a security-conscious country, whose citizens enjoy visa-free travel to Europe, to have such a system of verification.

So, in order to make passports secure, we really need to bring in much more reliable biometric data, namely fingerprints. We also need to ensure that the agency responsible for their collection and verification complies with the same standards, not only within the EU but also in those nations whose citizens do enjoy visa-free travel to Europe, to assure us that they too are meeting the same stringent requirements as are our citizens here in Europe.

Mr President, when the regulation on security features and the inclusion of biometric details in European passports was adopted in 2004, the Member States did not envisage any derogation from the obligation to provide fingerprints. Current experience shows that the existing technology still does not ensure that the fingerprints of children under the age of 12 are reliable enough to allow them to be used as a security feature in passports. I therefore welcome the compromise found with the Member States to set 12 as the age limit for the collection of biometric data, and which includes a clause for revision in three years. On our side, we have accepted this derogation for those Member States that have already adopted legislation for children over the age of six.

The use of this type of data would only be acceptable if it truly offered protection to our children. That is not yet the case. We remain, however, open to any positive changes in the technology in this field. Our priority is to ensure the safety of children travelling alone to avoid kidnapping and trafficking of children. The inclusion of this data in passports gives a false sense of security as it does not prevent a child from crossing a border without parental consent. The compromise found with the Member States will allow the Commission to present a report on the requirements for minors travelling alone across external borders. This report will thus allow initiatives to be proposed that will guarantee a European approach to the rules protecting minors when they cross external borders of the Member States.

Finally, the biometric data in passports must only be used to verify the authenticity of the document and the use of sensitive personal data such as biometric details is only acceptable in conjunction with strict data protection rules.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I wish to congratulate our rapporteur, Carlos Coelho, and the former French Presidency which, as expected, is not with us, for bringing about an agreement at first reading. It required the will to do it plus the ability to accept the compromise required. I have a special word of congratulation for Mr Coelho, our rapporteur, because his explanatory statement, which I invite my colleagues to read, is a little gem of intelligence and political skill.

Proper analysis of the text before us will reveal a major principle, which is also this report's revolutionary principle. This revolutionary principle has nothing to do with biometric data. That was decided in 2004. The principle is that of 'one person-one passport'. This raises the issue of children, and the age at which children's fingerprints can be taken. Let us not hide the fact that the compromise was extremely difficult. Some, like Mr Coelho at the outset, wanted this to be at the earliest possible age, to give children the earliest possible protection. Yet this would require reliable biometric data, which at the moment cannot be guaranteed. Finally, the following compromise has been achieved: children's fingerprints are obligatory from the age of 12. Those States that collect them earlier may continue to do so for four years, but in no case will the age limit be less than six and the Commission will, in coming years, report on an assessment of the system as it is operating and, if need be, and this is included in the text, any modifications. We must therefore hope for major progress in the technology, because the ideal for child protection would be to have reliable, comparable biometric data as soon as possible. With this in mind, we can register our agreement with this text, which I again welcome, and I congratulate the rapporteur, the Commission for its initial proposal and the Council for its sense of compromise.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on the excellent job he has done. As the rapporteur for the EU strategy on the rights of the child, it falls to me to stress certain important points in Mr Coelho's report, even though other fellow Members have already done so.

Firstly, the principle of guaranteeing a common approach to regulations protecting children who cross our external borders is very welcome.

Secondly, the principle of 'one person-one passport' is important, because it directly links the biometric data to the document holder. This does away with all the procedures currently in use that allow for children to be added to their parents' passports. This practice makes it much more difficult and unreliable to check the identity of the child, making it easier to snatch children involved in disputes and also to trade and exploit children.

Thirdly, the report also envisages that the Commission will submit a report examining the technical feasibility of using fingerprints for the purposes of identifying children under the age of 12. It is very important to work to improve the system and ensure its reliability, particularly for child protection.

I will conclude by saying that in my opinion it will be extremely helpful in future to identify the most sophisticated, appropriate and safe technical methods to record and thus categorically certify the identity and age of a child as early as is feasible, from birth if possible.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank Mr Coelho for his excellent work. Although we all have different political opinions, he did his best in order to achieve a compromise.

The Verts/ALE Group strongly opposes the extensive introduction of biometrics until its necessity is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We believe that it has crucial implications for personal data safety and for fundamental rights. We voted against biometrics in visas. We are also against biometrics in European passports. We see the current proposal as a possible way of establishing limits for fingerprinting people for a travel document. Therefore, we are satisfied that the compromise with the Commission and the Council is achieved, the age limit of 12 years is established for those Member States where fingerprinting of children does not take place and the age limit of six years is established for other Member States.

I would like to stress once again that our support for age limits does not mean that we support fingerprinting as such. We strongly believe that biometrics in passports can be used only for verifying the authenticity of the document or the identity of the holder. Use of such data for other purposes, such as law enforcement, is neither legitimate nor proportional. We cannot agree that everyone holding the European passport is a usual suspect whose fingerprints are to be stored. That is our position, but I would like to stress once more than we congratulate Mr Coelho and the Commission and Council on this compromise.

Mr President, I am not in favour of taking fingerprints from small children or even tiny babies. Children must be exempted from the requirements to provide biometric fingerprints for passports. It is therefore right to create an exemption here for children. There is still no secure knowledge about the use of biometric fingerprints from children under the age of 12. The main ambiguity is how long fingerprints from growing children are in fact reliable. If we were simply to use these data, we might achieve the opposite of what we are trying to do, namely less instead of more security. It is therefore disproportionate to collect and use data whose reliability cannot be guaranteed beyond all doubt.

The compromise which has now been found with the Council reflects these concerns and, thanks to Parliament's insistence and thanks to the excellent work by the rapporteur, it is based on an age limit of 12 for a transitional period of four years, during which time a broad study will be carried out in order to investigate the reliability of children's biometric data. Unfortunately, the compromise also provides for exemptions for those Member States which already have laws allowing fingerprints to be taken from children under the age of 12. It is therefore even more important that we expressly establish during the course of the compromise reached that the European legal act on security features and biometric data in passports and travel documents cannot under any circumstances be used as grounds for appeal in order to set up databases containing these data at national level.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, I am very pleased to say that the UK is excluded from this regulation because it is not part of the Schengen zone. However, the British Government has said that it will keep in step with the regulation to ensure that its documents are not perceived as second class. This implies that it thinks the proposals are first class and then it will be bound by the substance of the regulation anyway.

But, as this report shows, all kinds of issues are raised concerning the authenticity of biometric data and its verification. What kind of originating documents are used for the initial identification of the applicant, and how can it be sure that they are authentic? Once a passport has been issued, it is not of much use unless the data on it can be checked against the identity of the holder on some kind of national or centralised identity database.

The report acknowledges that there should be highly secure storage mediums for keeping such information, but we all know from experience in Britain that there is no such thing as a highly secure medium for storing such data. Personal and highly sensitive information for literally millions of people has been lost or disclosed from government databases over the last few years. Everyone in the UK knows that their personal information is not safe in the hands of our government.

This report does not speak about the reliability of biometric data itself. In fact the UK Passport Service's biometrics enrolment trial in 2004 showed a failure rate of 1 in 3 for facial recognition, 1 in 5 for fingerprints and 1 in 20 for iris scans. Biometric identification is an attractive idea, but it is not the fail-safe mechanism we all might imagine. The UK Independence Party will therefore be voting against this report.

(NL) Mr President, in my opinion the rapporteur is quite right to draw attention to a number of points which largely arise from the fact that the collection, processing and comparison of biometric passport data are relatively recent developments. Hence, it would also be sensible to review the entire procedure, as suggested, in three years' time.

It is also of the utmost importance that we introduce a degree of harmonisation as regards the handling of biometric data, because a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. In theory, the abolition of internal borders in the European Union should have resulted in improved supervision of external borders, but in reality it is apparent that the system continues to exhibit quite glaring vulnerable spots. International criminal networks, drug and human traffickers and illegal immigrants have all benefited from such vulnerable spots. If we want a more efficient border supervision system, it is, in any case, high time that biometric data constituted an effective part of that system.

(NL) Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur, my colleague, Mr Coelho, for his contribution. He has already succeeded in achieving a compromise with the Council and the Commission at first reading and I strongly support that compromise, including the 'one person-one passport' principle. However, I would like to explore this issue in a little more detail.

This principle should make it possible to offer greater protection against crimes such as child trafficking and child abduction, because every child should receive his or her own passport with a chip containing his or her biometric data. Of course, this will carry a price tag. This will certainly be the case in Member States which have until now allowed children to be included on their parents' passports. In the Netherlands, the maximum cost of a passport is upwards of EUR 48 and the cost of including a child on his or her parent's passport is EUR 8.50. For a family with three children this will, therefore, result in a doubling of the cost of obtaining passports, from EUR 120 at present to more than EUR 240. Of course, every parent would happily hand over that amount if it contributed to their child's safety. Yet is it not true that, if it is possible to abduct a child, it is also possible to get hold of his or her passport? Once the amended regulation is in place, it will no longer be possible to include children on their parents' passports. However, is it not the case that including a child on his or her parent's passport in some cases actually serves the very interest of the child's safety, as it indicates which parent has custody of the child? How will it then be possible to carry out effective checks of parental authority?

Within the next three years the European Commission will have to review the need for an additional regulation, for example Community rules concerning the crossing of borders by children. At present, Member States are still fairly divided on this issue. I call on the Commission to use the review to examine whether or not and how the introduction of a single passport per person has contributed to a decrease in the number of child abductions. Has the current compromise produced the desired effect or has it merely led to side effects which require resolution?

Commissioner, our children's safety demands our permanent attention. Today we are taking one particular step. Should it be in the child's interest to take further steps in the medium term, you will certainly find the Christian Democrats in this House on your side.

(EL) Mr President, the fact that Parliament's view prevailed today over the Council's attempts to introduce biometric data records for six-year-old children is a victory for the fundamental principle that personal data can only be collected if it can be proven that it is necessary, proportionate and of course useful to do so, a principle which I fear the Council and the Commission have frequently ignored over recent years in their legislative initiatives.

In the case of children's passports and fingerprints, obviously children need their own passports with biometric identifiers in an effort to prevent abductions, child pornography and trafficking in children.

At the same time, however, it is obviously illegal to collect such identifiers if they are not necessary. As far as fingerprints are concerned, we have studies which show that they are barely of any use for six-year-old children. Their fingerprints change so quickly that passports and recognition from them are useless.

So today Parliament has achieved a balance. It is demanding a serious study from the Commission in order to see when in fact children can be protected using their fingerprints, and will only allow them to be collected at ages at which we know for certain that this is the case.

Finally, in any case, as far as biometric identifiers in passports are concerned, we have said 'yes' for the purpose of recognising the holder, 'yes' for identifying the holder, 'yes' for ascertaining that the passport has not been forged, but 'no' to the creation of electronic data files on millions of innocent citizens.

(PL) The introduction of passports bearing biometric identifiers of the holder is a response to appeals to engage in the fight against the falsification of documents, terrorism and illegal immigration. It is, therefore, exceptionally important to ensure a high level of confidence in the process of collection of biometric data and the creation of shared basic standards on collection of data, in a way which will ensure their security and credibility.

I endorse the rapporteur's proposal for an analysis to be made of the differences between Member States in the area of documents which must be presented as grounds for the issue of a passport. This is because normally the security of these documents is lower than the level applied when issuing biometric passports. In connection with this, the risk exists that they will be more easily falsified or forged.

(PL) Mr President, the harmonisation of provisions concerning security standards, in conjunction with the introduction of biometric identifiers, should have a beneficial effect on the verification of documents during their inspection, and so is an element in the fight against forgery. These factors are in turn a guarantee of a more effective fight against crime, terrorism and illegal immigration.

In view of the lack of appropriate tests connected with the use of new technologies, Member States should introduce their own requirements in the area of protection of citizens' rights. An age limit above which children have to be passport holders needs to be established, and also cases in which a single passport is issued to a holder and his or her children without biometric data should be eliminated. Situations of this kind may favour child trafficking, because checking the identity of the child is made difficult. In order to preclude this type of procedure, each person should hold his or her own passport.

In closing, I would like to emphasise that, in order to ensure security for the holders of passports and other identity documents, a high level of discretion in the process of collection of biometric data should be introduced.

(EL) Mr President, it is a fact that the amending regulation which we are being asked to approve will perhaps bring about an improvement in certain Member States in which biometric identifiers are even being taken from infants and will temporarily prevent certain Member States from dragging people under the age of 12, who at present are not obliged in any case in certain countries to travel on a personal passport, through such procedures.

We must evaluate the exceptions being proposed on the basis of the real motives for adopting them given that, regardless of the age limit for taking biometric identifiers, at some point we may all of us without exception be on electronic record.

Regulations such as these essentially maintain and further institutionalise the use of methods for keeping records on citizens everywhere - and how many innocent citizens - and grant the right to move our sensitive personal data.

It is therefore our duty to remind the citizens, whom we shall be asking in a few months' time to renew their vote in favour of principles and policies of the European Union, that we are not in favour of such measures.

(DE) Mr President, in theory collecting biometric data is certainly one way of making sure that passports and travel documents cannot be forged. First and foremost, the new technology will hopefully help us in the fight against organised crime and the flood of illegal immigrants.

However, all the Member States must understand in this respect that Frontex now needs to be upgraded in terms of funding and staffing so that it can actually perform its task really effectively. If there are no internal borders, the external borders must be protected accordingly. When hackers boast on the Internet about how easy it is to forge fingerprints on German registration records and point out that, if identity cards are reduced to credit card size, the photos are digitally cut to size, making biometric recognition more difficult, it is easy to start doubting this technology.

One thing is certain: if biometric data are used, data protection must be guaranteed for us normal citizens.

(HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank my colleague Mr Coelho for his excellent work. I wish to comment on just one point in the report.

Recent experience has shown that human trafficking, and in particular child trafficking, is reaching worrisome levels both within and outside the European Union. Therefore I consider it a positive step forward that minors can in future cross the external borders of the EU with their own passport. From the perspective of child trafficking, this can on the one hand offer greater security, but on the other hand it must be recognised that a child bearing his or her own document can travel with anyone at all.

I find it regrettable that the joint proposal failed to mention that the passports of minors should contain, in addition to their personal data, those of the person or persons who have parental responsibility for them. It is true that the first article of the proposal states that the Commission shall present a report on the requirements for children travelling alone or accompanied, crossing the external borders of the Member States, and make proposals, if necessary, regarding the protection of children crossing the external borders of the Member States.

This offers opportunities for the future, and therefore I request that the Commission, along with all the organisations concerned in this matter, such as the OSCE, OECD, UNICEF, UNHCR, IOM and last but not least Europol, jointly evaluate the developments and take the steps necessary to provide children with more effective protection. Experience shows that the number of children among the victims of human trafficking is steadily increasing.

(PT) Mr President, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate Mr Coelho, Mrs Roure and the other Members on their work. In December 2004 the Council adopted the Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States. We have now had to take new steps towards combating the abduction and trafficking of children.

The use of passports by children according to the principle of 'one person-one passport' may be a fundamental means of winning this difficult and important battle. In my country, Portugal, collecting the fingerprints of children aged six years and upwards is already a long-standing practice, which is perhaps why I have no objection to it. As an upholder of the European cause, I believe that it is important to have harmonisation in this matter. It reassures me to know that the Member States which, like Portugal, long ago set six years as the minimum age for taking fingerprints will not have to change their national legislation.

I must emphasise that the passport security which is now being reinforced does not end with the existence of a passport. The passport in itself corresponds to an increased level of security, starting with submission of the documents required for issuing passports, followed by the collection of biometric data, to verification and matching at cross-border check points. This report is one more step in affirming the rights of individuals and guaranteeing their security.

(SL) I endorse the report by the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, who has produced an excellent piece of work, as always. I agree with the proposals put forward, including that concerning the 'one person-one passport' principle.

However, I would like to hear what the Commission, in particular, or perhaps even my colleague Mr Coelho has to say about the question of what we should do when children travel alone, unaccompanied by their parents, as there is no uniform policy as regards which documentation they have to carry with them. The rapporteur's proposal is that the names of those with parental responsibility should be printed in the child's passport. However, sometimes, children travel accompanied by other family members and may, in fact, even live with them and so on. In short, we should be reasonably flexible in this regard.

On the other hand, I am concerned that no one has challenged the practicability of six-year-old children travelling unaccompanied. It might be possible by plane (let us not, at this juncture, discuss the possible traumas that the child - a six-year-old boy or girl - might experience on a plane), as the child could be accompanied onto the plane, met at the other end and chaperoned to one of his or her parents, for example, or to someone else. However, what arrangements would pertain when children travel by train, coach or other means of public transport? How would that be monitored? If there are parents who are irresponsible enough to send their children on such journeys, I think that we should take a more positive stance on this and say that children are not permitted to travel on their own at such a young age. That may, perhaps, sound somewhat harsh, but as much has already been said here on how precious children are and on the topic of kidnapping and so on, we should also make a bolder statement on this issue.

I would also like to ask the Commission how things stand with the joint statement of the Council and the European Parliament concerning the security of the original documents needed in order for a visa to be issued. This is because I am somewhat concerned that, if it is true, the system in a particular Member State might be allowing abuse to take place at the point of issue. I would put one final question to the Commission, or perhaps to Mr Coelho: what should we do when people arrive at a border, but the data in their passports does not correspond with that held in official databases? I think that we ought to include an instruction that benefits the child, or rather, the passenger.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thousands of children a year fall victim to child traffickers and even more are abducted. A current study shows that it is unaccompanied minors who are the victims of such crimes. That is why we welcome the fact that the European Commission, in its amendments to the old regulation, now takes due account of children. When we demand that children too should have their biometric data in passports from a certain age, it is not due to mass hysteria, which I really do not share, but because we want to afford our children better protection. However, such protection can only be afforded if every child has its own passport with its biometric data and the names of its guardians.

As with all data collection, it is especially important to my group that the highest possible security is guaranteed when collecting, storing and processing the biometric data of all citizens and we must always be able to track who can access what data. The Council's regulations and decisions which affect this point make provision for very high protective mechanisms and control bodies to prevent data abuse. I have to say that I have fundamental confidence in my national authorities, unlike many private companies, some of which are able to pass unprotected data to third parties through scandalous security loopholes and receive due payment for doing so. That is precisely why it is so important for national authorities to capitalise on their established credibility and work closely with the data protection authorities. Contrary to what has happened here, this includes the European Commission honouring its legal obligations to consult European data protection officers.

(PT) I would like to congratulate my friend Carlos Coelho on the excellent work he has done for this Parliament. Thank you very much.

(BG) Thank you, Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, for the balance he has achieved in this report between ensuring a higher level of security for international travel documents and protecting the personal data and human integrity of the European Union's citizens. The suggestions made to improve a number of technical requirements will support the battle against cross-border crime, illegal immigration and human trafficking. For border countries like Bulgaria, which are exposed to intense pressure from migratory flows and the activities of international organised crime, the rapid and successful introduction of the new standards will be vitally important in terms of protecting the EU's external borders.

Unfortunately, in my country we have a few serious cases involving children who have disappeared, about whom there is still no information even now. This is why I feel that this report provides sound guidelines for the future development of standards for security features and biometrics in passports for Europe's youngest citizens. The introduction of the principle of 'one person-one passport' will provide them with an even higher level of security when travelling outside the territory of the European Union. The proposal to introduce additional information in the passports of children up to the age of 18 years will limit opportunities for the illegal activity of child trafficking. When it comes to applying the regulation within their national legislations, Member States obviously need to consider the possible financial repercussions for large families. This was also mentioned by some of our fellow Members who spoke previously. Freedom of movement must not be restricted for these families due to them having to pay a large amount of money for passports for their children.

Finally, on the subject of free movement of persons within the European Union, I think that the limits can be abolished on the age of entitlement to receive an identity card as this will also encourage and guarantee free movement for the EU's youngest citizens.

(PL) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur and by saying that I endorse this report. I think the report is not only important, but also good. I will perhaps begin with the statement which has been made here that a passport is a document issued by Member States in accordance with national regulations. It is true that we have different passports, besides the covers, but it is important to find a balance between the security measures of these passports, so that they identify a citizen of the European Union or another person entering the territory of the European Union, and at the same time resist crime, much of which involves passports, such as illegal immigration, terrorism, child trafficking or forgery of documents. That balance has, I think, been found in this report. There are no indications that the restrictions which we are including in the report will in any way influence or restrict Member States in the issue of passports.

I want to draw attention to one principle which I fully endorse: the principle of 'one person-one passport'. In relation to children it is a good principle, but I would not like it to be a financial barrier to parents who want their children to have a passport, but whose financial means may be limited. I also want to draw attention to one weaker moment in the report, although the rapporteur has drawn attention to it, namely to the fact that modern, untried technologies need to be reassessed, and it is good that in three years' time we will be able to do this. I also call for the role of the European Data Protection Supervisor to nevertheless be taken into account. That EU institution must be more heavily involved in the whole procedure and it is for this which I call.

Mr President, I also wish to thank Mr Coelho. This report is very important for the future of Europe and for its 500 million citizens: for their safety, their security and for anti-terrorism measures, amongst others. If the technology is there, as Ms Zdravkova said, we should make use of it.

From the point of view of children, Ms Angelilli, Mr Lambrinidis and others have said that it can be a vital weapon to counter child-smuggling, for example.

However, the crucial point is really in the new Article 3, which states that the purpose of biometric data is to verify not only the authenticity of the document but also the identity of the holder by means of directly available comparable features. At the moment, most countries rely almost exclusively on photographs and very few people, I would suggest - perhaps not even you, Mr President, nor even Mr Barroso - look like their passport photos - nor, indeed, would many of us want to! So I think that if there are new identity procedures and methods available, we should be prepared to use them.

As for Ms Gacek and Mr Batten and their anti-British, 'hit-and-run' contributions - because they are not here now to hear any response - I would suggest that the UK system is probably no better or no worse than many others in the European Union. We have checks and balances, but we can do better. If new 21st-century technology is available, then we should be prepared to make use of it and, as Ms Grabowska said a few moments ago, we should be prepared to amend it constantly to make the best possible use of what facilities are around the European Union.

(SK) Protecting children from abduction and trafficking requires the introduction of children's passports.

The principle of 'one person-one passport' means that every child travelling outside the Schengen area will be issued a passport. The new method of identification will simplify border controls. The instruments for protecting children from abduction will include a European helpline for reporting missing, abducted or sexually exploited children, passports with biometric data and the soon-to-be launched pan-European child abduction alert system.

Attention needs to be paid to ensuring a high degree of confidentiality in the process of acquiring and using biometric data. I support the rapporteur's view that a study needs to be performed into the possible shortcomings of fingerprint identification systems in the Member States of the European Union. Subsequently, the introduction of a common European system for comparing fingerprints should be considered.

(RO) I would like to congratulate Mr Coelho for this report.

I welcome this initiative, which marks real progress made, following the European Council of Thessaloniki, in establishing a link between travel documents and their owners and adopting the 'one person-one passport' principle.

I would like to highlight three important aspects.

Firstly, we need to adapt the principles and exceptions provided for in this report to the results and problems which have appeared in practice. This means that the focus must be put on the three-year review period set by this report during which both the Member States and the Commission must try to identify the recommendations between theoretical principles and practical obstacles.

Secondly, there is a serious problem with regard to the security of stored data and the protection of the owner's identity.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the need to devise common principles governing the procedures required for issuing travel documents or passports as this phase is crucial for both ensuring the databases' security and preventing the forgery of these documents.

(FR) Mr President, one second more to thank you, Mr Coelho, and tell you that it is a great pleasure to work with you as you always show great skill, you have a true capacity for listening and analysis and it is due to you that we have achieved this result.

(RO) Romania introduced the use of biometric passports from 1 January 2009. This type of passport contains 50 security elements and includes for the first time in the European Union a feature for identifying both a person's face and their fingerprints.

Romania has therefore taken an important step towards joining the Schengen area, scheduled for 2011. The introduction of biometric passports removes the final basic condition for Romania's inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program. As a result, the refusal to waive the visa requirement for Romanians going to the United States will now be based solely on subjective grounds and I hope that the United States will give this matter due consideration.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteur once again for adding significant improvements to the regulation, in particular, the creation of a uniform European system for verifying compatibility between biometric elements and data stored on a chip.

(RO) The harmonisation of security standards at European level for biometric passports is an extension of the provisions of the Schengen acquis. The regulation stipulates a general obligation to provide fingerprints which will be stored on a contactless chip in the passport.

I support the exceptions regarding children under the age of 12 providing fingerprints and I urge a review and harmonisation of the specific national laws.

I feel that biometric passport data must be processed in accordance with Community legislation governing the protection of personal data and privacy. The Commission and Member States must take the necessary measures to guarantee this provision for processing biometric passport data, both at the border and during the process for maintaining the relevant databases, in the situation where national legislation contains this provision.

However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that limiting the validity of a biometric passport for people who are unable to provide fingerprints, temporarily or permanently, to 12 months or less will make life more difficult for people with disabilities. I would therefore ask the Commission to reassess the relevant text.

Mr President, no law-abiding citizen should be worried about his or her identity or their children's identity being substantiated. I therefore welcome the use of biometric data on passports and other documents.

I just wanted to raise a point for future reference. It is a fact that no biometric characteristic stays the same from childhood to adulthood except one: DNA finger-printing. This stays the same from conception to death and even beyond. It is possible today to identify someone even many years after his death by just obtaining some small specimen from the bone remains. DNA finger-printing technology today is quick, it is cheap and it can be carried out on just a few cells which can be obtained either from a quick mouth mucosal swab or from a drop of blood taken from, for example, the umbilical cord.

I therefore submit that in the future we should consider using DNA finger-printing as the only one biometric identification - which is guaranteed to be the same for every individual - for all European citizens.

(DE) Mr President, my thanks go to Carlos Coelho, together with my congratulations on his report. We would have all been disappointed if his report had been below par, because we are already used to this standard of report from him. I particularly liked the fact that Carlos Coelho clearly pointed out from the beginning that his report was about the security of children. We can achieve this by issuing secure passports and by taking fingerprints to ensure that it is possible to check if the person crossing the border is actually the person shown in the passport.

This is therefore an objective which can be used to achieve security for children. That we are now discussing whether fingerprints should be taken at six years old or at twelve years old is a technical question, not a question of perspective. I would have no problem with taking fingerprints from the age of six, because this is all about children and their security. For me it goes without saying that data protection laws must be respected. We should not even be discussing that. It is the duty of a constitutional state to control that. If we achieve a situation in which we have secure passports and data protection laws are respected, then the European Union will have made a decisive step forwards in the interests of children and against child trafficking and child smuggling.

Mr President, I think the entire House has paid homage to the work of Mr Coelho and to his qualities, and I would add my voice to the praise from Mrs Roure.

I would like to say, echoing Gérard Deprez, that we must try to head towards increasingly reliable, increasingly comparable biometric data that will allow us to make better use of the most sophisticated technologies to ensure security in this free space that we inhabit. That is why this meeting has been scheduled. I, therefore, welcome the fact that Parliament has also committed to this effort to make the identification of children more secure, which is necessary for their safety.

I have been asked if we already have proof that these processes are effective. I would say that only in use will we be able properly to verify the effectiveness but, a priori, everything suggests that increased security will come from improved identification of children travelling alone. In any case, we cannot fail to take this major objective into account. I will give the Parliament several answers to several questions.

First, I have to say that, in its proposals, the Commission has always stressed data protection. The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted on the basic proposal and he made remarks, which the Commission has taken into account. I would also state that, as for the identifiers, our standards are harmonised with ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards, which, as has been said, will facilitate dialogue with the United States.

Next, I would remind you that for child passports, there is obviously a financial cost for families, but that is within the remit of the Member States and I would point out that for travel within the Schengen area, the identity card is sufficient. The passport is only required for travel beyond the European Union.

Finally, I wish to confirm that the Commission will undertake a comparative study of the existing rules in the Member States on minors travelling alone. At the appropriate time, we will propose that the Council takes the necessary measures to protect children more effectively and prevent child trafficking. It is highly evident that this study is, rightly, desired by Parliament and, of course, I undertake to ensure that my staff produce it in the best conditions and in the shortest possible time.

That is all I have to say, except to repeat my thanks to Parliament for having, once again, made its very constructive contribution to European legislation.

Mr President, if one thing has come out of the debate it is that there is concern about effective combating of trafficking in human beings - and, in particular, trafficking in children - amongst a large majority in this House. That is the greatest use of this measure that we will adopt and I am delighted by the fact that almost all the speakers have touched on this.

I would like to once again thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their collaboration, and that is not idle praise. It is fair to say that my colleague Mrs Roure played a crucial role in securing the agreement, to which Commissioner Barrot and the French Presidency also contributed a lot. I particularly wish to thank Commissioner Barrot for the Commission's readiness to give institutional backing to invigorating the fight against trafficking in children, as well as its readiness to collaborate in the three studies which we requested: on the reliability of children's fingerprints, on breeder documents and on false rejection rates, which are some of the concerns that we have in relation to the implementation of these rules.

Finally, Mr President, Mr Brejc raised an issue: he asked if we are able to say that the issuing of passports is secure. To be completely honest, I have to say that this varies from country to country. Some countries have more rigorous systems than others, and that is another reason why the study on breeder documents is very important. I know that Europe has no jurisdiction over this area - the issuing of passports is a national prerogative - and that is why I was very happy when Commissioner Barrot agreed to having the European Commission collaborate in this study on breeder documents. It makes no sense for us to have passports that are very secure if this security might be sabotaged during the issuing process. It is a case not of imposing measures on Member States, but of sharing best practices so that we can guarantee that the European passport is a secure reality on our external borders. Thank you very much to all of you for your collaboration.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the adoption of this regulation is an important step towards making EU citizens' travel documents more secure. As a result, by 29 June 2009 there should be a definite connection in the EU between a passport and its owner, which will go a long way towards protecting passports from fraud.

I particularly welcome the implementation of the principle of 'one person-one passport', which makes it possible to improve the security of travel, especially for children, and hinder the activities of persons involved in the trade in children and in kidnapping. It is commendable that this requirement will now be enforced in all Member States. In Estonia it has been in force since 2000.

In addition to secure travel documents, the border guards of the Member States have an important role to play, and they must pay increasing attention to the inspection of underage persons travelling with or without a guardian and crossing external borders of the EU, as they do in the case of adults.

The security of travel documents is definitely not limited to passports, and the entire process is no less important. Thus there is no point strengthening the security of passports without devoting attention to the remaining links in the chain.

I believe that, in addition to making travel documents more secure, the European Commission should consider adopting a common EU approach, in order to replace the different rules for the protection of children crossing the EU's external borders that are currently in existence in the 27 Member States.

Terrorist threats have made it necessary to introduce some additional security and biometric elements to increase the protection of passengers travelling within the European Union. The most important features in the proposal for a regulation are the fight against child trafficking by introducing the 'one person-one passport' principle and the introduction of derogations with regard to taking fingerprints from children under the age of 12. However, the legislation in some Member States allows for fingerprints to be provided by children under the age of 12, but this will only be possible for a transitional period of four years. There will, however, be an absolute age limit of six years. Some pilot studies carried out by Member States have highlighted that fingerprints provided by children under the age of six are not of good quality and can also change while they are growing. Setting an age limit reduces the risk of an error being made when identifying people by taking their fingerprints. It also makes the opportunity for child trafficking more difficult. The need to protect travellers has become even more evident in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001. However, an increase in the level of protection and security needs to be accompanied by a guarantee of passengers' rights and dignity, as stipulated by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Cappato, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001).

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a report on the status of public access to European Union documents and also an opportunity to make some suggestions. In the short time we have available, I want to raise three important points.

The first is about the Council. European Union governments meet in the Council with law-making powers and, like any law-making assembly, they should be bound to make their work and their decisions public. I wish to emphasise this particularly because amendments have been tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats for a split vote on certain paragraphs. I hope the split votes are not taken to delete significant portions of the report. For example, paragraph 3 of the report asks for action to be taken following the judgment in the case brought by Maurizio Turco, a former Radical Party MEP, who won a case in the Court of Justice over the publicising of legal decisions taken by the legal services of European institutions and also over the obligation to disclose the identity of Member State delegations to the Council. We are entitled to know who is voting in the Council and how. I therefore hope that no one will vote against this paragraph 3, or paragraph 9, which asks for information about what is happening within Coreper, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, and asks that they should disclose the meeting documents and not secrete all the international policy papers away as diplomatic documents. This is a very important point!

The other point we raise concerns Parliament, our Parliament, because we must be the first to publicise what we are doing. We Italian Radicals call it the 'public register of elected representatives', in other words a register where we can find out everything about the activities of MEPs, who is present, who is absent, how they vote and, of course, the money they are paid. Beware though, and I say this because an application has also been filed for a split vote on paragraph 5, it would be a mistake to think that if we keep some of this information confidential - I am addressing Mrs Cederschiöld, who I know is sensitive on this issue - we will really just succeed in leaving ourselves more exposed to aggressive, demagogic attacks on MEPs. We know that some fellow Members have filmed other MEPs, they have turned themselves into spies on other MEPs. The way to get around this is not merely to prevent it, but to publicise our work in full, foiling the people who want to peer through keyholes and opening our doors by broadcasting parliamentary committee work, meetings and all the proceedings of this Parliament over the Internet.

The third point I want to raise concerns document formats, because the PPE-DE Group has also requested a split vote on paragraph 7, concerning this point. In this paragraph we ask for documents to be created using open-source word processors, technologically speaking, as well as effective multilingualism and technologies that allow persons with disabilities to gain access to information and documents. I hope that no one in this Parliament is against open-source multilingual access using technologies that facilitate access by people with disabilities, because this is an essential aspect for a portion of European Union citizens.

We know that the Commission has proposed a reform of our rules and we will deal with this in the Cashman report, but this resolution is our first opportunity to lay down some points of reference for this Parliament. I hope it will not be wasted and that all the crucial matters I have sought to raise in this report will not be in vain.

Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking you for a very well-written and interesting report, and I congratulate the rapporteur. This is an important and cherished subject, particularly in times of the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and also bearing in mind the changes that the Treaty of Lisbon - if it enters into force - will bring about on these important issues.

This report is in principle about the implementation of Regulation 1049/2001 and, therefore, let me start by recalling one of the positive elements in the implementation of the regulation because, as the quantitative data show and as the Parliament report acknowledges, the EU institutions have granted access to a higher number of documents while registering a decrease in the number and rate of refusals.

We are committed to continuing to enhance transparency and openness. Quite naturally, some of the recommendations made in the report go well beyond the application of Regulation 1049/2001 in 2006 and some are not directly related to the activities of the Commission, as we have just heard.

The report addresses a number of issues concerning openness and communication with citizens, and I particularly welcome that as a valuable input for a general reflection on transparency, communication and outreach.

Let me just briefly go through some of the recommendations and the principles underpinning them, because they deserve due consideration.

On the Turco case, I can assure you that the Commission takes this judgment fully into account. As has been said, it mainly concerns the need for increased openness where the Council acts in its legislative capacity, but it is also applicable to the Commission and all the institutions, and the Commission makes sure that each request for access is carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis against the parameters set by the Court of Justice.

Secondly, the proposal to lay down common rules on administrative procedures requires more reflection because many of these procedures are very specific in nature and unique, in some cases, for every institution. This means that we will need some more time to see how that could be done.

The recommendation to merge Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 on the opening of the historical archives is quite complex for a particular reason, because Article 255 of the EC Treaty and Regulation 1049/2001 do not apply to all institutions and bodies. This might also change if and when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, because it will then extend the right of access to documents to all institutions and bodies. This is why it is not so easy to simply merge the two, because the coverage is different.

On the Ombudsman's critical remark regarding the Commission's public registers, I would like to assure you that we take this remark very seriously. As you know, we have a public register of documents that has been up and running since June 2002 and since then the Commission has also put in place a dedicated register for comitology procedures and a register on expert groups. We are always doing our utmost to modernise our internal IT systems.

This, unfortunately, will not happen overnight, but has to be worked on. We always take into account the need to increase the coverage of the public register, and I hope you also know my personal commitment to this. We acknowledge that we still have to increase the coverage of our public registers and we confirm our commitment to develop the public registers in the interests of enhanced transparency.

In the resolution you target the questions of document management and a common portal and the Trans-Jai project. The Commission supports the idea of setting up a common portal in order to facilitate access for citizens to legislative documents. I think this would entail a common methodology, and we have to look at all the practical consequences of that on document identification and references. We would like to see a portal that could entail the full availability of public documents for each institution, so we are willing to work together with you on that.

On the Trans-Jai project, I come back to what I said in a reply in October, that this is expected to be open to the general public by 2010.

Let me also comment on the issue of exchange of information between the institutions. I understand what is meant there and what you are after, but I wish to remind you that between our institutions we already have an established working method with the exchange of confidential information held by the Commission and this is regulated in an annex to the framework agreement. We should also keep in mind that the question of sharing information between institutions is not related to public access and we think that this should be handled separately, as it is currently.

This report and the debate is also a valuable and appreciated input for another time when we can discuss it on a broader scale. I am grateful for Parliament's efforts to keep the issue of transparency and openness high on the EU agenda. We will come back to many of these questions in the very near future, for instance during the joint meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs with the Czech Parliament next week which I shall have the pleasure to attend, and then in just a couple of weeks we will be dealing with the important issue of revising Regulation 1049/2001.

I think the discussions should not end there. We need to be open about transparency and think also what we can do proactively outside the formal legislation, such as on improved registers, on greater user-friendliness and accessibility, active dissemination and quicker publication of documents. Something that I myself did last year was to make the register of my own correspondence directly accessible on the web. I am sure that you all have similar ideas and examples of what can be done if we just put our minds to it. So let us do that.

Mr President, Mr Cappato, your report is full of good intentions, the clearest proof of which is that no amendments were deemed to be necessary by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

You were the one who introduced 18 amendments to your own report. It is those amendments that have given the report a radical edge - to put it in general terms - and that have raised very serious doubts for me.

I would divide into four distinct groups the amendments that you have proposed - amendments that you have proposed to yourself, I would stress - in a report that received the support of all groups initially. Firstly, some are impossible; you make some suggestions that are impossible. For example, Mr Cappato, some of your suggestions have no legal basis as yet: until the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it will be impossible to harmonise the rules of the different institutions. Commissioner Wallström has just said something similar. You also call for 2009 to be declared European Year of Transparency, but we are too late, there is no time. Some of your suggestions are therefore impossible.

Secondly, some of your suggestions are inadvisable. For example, you call for transparency in the meetings of the political groups. This would not do. There is a need for privacy, since privacy is a political asset. If I want to disagree with my party and to maintain my opposition, I want to do so in private: that is not a lack of transparency. There must be transparency within public bodies, but not within the parties, the privacy of whose debates must be guaranteed. I cannot, therefore, agree with you on this point.

Some of your other assertions, Mr Cappato, are incorrect. For example, you state that 90% of legislative activity is done through comitology. This is a bold exaggeration, Mr Cappato. Furthermore, comitology has its own implicit transparency standards. If we introduce more mechanisms, more bureaucracy and more controls, we will be going against what we want to achieve: transparency, which is closely linked to simplicity.

Lastly - before the President signals to me, because I am already nearing the end of my time - some of your suggestions are unnecessary. For example, I understand that it is really wonderful and attractive to public opinion to speak of transparency in Members' activities, so that it can be seen whether they attend plenary sittings. It can already be seen, Mr Cappato. It can also be seen whether they attend the committees too; there are minutes for each of them, to which all citizens have access. The allowances that MEPs claim are also public. In other words, it is perfectly possible for citizens to gain access to this information.

I therefore understand that it is wonderful in terms of public opinion and it looks good to defend transparency, but you must realise that transparency means ensuring that things are seen as they really are and that if we contribute to distorting how things are seen, Mr Cappato, we are not contributing to transparency. Thank you for your generosity, Mr President.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, thank you, Marco, for a very good report, but sadly I have to agree with other people in this House that you strayed beyond the remit - and I know why.

The previous speaker said that it is impossible. If we do not ask for the impossible, how will we ever achieve change?

But of course you have gone beyond your remit. We are not going to have broadcasts of political groups. MEPs putting up on their websites or through Parliament's Information Service what they do and where they go does not mean that they are effective; it does not mean they are good.

The Regulation is about access to all of the documents held, received or produced by the three institutions when acting in its legislative capacity. That is what we need to get back to. We need to define what the 'legislative capacity' is. We need to look at how the Regulation has worked up until now and we have to improve it. That is what I want to do in conjunction with all the players, and I am pleased to welcome here the Swedish Minister, Cecilia Malmström, who worked originally on this. We all want to take the whole issue of access forward.

Why? Because we recognise that many people realise that there are things that happen, particularly in the Council, as you have illustrated, whereby their ministers, their national ministers, are involved, but how they debate and how they vote is secret. Once we reveal that element of secrecy and we expose how Member State ministers actually vote, then those ministers are held accountable back home in their Member States and suddenly national citizens feel connected to all things European.

So, Marco, you have sadly gone wider than the remit, especially with this dream that you have. If you had not declared that you were an Italian radical I would never have known it from this report, but the fact that you expect political parties to broadcast their internal debates - it is not going to happen and indeed, as the previous speaker said, all you do is expose division rather than reinforce the fact that we are here because we believe in a Europe that is accountable to its citizens. That is why drawing up the voting list will be difficult. My heart is with you, but I have to follow my head.

Mr President, welcome Commissioner, tomorrow we will vote on the report prepared by my fellow Member, Mr Cappato, on public access to documents. Mr Cashman, a very good and normally unbelievably efficient colleague, has already pointed out that the most important thing is to give the public access to documents that are discussed and decided upon here.

One might accuse Mr Cappato, as Mr Herrero-Tejedor and Mr Cashman have done, of going beyond the remit. That is surely a matter of interpretation and in this case also not entirely justified. The discussion as to whether or not, in principle, the group meetings should be broadcast is surely something we can talk about. The question is, then, whether we would have the right, for example, to hold such a meeting in private at the request of the majority of the group members, as there are certainly sensitive issues - as we all know from our own meetings - that need to be clarified between ourselves before we can go public with them. In my opinion, it is normal to wash your dirty laundry at home and not out in the street.

I might also add that this example shows that political parties - not the party groups in this case - always have a certain interest in the general public when it suits them. Otherwise, party conferences would not be broadcast so extensively. Interestingly, no one complains that the conferences of some political parties where things can get quite lively could be broadcast in full.

I think I can say, therefore, that Mr Cappato has produced a good piece of work here, even though - as we are accustomed to - suggestions for improvement may perhaps come from other groups. In some cases they are, in fact, so good that they should be considered.

Compared to either of the other institutions, Parliament can still be considered to lead the way when it comes to transparency and so I would not make it my top priority, since with regard to both the accessibility of documents and to the transparency of its sittings and the activities of the Members of the European Parliament, we are more open than any national parliament. That does not mean that there is no need for improvement, including in other institutions, particularly the Council, which, regrettably, is not here now. Mr Cashman has just said that we need to know who has made what decision and how in order to be able to establish accountability for political actions.

It is even more important, however, to provide access to documents produced within the framework of the comitology procedure, for example. A specific example is the Regulation on liquids in hand luggage, the annex to which was not accessible to citizens, and neither was it accessible to parliamentarians. The requirement for transparency has not been introduced in most Member States of the European Union without good reason, and that is to give the people the opportunity to understand the political activities, to be able to establish accountability and then perhaps also to enable different decisions to be made in elections.

Thank you very much for the extra time, Mr President. Good luck, Marco. I will be with you in the vote tomorrow, and I believe that we will bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr President, if the European Union is to be for the citizens, rather than for the Eurocrats, then it obviously must be more transparent, as must the activities of the European Union's bodies. Only then may the Union regain the credibility it has carelessly tossed aside. For example, its credibility has been damaged by attempts to push the Constitutional Treaty through and the failure to hold national referenda. That is why it is right to demand that all Council debates, as they decide the fate of Europe, should be accessible to the citizens of the Member States of the European Union. However, these debates do not include political group debates.

It is also important for Parliament, the Council and the European Commission to adopt the same principles for providing access to documents, so that they do not remain lone stars in the information and IT firmament. I think that this report is a significant step towards transparency. However, I firmly believe that, with regard to certain issues, it may be taking things a step too far. Even Comrade Lenin once said that we sometimes need to take two steps forward, in order to take that one step back. The rapporteur might want to bear this in mind.

Mr President, the report by the rapporteur, Mr Cappato, indicates that there are major shortcomings with regard to access to EU documents. I support the rapporteur's proposal for improvements in connection with the annual report. I also support the amendments tabled by the rapporteur. I furthermore assume that Parliament will vote in favour of a real principle of public access in the forthcoming vote on Mr Cashman's report concerning the Regulation on public access.

As regards the annual report, I would particularly like to highlight the fact that it is totally unacceptable for public access not to be guaranteed in respect of delegated legislation, which includes 90% of the legally binding legal acts that are adopted each year by the EU institutions. Members' participation in the work of Parliament and all their financial circumstances with regard to their appointment in Parliament must also be totally transparent. I support the proposal for a combined public register.

Finally, I would like to say that increased public access is not a populistic requirement but a democratic one.

Mr President, in a democracy, transparency is a concept of honour. In democratic countries, the citizens elect the governing authorities. These authorities appoint officials to implement democratic decisions. It would therefore be absurd for these elected representatives and appointed officials to be entitled to withhold information from their electorate. The fact that this happens nevertheless has two explanations. The first is a legacy from a pre-democratic society where the people were seen as subjects under non-elected rulers. The subjects were not permitted to interfere in the ruler's affairs. The second is that the nation's security, consideration of citizens' integrity, business secrets, market influence and similar considerations may require exceptions to transparency.

The first explanation is completely irrelevant today. The authorities must not, in their capacity as authorities, withhold information from the people. The second explanation, however, is sound and involves a difficult balancing act. These legitimate demands for finding the right balance are, unfortunately, often used by the authorities to preserve the option of secretiveness.

The EU does not have a proud tradition of transparency. In its childhood and early youth, the EU was almost totally secret, even down to the Commission's internal telephone directory. The EU began as a mandarin empire, and still is today, but important steps have been taken: the 1993 Code of Conduct, the acceptance of the Swedish Journalists' Association's demands in 1998, and the Regulation in 2001.

It is with a certain amount of pride that I note that my own country, Sweden, has the longest historical tradition of statutory transparency. That was why the Swedish state became involved in the Turco case and got the European Court of Justice to override the Council and the Court of First Instance last summer. This was yet another step away from the mandarin empire, but the road to establishing democratic transparency in the EU is a long one. There is a lot of internal resistance to quash. Mr Cappato's report should therefore receive the full support of this House, which would be yet another step forward along that long road.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am just going to speak for a few seconds to say that I agree with a good part of Mr Cappato's report. It would be surprising if I felt otherwise, because I believe I am the only Italian MEP who has tried to make public a list of attendances and the number of questions raised here in our Parliament by the Italian delegation. I have done this, year by year, in the small book in which I report on my parliamentary activities.

I would be happier if, for example, the Italian press, which all too often points its finger at us, would publish information that may not be earth-shattering in itself but would nevertheless serve to illustrate the type of activities that an Italian MEP carries out in this place. It would be all the better if it could serve to highlight how our actions, if properly performed, are independent of the political affiliations for which we have been elected, in the sense that we seek to be of service to the entire system.

I applaud Mr Cappato's initiative. I will vote for nearly everything contained in his proposal.

(RO) The European Union is founded on the principle of transparency, which is referred to in Articles 1 and 6 of the Treaty on European Union, as well as in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Europe has advocated from the outset a decision-making process which is as transparent and close to the citizen as possible. The European Parliament, by its very nature, is the first to promote public access to the decision-making process, since different opinions about legislative or non-legislative work help increase European citizens' confidence in Europe's institutions.

At the moment, public access to the European institutions' documents is fairly good. It is obvious however that the 2001 European legislation governing this right of access needs to be brought up to date.

Parliament asked the Commission back in 2006 to submit proposals for amending the Regulation, suggesting several recommendations:

all preparatory documents to legal acts should be directly accessible to the public, and

setting up a single access point with regard to preparatory documents.

The Commission took into account these recommendations which were also included in a new proposal for a regulation in 2008.

In the course of the decision-making process, the parties involved are faced with different opinions, sometimes contradictory. Negotiation leads to the most acceptable decision for all concerned. Europe's citizens must be informed about the process which has led to decisions being adopted because these decisions have a direct impact on their lives.

(ET) Ladies and gentlemen, democracy is based on transparency and openness. This is especially important now, as we approach the June elections to the European Parliament.

The simplification of the web environment would help increase voter turnout in European Parliament elections. If we provide citizens with clearly understandable information on the activities of representatives and the functioning of the European Parliament in general, we will be able to make young and old interested in what we do. The e-Parliament is a very welcome initiative.

On the basis of the search criteria, all information about the work of a representative should be available to citizens. I concur with the rapporteur that, in addition to the activities of the plenary assembly, individuals should also have access to work done in committees and delegations. Citizens must be able to acquire a full understanding of our activities.

I also support the idea of the creation of a joint register of information and documents. It is important that citizens should be able to monitor proceedings that are of interest to them and access all documents from one location. The creation of a unified portal will take time, but we should move in that direction. This is our route now and in the future. I support the Cappato report.

Mr President, I wish to congratulate my colleague, Marco Cappato, on his report. It is important that we are debating it here in Parliament.

When we speak of accountability and transparency, we must start with ourselves and that means all of the EU institutions. I agree with much of the report. I have one or two caveats. For example, we must ensure that, if we provide information on Members' activities, say, that such information is comprehensive. Otherwise we will end up knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. By this I mean that our workload is really quite broad. It is not just attendance at committees or plenary. Any such information on Members' activities would need to include all the activities. Otherwise some very valuable work that is not concentrated in Parliament could be lost because it would be invisible.

I would like to say regarding my colleague Mr Romagnoli's comments that his good work was not picked up by the media, that it is only news if you do not do your work.

Finally, I would like to say that the core of the matter is that there should be transparency when we are acting in a legislative capacity. I agree with Michael Cashman that all citizens should know how their ministers vote in Council. This is crucial. Otherwise we play into the hands of the 'blame Brussels' brigade when something goes wrong at home.

(DE) Mr President, my experience is presumably very similar to that of millions of Europeans. Commissioner, I entered this Parliament in 1999 with a great deal of enthusiasm that was not inferior to the enthusiasm that you continue to display. Then I did what so many citizens do. I wanted to know something, and that was: how are decisions made? Where does the money go? Who receives it? More and more voters have come to me and said: we do not know where we are with this EU. This was also my experience. Unfortunately, one then realises that behind many measures there is a deliberate intention to conceal the irresponsibility that we still have in our institutions, including unclearly assigned legislature. I can only encourage you to keep to your convictions to go further than the Cappato report currently does and make this basic information available. That would be an achievement, and I say this after 10 years.

(PT) Mr President, Mrs Wallström, ladies and gentlemen, the transparency principle is a basic principle of the European Union. It reinforces the democratic nature of our institutions and facilitates the participation of the citizens in the decision-making process, so ensuring greater legitimacy for public authorities by making them more effective and answerable to the people. I support the principle that all democratic institutions have a duty to ensure that their activities, documents and decisions are made public. Access to documents is a fundamental element in the loyal cooperation that is necessary between the European institutions.

During the investigation into the activities of the CIA in Europe, I criticised the Council forcefully for violating this loyal cooperation by imposing restrictions - full and partial - on access to essential documents. That is why I also applauded the decision of the Court of Justice in relation to the Turco case, in which it concluded that there exists, in principle, an obligation to disclose the opinions of the Council's Legal Service relating to a legislative process; those opinions could be crucial to understanding the direction that the decision-making process took.

I agree that the revision of the 2001 Regulation should proceed, not just to provide a response to the deficiencies since detected in it, but also in order to incorporate the most recent case-law, specifically the judgment in the Turco case. Nevertheless, we must clearly respect the legal basis at our disposal. Some of the rapporteur's proposals go much further than is permitted under the legal basis, as has already been mentioned by Mr Herrero and Mr Cashman.

There are, for example, rules aimed at national parliaments that have no legal basis. In the judgment in the Turco case, the Court of Justice itself recognises that the application of the Regulation must respect a balance between the risks of publication and the public interest served by making that document accessible. In some cases, Mr Cappato makes proposals that, in my view, put this balance at risk.

(RO) I would like to emphasise the fact that while Mr Cappato initially enjoyed broad support for his initiative, the 18 amendments introduced later on have resulted in a loss of that initial support.

Nevertheless, I support the fact that public access to the documents held by Parliament, the Council and the Commission is vital in order to bring the European Union closer to its citizens. I would first of all like to stress the need to publish the main documents created in the course of the comitology procedure.

Secondly, I think that on the European Parliament website under the personal profiles detailing the activities of each MEP, it would be a good idea to also publish the amendments submitted by each MEP in the parliamentary committees they belong to. Citizens need to clearly see what amendments have been submitted by MEPs during the European decision-making process, in addition to the reports, resolutions and plenary debates.

Thirdly, when the European Council is acting as a co-legislative institution in addition to Parliament, it should publish its debates just like Parliament publishes its own debates. The Council should demonstrate transparency by publishing its debates from now on before the Lisbon Treaty obliges it to do so.

(PL) Mr President, civil rights include the right to information concerning the activities of representatives, elected by society, who fulfil important public functions. This is particularly true in the case of the European Union institutions, including the Council, whose documents are more difficult to access. Information programmes available on the Internet should be user-friendly and easily guide the interested person to the document for which they are searching. However, although many people have Internet access these days, not everyone does. We need publications that can be accessed in libraries and summaries that are more accessible to people who are not as comfortable reading texts. However, we need to consider whether the full transcripts of political group discussions should be published.

(SV) Mr President, transparency has indeed undergone a dramatic change within the EU - and I am sure that the Commissioner would very much agree - since the advent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the websites.

I would also like to emphasise that I think that the Commission and the Commissioner have made extremely good and constructive contributions to this issue in recent years. From the outset this was not an easy task, but I think that the cooperation in recent years has been very constructive, something for which you should receive praise. Everyone is always complaining about the Commission, but I do not think this is completely justified in all respects.

Naturally, we cannot have a situation in which justice and home affairs legislation is not transparent with regard to the justifications. Mr Alvaro is absolutely right in this regard. This is, of course, impossible. However, to go as far, for example, as an officer or MEP submitting a report each day on what he or she has done that day is quite unreasonable. In the end, they will spend half the day writing a report about what they have done.

I would like to conclude by saying that we support Mr Cappato's report, provided it results in a legally certain, clear piece of legislation that is not unnecessarily bureaucratic.

(PL) Mr President, assuming that democratic systems, based on the rule of law, should be bound to publish provisions which are binding for their citizens, we should ensure that the activities of the institutions are transparent and open. In practice, the meetings and debates of democratic legislative bodies, as well as their votes, should, where possible, be transparent and draft legislation should be accessible to the public. Unfortunately, the Council often operates in a way which makes it difficult to relate a document to a procedure, which then makes it impossible for citizens to access these documents.

As we know, the Internet plays an extremely important role in providing citizens with access to EU documents. We therefore need a single EU portal, which will facilitate access to documents, procedures and institutions. We should define common rules for implementing administrative procedures, as well as for tabling, classifying, registering and disseminating documents. Our Parliament must set an example for the other institutions.

Mr President, I noted carefully what the rapporteur said. There are two categories involved here: access to information on EU legislative work, and access to documents in the non-legislative field. In relation to the former, I support what is being called active transparency to the point of freedom of information as the norm and, indeed, very reduced use of secret meetings and room documents at Council level. I think we should know how our Ministers vote so that they can be held to account to stop this 'blame Brussels' culture that goes on in national parliaments at home. I should also like easy access to MEPs' records of attendance and voting during parliamentary work at all levels.

We are elected by the citizens to do a job and we are entitled to be held to account by them. On the other hand, to suggest that all political groups or party meetings must be open to public scrutiny is patent nonsense and a recipe for an agenda to be hijacked. I have no fear of transparency. We do an honourable job here as politicians and we must stand up for the dignity of our profession.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am absolutely certain that the report by Mr Cappato has carefully avoided stepping on the toes of the public officials who are concerned with their privacy and the need to maintain confidentiality over certain situations that must stay that way. This is certainly a very important reason to approve his report, but I would also like to overturn the concerns of some of us, who fear that our right to freedom of action and privacy is being violated.

Let us take a look at what happens when the tables are turned and the public administrator wants to find out what we citizens are doing. We cannot have any secrets: in some of our Member States, private telephone calls are even intercepted between husband and wife, between parents and children and so on. We must absolutely not fear citizens knowing exactly how laws are made and decisions are arrived at in the Commission or in the Council, and that also applies to the legislative decisions made by our Parliament. I welcome this initiative.

(PL) Clarity and transparency should form the basis of the activities of the European Union's institutions. Only if we achieve a suitable level of transparency will our activities become more comprehensible to the citizens, and therefore closer to them. The institutional crisis facing the Union demonstrates to us all the consequences of adopting the wrong approach to this issue. In my opinion, it was precisely this dismissive attitude towards the citizens of the European Union which resulted in the institutional reforms turning into a fiasco and the failure to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in France, the Netherlands and Ireland.

We should, therefore, draw the correct conclusions and be aware that social acceptance of the European Union's activities should be our basic priority. In order to achieve this acceptance, the citizens should be aware of what we do, how we operate and, ultimately, what decisions we take. We need a clear, cohesive and legible source of information on the activities of all the European Union institutions. The European Parliament's place is certainly at the forefront of this change, as it is the institution that is closest to the citizens of the European Union. We should remember that the Union was created for these very citizens.

Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for this debate and this discussion. I think it is difficult to summarise but, if I were to do so, I would repeat what some of you have said about this being a fundamental element in any democracy.

I prefer to look at it from the point of view of citizens: the right of citizens to know what is going on and to have access to information and documents and to then be able to make an informed choice. We will all have a very crucial year, because on the 7 June the citizens of Europe will vote in elections. It is, of course, absolutely fundamental that they have access to information.

We are still carrying a burden of historical differences in culture and views on what should be made public or not. I think we are still struggling with that in some cases. I come from a country where we have a very long tradition of the principle of openness and access to documents, while in other Member States it has been the opposite: It is first secret and only the things you decide should not be secret should be made public. I think this is still something that we have to try to tackle and deal with. I think that the report has also shown all the linkages and the interlinkages between all these issues and we have to look at it from a political point of view.

Again, the beauty of the Lisbon Treaty is that it would actually extend the right of information and access to documents and hopefully help end the 'blame game', as it would also give us a chance to follow what goes on in the European Council. Mr Cashman and others mentioned this and I think it is so important for all of us.

I hope you know that you can count on me to continue, on a daily basis, to strive to make sure that the Commission improves its access to documents. We can look at what we do in the committees; we can improve what we do on registers and on a number of points that Mr Cappato has raised and that are helpful to us. I think you should keep up the pressure on the Commission, but you have also shown that it concerns Parliament as well. You can also improve and add to openness and transparency. This is certainly a part of strengthening democracy in Europe. We will have the chance to do some work on this during preparations for the EP elections. That would be one of the ultimate tests for all of us.

Thank you very much for the discussion and we will come back to it very soon when we discuss Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I offer my very warm thanks to the Commissioner. I did not mention this before but the report acknowledges that there has been an improvement in effective access, in positive responses to applications for access to documents. What I have tried to stress is the need for a change of mindset, you might call it, to a paradigm whereby information is already designed to be public the moment it is produced.

Mrs Cederschiöld, I am not asking for more paperwork due to the need to disclose and publicise everything, but for a system that is already set up to ensure that we not only have access to a document when we ask for it, but that we also have access to information at the moment it is produced, while naturally respecting confidentiality regarding political groups and political group meetings. This is also addressed to Mrs Doyle, and to Mr Herrero, who has left.

I am talking here about greater and easier availability of information; of course, this does not mean that groups would no longer be able to hold meetings behind closed doors. I am not talking about an absolute and ideological obligation applying to any meeting, but about ensuring that the infrastructure is in place if we want it. I do not believe it to be true, as Mr Herrero said, that information on attendances, votes and so on is fully kept and fully available. That is not true. Minutes are available for individual committees and the information can only be put together by conducting a meeting-by-meeting investigation.

I personally have been a direct victim of this. An Italian newspaper published banner headlines saying that I was absent more than anyone else, simply because I started mid-term and they based their calculations on the few months after I joined, comparing the attendances to the previous three years. This is an example to show that we ourselves must make the information available to allow maximum transparency, in order to prevent the manipulation and abuse of this information.

I am well aware that the worth of an MEP's work does not lie solely in attendances and absences, but I cannot understand the reason why we ourselves should half conceal this information, opening the door to the worst and most demagogic kinds of manipulation. I therefore hope that on these aspects and on the aspect of access to data by disabled people - I cannot imagine why the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has asked for a separate vote on this - I really hope that we do not have any last-minute surprises because I think this is a matter of fundamental importance for everyone. Mr President, thank you for your understanding.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 14 January 2009, at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - Regarding the latter this is not the case of all Commissioners and it is unfortunate that currently we are not in a position to publish data relating to other funds received. However, there is a general misconception on our revenues.

Firstly, to date all members of the European Parliament receive the same salary as members of their National Parliaments. This means that the Maltese Delegation in the EP receives an honorarium identical to that of MPs to employ and run our office both in Brussels and Malta.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if Commissioners and Parliamentarians will have to fill audited financial statements on an annual basis, regarding all revenues received. These statements should be available to the public. I think that this suggestion may be the balance between the two important issues of data protection and transparency.

Mr President, I agree with many of the issues raised in this report on which we will be voting on Thursday. In future the Council must ensure that all its debates, documents and information are open to public scrutiny.

I also support the proposal in the report that there should be more information on Parliament's website on Members' activities and attendance.

Public contracts in the fields of defence and security (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Lambsdorff, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts in the fields of defence and security - C6-0467/2007 -.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, worldwide there are currently 13 EU missions through which we are helping to bring peace and stability. Nine missions have already ended. In many of these operations, armed forces, often including police officers, from our Member States enter difficult environments. At the same time, we all know that there are still many more trouble spots and that demand for European intervention in international politics is more likely to increase than decrease, and, unfortunately, we also know that we Europeans are often not in a position to carry out our missions in the way that we really ought to, with optimum equipment and in an interoperable and strategically redeployable manner. We must achieve this, as we owe this to our soldiers and police officers involved in operations throughout the world. This goal is a long way off, however.

One of the reasons for this is our fragmented defence equipment market. Our 27 Member States indulge in 89 different, sometimes even duplicated, research programmes. The US has only 29. There is far too little cooperation between the Member States in connection with product development. So-called traditional suppliers are preferred over non-traditional, but perhaps better suppliers and that is what we want to change.

Goods and services to the value of around EUR 91 billion are acquired each year on the European defence equipment market. Of this, only 13% is, on average, put out to tender Europe-wide. The sorry country bringing up the rear in this case, I might add, is Germany with only around 2%. The bottom line is that the internal market for defence-related products is not working. Many important innovations in this high-tech industry cannot be utilised, our armed forces do not get the best equipment and taxpayers' money is wasted. As a result, highly developed defence-related products are becoming increasingly expensive, while the defence budget remains the same or is even getting smaller. In this situation, it is clear what it is all about. It is not about greater arms expenditure, but about spending the existing money more wisely. That is what we need to do. We owe it to our taxpayers.

Therefore, in a report in 2005 this Parliament called on the Commission to submit a directive for this sector. It has done so, in agreement with both Parliament and the Council. It was important for us, and also for me as rapporteur, that President Sarkozy expressly mentioned the European defence equipment market in his speech about the priorities of the French Presidency. With that it was clear that Parliament, the Council and the Commission would work together on this in a united effort. The agreement at first reading is a result of this common political will. Tomorrow, we will - hopefully together - lay the foundation for a new European legal framework, which will ensure a genuine opening of the market and greater transparency and competition with regard to procurement.

We must also view this directive in context. In December, we successfully adopted the Directive on the transfer of defence-related products within the Community. The directive before us today is the second important building block in the European defence equipment package. Although the two directives function independently in theory, in practice they need one another. This is another reason why the completion tomorrow of our work on the defence equipment package is so important. It will not bring a revolution in the market overnight, that is clear, but it is an important step in the right direction and it is able to move European security and defence policy substantially further forward.

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs Charlotte Cederschiöld, Barbara Weiler and Gisela Kallenbach for their ever fair, sometimes critical, but always constructive cooperation. I would also like to thank the Council and the Commission. Everyone involved showed a wonderful mixture of political will, professionalism and a willingness to compromise.

We all owe it to our citizens to make constructive policy for Europe together. I hope that we will fulfil this obligation tomorrow for our sphere of competence with the adoption of this package. Incidentally, we should be having this debate in Brussels and not in Strasbourg. Thank you.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first of all apologise for the weakness of my voice, as I have a very heavy cold.

You are about to vote on the proposal for a directive on the procurement of defence and security equipment, which the Commission tabled in December 2007 as part of the so-called 'defence package'. This proposal is a major step forward towards the establishment of a common European defence market, which, by itself, is an important contribution to the Union's security and defence policy. In other words, this directive is a politically highly important instrument which will help to strengthen Europe's defence capabilities, make public spending more efficient and enhance the security of our citizens.

The negotiation process for the proposal has benefited from the close cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Therefore, I would like to warmly thank the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, for his intensive and efficient work to achieve an agreement with the Council in first reading. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation. I also want to congratulate the French presidency, together with the Slovenian presidency, for the way they successfully spurred the negotiations in Council. And last but not least, I would like to thank the Czech presidency for its commitment in finalising this file.

The Commission welcomes the text that we have now on the table. The new directive is tailor-made for defence and security procurement. It will give contracting authorities the flexibility they need to negotiate contracts which are often particularly complex and sensitive. It will also allow them to ask for specific security clauses to protect classified information and ensure their security of supply. All this makes the directive an instrument which Member States can apply to most of their defence procurement without putting at risk their security interests.

The new directive will also apply to sensitive procurements in the field of non-military security. This approach is in line with today's strategic environment, in which transnational threats and new technologies have blurred the dividing line between military and non-military, internal and external security. Public procurement cannot ignore these developments: in cases where equipment for police forces, for example, has features similar to those of defence equipment, it is only logical to make the same procurement rules applicable.

All this will have major advantages: the new directive will make it possible for Member States to limit the use of the derogation under Article 296 of the EC Treaty to exceptional cases. Hence, the principles of the internal market will, at last, apply to important parts of defence and security markets in Europe. Fair and transparent procurement rules will become applicable throughout the Union and allow companies to tender more easily in other Member States. European industries will get a much larger 'home' market with longer production runs and economies of scale. This, in turn, will reduce costs and lead to lower prices.

At the end, we will achieve greater openness of markets to the benefit of all: industries will become more competitive, armed forces will get better value for money, and taxpayers will benefit from more efficiency in public spending. All this is also the fruit of your work and your input. Let me therefore once again thank you and congratulate you on this.

Mr President, a European market in defence-related products is not created overnight, but the rapporteur has built up confident cooperation that has helped us, together with the Council, and in particular the Commission, to take a first, very important step. Now defence-related products will be clearly incorporated within the ground rules of the internal market, which should help to lower prices. Along with a more open market come increased European competitiveness and more efficient equipment production.

The French Government also deserves praise for its constructive role, but the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, has, of course, been the most important contributor. I would also like to thank the defence industry for its valuable contribution, which has increased flexibility. Many elements from the 2004 Procurement Directive have been retained here. At the same time, respect is shown for national security interests and special conditions for supply and the protection of information, for example. Application of Article 296 is retained as per the current legislation, but misuse is prevented. This should also be welcomed by the industry, which will, of course, continue to be able to influence the implementation of the directive as well as the development of new practices.

We in Parliament are pleased that the Council has met us halfway with regard to the threshold values and transparency, to name just a couple of examples of the many successes of the European Parliament, the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the rapporteur. I, personally, am pleased that it has been possible to resolve the most controversial issues with regard to existing EC law. If Parliament, as I hope and believe, widely supports this report, then an important and logical step forward will have been taken.

My sincere thanks go to all my fellow Members and other stakeholders who have helped to make this a constructive and exciting process.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of last year there were some remarkable headlines proclaiming 'the world is rearming', 'trade in weapons is booming', 'defence equipment industry - expensive through lack of competition' and other cases of corruption in Germany as well as in other countries of the European Union. We Social Democrats are absolutely clear in our opposition to this kind of arms race, this increase in weaponry, and also the laissez-faire attitude towards corruption. We are in agreement with our national colleagues on this issue.

The aims of this legislative package, with these two directives on transfer and procurement that we are discussing here today, will ensure that it is not just a matter of competitiveness, but also of putting a stop to the wasting of taxpayers' money on the production of defence equipment and of preventing corruption. These are good enough reasons alone for the Social Democrats to accept the result.

There will be a European legal framework for awarding contracts for goods and services in the area of defence and security, there will be more cooperation between the Member States, in other words no unnecessary overlaps and no deceiving of Member States by the arms companies, and there will be more competition overall and fewer exceptions under Article 296.

For us Members - for all groups, I believe - it was important for us to have introduced the Remedies Directive, in other words the directive prepared by Mr Fruteau. For the Council, it was not at all so clear cut. For us it was important for there to be sanctions in the event of corruption, even down to exclusion from contracts. I think that is something new for this industry, which has been spoilt up to now.

However, it was also important to us that the results be viable for all 27 Member States. Even if only six or seven Member States have their own production and a few less get involved in trade, it is important to have 27 States behind us. We have succeeded in that. I am not sure whether everything will work the way we imagine it will and therefore we have incorporated the fact that Parliament wishes to continue to have a certain amount of control. We want to be informed, not just automatically by the Commission, but we want to be informed of the results and about the transposition of this package of directives.

In future, when we will have an even stronger European internal market and will gain European powers, as Mr Sarkozy has of course planned, then the European Parliament as an elected institution in Europe must be involved in genuine control, a control that we have in the national parliaments, but do not yet have in the European Parliament. This, however, is a task for the future. In Germany, for example, we have got our fingers burnt with the production of defence equipment and increased prices. We have the Eurofighter - an excessively expensive, if not the most expensive, project - and I am sure that every Member State has similar experiences.

Finally, I do not wish to express my thanks. The cooperation was quite constructive and the results are, above all, significant. However, I would like to say quite openly that the parliamentary procedure was intolerable. Reaching compromises with the Council and the Commission at first reading simply should not be the work of this House. For this reason, this procedure must only be an absolute exception in future. It was not, in fact, necessary for this legislative package. We should stick to our guns and, immediately after the vote, do away with this type of procedure for non-parliamentary work.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating my colleague, Mr Lambsdorff, on his excellent report. I know he dedicated himself to this very important work. I consider it vital to create a common arms market and to establish a legal framework for this in order to further develop the European security and defence policy (ESDP).

I also welcome the important achievement that the principles of the Treaty, in particular transparency, non-discrimination and openness, will also be implemented in the defence and security market and, as has already been said, this will result in an improvement of the efficiency of defence spending.

The Commission's proposal, as well as Mr Lambsdorff's report, managed to establish a set of rules concerning procurement contracts in the field of security and defence, which allow the proper functioning of the common arms market.

I want to refer to at least two major improvements for both suppliers and the contracting authorities which aim to protect the security of the EU and its Member States. I would mention here the provisions relating to the security of supply, namely information about tenderers and subcontractors provided to the contracting authorities and the commitments tenderers have to make to ensure security of supply. On the other hand, tenderers are also protected by the introduction of the review procedure, which guarantees the awarding process is fair and no discrimination occurs.

The proposal increases the transparency in the work procedure, but Member States should not at all be reluctant to it as their security interests are safeguarded, especially by maintaining the derogations from the disclosure of information when security interests are at stake.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasise the fact that it is very important for us to have a common European market for defence. At the same time, when we are discussing this issue - the common European defence market - or perhaps if we discuss more sensitive issues like offsets in the future, we should seriously take into consideration the strategic interests and the concrete situation of each and every Member State.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lambsdorff has done an excellent job. Congratulations. The spending of public money has always stirred up strong feelings. This is especially true in the case of procurement for the army or defence forces. Large sums of money are involved and we need to select manufacturers and service-providers who provide the best service, rather than the cheapest solution. We need high quality at a reasonable price.

We also have to consider how thorough all the work will be and the quality of the materials used, as well as specific issues such as confidentiality, even secrecy, especially in relation to crucial issues. These matters are also linked to the issues of offsetting and ensuring a return on investment. I think that we will have to return to this subject. I believe that the position presented in the proposal for a directive is correct. In my opinion, the proposed solutions will increase the efficiency of the European public tender system in the field of defence. They deserve our acceptance.

Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his constructive cooperation, because for all the justified criticism of the procedure at first reading, this cooperation was in actual fact the prerequisite for the voice of Parliament clearly being heard in the trialogue.

We are deciding today on a compromise with regard to an object of trade, the previous market for which was limited to just a few Member States. It has been a really interesting experience for me just to see fundamental advocates of the internal market and competition suddenly pulling out all the stops to continue to be able to utilise national decision-making and isolation mechanisms. They did not succeed and that is a good thing.

Why was that? It was because more competition in the trade in defence equipment will hopefully in future result in a move away from the dictation of prices and in the chance that the public money designated for this purpose will be reduced and used more efficiently. The same goes for reducing corruption. We owe this to our citizens. It is also clear that unambiguous tendering conditions will now apply, which will lead to greater transparency in connection with the awarding of contracts and will at last also give SMEs a real chance of entering the market. Moreover, all conceivable loopholes for avoiding the tendering process have also been reduced, and any envisaged deviations must be agreed in advance with the Commission. The bartering which up to now has indeed been prohibited under law but has nevertheless been common practice has not been legalised by this directive. Last but not least, legal remedy can now be utilised for the first time.

I had hoped that we would Europeanise it further, reduce the threshold values and so gain greater transparency, but this is a major step in the right direction and I am looking forward to its transposition.

Mr President, this directive is part of the defence package, the context of which is, and I quote, 'the strategy for a stronger and more competitive European defence industry'. The principal guideline, as with so many things, is the free market for defence-related products too, in other words weapons, and weapons are for killing and waging war. The aim of the directive is to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the arms industry in the EU. Mr Swoboda spoke plainly in the previous debate. He said that we need better initial conditions for the European arms industry in view of the competition, in particular from the United States.

In 2005, the EU Member States jointly became for the first time the top arms exporter in the world. Of these exports, 70% come from the four large nations of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy. The main importer states are those of the Middle East. Our concern should not be for a more efficient arms industry, but rather for disarmament, and unlike the efficiency of the arms industry, for this there is no directive. It is very clear what this is really all about.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, but also to the Subcommittee on Security and Defence and its chairman and draftsman of the opinion on the Lambsdorff report, my friend Karl von Wogau.

We are not talking here about the export of weapons to states outside the European internal market, only about the issue of how the sale and trade in weapons within the European internal market, that is in the 27 Member States of the European Union, can be made more cost-effective and more efficient. I very much welcome the fact that Parliament has taken up a common position here, because, as a result, citizens will ultimately make considerable savings in a market of around EUR 70 billion per year, and therefore can in some way be paid a peace dividend.

This work and - it is a little disappointing that so few representatives of the Council are here today - this decision are extremely welcome in the light of an extremely difficult discussion between the Member States in the past. As much as I agree with the opinion about the difficulties experienced in the trialogue, as expressed by the Social Democrats, I have to say that one day we will achieve a milestone in European defence policy with this. I am even more disappointed that so few fellow Members wish to be present for this decision.

This morning we celebrated 10 years of the euro. I hope that in a few years we will also look back on today, as this is a milestone in European cooperation between Member States in the area of defence and of foreign and security policy, because in future it will, in principle, be the case that whatever requirements we set in our own Member State, the same will also apply automatically in all the other Member States. This involves a large credit of trust that the Member States have now become willing to give. For this I am particularly grateful.

However, I would also like to thank the Commission, which has worked with much vigour on this directive, which has overcome the opposition in the Member States and which has tried constructively to help Parliament to find a way through the tangled undergrowth of public procurement law. The positive points have already been mentioned, including the improvements that will be made to procurement law and I do not wish to repeat these.

With the second part of the package for creating this genuine European internal market for defence-related products we have indeed come another important mile along the road. This also strengthens the autonomous ability of the European Union to respond to international crises, work to which Mr von Wogau has devoted himself in particular in the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. If then, as recently described, an autonomous operation of the European Union in Africa under the leadership of an Irish General with a Polish deputy and troops comprising members from 15 different Member States is possible, then it shows how far the European Union has come in building a Europe of Defence. We need to go further along this road. Thank you very much.

(PT) Mr President, firstly I would like to acknowledge the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, and the shadow rapporteurs, particularly Mrs Weiler.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it to be essential that we move towards integration of national defence markets and even strategic coordination of their production. We must move forward, with all the necessary specificities and precautions, towards applying the basic rules of the internal market to the defence industries, increasing transparency in the tendering processes that are organised and the contracts that are awarded involving Member States of the European Union. However, at the same time we must help to create the conditions that will make European equipment and products more competitive in world markets.

It seems important to me, Commissioner McCreevy, that this directive be able to guarantee improvements in the legal framework for public contracts in the fields of defence and security. It must further the construction of the internal market while, obviously, respecting the rights and interests of Member States, especially in the field of security; I refer specifically to those that manufacture arms, munitions and defence and security equipment, such as my own country, for example.

I would also, Mr President, highlight the provisions that allow easier access to this market for small and medium-sized enterprises, specifically by improving the rules for subcontracting. I also emphasise the prospect of making a greater and more profound impact on the industrial fabric, in order to create a true European market in the defence industries. That may also contribute to strengthening research and development, not just within these industries, but also in a section of European industry that feeds off their development.

In conclusion, I believe reference could be made to the obvious link between the defence industries and the foreign policies of the Union. However, in response to a recent speech, I would like to quote a classical Roman saying: 'if you want peace, prepare for war'. In the European Union, as it is almost a pacifist superpower, we call these industries 'defence industries' and not 'war industries' because we want peace, not war. That is also why we need defence industries.

(PL) Mr President, the United States spends around USD 500 billion on defence. The European Union spends a little over 200 billion on the same. However, the question is whether, in return for this 200 billion, the military capabilities of the European Union Member States really reflect that investment, as is the case in the United States. When I was defence minister, I met industry representatives and told them that I was the minister responsible for national defence, and not industrial defence. I think that the sort of directive we are discussing today, and for which I would like to express my thanks and my gratitude to Mr Lambsdorff, will lead to the large sums that we spend on defence being used in a significantly more sensible and reasonable manner, and that the military capability of the European Union will reflect our level of spending on defence.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out once again that we are talking about a package: the resolution in December and this debate today. Only when we view both together - the regulation on transfers of defence-related products within the Community and now the procurement directive - do they make sense.

I have prepared the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We had a core political objective, namely that with the harmonisation of the European arms industry and the liberalisation within the EU, tougher means of control with regard to the issue of exports outside the EU should at the same time be implemented. If we are going to mention the negative headlines, we should mention the good ones as well. At its last meeting at the end of last year, the Council, under the French Presidency, adopted the Code of Conduct as a legally binding instrument. That is a good thing and it is what this Parliament has always called for.

I would therefore like to point out once again that this harmonisation that we consider to be right - and not only the harmonisation, but also the development of a sanction mechanism that is to be used if this directive is contravened - is now also under the control of the nation states and the Members. We will follow this process, and not only the harmonisation, with great interest.

(FR) Mr President, I would like to add my support to the line taken by Mr Schwab a few moments ago. I would say that adopting this directive today is a major decision and we owe it to the very remarkable efforts of our rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, our shadow rapporteur, Charlotte Cederschiöld, whom I thank and naturally, the French Presidency who, at the end of last year, made great efforts to achieve a compromise.

In fact, what we are doing today is to finish a cycle which has been remarkably fast, that is to say a few months, which includes both the directive on the internal market in defence products, adopted in December, the Code of Conduct for exports, which became law at the same time and, finally, this directive reconciling Article 296 of the Treaty with the common rules on public contracts. In fact, this whole set, so to speak, commits us to what I will call 'communitisation' of the defence economy. This might, of course, appear to be inimical to the desire for sovereignty or even to the very characteristics of defence policies. In fact, this translates a desire for integration of state sovereignties.

The same thing will be noted in the field of justice. Throughout the French Presidency and since the Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies, enormous progress has been made in yet another field in which national sovereignties wished to block any agreement or cooperation.

In fact, ladies and gentlemen, by adopting such a text, I believe we are helping to bring an end to the ideological debate on the nature and form of the European project. It is an area and a power, and it will be increasingly recognised in the fields of defence and foreign policy.

Mr President, as British Conservatives, we are generally strong protagonists of open markets, but, as a number of speakers have confirmed, the underlying thrust of this report is strengthening ESDP and EU integration rather than any real economic benefits. It certainly has nothing to do with strengthening defence capabilities.

I can see that there could be some marginal benefits in easier UK access to some other European countries' markets in defence-related procurement. But there is a far greater advantage for others to access the UK market, which has the largest defence spend - and, by the way, the UK already has the most open defence procurement market in Europe.

Of particular concern is that, under the proposed rules, a government or firm that has made huge investment in some aspect of defence R&D may no longer be in a position to recoup this investment in the development and production phase. Development contracts are expected to be opened up to European competition, leaving a national government with no means of protecting intellectual property, jobs or export opportunities. It will be a brake on R&D.

There are other concerns as well, but I have to say that this report is not really necessary from a defence, industrial or, indeed, economic point of view.

Mr President, the directive on defence procurement is an important step towards both the EDEM and the ESDP. I recognise the difficulties of reconciling free market principles with inevitable discretion on defence deals, and common rules covering the award of public contracts with individual practices regarding defence contracts.

This very complex set of regulations has, of course, to pass the test of practice, because trying to fit in the same box adverse elements like transparency and secrecy, and commonality and individuality, will require constant monitoring and the determination to penalise any individual attempt to favour one over the other in a continuous effort to keep a fine balance between all four.

Proper functioning will then be both a function and a reflection of the determination of the EU bodies to referee this nascent European market, and of the true willingness of national defence champions and the Member States behind them to respect and play the game according to these new rules.

One word on offsetting. For countries like mine, Romania, offset is, at least for the time being, an important mechanism to ensure the survival of our national industry.

(RO) European unity and security have again been put in jeopardy at the moment by both the financial and economic crisis and the energy crisis. This has shown once again that only unity and solidarity enable us to successfully tackle the major problems in the modern world.

The introduction of common, transparent rules governing procurement in the market for security and defence-related products is an important step in tightening European security policy. It is also a mechanism specific to the market economy enabling European industry to compete successfully with major global players, especially in the United States.

A sound Community scheme needs to be set up as soon as possible for handling information security, while an adequate control system needs to be put in place for exports of security and defence-related products and equipment to third countries. The ratification and enforcement of the Lisbon Treaty will allow well-structured cooperation to be established on a permanent basis in the area of security policy, which is essential to the EU's future.

(PL) Since the 1990s it has been clear that the fragmentation of the European defence markets has had negative economic repercussions. During the past 20 years, defence spending has been cut, leading to lower turnover and employment levels, as well as cuts in investment in the field of research and new military technologies.

Today, even the large Member States have trouble funding new defence systems. A European defence technological and industrial base should be created in order to develop the Member States' fundamental defence capabilities. This step is vital, in order to meet global challenges in the field of defence.

It is also important to have a harmonised European legislative framework, which would allow the Member States to implement Community provisions without threatening their own defence interests. We should not forget an important element, namely the introduction of a control procedure. It should aim to guarantee tenderers effective legal protection, foster transparency and prevent discrimination during the procurement process.

(EL) Mr President, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lambsdorff, and the shadow rapporteurs on the important work they have done.

The main feature of the European market is the fragmentation that prevails at national level. Exports of products relating to the defence and security sector in question are subject to national licensing systems which differ in terms of procedure, scope and deadlines.

This new legislation promotes transparency and lays the foundations for creating a single open European market in defence equipment, which is also a basic factor in strengthening European security and defence policy.

It is also important that there are fundamental provisions governing the security of supply and information. The citation of Article 296 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities has also been clarified, but is now confined to actual derogations, as provided for in the Treaty and as requested by the European Court of Justice.

To close, I should like to point out that it is important that there are flexible arrangements which strengthen the role of small and medium-sized enterprises which, in some Member States, form a sector that employs thousands of workers.

Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Lambsdorff for the excellent work he has done and of course his shadows, particularly, Mrs Cederschiöld, but let me also underline something that Mr Toubon said: the fantastic work done by the French presidency in achieving agreement on this directive.

I hope that when we return to it in a few years' time we will realise that we should not have been afraid to talk about a European defence equipment market because of a common European market. It is in the common defence interest of Europe and it is in the common interest of Europe to have more competition.

Let me highlight one part of this directive which is highly important for many Member States. This is particularly the text concerning subcontracting. I am very happy that the agreements reached with the Council and the Commission on the text concerning subcontracting have reflected to a large extent what Parliament has been pushing for, namely that there is more transparency in terms of subcontracting; secondly, that there is no discrimination on a national basis when subcontracts are being drafted and finally that national authorities have the ability to allow contractors to subcontract up to 30% of their contracts.

This is in the interests of bringing our industry together across Europe.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank all the participants in the debate. It is clear that the present text is a compromise and as such cannot take on board all the suggestions made with the attention of improving it. At the same time, however, Parliament has many reasons to be satisfied.

Firstly, it was Parliament that asked the Commission in its resolution of 17 November 2005 in the Green Paper on defence procurement to prepare this directive. Hence, it is to a large extent Parliament's proposal.

Secondly, and even more importantly, the current text has benefited enormously from your input during the process. A huge number of amendments from the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection report have been integrated, in particular with regard to the scope, the provisions on remedies, and transparency.

The Commission can accept all these amendments and therefore supports the text. We are convinced that this directive will make a difference and contribute to a real European defence market. Let us face it, only five years ago, the idea of building this market with Community instruments was pure science fiction to most people, but today it is about to become a reality. We should not miss this opportunity.

Madam President, I would urge my fellow Member Mr van Orden to consider the fact that the only person here who supports him is the German far-left extremist. To Mr Pflüger from the left, I would say that a glance at the law will facilitate its understanding. It is not about exports at all, it is about the European internal market.

Otherwise, what Mrs Weiler said is correct. She said that these products are expensive through lack of competition. Yes, when there is no competition, they are expensive. We will hopefully introduce more competition into the European internal market. This will certainly not make these products cheap, but perhaps more reasonably priced at least. This is a big opportunity, an opportunity for the industry to open up new markets and an opportunity for medium-sized companies to penetrate these markets, too. However - and this is quite important - it is also an opportunity for transparency and thus for civil society, which will be able to keep a better eye on the way this market is structured and on what is happening, and for many non-governmental organisations.

I would like to expressly thank Mr Mladenov and Mr Toubon for their reference to the unusual work involved in this project. In essence, it is a project under the second pillar, that is the strengthening of the European security and defence policy, using an instrument of the first pillar, namely an internal market directive. Without the splendid work of the French Presidency mediating between the Member States - an extremely difficult task - it would never have succeeded.

We must expand these opportunities. It will be an opportunity for the political Europe. It will be an opportunity for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and an opportunity for the Europe of values and of peace. This is an opportunity that we must take advantage of.

(DE) Madam President, I would like to make a request under Rule 145 of the Rules of Procedure. If you are addressed in person, you have the opportunity to respond briefly.

It will become clear relatively quickly who the extremists are here, if you take a look at what all this is about. It is about market extremism, which is evident in this area. I said that a more efficient defence industry within the European Union would naturally have an impact on arms exports. No one can deny that this is the case. To suggest anything else would indicate a total fixation on the European Union.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

I would like to highlight the importance of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts in the fields of defence and security, which I strongly support.

The directive opens the way for basing public procurement in the field of security and defence on transparent criteria, without discriminating against tenderers from other EU Member States, whilst simultaneously guaranteeing the security of these countries. That is why it is so important to be able to invoke the clause in the Treaty establishing the European Community which provides that its provisions may be disregarded if that step is necessary to protect the essential interests of an EU Member State.

Joint production, joint purchasing, public procurement -especially in terms of the most technologically advanced, and therefore more expensive, equipment - will give the European Security and Defence Policy a better chance of success. The proposal for a directive, which I support, is a positive step towards opening up the markets of the EU Member States and reducing rivalry in the sector between countries which could make use of shared and cost-effective solutions.

At the same time, I would like to express my reservations regarding the order of preference of standards examined during the process of drawing up technical specifications for the purchase of defence equipment. Defence ministers should be responsible for establishing implementation priorities.

Moreover, I also noted the lack of any reference in this proposal to the Code of Best Practice in the Supply Chain of the European Defence Agency, which is implemented by suppliers. It is therefore not clear whether this criterion should continue to be taken into account when selecting suppliers.

It is my firm view that defence and security are of paramount importance to each Member State, but they are above all areas in the interest of every citizen in the European Union, as well as of the European defence industry.

It goes without saying that the option of derogating from this directive will continue to apply. For this reason, it is vitally important that Member States are urged to improve their legislation governing public procurement in the area of national security. They should also use the opportunity provided by Article 296 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, solely on the condition that they have guaranteed a similar level of transparency, accountability, focus on results and efficiency, including an adequate mechanism for settling disputes which have arisen.

I would like to state that a directive, no matter how comprehensive and specific it is, cannot replace the need for the EU's defence industry and, more generally, its security industry to have a clear vision. The lack of any vision and strategy cannot be compensated for by rules and exceptions which will make countries 'cheat' to protect their private interests, wholesale or retail, according to the size of their defence industry. For this reason, a strategy must be devised in this area, which will be in the interest of upholding European principles.

Question Time (Commission) 

The next item is Question Time (B6-0001/2009).

We are going to deal with a series of questions addressed to the Commission.

Part one



Subject: Ten years of the euro

In light of the recent celebrations to mark the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the euro, can the Commission comment on the key lessons learnt in terms of the coordination of fiscal policy across the euro area, especially in light of the recent financial and economic crisis?

Member of the Commission. - While the experiences with budgetary coordination have, overall, been positive, some lessons can be drawn. The analysis of the first 10 years reinforces the case for strengthening the effectiveness of budgetary surveillance in good times. It also shows the need to address broader issues which may affect the macroeconomic stability of a Member State and the overall functioning of economic and monetary union.

Fiscal policy coordination should better guide national budgetary behaviour over the whole cycle - that is, both in good times and in bad times. Increased attention should be paid to monitoring public debt developments while medium-term budgetary objectives should be strengthened to address implicit liabilities. All these kinds of developments call for deeper budgetary surveillance.

But surveillance should also be broadened to take account of developments within Member States that may affect budgetary sustainability, such as the growth of current account deficits, persistent inflation divergences, persistent divergences in the evolution of unit labour costs, or trends of unbalanced growth.

Surveillance must build on the existing instruments. The key instruments for fiscal policy surveillance and economic policy coordination are clearly anchored in the Treaty and, indeed, in the Stability and Growth Pact.

The recent adoption of the European economic recovery plan by the Commission on 26 November last year also breaks new ground as far as governance and budgetary coordination is concerned.

It highlights the Commission's role as a catalyst for short-term emergency economic stabilisation policies. Based on our own economic assessment, the Commission has quickly set up a fully fledged and quantified economic response to the economic slowdown. The Commission's quick delivery is a response to the clear risks of bigger-than-ever national economic policies at this juncture.

The recovery plan recognises the inherent division of tasks embedded into the EU economic policy framework. Since Member States are responsible for budgetary policy, the Commission set a global target for additional fiscal stimulus, taking into account the amount needed to kick-start the EU economy as a whole.

Member States are free to devise the size and composition of their respective fiscal stimulus. It now implies challenges in terms of coordination and surveillance of the implementation of national measures. The Commission and the ECOFIN Council will jointly monitor the implementation of the national measures in compliance with the principles laid down in the recovery plan.

Looking forward, judicious implementation of the fiscal surveillance framework will anchor expectations of future fiscal developments. Together with the strengthening of national budgetary frameworks and rules, and the implementation of reforms curbing the rise in age-related expenditure, this will ensure that sustainable positions are restored.

It thus contains adverse effects of expectations of rising deficits and debt on risk premia and private consumption and investment.

Commissioner, I very much appreciate your reply. In view of the fact that we have a common monetary policy, but given the ongoing problems, do you see a greater role for the Eurogroup, while respecting the taxation policies in individual states? Do you think that the implementation or the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty would in any way affect that area in relation to taxation? I think the important thing is that we need to work together. How do you envisage new ways of trying to generate stimulus in economies of the EU countries?

Member of the Commission. - What is the role of the Eurogroup? As you know, the Eurogroup is right now, and will continue to be after the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, an informal body. So, the Eurogroup cannot adopt formal decisions even when they relate only to euro-area members belonging to the Ecofin Council.

But over the past three or four years, since we began with the presidency of Jean-Claude Juncker, in particular, in January 2005, the Eurogroup has improved the content of the discussion agenda. Members of the Eurogroup together with the Commission and the ECB discuss this deeper budgetary surveillance and broader economic surveillance that I mentioned in my introductory remarks. The Eurogroup often discusses other issues concerning the external role of the euro and the external dimension of euro are.

Tax issues, as you know very well, are a very delicate issue. According to the present Treaty but also according to the Lisbon Treaty in the future, tax decisions require unanimity at EU level, and I do not foresee any kinds of changes in the decision-making framework in the near future.

(DE) Commissioner, I am interested in the following point. Over the last 10 years the Eurogroup has been a huge success and, particularly during the most recent crisis, other countries have expressed an interest in joining the group. Is the Commission already planning which countries could possibly become members in future? Are there other countries interested in joining the euro area because being a member has proved to be so worthwhile?

(SV) Firstly, I would like to ask the following question: if it has been so successful over the last 10 years, why do Italy and Greece, to take two examples, have a 10-year treasury bond rate that is a couple of percentage points above that of Germany?

Secondly, why is Sweden's 10-year interest rate 0.4 percentage points lower than Germany's, and Finland's 0.6 percentage points higher, when both are well-managed countries?

Member of the Commission. - As you know, Slovakia joined the euro zone on 1 January this year, so we now have 16 of the 27 EU Member States participating fully in the EMU and sharing the same currency. Who will be the next? It is not up to the Commission to answer that question. It is up to the candidates who wish to join the euro area to apply. At the present time we know which EU Member States would like to join the euro area as soon as possible but unfortunately do not fulfil all the criteria required by the Treaty - the Baltic states, Hungary and others - and we know that there are two EU Member States, namely the UK and Denmark, that got an opt-out so that they can be excluded from the responsibility of all EU Member States to prepare themselves and their economies to join the euro area one day.

I do not know who will be the first to join the euro area after Slovakia. It could perhaps be one of the two Member States with an opt-out. It is possible that in the coming months Denmark, for instance, might decide to no longer have an opt-out and to apply to join the euro area. In fact, Denmark fulfils all the criteria to join the euro area according to the Treaty, but it is up to the Danish authorities, the Danish Parliament and maybe the Danish citizens in a referendum, to decide.

This morning we were commemorating here the 10th anniversary of the euro. I am sure that in the next 10 years all - or almost all - the EU Member States will join the euro area because, in these times of crisis during this difficult economic period, the advantages of being a member of the euro area have increased a great deal. Those who have not yet joined the euro area realise that the advantages are much bigger and much more important than the responsibilities they must bear as members of the euro area, or the difficulties.

Regarding your remarks, if I were in your position I would not argue against the euro area in terms of interest rates. Ask Denmark what has happened with their interest rates during this period of crisis. Denmark is a non-euro-area member whose currency is linked with the euro and whose Central Bank closely follows the decisions of the European Central Bank. The markets are not rewarding those who are not in the euro. They are putting higher risk premiums on them.



Subject: Collapse in dairy prices on the EU market

According to a Commission working document dated 21 November 2008 on monitoring price trends, annexed to the communication on food prices in Europe (p. 9), between October 2007 and October 2008 the price of butter on the EU market fell by 30%, while that of powdered milk decreased by 40%. Both prices thus appear to be descending unstoppably towards the intervention levels.

Does the Commission believe that the content of its proposal drawn up a year ago on raising the milk quotas, as approved by Parliament and the Council, should be maintained unchanged in the face of these market trends?

Does the Commission believe that the limits existing under the current rules as regards intervention for powdered milk and butter are likely to be sufficient to prevent disastrous consequences for farmers' incomes, as in a region like the Azores where farmers' activity is totally dependent on the market in dairy products such as those mentioned?

Member of the Commission. - I shall start by describing what the situation looked like just a few years ago. We all remember that the dairy sector was very stable with very few price fluctuations, but over the last few years the situation has changed dramatically. Firstly in 2007, I remember clearly in August and September, we saw huge increases in dairy prices and then we experienced last year the same or an even worse reduction in prices, so the situation today is that prices are very close to intervention prices and in some parts of Europe even below intervention.

I can assure Members that I am extremely concerned at the quick deterioration of the European dairy market. We have support measures in place that can be activated to support the dairy sector and we have already taken action.

Contrary to the normal situation, where the private storage scheme for butter is normally activated on 1 March, we have decided to activate the scheme from 1 January, which means that the production that has taken place in December is also eligible for this scheme. Intervention buying or granting export refunds are other instruments that are available to support the dairy sector or the dairy market efficiently.

With regard to the intervention system starting in March - and therefore also covering the production that will take place in February - butter and skimmed milk powder may be purchased until the end of August. First, for fixed quantities at fixed prices, followed then by a tendering system should the situation so require.

I would also like to remind you of the situation back in 2007. I think we all remember the immediate and quick reaction that was witnessed by the European Parliament, by the Council, by Member States, that put enormous pressure on me to increase immediately - yesterday rather than tomorrow - to increase the quotas to ease the situation on consumer prices.

I would also like to speak out very clearly today to try to stamp out misunderstandings which are circulating that the increase in milk quotas is to be blamed for the very weak dairy prices that we see today. The reality is that despite the 2% quota increase that took place after April this year, the production of milk has actually fallen. That is what we see now, due to the fact that an increase in quotas is a possibility for Member States or for farmers to produce but it is certainly not an obligation. This shows clearly that dairy producers are reacting to market signals.

The relatively small changes that we have seen in the quota system can therefore in no way explain the market volatility that we are seeing. The lower demand from consumers is probably a reaction to the high prices that we saw last year as consumers then tried or wanted to step out of the high-quality high-priced dairy products. Then, of course, there is the economic climate in which we find ourselves these days. For the same reason it is important that we do not fool ourselves and think that by micro-managing the dairy market we decide for the whole sector. The conclusion must be that the quota system has not been able to deliver market stability in the market place.

Concerning the question of the Azores, the Portuguese authorities have used any opportunity to ask for increased milk quotas for the islands because of the fact that the Azores seem to be extremely competitive and seem to be benefiting from the increased production. I am quite sure that the larger quotas, and the ultimate end of the quota system, will benefit the Azores' dairy sector. That will be the case, I think, even in spite of the fact that those beautiful islands are quite remote and milk has to be moved around between nine islands.

To conclude, I can assure Members that I will manage our dairy policy instruments in a responsible way with a view to ensuring an effective safety net for the dairy sector.

(PT) Thank you for your clarifications, Commissioner. I regret that I am unable to share your optimism regarding how these increases in permitted production levels will benefit the Azores' production.

I can assure you that these effects - according to a magazine published this week, they are already estimated at a drop of more than 60% in the world market price of powdered milk since August 2007 - are having a profound effect on the incomes of farmers in the Autonomous Region of the Azores, and certainly also in several other parts of Europe. These measures, which I hope will turn out to have some effect, have still had no impact. That is why, Commissioner, I was asking you to devote your full attention to this situation.

Member of the Commission. - You know that I am always very happy to have a dialogue and a discussion with you on the importance of the agricultural sector and also on the Azores.

We find ourselves in a situation today where the market is extremely difficult. This is not only the case for the Azores, but is the general situation in Europe, where we have to realise that prices are decreasing to a level that we would never have imagined just six months ago. I can only assure you - and I think that you believe in my ability to find the right solutions at the right time - that this is going to be the way that we will manage the system under these circumstances.

Happy New Year to the Commissioner, although the news is not good on dairying.

Could I specifically ask you, Commissioner - because you have alluded to some of the factors which have resulted in the price fall - given that we were not clear on why prices rose so dramatically, is there a detailed analysis as to why prices have fallen so dramatically? Are you confident that the reforms of the health check are sufficient in view of all this uncertainty? Lastly, is a safety net enough if we erode producer confidence and they drop milk production, as is happening now?

Member of the Commission. - Firstly, I think there are various reasons for the situation of very low milk prices.

Perhaps the biggest reason is the fact that the Russian market is of huge importance for the European Union and just recently we have seen a huge devaluation taking place in the economic sector in Russia, which means that prices for the Russian consumer have increased dramatically. I do not know the exact figures, but the devaluation is at least 50%. The consequence has been that the possibility of selling our products in Russia has been receding dramatically. There is also, as I said, the consequence of the high prices we saw in 2007, where people stepped back a little from the high price of dairy products - and obviously they have not returned. And then there is the situation today with the uncertainty in the general economic situation.

Ms McGuinness asked whether we think that what we did in the health check is good enough. The fact is that the health check does not start until 1 January 2010, with all the different tools available to support the different sectors. We have seen during the discussions that we have new challenges and we have reserved the modulated money for those new challenges. But these are not effective in 2009. That is why we have proposed to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Ecofin Council to spend some of the so-called unused money - EUR 5 billion in total from agriculture, and for the rural development policy it is specifically EUR 1.5 billion - now, in 2009. It is then in the hands of Parliament and the Council to see whether it is possible to spend some of this money.

If you remember the list of the new challenges, the dairy sector was also mentioned. Therefore, I hope that there will be an understanding in Parliament as well to trigger some of this money to be used not exclusively but also on the challenges facing the dairy sector.



Subject: Microcredits

In May 2008 Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel proposed reallocating EU funding that was previously used for export subsidies, price support and the storage of surpluses to microcredits, to enable farmers in the developing countries to buy seed and fertiliser. Microcredits are unquestionably a major aid in combating poverty and an instrument for achieving the millennium goals. Back in April 2008 Parliament called in a Written Declaration for more resources to be released for microcredit projects.

What practical action has the Commission so far taken to follow up that proposal?

Is it not the practice to take two supplementaries after the questioner, and did I not indicate right at the outset of the question to the Commissioner that I had a supplementary question to ask?

Why was it not called?

Mr Allister, I was not at all aware that you had a question to ask. If I had known, I would of course have given you the floor.

With respect, your staff indicated that my request had been noted. So, if your staff were aware of it, then, by implication, you were aware of it.

Why were you not informed?

I am sorry, according to my staff, no one saw you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the discussions between Parliament and the Council on the adoption of the regulation establishing a European food facility led to the decision not to use the funds available under heading 2 of the budget to finance this facility, contrary to what was proposed by the Commission. However, the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, adopted on 16 December 2008, did provide for a budget of EUR 1 billion under heading 4 of the budget for the period 2008-2010. It will be used to fund measures supporting agriculture and food security in the developing countries worst hit by the food crisis. Microcredit features largely in many of these measures, as well as others aimed at strengthening agricultural and rural production. Parliament will have the right to examine the programming of the work funded by this facility, in accordance with the provisions of the comitology regulation. I am able to tell you that an initial package of approximately EUR 300 million, involving 24 to 25 countries, will be presented in February, while the general plan for the use of the entire facility will in any case be presented by the Commission and adopted by 1 May 2009.

The Commission is in favour of developing microcredit and microfinance institutions more generally. In addition to credit, the latter offer a wide range of financial services, including savings, insurance products, money transfers and payment systems. The Commission is committed to helping the most disadvantaged individuals and those with low incomes to access these financial services. It believes that the greatest barrier to the development of financial systems for the most disadvantaged is not the lack of funding, but rather a lack of institutional and technical capacity. That is why the Commission is focusing its efforts mainly on strengthening the institutional powers of microfinance operators. In addition, where access to capital proves to be a significant limitation for microfinance institutions, for example where a microfinance institution wants to develop its services in rural areas, the Commission can fund the capital needs of these institutions through specialised financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank (EIB), using credits to grant loans or to contribute to the capital. In certain cases, where new microfinance institutions are created, the Commission may also decide to provide funding for these start-ups through specialised NGOs. Moreover, on the basis of these comparative advantages, the EIB manages microfinance operations within the general framework of the facilities funded by the EU budget, namely the FEMIP (Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership) in the case of the Mediterranean region, or via the European Development Fund, which is the investment facility for the African, Caribbean and Pacific States.

(NL) Mr President, all of us here have welcomed the decision to earmark EUR 1 billion for the poorest farmers in the countries which have been hardest hit by the food crisis, but my personal regret is that the Commission's proposal to employ unused agriculture funds for this purpose has come to nothing, as a result of pressure from certain Member States and also from one section of Parliament.

As the Commissioner said, the Commission attaches great importance to microloans as an effective instrument for combating poverty, but recently some questions and criticism have been raised, specifically as to their accessibility. People are saying that this is an urban instrument to which rural areas have no access.

My question to the Commission is: has an overall evaluation of this instrument been carried out?

(FR) We are of course, as I said, working on preparing the mechanism that should allow us immediately to employ the financial resources that have been set aside for this purpose.

In my view, neither the nature of the funds nor their origin presents a problem in terms of capacity. It is clear that, even in the case of rural projects, there will be no problem at all. I can therefore reassure you on this subject; there should be no difficulty and, in any case, the concern you feel will be largely addressed, as you will see, in the first package, which will come at the end of February and also in the general plan, which will be available by 1 May at the latest.

(DE) I have only one brief question. Have you considered putting in place certain controls on these microloans to encourage people to focus on fair trade or organic cultivation and do you believe controls of this kind to be useful? Or are you of the opinion that it really does not matter whether requirements of this kind are implemented or not?

(FR) Clearly I cannot get involved in the direct management of developing countries. Developing countries generally have extremely fragile policies on these things. I think I have understood the heart of your question and I believe the approach you suggest sounds promising, in principle. I can see what you would hope to achieve by it, too. Perhaps I might look again at this issue and try to incorporate it into the current discussions, and then come back to you to see how we might arrange it.

I imagine you are thinking of incentives that would enable us to direct certain policies much more towards small family farms, and so on. I think that organic farming, in a number of developing countries, is undoubtedly an option, provided that it would be possible to create sectors. However, this is just off the top of my head. If we can create a sector, in a country where there is a surplus of agricultural production at any given time, that could of course represent an interesting diversification, with good added value. Anyway, I can clearly see that your suggestion is useful and I promise to involve you so that you can work with my staff to see how we can incorporate it into our discussions.

Is the Commissioner concerned that the issue of global food security, which is part of this question, has slipped down the political agenda because of the global economic crisis? What action is the Commission taking to ensure that it is high on the political agenda, because 30 000 children are still dying of hunger and starvation on a daily basis?

(FR) I am sometimes surprised by certain questions, and not because we are not talking about these things and working on them every day. Your question implied that the Commission does not appear to be keen to pursue the work that was largely in fact begun by the Commission, with Parliament's help and support.

Rest assured; I have to tell you that this is an interesting point since the fact that prices have fallen since the food crisis a few months ago could lead some to believe that the problem has been solved. Although they have gone down, prices will not return to the relatively low level they were at before. You are therefore right to highlight this and to point out that the food crisis is still ongoing and will remain a real problem for many years. You may be assured that I will be monitoring this matter very closely; it will not be forgotten.



Subject: Reforming the budget

The outcomes of the Commission's public consultation on 'Reforming the budget - Changing for Europe' called for the Commission to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of the budget by increasing transparency and public access to it. In addition to this the recent publication of the Court of Auditors' Report 2007 made various recommendations in terms of cost/risk balance, monitoring and reporting, simplification of instruments, and improving the information and control provided by Member States. Can the Commission comment on what steps it will take to address the main results of the public consultation and the Court of Auditors' Report in terms of increasing performance and minimising administrative burdens?

Member of the Commission. - I have two questions today on the budget reform, one more general and one more concentrated on agricultural matters. I am very happy to have at least two questions because we were asking for more interest from Parliament.

In response to the first question, this is more general and concerns more the delivery and efficiency of European budget delivery. Part of the public consultation concentrated specifically on how to make delivery of the European budget more efficient, faster, simpler and more transparent. The public consultation has made a strong call for the improved effectiveness and efficiency of the European budget, in particular through the simplification and proportionality of the administrative budget and control.

In this context, a number of issues were identified, some of which are already taking concrete shape in the Commission. Among those initiatives which are already in place is the European Transparency Initiative. Thanks to this initiative, the Commission has already provided a first response to the need for increased openness and accessibility to the budget.

Some other issues mentioned in the consultation deserve our serious attention. The first is the integration of expenditures currently outside the budget - the so-called budgetisation of the funds. This would obviously increase synergies, legitimacy and administrative simplification, but we have not been very successful over the years. You are aware of this with regard to some funds. The responsibilities of the Member States are another important element. It is important to further strengthen the responsibilities of Member States, who manage over 80% of the European budget, particularly in areas under shared management. A clearer allocation of responsibilities between Member States and the Commission is needed. This will also hopefully be partly improved if we have the Lisbon Treaty in place.

The third element is the rigidity of our budget. The current European budget is still rather too rigid, recent examples being the negotiations for the food facility or the European recovery plan, especially in the current environment. Then we have problems with the gas supply in Europe where we are not able to deliver or have an agreement between the Member States to invest in future projects such as interconnections or gas storage. That again shows how much we need to invest in the European budget's operational capacities to react.

The third group of problems which has been mentioned in the consultations concerned minimising the administrative burden. The Commission has also already made various commitments. In the action plan towards an integrated internal control framework, the Commission has committed itself to making proposals for simplified rules on cost eligibility issues. This includes extending the use of lump sums or flat-rate payments wherever this is appropriate. In its recent communication on tolerable risk, the Commission proposes to redefine the control system in terms of risk objectives and an acceptable level of error. We hope for the support of the Parliament in these political discussions and later in negotiations with the Council.

The Commission looks forward to the Parliament's support in general in rationalising and simplifying budget delivery and then in examining future legislation in general. I thank you for the questions. This is the least attractive question we usually receive because it is sometimes treated as being too technical. No matter how good the political decisions being made are, good politics can fail if we do not have efficient delivery mechanisms.

Thank you for your comprehensive reply, Commissioner. You spoke about the responsibility of Member States. Can you specify the progress being made in simplifying the basis of calculation of eligible costs and making greater use of lump-sum payments, particularly in the area of the structural funds?

My second question relates to the consultation document itself and the largely negative response to agriculture. If we look at the consultation document, it lists tomorrow's challenges as diversity, scientific and technical progress, the knowledge economy, climate change, energy security, but it does not mention food security. So, is the negative response to agriculture unduly influenced by the document itself?

(RO) I would like to mention the fact that 2009 is the European Year of Creativity and Innovation.

We also have another priority, climate change. We must not forget that, as part of the European economic recovery plan, the need to finance priority infrastructures, such as those for energy and transport, are also a priority.

How is this reflected in the budget reform?

Member of the Commission. - So, three additional questions.

On the structural funds and what we are already doing: In negotiations with Parliament in agreeing the 2009 budget, we already agreed and have made a declaration that we will accelerate the absorption and we will make the decision-making process more flexible for Member States, including on how to use structural funds. This is also included in our recovery plan. It is important, and we calculate that it will help to accelerate use of structural funds of about EUR 6 billion in 2009 alone. It is our obligation to Parliament and we also agreed it with the Member States in Council, who supported these efforts.

Therefore, two packages of changes in regulations have passed from the Commission and I hope it is already somewhere in Parliament, at least in the Committee on Regional Policy and Planning, and in Council and we hope that it will be passed very fast for Member States to use it.

On food security and CAP relations: It is very interesting to hear your question and I can imagine what questions I will receive from other Members. It is a very sensible question on CAP in general. We have received a lot of criticism in the consultation process on the quality of CAP, not against the policy but against the quality and capability to react and help on time.

The policy is quite expensive by its very nature and that is how the participants mainly perceived this policy. And of course you are absolutely right, it is our understanding that this policy, in the near future and medium term, will be changing to investing more in environmental and health aspects, including food security. That is how we probably will see the medium-term future.

But, of course, not everything suited all participants. We tried to be as objective as possible. We published all consultation materials. It was discussed in the November conference chaired by President Barroso and everything is published, including our research on think-tank inputs, all consultation materials and our summary. So it is public; it is available. It is not yet our opinion. We tried to be objective and not to affiliate ourselves with an opinion, but we wanted to see the public's reaction. We wanted to give you an objective opinion on how we are seen from outside with our policies or budget, and for us to use it for our future preparation of the political decision.

On the third question on priorities, you are absolutely right. Everybody is discussing this. We know what we need to do. Member States know, governments know, but do not always agree when it comes to money. Negotiations on budget finalisation usually centre on juste retour negotiations. Who returns the same? Especially now during this downturn in economy - when we have such serious problems in energy and in the external world - especially now we need again to concentrate and not forget that the strategic goal, which we need to perform all together, Commission and you, is to prepare the strategic paper on budgetary reform.



Subject: EU budget reform

Is the Commission satisfied that the recent public consultation 'Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe' reflects the view of the majority of European citizens; or is the 'one message' gathered from 'hundreds of voices' really reflective of the whole of EU opinion?

What are the key conclusions that can be drawn and what does the Commission consider will be the big shifts in EU spending in the future?

Specifically, what does the Commission expect to be the key reforms of spending on agriculture?

Member of the Commission. - The question was given to me with the main emphasis on the agricultural outcome of agricultural consultations, but more general elements have been included in the question so I would like to start with some general remarks.

As regards the consultations which we launched, we have been very satisfied because it was the first time in European history that the debate took place so openly, with all those who were capable and willing participating in the process. We had a huge input from NGOs, governments, think-tanks, civil society, and that was very useful to us and will be useful to us.

It reflects, of course, a very wide range of opinions and perspectives that cannot be reduced to one or two particular messages, but the contribution largely endorsed the Commission's general approach on the budget reform aiming at a strategic vision to maximise the European value added from any euro spent in the European budget. They offer criteria to flesh out the notion and views on how to balance the stability and responsiveness of the European budget.

Many contributors agree that the budget has evolved significantly over time, but only few are fully satisfied with the current budget structure. The consultations convene a sense of priorities in terms of challenges that Europe has to address, with climate change, global competitiveness at the top of the list.

Contributions also propose a range of possible reforms concerning specific spending policies, the financial system and the way the budget is being delivered. More detailed information, as I have already mentioned, is available on the Commission websites.

Finally, on agriculture, the consultation shows a relative growth consensus on the need to further reform CAP. Some consider it best to continue reform along the same lines as the earlier reform health check, or mid-term review, others favour more radical changes. Most contributors emphasise the necessity of turning CAP into, or concentrating on, competitiveness of European agriculture, responsiveness to climate change, food safety and quality requirements, and other environmental objectives. Opinions differ, however, on the nature and extent of the change that is needed.

The Commission's expectations with regard to key spending areas, especially in agriculture, are subject to ongoing work based on consultation, technical assessment, scientific inputs and sectoral policy discussions. They will be part of the political response that will follow later this year. The Commission will then prepare our strategic paper, and I very much hope that we will be able in cooperation with you to perform our duty together.

Thank you, Commissioner, not only for your response but also your comments in relation to Marian Harkin's words on food security. I think it is a big gap in the market.

Let me draw your attention to the report I drew up and which was voted through in this Parliament today by an overwhelming majority of people supporting the CAP and its role in global food security, and to the discussion we had about falling dairy farm incomes. We need to have some reality check here on those who suggest wild reforms. We are talking about food for European citizens and incomes for those who live and manage the rural environment. I would like you to bear those in mind as we go forward.

(SV) I have a short question to ask the Commissioner. I took part in the Commission's excellent conference in December on the mid-term review of the budget. At this conference, the Commissioner gave an excellent and proactive speech on the importance of tabling proposals for amendments now. However, we are now hearing rumours that there will be no proposal on the mid-term review of the budget until after the European Parliament elections and after the German federal election in September. My question is simple: will the Commissioner table a proposal for a mid-term review of the budget before the summer or not until after the German federal election?

(LT) Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your precise and open answers and to say that discussions on budget reform have been ongoing for some time, already more than a year. What is the influence of the financial crisis on these discussions? I would also like to know whether any ways out will be sought while reforming the budget, so that in future we can avoid financial crises like the one we are experiencing now?

Member of the Commission. - Concerning a reality check, I agree fully that any decisions we make, especially strategic ones, need to be very politically responsible. We should not change the best, but we need to get rid of what is old or not very effective.

Concerning the mid-term review, I think there is a misunderstanding. We have never been asked to prepare a mid-term review of the European budget. We have been asked to prepare the full-range budget reform paper by the end of 2009, and it is up to us to decide the timing - where politically it is more proper or where we can have a more efficient and effective response. Personally, I would like it to be prepared earlier - maybe in the spring. But I have to take a serious reality check because we have elections, perhaps the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty etc. We should not waste a good proposal and allow operational events to overshadow it. Let us leave it to President Barroso to decide on the final date, but we are ready and this Commission is ready to do its job.

(LT) Mr Paleckis, your questions are really very important, very deep, I might even say so deep and important that not even the whole European budget would provide an answer. In truth your questions are strategic, whereas no budget could react effectively now or in the future to the sort of financial crisis which has occurred.

The European budget represents just 1% of gross domestic product, but the financial crisis was largely caused not because of a lack of money, but perhaps I would say because of supervision issues, the globalisation of the financial system, its monopolisation and many other reasons.

The European budget, like the budget of a very small international organisation, has no doubt a certain selection of instruments, but it really is not large. That selection largely consists not of actual finances or money, but rather regulating measures, control measures, recommendation measures, also including in the field of macroeconomic policy. This is probably even more important than how much money we actually have or can inject.

At the moment we really have the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, we have the flexibility instrument and others, but they are not really efficient or effective. It was precisely for this reason that in our recovery plan the Commission proposed investing those EUR 5 billion in strategic structural changes to energy inter-connections and other energy infrastructure projects and so far countries are in no hurry and are not very willing to discuss this matter.

The crisis itself shows that investing in strategic energy projects and other strategic joint European projects is extremely important. I hope very much that this crisis will be one of those lessons, which Europe should take very seriously. I also hope that it will help to concentrate and in future use the European budget where we can gain most benefit, as it is far too small to cover everything and solve everything.

Therefore, it is not easy to answer your very general questions, but as I mentioned, I hope very much that this crisis situation in the world and the economic recession, which can now been seen throughout Europe, should really help politicians invest more in European strategy.



Subject: Cybercrime

With ongoing advances in technology and more and more people using the Internet, it is becoming increasingly difficult to police the Internet. What is the Commission doing to fight against cybercrime at EU level?

Madam President, to answer Mr Ó Neachtain's question, the Commission has pursued a policy on combating cybercrime for many years, in close cooperation with the Member States and other European Union institutions.

There are four ways in which the Commission helps to fight cybercrime: by encouraging cooperation between Member States, by facilitating public-private partnerships, by developing various legal instruments, and lastly by engaging in cooperation with third countries.

The 2007 communication entitled 'Towards a general policy on the fight against cyber crime' enabled the Commission to promote information sharing in the field of cybercrime between Member States' law enforcement authorities, either bilaterally or through Europol.

Member States must designate permanent contact points through which other Member States can request assistance or information. The Commission also helped to draw up the Council conclusions on a strategy to combat cybercrime, adopted last November.

This strategy proposes a series of measures aimed at fostering cooperation between Member States to fight against crimes such as child pornography, terrorism, attacks on information systems and fraud. A platform for reporting offences detected online must be put in place to centralise cyber-offences so that they can be collated by Europol.

At the same time, the Commission is developing a partnership policy between law enforcement authorities and the private sector to take action against cybercrime.

The Justice and Home Affairs Council of 8 December 2008 made recommendations on public-private cooperation against cybercrime. The Commission also wants to set up a European financial coalition against commercial images of child pornography. The purpose of this coalition is to unite the efforts of various public and private parties to combat the production, distribution and sale of images of child pornography on the Internet.

Lastly, the Commission played a large part in drafting laws laying down minimum standards for harmonising applicable criminal legislation. This is the case with Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA on attacks against information systems and Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

The Commission is now looking at how to update and implement these instruments.

I will conclude by saying that we must keep in mind that the Internet is a global information network. The European Union cannot regulate it on its own. That is why the Commission hopes to encourage international cooperation in this area and will be organising a meeting this year with international organisations and EU agencies to try to coordinate the respective activities of these bodies.

That is my answer to Mr Ó Neachtain.

(GA) Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for that answer. I would like to ask you a supplementary question, Commissioner. As regards cyber-bullying or denigration, which mostly affects young people who use social sites such as Bebo and Facebook, the denigration or bullying committed against young people on those sites should be stopped. What does the European Union intend to do to ensure that the community draws more attention to this bullying?

(RO) I would like to ask what measures the Commission is considering for enabling Member States to adopt the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, what action plan the Commission is considering for making improvements and fighting against cybercrime and also what measures you are considering for digital signature interoperability.

If I could welcome the answer given so far by the Commissioner but also ask him to make sure that human rights in this field are kept in mind at all times. In other words, I am all in favour of stamping out cyber crime, but can we make sure that internet companies are not, with police authorities and the like, too heavy-handed in dealing with the public who are using the internet for their own pleasure?

(FR) Madam President, you are right, and I will answer the question on human rights and the fight against cybercrime straightaway. We must indeed pay very close attention to ensure that there is a commitment to respect human rights when combating cybercrime; I would even go so far as to say that we must enforce respect for human rights.

Within the Stockholm multiannual programme, running from 2010 to 2014, we will introduce an entire heading on combating cybercrime with, as I have said and would say again to Mr Ó Neachtain, the aim of having the Observation Centre within Europol, which will allow us precisely to better coordinate the monitoring of national institutions responsible for supervising questionable sites, from which child pornography is distributed to particularly vulnerable audiences. You are right; we must also learn the way in which young people are enticed to certain sites, leaving them at risk of being attacked in some way by the creators of these sites and those who visit them. That is what I can tell you. I would like to say again that this in fact represents a complete strategy to be conducted in an even more purposeful way than in the past, in light of our greater understanding of the risks of the web.

I also have high hopes of the European financial coalition against commercial images of child pornography. We will bring together the different public or private bodies in order to tackle the production, distribution and sale of images of child pornography on the Internet, and also try to locate and apprehend the criminals. If we reach agreement on the funding in the comitology procedure, I hope to launch this coalition in February 2009. I thank Parliament for all the support it will be able to give on this matter.



Subject: Terrorist threats

We saw last November the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, where many EU citizens' lives were threatened. In light of the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005 respectively, it is clear that we are under threat from similar attacks on the EU. Can the Commission tell us what we are doing to strengthen and enforce information exchange between Member States' police forces to respond to such attacks?

Madam President, I will answer Mr Aylward. The key to effectively combating terrorism and other forms of serious crime is to ensure that the right people have access to the right information at the right time, which is a huge challenge at European Union level.

We have tried to promote and facilitate effective information sharing between the police forces of the various Member States. The Framework Decision of 18 December 2006, known as the Swedish decision, which all Member States had to implement by mid-December 2008, that is, very recently, creates a common legal framework for the rapid exchange of information and intelligence between Member States' law enforcement authorities.

This Framework Decision stipulates that, when the police force of a Member State receives a request, it must be handled using the same criteria as those applied to national requests. That is one way in which we are addressing this issue.

Another example is the 'Prüm' Council Decision of 23 June 2008 which sets out a detailed mechanism for exchanging specific types of data, including fingerprints, DNA profiles and information linked to vehicle registration, all of which can lead to successful criminal investigations.

Under the Prüm Council Decision, Member States grant each other limited access to their DNA and fingerprint databases in order to check for matches. This is very useful as this Council Decision makes for extremely effective sharing of DNA and fingerprints.

Europol also has a crucial role to play. The Europol Information System, EIS, enables Member States to find out whether the law enforcement authorities of other Member States hold any information needed at operational level. Of course, for Europol to play its part, the Member States must contribute to the EIS satisfactorily.

It goes without saying that we must now plan new measures for information sharing in the next five-year programme that will succeed the Hague programme. This five-year programme will need to guarantee a coordinated, consistent approach to information sharing, and should incorporate a European Union strategy on information management. However, of course, information sharing also raises concerns about the protection of personal data.

The strategy must allow an overall approach to information sharing that meets the needs of the police and is based on the interoperability of IT systems.

That is my answer to Mr Aylward.

I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. In a very brief supplementary question, what is the European Union doing to confiscate the assets of terrorists within the Union, and can the Commissioner outline how many criminal assets bureaux are currently in operation in the European Union?

I would like the Commissioner to indicate whether he is getting full cooperation between all 27 Member States in relation to information exchange between police forces. If not, which countries are taking a different line, and has the Irish Government requested any opt-out in this particular area?

(DE) Commissioner, I would like to ask you whether there is a security and safety policy relating to terrorist threats against nuclear power stations.

(FR) We are currently in the middle of a study on the confiscation of assets generated by this illegal activity. In particular, Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière has been given the task of monitoring the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking programme. His findings will be available soon. The European Union has benefited from information produced by the terrorist finance tracking programme, and Judge Bruguière has been responsible for checking that it has all been done in compliance with data protection. I can say that this will, in the long term, help us to confiscate the assets of a number of individuals who have made illegal profits.

As for information sharing, I have already told you that the Europol information system could be much more effective if the Member States were to contribute information in a more trusting and transparent manner. We will work on this. Indeed, it is one of my chief concerns to build up this trust between the various intelligence bodies in the Member States, so that we move towards more effective exchange of information. I have not heard anything about an opt-out clause in this field. I think I have more or less answered your questions.

Regarding the threats to nuclear power stations, the Commission has also proposed a text designed to allow for improved surveillance of key infrastructure, which obviously includes nuclear power stations.



Subject: EU immigration policy

Given that EU immigration policy should have a major humanitarian element and guarantee respect for human rights; that it should help promote integration measures rather than repressive measures, and likewise measures designed to put the rights and obligations of immigrants on an equal footing with those of nationals and to encourage cooperation between the Member States and between the latter and the countries of origin; that it should promote solutions which strengthen intercultural dialogue and respect for differences, for minorities and for freedom, and whereas the French Republic has already signed protocols with various African countries, specifically Congo-Brazzaville, Tunisia, Benin, the Mauritian Islands, Senegal and Gabon, with a view to encouraging development and the possibility of legal immigration, what back-up and support has the Commission provided for those Member States which wish to initiate such processes?

In answer to Mr França's question, the Global Approach to Migration adopted by the European Union in 2005 aimed to provide a more adequate response to the challenges that migration poses to the EU as a whole. This global approach is based on improving dialogue and cooperation with third countries in all aspects of migration, to build a partnership for better migration management.

In order to give practical content to the Global Approach to Migration, the Commission supports cooperation initiatives with third countries, in the areas of migration and asylum. Examples of this include the Aeneas programme, which funded over 100 projects from 2004 to 2006, or the Migration and Asylum programme that succeeded it, which was allocated a budget of EUR 205 million for the period 2007-2010.

From the initiatives chosen in the context of an annual call for proposals, many are put forward and implemented by the Member States in collaboration with third countries. Let us take an example: on the basis of the Aeneas programme, the Commission funds a Hispano-Moroccan project managing seasonal immigration between the provinces of Ben Slimane in Morocco and Huelva in Spain. This programme also supports cooperation between Spain and Colombia for developing circular migration. Similarly, we funded the temporary return to Cape Verde of highly qualified Cape Verdeans who live in Portugal, to inform and train potential emigrants in their home country. In addition to these measures, geographical financial instruments such as the European Development Fund and European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument also help to give practical expression to the Global Approach to Migration. For example, the European Commission recently backed the creation of the Migration Information and Management Centre in Mali, a project that a number of Member States are very involved with.

Furthermore, as part of the global approach, the Commission proposed new tools to encourage partnership with third countries and to develop greater synergies between Community action and that of the Member States. We now have the mobility partnership, a new tool being introduced by the European Union, at present on a pilot basis. These mobility partnerships are a means of developing dialogue and cooperation between the Union and third countries in the areas of legal migration, development, and the prevention and reduction of illegal immigration. We have signed the first partnerships with Cape Verde and with the Republic of Moldova, detailing specific offers of cooperation. For instance, under the partnership with Cape Verde, Portugal proposed signing a new protocol extending the scope of an existing protocol on the temporary migration of Cape Verde workers, to provide work in Portugal. Other available tools include migration profiles, which consist of analyses of the migration situation in a given country, and cooperation platforms to bring together, in the third country in question, country representatives and the main funding providers concerned with migration. We have put in place a cooperation platform in Ethiopia, on the initiative of the United Kingdom, and we are planning another for South Africa.

Lastly, the Integration Fund and the Return Fund can of course help Member States to introduce pre-departure measures in third countries to assist potential emigrants in finding work in their country of destination, and facilitate their civic and cultural integration, or, on the reverse side, to introduce short-term support measures for returnees.

There you have it, Mr França, I wanted to give you a whole series of examples, but most importantly I would like to say that I am completely convinced of the need for Europe to manage migratory flows through this global approach that links migration and development and genuinely enables concerted migration management. This is the direction we should be taking, I believe, and it will make Europe's migration management an example for the world to follow.

(PT) Mr Barrot, I agree with you; I agree with your dissatisfaction. In truth, we must be dissatisfied with all these measures, which are sweeping.

The truth is that illegal immigration to Europe continues. The trafficking of human beings continues. There are areas in which there is a lot of immigration, specifically the Mediterranean and heading for Italy. France has come forward with a set of important bilateral cooperation agreements, but other Member States have not been doing so. The Commission must carry on without losing its enthusiasm for this policy of cooperation and aid for Member States ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, the question refers to EU policy having a major humanitarian element and guaranteeing respect for human rights. Just recently in Ireland someone was being deported even though the person's daughters would be subject to female genital mutilation.

Has the Commission encouraged Member States to adopt a common position on this? In some states in Europe it is still not illegal, and would the Commission encourage Member States to adopt a common position on dealing with this very difficult issue?

(FR) Firstly I would like to assure Mr França that I will, of course, do my utmost to now develop the global approach through mobility partnerships between the Union as a whole and third countries. You are right, some Member States have concluded bilateral agreements, but this should also be the case for the whole of Europe, and you were right to emphasise the risks of illegal immigration caused by a failure to organise legal migration successfully.

Next, the case that you mentioned, Mr Burke, is a case that clearly shows the wisdom needed in return policy. There can be no case for returning people to third countries where their life or their person will then be in danger. We must therefore conduct this policy wisely.

I do not wish to go back over the Return Directive. It has been controversial, but it does, however, provided it is properly transposed in the Member States, enable us to monitor to some extent the way in which these return policies are managed.

I do intend, in any case, to keep a close eye on this matter.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

Part three



Subject: Opening up of 'closed' professions

In pursuit of the single market objective of the free movement of persons, goods and services, the Commission is encouraging the opening up of 'closed' professions in those Member States where they exist, which in general terms is a move in the right direction.

Are there cases in which the closed professions could remain so, provided they successfully serve society as a whole by providing services without creating problems? What are the possible negative repercussions of opening up some closed professions? Has the Commission carried out studies into the impact on local communities, particularly in regions with specific features (e.g. mountain and island regions, etc.)?

Member of the Commission. - Firstly I should clarify that the Commission does not pursue as a general objective the opening of closed professions. However, in the context of its internal market policy, it considers that the legitimate need for Member States to regulate certain activities has to be reconciled with the need to ensure the free movement of professionals throughout Europe.

It goes without saying that better quality and wider choice in professional services must have a positive effect on the entire EU economy. To this end, the Services Directive obliges Member States to screen their national legislation for requirements applied to certain professions, such as quantitative and territorial restrictions, in order to evaluate their appropriateness in the light of conditions established in the case-law of the European Court of Justice. By 28 December 2009 Member States will have to present to the Commission their report on the results of this screening and evaluation exercise. This will give them an opportunity to identify the possible negative repercussions of opening up certain closed professions and justify any restrictions.

On the basis of these national reports, the Commission and all Member States will undertake the process of mutual evaluation and will examine and discuss changes introduced in Member States' legislation as well as any requirements that would have been maintained. On 28 December 2010 the Commission will present a summary report to the European Parliament and the Council on the results of this mutual evaluation process. Obviously, requirements to think about specifically regulating the professions will be discussed in this context. In addition, again with the aim of ensuring the functioning of the internal market, infringement proceedings have been opened whenever national rules are found to impose discriminatory or disproportionate restrictions in the area of regulated professions as regards, for instance, access to ownership, incompatibilities or compulsory tariffs.

Finally, the Commission's work in the field of competition also seeks to stimulate appropriate patterns of review of the existing professional rules within each Member State, as provided for in the two Commission reports on competition in professional services. National competition authorities are invited to check, in the light of competition rules, whether a regulation has clearly defined both a public interest objective and the least restrictive means of achieving that objective.

(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, I realise that what the Commission is trying to deal with is the creation of a single internal market and the free movement of professionals.

On the other hand, there are certain professions which I called 'closed' and which can only be exercised once a sum of money has been paid. I refer to taxi licences, which in many Member States of the European Union are costly, and the profession of pharmacist, which is exercised under demographic and distribution measures. I should like to hear the Commissioner's thoughts on this issue.

(DE) Are you of the opinion that local knowledge and regional regulations should be a basic requirement to ensure that these professions can be carried out accordingly?

I am not sure if bookmakers and tote operators and operators of the pari-mutuels qualify under the professions, but certainly in terms of the single market and free movement of services it is an issue. Where is this debate at? I do know that the Commission's offices have been involved and I am still receiving quite a lot of vexed representation in this area. Secondly, as regards recognition of the professional qualifications directive and the whole area of mutual evaluation which the Commissioner referred to, are any problems likely there? Are we comparing like with like if we are opening up professions in one Member State to another?

Member of the Commission. - There are two separate issues being spoken about here by the various Members who have addressed this subject. One is the scope of the Services Directive; the other is the regulation of professional qualifications. The Services Directive has in its scope all of the services in the European Union with certain limited exceptions. The question about pharmacists was raised by Mr Angelakas. He may be aware that we do have some infringement proceedings against some Member States in this particular area.

On the question of mutual evaluation which is required under the Services Directive, each Member State has to go through all its rules and regulations before 28 December this year and then we will have a mutual evaluation to see what is proportionate and what is not.

The question that Mrs Doyle raises is that of gambling infringements. She will be aware that we have, in one form or another, some actions pertaining to at least 15 Member States at this particular time. There has been court jurisprudence on this particular matter. Gambling is a service that comes under the scope of the Services Directive like everything else, and these matters have to be addressed. There are various stages of proceedings against Member States in this area. We are also inundated with lots of other possible infringements in this area.



Subject: Credit rating agencies

The Commissioner responsible for the internal market and services, Mr Charlie McCreevy, recently stated the following in connection with the regulation of credit rating agencies. 'I want Europe to play a leading role in this sector. This proposal goes further than the rules existing in any other jurisdiction. These very exacting rules are necessary to restore the confidence of the market in the ratings business in the EU.'

Will the Commission say why it did not propose the adoption of a more exacting regulatory framework at the stage preceding the financial crisis?

Member of the Commission. - The Commission has closely followed the activity of the credit rating agencies (CRAs) over the past few years. Following the European Parliament's resolution on credit rating agencies in February 2004, the Commission considered very carefully what legislative measures would be necessary to regulate the activities of credit rating agencies.

In line with the advice received from the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) in March 2005, the Commission adopted in 2006 a communication on credit rating agencies. In this communication the Commission concluded that various financial services directives, combined with self-regulation by the credit rating agencies, on the basis of the IOSCO Code of Conduct, the methods for CRAs could provide a satisfactory answer to the major issues of concern in relation to credit rating agencies. It is stated that this approach would require continuous monitoring of developments by the Commission.

In addition, the Commission asked CESR to monitor compliance with the IOSCO Code and to report back on an annual basis. At the same time, the Commission indicated in the communication that it might consider putting forward legislative action if it became clear that compliance with EU rules or IOSCO's Code was unsatisfactory or if new circumstances were to arise, including serious problems of market failure or significant changes in the way credit rating agencies are regulated in other parts of the world.

The financial crisis shed a new light on CRAs. Since August 2007 the financial markets worldwide suffered from a major confidence crisis. This financial crisis is a complex phenomenon involving multiple actors. The credit rating agencies are close to the origin of the problems that have arisen with subprime markets. The crisis highlighted poor performance by credit rating agencies. An explanation could be found in the unsatisfactory way the agencies managed their conflicts of interest, the lack of quality of the methodologies they issue, insufficient transparency around their activities or the inappropriate internal governance in the agencies.

The subprime crisis demonstrated that the framework for the operation of credit rating agencies needs to be significantly reinforced. That is why in June 2008 I announced that the Commission would take regulatory action in this area and on 12 November 2008 the College adopted the proposal covering regulatory activity of credit rating agencies with the agreement of this Parliament and of the Council.

(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, you personally said in reply to a question of mine in 2006 that, in keeping with the recommendations of the Committee of European Securities Regulators, the Commission would not be tabling any new legislative proposals in the credit rating agency sector.

The massive financial crisis occurred and now here you are telling us that we need a stricter legislative framework. We do indeed need a stricter regulatory framework. My question is: do you acknowledge that the Commission's regulatory reflexes were sluggish in this matter?

I know that the Commission has put forward proposals on credit rating agencies and other initiatives that address instability in financial markets to try and ensure that a similar crisis does not reoccur such as CRD, deposit guarantee schemes and Member State balance of payments.

Could I ask him, what proposals does the Commission plan to put forward to encourage growth and competitiveness in the real economy, especially in the SME sector which is particularly important now as more and more European economies are experiencing recession?

Member of the Commission. - In reply to Mr Papastamkos, let me refer to the report in 2005. We did say at that particular time that we would keep the activities of credit rating agencies on watch, and in 2007, when the subprime crisis reached its peak, I met with the credit rating agencies and expressed our dissatisfaction as to how we perceived they had conducted their affairs.

The questioner will be aware that in December 2007 I wrote to CESR and to ESME for further advice as to what I should do in relation to certain areas. I made quite clear in speeches and in comments at that time that leaving the status quo as it was just not an option.

As a consequence, we came forward with the Commission proposal in 2008 and that mater is now being debated by Parliament and the Council of Ministers. I think that in the past, when keeping the activities of the credit rating agencies under review, I made it quite clear that we would consider the matter in the light of changing circumstances. And in the words of a person in the last century, far more famous than me - when the facts change, we change too. And that is what has occurred.

Mr Ryan, as to what we will do in the areas of financial regulation to which he has alluded - the proposals on credit rating agencies and the capital requirements directive - he put forward a legitimate question concerning what the European Union was doing to address the problems in the real economy because although the changes to do with financial regulation has undoubtedly been timely in areas where there was a lacuna in financial regulation, it in itself is not going to galvanise and kick start the European economy.

Mr Ryan will be aware that in the past couple of months the Commission was at the centre of coordinating the approach of financial stimulus which was adopted by the European Council at its December meeting. Of course it still remains the prerogative of Member States to affect their own financial stimulus if they deem it appropriate because those matters remain the prerogatives of the Member State governments. But the Commission in responding to that stimulus package also committed some funding within our remit and coordinated with the agreement of the other European players as to how we will kick-start things there.

I remember even before that we did adopt in the Commission some initiatives which should help to stimulate small business activity in the SME sector - such as the Small Business Act, such as the European Private Company Statute - and hopefully they will contribute in some small way to assisting in the turn around of the general economy in the European Union.



Subject: Financial crisis

In the light of the ongoing financial crisis, has the Commission changed the rules of the internal market in order to make it easier for individual Member States to take protective action concerning their economies and industry?

Member of the Commission. - At this time of financial crisis and economic recession, both European governments and the European institutions need to show determination and flexibility, as mentioned by President Barroso in the preface to the recently adopted European economic recovery plan.

To show this flexibility, the Commission will, for instance, put in place a simplification package to speed up decision-making on state aid, allow for the use of accelerated procedures in public procurement in 2009 and 2010 for all major public projects, and request that Member States take corrective action in case of any excessive deficit in timeframes consistent with economic recovery to allow their economies to adjust.

However, this flexibility does not mean that the Commission has changed or will change the rules of the internal market. A modernised approach to policies set out in the single market review of November 2007 needs to be pursued further as foreseen.

The 16 December 2008 progress report called 'The Single Market review: one year on' highlights a series of recently adopted measures that will help create the conditions to relaunch the European economy. They include, most of all, stronger contractual rights to enhance consumer confidence, lower costs and administrative burdens, and a single company statute for SMEs. It is also evident that we need to restructure the European regulatory and supervisory framework in order to minimise the risk of future crises.

Over the year, we have been working alongside Parliament and the Council to, among other things, increase protection for bank depositors, dissuade banks and other financial institutions from taking excessive risks in the future and better regulate the credit rating agencies. The rapid adoption and implementation of these proposals is elementary. We need to demonstrate that Europe can provide concrete answers.

Over the coming months, the Commission will formulate in a comprehensive manner how the current regulatory and supervisory framework should be further reformed to bring back stability and confidence. We should strive for a more stable system that does a correspondingly better job in providing opportunities to trade, hedge, diversify and pool risk, allocate resources and mobilise savings. This calls, among other things, for better cooperation and coordination between national regulators and supervisors, as well as avoiding any protectionism.

To foster longer economic growth we need to reduce the cost of capital and to enhance capital allocation. It will clearly require a further strengthening of the internal market.

This flexibility certainly does not mean any changes to the single market principles. On the contrary: at a time of financial economic downturn, both European governments and European institutions need to hold firmly to the principles of the single market. It is essential that any measures to tackle the crisis are guided by the fundamental freedoms and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. For instance, a framework for national rescue plans is already in place to prevent any negative spill-over effects amongst uncoordinated national actions.

A level playing field which has benefited Member States' consumers and businesses so much since 1992 needs to be maintained and safeguarded. This is essential as any measure which would undermine the single market could further aggravate the impact of the financial crisis on the wider economy.

I hope the Commissioner's voice gets a little bit better. Let me thank the Commissioner for his reply and say to him that I am glad to hear that protectionism is not on the way back because that would indicate that there is not going to be a recovery. There will be a recovery in Europe.

Could I invite the Commissioner to start talking about that recovery? The most hopeful thing we have heard in some time were the comments made by President Trichet reported in today's press, where he said that he could see a recovery coming in 2010. Could I invite the Commissioner to start talking about the future so that we do not lose hope and also to talk about the opportunity there is for Europe to become more competitive while this particular crisis is ongoing?

Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner as well for his response and advise him that a drop of whisky, some hot water and a slice of lemon is very good for clearing the throat.

With regard to your answer, and in particular concerning the economic recovery plans and so on, what has been highlighted over the last number of months has been that coordinated action is the only response that can deal with the present financial crisis. The question I want to ask is whether any plans have been made or any initial contacts been made with the incoming American administration - the Obama administration - to see what further coordinated action at financial level is required?

Member of the Commission. - I undoubtedly agree with Mr Mitchell when he says that protectionism is not the answer. But I am sure that there are many Member States which probably see a possible opportunity to engage in some protectionist measures, but I would say two things on that.

Firstly, we will be vigilant in enforcing EU law in order to prevent any measures which are contrary to the rules of the European Union.

Secondly, I would say to those Member States: if people believe in that particular approach, it would be my view and I know that of Mr Mitchell that that would prolong the duration of the economic downturn. But there have always been differences of opinion regarding this particular approach and there are probably many Members on other sides of this House who would not agree with either myself or Mr Mitchell.

I also agree with Mr Mitchell that it would be appropriate to balance all this negative talk of economic downturn - which there is - with a sense of realism and not to be overly pessimistic. I am afraid that in the world in which we live - whether it is in the Member State we know best or in other Member States - there has always been a predisposition to concentrate maybe overly on the negativity of the economic downturn. Now we have to balance this with realism because there has to be realism in economic forecasting as well and people will have to be realistic. But there is a balance to be struck between being overly pessimistic and being realistic. Confidence is a very fragile thing and it takes a long time to recover it and it can be gone in a flash.

So, I welcome the comments of the President of the European Central Bank in today's paper as to the scene in the next couple of years. But, as I said, there should be this balance and people should be aware of where this balance should be struck.

Mr Crowley asked a legitimate question as to what arrangements we have made to discuss these economic and financial matters with the US administration. There is a very strict protocol in place in the United States, as you are undoubtedly aware, even for people who are in the transition administration as to what is done by them and they guard it religiously.

But as soon as the new administration is in place, we will be in contact with the new Treasury Secretary. We already have a lot of fora in which we discuss matter, such as the Transatlantic Economic Council, the Financial Markets Regulatory dialogue, which are ongoing the whole time. As soon as the new Obama administration takes office next week, we will be making contact with our new counterparts in that regard.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

(The sitting was suspended at 7.30 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

Pharmaceutical products package (debate) 

The next item is the Commission statement on the pharmaceutical products package.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposals in the so-called pharmaceutical package which I am presenting this evening at Parliament's request have a common theme. The intention of the package is to strengthen the rights, needs and interests of patients in our healthcare systems.

In our view patients are not merely the subject of services available from healthcare providers or the subject of the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Patients are responsible citizens whose health is their most important asset and who are entitled to have the best and safest treatments and medicines at their disposal. Patients are the subject of healthcare policy.

However, health or restoration to health is not just a right. It also involves an obligation to take care of oneself by eating healthily, having a healthy lifestyle and playing an active role in one's own treatment, if treatment is required.

Our proposal for more effective monitoring of the actual effects of approved medicines, for example, presupposes this type of active involvement on the part of patients. If patients do not notify the authorities about anomalies relating to medicines that they have taken, the monitoring process will be a waste of time.

This also applies to protection against counterfeit medicines. Patients can, and should, in future ensure that they are not taking fake medicines by checking that all the safety features which will be required on future packaging are in fact in place. If we believe that active, informed patients play an essential role in healthcare, in monitoring medicines and in preventing the spread of counterfeits, it is hard to understand why patients are not allowed access to information about the most important medicines. For this reason, the pharmaceutical package consists of the following four parts: a political communication and three legislative proposals on the safety monitoring of medicines, on counterfeit medicines and on patient information.

The rapidly growing numbers of fake medicines have forced us to act. The number of counterfeit medicines confiscated at the EU's external borders increased almost fourfold between 2005 and 2007. If we do not act now, the first deaths will be caused sooner or later. The problem has also affected the legal supply chain for medicines. We have discovered fake medicines at different stages of the supply chain. Each individual case involves thousands of packages and, therefore, thousands of patients are potentially at risk. In future, patients in Europe must be able to have total confidence in the quality of the medicines which they obtain from legal suppliers, such as pharmacies.

Our proposals are therefore as follows: firstly, clear regulations for all those involved in the legal supply chain; secondly, stricter supervision of medicines in transit or for export; thirdly, the latest safety features on medicines which are particularly at risk, including a seal, an identification feature and a barcode to ensure complete traceability for every package; and, fourthly, regulations for the safety monitoring of active substances.

While the proposal was being drawn up, a misunderstanding arose which I would like to clear up once and for all. The proposal's sole objective is to improve patient safety. It is not intended to prevent a specific form of medicine distribution, such as parallel trade. The sector in question has been responsible for a striking information campaign. In this case you could almost call it a disinformation campaign. However, I would like to clarify once again that the parallel trade in medicines is an activity which is permitted under the EU Treaty and will remain so. Parallel traders simply need to observe the new safety requirements, as do all other participants in the supply chain. No one is being given preferential treatment and no one is being put at a disadvantage.

The legislative proposal on pharmacovigilance, in other words on monitoring approved medicines, will improve patient safety and reduce the unnecessary administrative burden. This is a good example of how less bureaucracy can lead to greater safety. This will be achieved by making responsibilities clearer and reporting obligations more effective. In addition, manufacturers must introduce an efficient monitoring system. Community-wide access to information about undesirable or previously unknown side effects will make Community-wide risk management significantly easier.

Finally, the pharmaceutical package includes a proposal for improved patient information. I know that this is a highly controversial issue which we have often considered in this Parliament and I hope that we will succeed in discussing this issue calmly and objectively and without resorting to polemics.

Patients have a right to information and this applies in particular to medicines. Health is one of our most important assets, if not the most important. The significance of health will continue to increase in our aging society. In a democratic society, it therefore goes without saying that patients must be provided with comprehensive information about matters which affect their health.

I must state very clearly, and this really is a fundamental principle of a democratic society, that we do not need to explain and justify the fact that people should be provided with information. Instead, we need to explain and justify the situation when citizens are not provided with information.

Patients are already actively searching for information. All of us will have come across this situation among our friends, acquaintances or even family members, when a seriously ill person or their relatives and friends search desperately, and in many cases these people really are desperate, for information about whether a better medicine or a better treatment is available.

The first place that these people look is the Internet. They come across information from other parts of the world and are not able to tell whether it is product advertising or factual information. In my opinion this situation is both dreadful and intolerable.

I would therefore like to make it absolutely clear that the current situation does not meet patients' requirements for high-quality information. It also results in discrimination. People who can understand English and can use the Internet have access to information which is unavailable to those people who cannot understand English and cannot use the Internet. These are generally older people and it is particularly important for them to obtain factual information.

As things currently stand in Europe, if a medicine is American, then the information is available, and if it is European, the information is not available. Our considerations are based on the fact that the ban on advertising prescription-only medicines should under no circumstances be relaxed and that there is a significant difference between information and advertising. Our proposal is therefore that certain information should be released and, in particular, the information which has been reviewed by the authorities and can be found, for example, on the package leaflets of medicines. Secondly, this information should only be published on the Internet in written answers to specific questions or in healthcare publications specified by the Member States.

Thirdly, strict quality criteria must be followed and, fourthly, the Member States must put in place effective monitoring mechanisms. The information must be monitored before publication. Exceptions to this will only be permitted in the context of effective systems.

I would like to explain that there is, of course, a grey area relating to patient information and advertising for medical products. Individual patients are not able to see through this grey area in which information of all kinds is made available via media of all kinds, with the media taking editorial responsibility. Very often this information is controlled by interested parties, to put it cautiously, and readers are not able to identify the source of the information or the interested party involved.

I will be working with the media and with the pharmaceutical industry to draw up a code of conduct in order to ensure that this highly questionable practice is brought to an end. However, to achieve this we need to find a better and more modern solution to the problem of patient information.

This package contains very up-to-date and progressive proposals. It draws the obvious conclusions from the increasing importance which citizens place on questions that concern their own health. I hope that I will have the support of the European Parliament for this package. Thank you very much.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I very much welcome the Commissioner's statement and in particular the tone in which he opened it when he was referring to patients as being the centre of this. I am just taking through this Parliament a report on cross-border health, and fundamental to that is the safety of patients. If I may say so, I wish this had come sooner so that we could have completed your package, along with other health measures within this Parliament. That is not going to be possible, but at least we are on the road.

Perhaps you could mention to at least one of your colleagues that we would also like to see something on needle-stick injuries as part of that safety package.

But we are looking now at the three items that you have referred to. You have referred, rightly, to information to patients and you have dwelt on the detail of that. I believe that patients, and particularly the patients with conditions like neurodegenerative diseases, are very anxious to see this information to patients coming in in a way which is certainly not advertising but does give them confidence that what they read - whether it is on the internet, in the package or in advertising or announcements, shall we say - is bona fide and trustworthy. At the moment they cannot do that and so they are, as you say, at risk.

The second one is counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is one of the curses of our age. It is one thing to have a watch or designer clothing counterfeited, but it is far more serious if it is a medicine. If it is a counterfeit medicine, then patients are at risk and patients can die because of counterfeit medicines. As we have heard, the statistics - 2.5 million packages a year seized at EU borders - have greatly increased over the previous two years, from 2005-2007, and the frightening thing is that it is increasingly within pharmacies and it is not just the internet packages.

Thirdly, you referred to pharmacovigilance. We reckon that 5% of all hospital admissions are the result of adverse drug reactions and that adverse drug reactions cause a fifth of the unnecessary deaths in hospitals. So it is vitally important that we have a simplified, more reliable package on pharmacovigilance too.

If we get these in place, then I believe my report and the safety of patients can go hand in hand, and that must be at the top of our agenda tonight, during the rest of this Parliament and in the Parliament that is to come at the end of the summer.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is good that we are discussing a new piece of pharmaceutical legislation this evening. I would also like to thank Commissioner Verheugen for providing us with this opportunity.

Commissioner Verheugen has rightly raised the fact that a number of amendments to the legislation are necessary. We need a greater focus on safety, better rules concerning information for patients and effective measures against counterfeit medicines. I would also stress the point that the patient must play the central role in this regard.

Medicines are subject to strict supervision, which is why it is not possible to put any old thing on the market. Strict tests are carried out on medicines before they reach the market, but once they are on the market it is extremely rare for them to be tested again. Supervision of a medicine is limited once it reaches the market. Side effects are reported, but there is little research into the effectiveness of medicines. The proposed legislation gives us an opportunity to make very necessary improvements on this front.

For example, cholesterol-lowering medication is taken on a mass scale, although little is known about the effectiveness of various products and very little, indeed, is known about which product is the most effective. The same applies to antidepressants and other drugs which have an impact on people's mental health. It would be a good idea if the pharmaceutical industry were required to undertake more extensive research into the effectiveness and side effects of its products. Independent testing is necessary in this regard.

We all know that patient information about medicines is a controversial topic. Anyone watching prime-time television in the United States can see what trouble this can cause. 'Ask your doctor for x medicine for breast cancer or y medicine for cystitis.' So far, there has been a ban on the advertising of medicines in Europe and, as far as I am concerned, that is how it should remain. We cannot allow anyone to saddle us with a diagnosis or talk us into taking a drug.

The pharmaceutical industry wants to inform patients about its products and thinks that it is the body most capable of doing that. I imagine that that might very well be the case, but independent testing is crucial here, too. The legislative proposal relaxes the rules on the circulation of information via the Internet and printed media. As Commissioner Verheugen himself says, this is a modern and progressive proposal. There must be a very clear dividing line between information and advertising and patients should have the right to reliable information. For this reason, it would be a good idea to collect information in a European database, together with comparative information on the effects and side effects of medicines.

The third proposal in the package tightens the rules intended to prevent counterfeit medicines from being placed on the market. That is only right, because, as my fellow Member Mr Bowis has stressed, placing counterfeit medicines on the market is a serious offence. Commissioner Verheugen is also right in saying that this phenomenon is not so much a consequence of parallel trade as of altogether different mechanisms which we need to tackle. In the upcoming period we should deepen our discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of information for patients, counterfeit medicines and patient safety, because it is certain that we are dealing with a number of public duties here. The industry has a responsibility, patients have a certain amount of responsibility, but so do the authorities as well.

Madam President, I would like to thank the Commission for its statement. I think that it is good to address environmental aspects, for example. Contamination from pharmaceutical products is a growing problem in treatment works.

As regards advertisements for pharmaceutical products, I would like to see the toughest possible restrictions. I have really become quite tired of this issue. One evening when I was watching television, a quarter of all the advertisements were for over-the-counter pharmaceutical products. I would like the Commission to carry out an impact assessment to see how great an effect the advertisements have had on sales of these pharmaceutical products. Is it reasonable to have so many advertisements for pharmaceutical products on the television, even if we are talking about over-the-counter medicines?

In Sweden, we had an example of the vaccine Gardasil, which scarcely falls within the bounds of over-the-counter or epidemiological vaccines. I would therefore like us to tighten up the legislation in this area.

As regards the counterfeiting of medicines, this is probably also connected to our current patent system. There is an extremely large difference in price. I believe that a solution for better steering research in the direction of needs that are in the public interest would perhaps be to introduce the greater use of prize funds for pharmaceutical products. Neglected tropical diseases, for example - that is to say an area where there is no buying power - would then be able to obtain new medicines. This would better enable research to be carried out into producing medicines for groups in society that do not have a strong buying power.

I would like the Commission to look more closely into the possibilities of making greater use of prize funds, whereby a person who develops a new pharmaceutical product receives a one-off sum. Manufacture would then be licence-free. I believe that in certain cases this could be a better system for improving research and, above all, for eliminating the purpose of counterfeiting medicines. I see many advantages to being able, from a political position, to steer research into solving a disease problem instead of treating the symptoms for 30 years with medication that is very lucrative for the undertakings concerned.

Finally, I would just like to say something about nanotechnology. There are nanoparticles in medicine, but we know very little about their toxicological effects. I would like better methods to be introduced for investigating the toxicology of nanoparticles.

(SK) Many of us will probably talk about healthcare subsidiarity in connection with the pharmaceutical package. Nevertheless, the situation on the pharmaceutical market indicates that, for Europe to be competitive in research and development, as well as in the distribution and sale of new medicines, closer cooperation or improved cooperation between the Member States is required in this field.

Patients need to be better informed about medicines and of course about their unwanted side effects, so that they can participate in treatment more effectively. Due to limited funding for pharmaceutical research and development in Europe, the European pharmaceutical industry is unable to compete with America, Japan or Canada. That is why medicine prices have been rising disproportionately on European markets.

We have discussed repeatedly in the European Parliament the insufficient accessibility of certain drugs, for example those for the treatment of cancer or so-called rare diseases. We place patients who are already in a difficult situation in the position of beggars who have to find sponsors in order to obtain treatment. The high price of many medicines forces the healthcare sector to seek cheaper alternatives, in other words generic medicines. Unfortunately, it is precisely these that are frequently counterfeited and often contain no active substance apart from sugar and the tablet compound.

The aforementioned facts show us how important it is to exchange opinions, discuss and subsequently adopt a complete pharmaceutical package ensuring that patients are treated with high-quality and affordable medicines. In this context, I am looking forward to effective cooperation with the rapporteurs appointed for specific parts of the package in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. I have to agree with the Commissioner that it is medicines sold via the Internet that greatly endanger the safety of pharmaceutical policy.

(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it always surprises me when health matters are handled by the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. On reading the proposals on patient information, however, it soon becomes apparent that, one or two nuances aside, they treat medicines as if they were any other consumer product.

On this issue, I believe that information provided by the industry itself, other than labelling and statutory notices, is called advertising and it is by repetition that it becomes a competitive commercial asset.

The Commission may well put forward certain provisions to define its proposals, and it may keep telling us that it is patient associations that are impatiently awaiting such provisions. There are many of us who are not fooled by the impact of this 'patient information' directive and know that it will have no benefit in actually improving the health of Europeans.

We can already be certain that, if the text were to be adopted, the pharmaceutical industry's marketing budget would skyrocket, undoubtedly at the expense of research. Already today, 23% of turnover is dedicated to advertising and only 17% to research, and if we look at the United States and New Zealand, where this advertising information is already permitted, we can see that it has led to an increase in the number of prescriptions and health costs, without any visible improvement in the quality of care or in citizens' health. Let this be a lesson to us.

Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that a modern solution would be to have more faith in health professionals, or to train them better, so that they can provide information on treatments and prescription medicines.

(SV) Madam President, Commissioner Verheugen, as you said, this package was much talked about even before it was tabled. This is perhaps not particularly strange, as pharmaceutical products affect everyone. However, they also affect powerful companies with strong interests as well as the use of tax revenue.

I, personally, asked the Commission to include the effect of pharmaceutical products on the environment in the information provided. I am very pleased that the Commission has included this in its proposal as something that may be included in the information that may be provided. However, I think, in fact, that this information probably could be mandatory when providing information about the pharmaceutical product.

I do not want to see advertisements for prescription pharmaceutical products. I am therefore pleased that the Commission appears to share this view. However, like the Commission, I believe that patients and the general public should have the right to sound and accurate information on pharmaceutical products. In several cases this already exists today. In Sweden, for example, we have a system called FASS. It is important for it to be possible, as an ordinary citizen, to find reliable information quickly, particularly in view of the fact that there is plenty of information that is downright misleading, in particular in various chat rooms on the Internet that are easy to find if someone is in a vulnerable situation. However, just as the Commission has proposed, it is necessary for the information to be monitored objectively so that it can be relied upon. It is this part of the Commission's proposal that I am quite dubious about. It will be extremely important to regulate how these information channels can and should be set up, so that they are easily accessible while at the same time only accessible to those looking for the information, so that the information is not given to people who have not asked for it like an advertisement.

I am also a little dubious about whether it is really necessary to have full regulation of this matter at EU level. When all is said and done, this is an area that relates to health services and medical care and that should fall mostly within the competence of the Member States. I would therefore prefer to be a little more convinced that the legislative regulation of this matter at EU level was really necessary.

(FR) Madam President, I have two questions I would like to put to the Commissioner. Do you intend to find a way to prevent a magazine, distributed free of charge in pharmacies in Germany and subtly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, from being affected by this directive?

My other question relates to the names of medicines in cross-border regions. The names are often different despite the fact that the medicines contain identical substances. Could there not be a way to simplify things for those who live in cross-border regions?

Madam President, I welcome the Commission's statement tonight and look forward to reading in more detail exactly what is in this package.

Some years ago here we had the pharmaceutical review. That included veterinary medicines, as well as human pharmaceuticals. I am just wondering why the two have been divorced at this stage in the proceedings. The Commission will be aware of my interest through the legislation on maximum residues, which feed into the food chain through veterinary pharmaceuticals. I have been critical of serious shortcomings in the Veterinary Medicines Directive now for some time.

Could the Commissioner just comment on drug interaction and multi-drug therapy and drug-resistance issues in relation to this discussion here tonight? I, like others, feel there should be far more patient information now. Patients should not have to 'compete' - if that is the word - with what is on the internet, where there is sometimes a lot of misinformation. They should get properly reviewed scientific information at first hand with their medicines.

Finally, I also have concerns with the role of drug companies in influencing doctors' prescription habits. Could the Commissioner comment, please?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in response to Mrs Corbey's comments, I would like to say first of all that I gave the go-ahead for a European database of prescription-only medicines several years ago. Work on the database is going well and it will be available in the foreseeable future.

Not only Mrs Corbey but also several other Members of this House have asked the question: is it possible to make a clear distinction between information and advertising? Let me state clearly once again that the Commission is totally opposed to allowing advertising or publicity, or whatever you want to call it, for prescription-only medicines in Europe. We will not permit this under any circumstances. However, I do also have to contradict you when you give the impression that there is no difference between information and advertising. Anyone who says that it is not possible to distinguish between information and advertising is insulting hundreds of thousands of journalists who clearly demonstrate every day in their work in newspapers, on the radio or on television that there is a difference between information and advertising. The regulations which we draw up are so accurate and so precise that there is no question of blurring the lines between information and advertising. The information must be based on data that has already been authorised by the approval authority. It must be authorised before it is published and it is subject to strict quality controls. I really do not understand how anyone could believe that this was advertising.

Mr Schlyter has highlighted the question of vaccines. I must state clearly at this point that vaccines are, of course, not freely available. Vaccines are normally made available to ordinary citizens by the public health authorities in the context of information campaigns which aim to ensure the highest possible vaccination density. That is how things should be, but the difference between information and advertising must, of course, also be taken into account in the case of vaccines. I fully share your opinion in this respect. The issue of counterfeit medicines is unrelated to intellectual property. Fake medicines are not produced as a result of a dispute about intellectual property. The medicines which are being faked have already been approved, which means that any issues of intellectual property have been resolved. Counterfeit medicines are produced for reasons of pure greed. There is no question of violating rights to intellectual property. This is simply a criminal act. At the very least faking medicines involves bodily harm, if not attempted murder, but it has nothing to do with questions of intellectual property.

I would like to draw your attention to statistics produced by the European Medicines Agency which has been investigating the possible effects of improved patient information. In Great Britain, 5% of all the people who are admitted to hospital are there because they have taken the wrong medicine, in other words, a medicine which they are allergic to or which they should not have been given. Of all the patients in hospital in Great Britain, 5% have been hospitalised because they have taken the wrong medicine. We know that in 50% of these cases this could have been avoided if the patient had been informed about the nature of the medicine they received. However, this information was not available to them. I also use this argument in reply to healthcare authorities in the Member States who are not enthusiastic about the prospect of well-informed patients because they believe that well-informed patients are demanding and will ask for more expensive drugs. These statistics show that patient information can even save money.

In answer to Mrs Hennicot-Schoepges' question about brochures and magazines which are made available free of charge, I do not think that it is possible for European legislators to prevent anyone from distributing free brochures. This happens in several Member States. However, the ban on advertising also applies to these magazines and brochures. I am thinking, for example, of the very well-known publication Apothekenumschau in my native country. These publications are not allowed to contain advertising for prescription-only medicines.

I have said something about the grey area, in other words, the surreptitious advertising which you also mentioned. Yes, it does exist. We are familiar with these practices and our proposals are specifically intended to prevent this surreptitious advertising which is found in a number of areas.

As far as the border regions are concerned, the circumstances described are related to the fact that we still essentially have national approval of drugs. European approval is the exception, not the rule. This means that manufacturers have their medicines approved in the different markets in the Member States and no one can prevent them from registering the medicines under different names. This is where the problem lies. If a medicine has European approval, then it is available throughout Europe, including the border regions, under the same brand name.

Mrs Doyle, I do not believe that there is a one-to-one correspondence in the areas which we are discussing between human medicine and veterinary medicine. I think the structures are very different in these cases. For example, animals are not able to find out about medicines themselves. The relationship between demand and availability is quite different. However, I will be very happy to consider this problem further. I would also like to point out that in the case of the question of residues we issued a proposal a long time ago, as you know.

The debate is closed.

Dangerous substances and preparations (dichloromethane) (debate) 

The next item is the report by Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Dichloromethane) - C6-0068/2008 -.

Madam President, I actually wish that the French Presidency were here tonight, as I have to say that the cooperation that we had was extraordinarily good. Without its commitment and its willingness to find ways forward we would never have been able to reach an agreement. During the process, there was always a blocking minority on some issue or other. It is thus thanks to very good collaboration with the French Presidency that this legislation is now being realised, which is a very good thing.

What we are discussing is dichloromethane (DCM), a paint stripper. It is also an industrial chemical that is actually used a lot in the pharmaceutical industry. In its industrial application, however, it is entirely possible to protect workers and the environment when using this chemical. It is predominantly when it is sold to consumers that there are problems. DCM is a noxious chemical in that it is carcinogenic, has a narcotic effect and has harmful effects on health. It is easy to be affected by it. By the time you smell DCM, you have already exceeded the safety limit by a factor of three, which makes it extremely difficult to protect yourself against. A proper protective set-up consists of very high-spec gloves that have to be changed every three hours. You have to have equipment that usually costs around EUR 2 700 with an independent ventilation system.

The fact that this chemical is used today is very much dependent on the fact that it is used illegally. This meant that it was also important to restrict and prohibit use by professional users. It is often the self-employed and companies consisting of just a few staff who are out there cleaning up graffiti or stripping paint. The protective equipment is very often left at home or just not available at all. Banning this chemical is therefore, to a very large extent, a worker-protection issue. We know that, in those countries where it is used - which means 24 of the 27 Member States at present - DCM is hardly ever used properly in accordance with national and European legislation. I think it will suffice to quote the German Chemical Industry Association's own text, which states that even if there is good ventilation, paints are stripped in restricted areas, the paint residues removed are collected and the DCM pots closed immediately, the exposure limit is still exceeded on a regular basis. That is why self-contained breathing equipment is needed.

I think that it is very positive that the Commission put forward a proposal and that we have now reached a compromise that will, in practice, also prohibit professional use, with countries having the ability to obtain national derogations. However, those who obtain such derogations must guarantee that those who work with this chemical have suitable protective equipment, adequate training and awareness of the alternatives and they must be able to justify why they are unable to make use of these alternatives. It is, in fact, the case that there are functional alternatives available in all the areas in which dichloromethane is currently used. We are talking about the 5% that is used in the dangerous way, which is to say for paint stripping. The other 95% of the volume of DCM used is used within industry. It is a good thing that we are tightening up the protection of workers and the environment there, too.

All in all, I am, in fact, very satisfied with the agreement. It will improve people's ability to strip paint safely without being exposed to dangerous, carcinogenic chemicals. My fellow Members of this House have helped to make it possible to achieve this agreement so quickly, and I thank you all for that and for all the shadow rapporteurs and myself being able to reach agreement with the Council. This bodes well. This was, in fact, the last chance before REACH to ban chemicals in the old-fashioned way. It was therefore a type of grand finale for the old style of chemicals policy and it was certainly a good finale for us to reach agreement so efficiently.

In respect of DCM, there are those who argue that the alternatives may possibly be at least as dangerous, if not more so, but the assessments by the Commission and others have clearly shown that the alternatives are significantly less dangerous. We are now creating a market for the alternatives. The reality is that those companies that are currently grumbling will, in many cases, also manufacture the alternatives, while there are also smaller companies that manufacture alternatives. It is a good thing that they will now get the chance to exploit their competitive advantage of greater environmental protection in the internal market. We are heading for a safer future, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the process.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Schlyter, for his hard work on this proposal. We have now come to a good compromise with the Council, which can be accepted after the first reading.

It is question here of restricting the marketing of dichloromethane and its use in paint stripping products, in order to reduce the risks identified in several major studies carried out on behalf of the Commission. There is no doubt that dichloromethane is hazardous to human health because it is highly volatile. This volatility causes highly concentrated vapours to form in the ambient air which can easily be inhaled by users of paint strippers and which then have a direct toxic effect on the central nervous system.

In poor working or operating conditions, this has led to or contributed to fatal accidents in several Member States. The majority of accidents and fatalities have taken place in a commercial and professional environment, in particular as a result of inadequate ventilation and failure to use personal protective equipment. However, consumers have also been involved in accidents, although the number of accidents reported in this case is much smaller.

The Commission's proposal is intended to reduce as far as possible and as far as technically feasible the risks involved in the use of this hazardous chemical. In the version amended by Parliament and the Council, the sale of paint strippers containing dichloromethane to consumers will be banned completely. There should also be a ban on consumers using this substance, because they do not generally have the necessary personal protective equipment and cannot be trained or supervised to ensure that they use the substance safely.

The marketing and use of dichloromethane by professionals will be subject to a general ban. However, as some Member States believe that it is essential for professionals to continue using this substance in future, these Member States will be given the option of permitting its use under specific strict conditions. These Member States must impose specific rules and regulations for authorising professionals which fit into their existing national systems. Professional users will only be granted authorisation after they have completed a training course. The training course must, among other things, provide information about the risks of dichloromethane and the availability of alternative substances. Employers and self-employed people should preferably replace dichloromethane with other substances or procedures, taking into account the relevant workplace safety legislation.

The use of paint strippers containing dichloromethane will continue to be permitted on commercial premises, provided that all the necessary measures have been taken to keep the exposure of the people working there to a minimum. For example, it is essential to ensure that there is adequate ventilation in order to remain as far as possible within workplace limits. Measures to minimise evaporation from containers of paint stripper must also be put in place. In addition, protective respiratory equipment must be worn when the workplace limits are exceeded.

Mr Schlyter recommends that you support the compromise text negotiated with the Council. I also believe that this compromise represents a good balance. I am therefore in a position to give my full support to the compromise on behalf of the Commission.

Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur and reiterate that we have worked very well together to reach this compromise, which has the support of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. Attention must be drawn to the fact that this is a highly toxic product and that viable and safe alternative solutions do exist. Indeed, we cannot deny the hazards - as you mentioned, Mr Verheugen - associated with the use of dichloromethane, particularly if the conditions do not guarantee user safety. Often dichloromethane is used by individuals carrying out restoration work in their own homes. They find it to be an excellent and effective product, but do not realise that by using it in an enclosed space they risk losing consciousness very quickly, and that there is even a risk of death if due care is not taken.

Contrary to the extreme position of a total ban, as first proposed by the rapporteur, the compromise we have reached now leaves Member States the option of providing an exception for professional and industrial use, but under clearly defined conditions. This is a valid compromise and it is important to recognise that dichloromethane is responsible for many accidents. I regret, moreover, that we have very little information on the accidents at work that have happened. I would also point out that an impact assessment was performed before the Commission's work began and that its findings shaped the text. We must nonetheless ensure that very specific information is available to those individuals who may still be tempted to use this product, even though it is the Member States that are now responsible for drawing up clear rules and enforcing the general marketing ban on this product that is hazardous to health.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Carl Schlyter, and the shadow rapporteurs, on the very thorough and professional work that they have done on this dossier. It is a rare pleasure for me these days to be able to participate in debates arising from committee work and particularly at this time of day, or should I say at this time of night.

I have not had the privilege to participate in the debates in committee other than on one occasion when I wished to ensure that my colleagues understood the importance of voting to support the rapporteur's proposals. But this is an important issue, indeed an issue of life or death, and one that for me is doubly important because I have a particular constituency interest in it.

Dichloromethanes, as we have heard, are substances with a uniquely hazardous profile. They are so volatile that inhalation, even just the casual smell of them, is above all recognised health limits. They are carcinogenic and they cause neurotic effects with nerve damage. Under normal temperatures their use causes them to evaporate to dangerous levels. To work safely with dichloromethanes one needs an air-proof suit at a cost of about EUR 2 000, and to protect one's skin, gloves at a cost of EUR 25 or EUR 30, which need to be replaced every two or three hours.

Of course nobody does this, even if they know of the harmful nature of the substance. There is no effective way to ensure the safe use of dichloromethanes for the public. And, because they are so toxic, the rapporteur and the committee wanted to ban them, even for professional use, in order to prevent fatalities. Over the last eight years the Commission has on record some 18 fatalities from the use of these products and some 56 non-fatal injuries. I am sure that in reality there have been more. But there has been an industrial lobby which has created a blocking minority in Council, and for that reason the rapporteur and the committee reluctantly agreed to allow the Member States a derogation for professional use.

However, we have achieved not only strict protection for workers using them professionally, but also a commitment to control and inspection by the Member States. A complete ban on these products already exists in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and I hope no Member State will ask for such a derogation. Industrial use is a different matter. These products can be used safely industrially in the right conditions.

Some Members have argued that they should be allowed to be used for the protection of cultural heritage, for the removal of paint from old monuments without damaging. But experts have suggested this would not be a good idea, and therefore my group will not be supporting any amendments tabled in that direction.

I mentioned that I have a constituency interest in this. I have been in correspondence with Commissioner Verheugen for seven years now on this issue. Why? Because I have in my constituency a company called Eco Solutions, which has developed a perfectly safe alternative to dichloromethanes. It is a water-based alternative. It has the same effect even if the process takes a little longer. I am sorry to say that the only Member State lobbying hard for the retention of dichloromethane use was the United Kingdom, which also produces in industrial quantities many such substances.

It took me four years' work with Commissioner Verheugen to get the Commission's expert committee even to look at the existence of this safer water-based alternative, and it has taken three years to get that water-based alternative recognised as an effective and useable technology. But I am pleased to say that, as with all the best stories, this one has a happy ending. Dichloromethanes will come off the market for non-industrial use. My constituents will become richer with their new technology, and everybody will live happily ever after thanks to the excellent work of Carl Schlyter and his colleagues on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

Madam President, dichloromethane or DCM is a dangerous chemical that can cause cancer, eye damage and acute damage to organs such as the heart, liver and kidneys. DCM is used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and as a paint stripper and degreaser, amongst other uses. Some Member States, such as Sweden, Denmark and Austria, have already introduced a ban on DCM.

It is a great thing that the issue of DCM is now on the agenda. It is even better that this agreement will mean a total ban on DCM when it comes to ordinary consumers. For this, I can but give high praise to our rapporteur, Mr Schlyter. Well done, Carl!

Unfortunately, workers in the pharmaceutical industry and those working on cleaning up walls and façades will continue to run the risk of suffering the effects of dichloromethane. This agreement will not, I am sad to say, mean a total ban on the professional use of DCM. This is a serious failing, and one that I hold the Commission entirely responsible for. This derogation, however, has been framed in such a way that what I hope is the small number of Member States that want to use DCM must guarantee that their workers do not suffer as a result. The burden of proof is thus on those countries that want to engage in the limited use of DCM, which must prove that the substance will be used in the safest possible manner and guarantee the protection of workers. In the end, this is quite acceptable.

By and large, this is a good agreement. I would like to urge the Commission to draw inspiration from this decision. Yes, we can! Let us now go further. I urge the Commission, please, is it not possible for you to give us an indication that, in the future, there will be more bans on hazardous substances such as carcinogenic azo dyes, bisphenol A and the flame retardant deca-BDE? If the EU cannot do this, why can you not permit individual Member States to go further and introduce their own bans? You, in the Commission, even go so far as to force the Member States to lift restrictions that they sometimes already have. My own country, Sweden, for example, was forced to allow azo dyes after joining the EU in 1995. Following threats from the Commission about legal action in the European Court of Justice, Sweden has now begun to permit deca-BDE. That is unacceptable and, more than anything, it is not environmentally friendly. That is not the way to conduct a progressive programme of environmental legislation. Commission, Commissioner Verheugen, please do convince me otherwise! Prove that environmental considerations take priority over the demands of the market in more cases than this single example.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, dichloromethane, which is available on the market and is authorised for common use in the shape of various commercial products, is also widely used in the chemical industry, as well as the textile and pharmaceutical industries. Dichloromethane is easily absorbed by the human body, it is highly toxic and carcinogenic, and is responsible for many cases of poisoning, including fatal accidents. In Poland alone, the number of people exposed to this chemical agent in the workplace is estimated to stand at several thousand. While industrial use of the chemical can be effectively controlled, the use of dichloromethane by individual consumers, or even by professional companies, is inevitably associated with a risk to human health and life, not only due to the fact that there is no way of implementing proper controls, but also due to the high cost of implementing protective measures.

All warnings and measures to regulate the use of dichloromethane have proved to be ineffective, in view of the high toxicity and the volatility of this chemical compound, which is why it is necessary to completely withdraw dichloromethane from widespread consumer use. Economic factors should not be used as a reason for maintaining this poison in common use. We must also avoid using the interests of industries which manufacture products containing DCM as an argument to support restricted consumer use of dichloromethane. As far as the common usage of this compound is concerned, the cost to society far outweighs any material benefits.

Madam President, I agree with the very last phrase that the Commissioner used, that we can welcome this compromise and, on that basis, I congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs on bringing this together.

It has been a hard road to get to this. Originally the Commission came forward with a proposal to ban this substance for individual use - not for professional use - and the rapporteur brought forward these proposals to extend this to professional use. And so we listened to the evidence of our constituents, as Graham Watson has done. He has talked about industrial lobbies. He has also referred to an industrial lobby in his constituency, which successfully persuaded him of the alternative. We know that 90% of paint strippers use DCM, so we had to look at the balance of this.

None of us wants to go over the top in our descriptions of the dangers. Sometimes when I was listening this evening to the hazards of this substance, I wondered why we are satisfied that industrial workers should be subjected to it but not allow professionals to use the substance, within the rules and under strict guidance; and all the clothing that Graham Watson is going to issue to people in the future - these white suits, or whatever they are, a space-age parliamentary benefit - will be coming.

I think that this, among many other substances, poses a high risk. It is potentially hazardous. There is evidence that there have been accidents and people have been hurt. It is probably right that we take stronger action than has been taken in the past. That is why I accept and genuinely welcome the compromise that is being sought. It leaves the door open to Member States that wish to, and believe it is right to, continue under the tight rules that have been laid down to allow professionals - and only professionals - to use this in addition to industrial use.

But, Commissioner, you now have a responsibility to go back and do the research on the alternatives. Look at the alternatives that are available: NMP has been available for 11 years, but only now is found to be reprotoxic; there are flammable solvents that can cause glue-sniffing problems; there are date-rape drug substances that are seen as safe alternatives; there is DBE, about which not much is known; and there are the more basic blowlamps and sanding methods that can be used, although dust and other problems arise there. So let us now go back and thoroughly investigate the alternatives so that we really can be sure that we are providing a safer alternative for our constituents. If we find that some of the alternatives are no less dangerous, then I am sure the Commissioner or his successors will be back to tell us so and to bring forward a proposal - and if they do not I am sure Carl Schlyter will.

(CS) Madam President, dichloromethane has narcotic effects causing damage to the central nervous system and loss of consciousness, as well as cardiotoxic effects. If it is misused there is a direct risk of death and this factor has implications for terrorism. I therefore support a ban on its use by ordinary consumers and strict restrictions on professional use. As alternative and possibly less toxic bleaching substances exist, then in my opinion it is unnecessary to permit exceptions. However, the proposal we will vote on tomorrow will allow Member States to apply to the Commission for exceptions in justifiable cases, although under very strict conditions. I would like to know how the Commission or anyone else will assess the validity of applications for exceptions and how they will monitor compliance with the restrictions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying a few words to Mr Watson. You have played an important role in bringing about this proposal. At the time when you told me in person about the problem which you had had for several years with the Commission, I realised that there were alternatives to this substance and I am sure you will agree that from then on things moved very quickly. I personally instructed my Directorate-General to present the proposal because it was clear to me as a result of my dealings with you that there were alternatives. I have stated on another occasion in this Parliament, and I would ask Mr Holm in particular to listen to this, that although I am the Commissioner with responsibility for enterprise and industry, I do not believe that an industrial product which is hazardous should remain on the market simply so that it can be used to earn money. I am of the opinion that, when there is an alternative which can replace a hazardous industrial product, it should be replaced. This is the principle which I have adhered to when we discussed and adopted REACH in this Parliament. All the substances which you referred to, Mr Holm, are now governed by REACH.

Dichloromethane would normally also be covered under the terms of REACH, but because the health risks are so evident and because there have been so many cases, we have given priority to this substance. It is possible that we will have to act in the same way in the case of other substances if the health risks are equally obvious and if we cannot wait until the very comprehensive and demanding REACH procedure has been completed.

I would also like to make it clear, Mr Holm, that I would also have voted in favour of a more far-reaching compromise. If Parliament had been able to agree with the Council on banning the commercial use of dichloromethane, I would have voted in favour this evening. Please do not hold the Commission responsible for the fact that there are several Member States who did not want to take this further for reasons which I am not familiar with. This is the reason why the Commission presented its proposal in the way that it did, because we wanted to produce a proposal which had a chance of being accepted and this is now what has happened.

My last remark concerns the comments made by Mr Bowis in relation to the toxic effects of the alternatives. With chemicals it is always a question of weighing up the degree of risk involved. Our thorough and comprehensive studies have shown that none of the alternative substances currently on sale have the properties of dichloromethane which are so dangerous, in other words the direct toxic effect on the central nervous system. This occurs only with dichloromethane and not with the other substances.

We are aware of very few accidents involving the alternative substances. This also applies to countries where the use of dichloromethane has already been banned, such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden. If the situation should change, the Commission will, of course, investigate and, if necessary, propose measures governing other substances.

Finally, I would like to comment on the remarks made by Mr Holm, which I temporarily forgot, concerning the question of whether the Commission will force Member States to abolish progressive environmental or health regulations, because they conflict with internal market regulations. The Commission will not do this. Current legislation states explicitly that Member States have the right to enact national regulations which differ from those of the internal market if they believe that this is necessary for health or environmental reasons.

As I am responsible for monitoring the notification of these differing regulations, I can tell you that the Commission acts on the basis of a clear and unambiguous principle in this case. We take the healthcare-related and environmental arguments of the Member States seriously. If they enact different regulations for these reasons, we do not force them to revoke their environmental and health regulations. If you have any information from recent years to back up your accusation, I would like to find out more specific details, so that I can refute your claim. The case that you mentioned dates back to 1995, which means that I had nothing to do with it.

Madam President, I would like to come back on what Mr Watson said. He, too, has played his part. Though you are not a member of our committee, you have still had an impact on our committee and helped us to reach a compromise. Of course, the staff who have helped me to reach this agreement have also played an important role.

I can only reiterate what Commissioner Verheugen said. The Commission has been clear throughout the process, at least with me, that if the Council and Parliament had reached a more far-reaching compromise involving a total ban, the Commission would have accepted it. There has been no lack of clarity between the Commission and me in relation to this issue.

I would just like to illustrate this chemical to you all. If I were to open a single one-kilo pot here and now, spread it over the benches and paint it out, we would, in fact, somewhat exceed the safe limit throughout this exceedingly large chamber. That is how very toxic this particular chemical is.

I can only conclude this debate by appealing to the Commission to ensure, now, that those Member States which apply for a derogation for professional use have that derogation revoked if these new, stricter rules are regularly broken. We know, everybody knows, and all the studies show that, if dichloromethane is used correctly in such a way that the health of the workers involved is protected, this substance is both uneconomical and unecological. If DCM is allowed to behave according to proper market conditions, which is to say if the legislation is complied with, its own uncompetitiveness will very quickly mean that DCM will be completely abandoned to be replaced by the alternatives. I will take this opportunity to appeal to the Commission to ensure that the regulations are complied with. If this is done, DCM will phase itself out sufficiently quickly.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

With today's decision, the European Parliament is significantly restricting the use of the paint stripper known as dichloromethane. As the shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I welcome the decision, into which we have put a lot of work. In recent years there have been many fatalities as a consequence of dichloromethane use. This extremely volatile substance is damaging to the nervous system, and for the same reason is also carcinogenic. The victims were primarily individual users, those decorating their own homes and house decorators, since in industrial use certain safety regulations are observed. The concentrations measured in certain European industrial plants were so high that - in case of prolonged exposure - they would cause cancer in 10% of the workers.

According to the compromise text that has now been adopted, dichloromethane can in future be used as a paint stripper only in industry and under strict safety regulations. Consumers and professionals will have to strip unwanted paint using one of the many equally effective but non-harmful alternative chemicals or, for instance, by pyrolitic/thermal stripping.

The most important point is that this carcinogenic substance should not be permitted to be used in enclosed public areas such as shopping centres and underpasses, since the vapour produced by volatile substances is heavier than air, and therefore measurements have shown that it sinks downwards and endangers children in particular. In making its decision, our political group took ample account of the opinion of the trade unions concerned, since in the case of industrial use, our main concern is the health of the workers.

Madam President, as we know, many dangerous chemical substances are authorised for general use, in spite of the dangerous ingredients they contain. One of these substances is dichloromethane (DCM), which is generally used for manufacturing pharmaceuticals, solvents and other products.

It is a substance that is particularly harmful to human health, as it is classified as a carcinogen. It damages the nervous system and causes serious damage to internal organs, which can directly lead to death.

In view of their higher respiratory rate, children are more susceptible to dichloromethane poisoning, as are people with cardiovascular diseases. It also alarming that there have been deaths linked to dichloromethane poisoning.

In view of the fact that we know that there are products on the market which could provide an alternative to products containing dichloromethane, as well as the fact that certain Member States have banned the use of this substance, introducing a total ban on its usage seems essential.

A further argument in favour of banning DCM should be the fact that, as experts have pointed out, we cannot ensure that consumers will use DCM safely.

The Commission's proposal to introduce training on the use of products containing DCM for professional purposes will cost approximately EUR 1.9 billion in its first year of implementation.

Withdrawing DCM from general circulation therefore seems to be the most sensible and responsible solution.

Authorisation to ratify the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 188) (debate) 

The next item is the report by Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 188) - C6-0218/2008 -.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with this report we wish to adopt the proposal for a Council decision on Convention 188 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on work in the fishing sector, establishing minimum international standards that must be respected, and fairer conditions around the globe. In this way we will remedy the low rate of ratification of many conventions in the field of maritime labour.

This Convention, adopted in June 2007 by the 96th session of the International Labour Conference, is aimed at establishing minimum international working standards for the fishing sector and promoting decent living and working conditions for fishers. It covers, amongst other things, conditions relating to such important issues as health and safety at work, manning and hours of rest, crew list, repatriation in case of problems, recruitment, placement of workers and social security.

The professionals in this sector have been waiting a long time for the adoption of this ILO Convention on work in the fishing sector because they believe that it represents a step forward in dignifying this important strategic sector, in which some 30 million men and women work worldwide.

In 2003, the ILO Office and its tripartite constituents began working on drawing up updated and comprehensive international labour standards for the fishing sector, aiming to provide appropriate protection for fishers around the globe, in view of the special nature of the sector and its specific living and working conditions. Taking into account that it is a sector with a high rate of fatal accidents - to which serious levels of exploitation and a lack of protection contribute - it requires special protection.

This Convention also reviews other existing conventions on the sector, specifically on the minimum age, on the medical examination of fishermen, on their articles of agreement and on the accommodation of crews. It is accompanied by a Recommendation (No 199). It should be noted that this Convention became necessary after the adoption of the ILO consolidated Maritime Labour Convention in February 2006, which excluded the fishing sector from its scope.

Therefore, we are calling for every effort to be made to ensure that the various Member States swiftly ratify the Convention, preferably before 2012, as it will enter into force once it has been ratified by 10 of the 180 ILO member countries, eight of which must be coastal states. However, it is equally important that its provisions be applied in places where they are not yet in effect.

Finally, I would like to thank all those who helped to draw up this report, including my colleague Willy Meyer, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries. I hope that all my fellow Members inform their national parliaments and governments so that this Convention can be ratified as quickly as possible.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, fishing is by nature the most globalised of professions and one that confronts globalisation in all its might. An estimated 30 million people work in this field and these people are exposed to significant hardships and dangers quite apart from the effects of globalisation. According to statistics from the International Labour Organization, a comparison of the number of fatal accidents in the fishing industry with the number of fatal accidents at work generally shows that fishing is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world.

All European institutions support the generally recognised Programme for Decent Work. The Commission recently reinforced its commitment through the renewed social agenda and a report linked to the Communication on decent work of 2006. An important part of the Commission's approach is its support for international work standards. A general improvement in safety conditions, medical care and legal protection in the area of fishing together with levels of social protection closer to those enjoyed by other workers can be achieved only if efforts are made to establish minimum standards on a global level. As members of the International Labour Organization and with the support of the Commission, the EU Member States have contributed as much as possible to creating an updated and purposeful Convention through which these international minimum standards will be established. These can be supplemented with mechanisms for ensuring harmony and mechanisms for enforcement such as inspections in foreign ports subject to certain conditions. In June 2007 the Convention and the non-legally binding recommendation were adopted by the governing body of the International Labour Organization.

Convention 188 revises several older standards of the International Labour Organization relating to fishermen and, when it comes into force, it can create equal and improved conditions for all. The Convention regulates matters such as minimum age, medical examinations, the location of the crew, rest periods, employment contracts, repatriation, the recruitment and location of workers, pay, food and accommodation, medical care and social security. Some parts of the new Convention relate to coordinating social security and this is an area exclusively under the Community's competence. The Council must therefore permit the Member States to ratify these parts of the Convention. The areas of shared competence also cover several other themes. As the new standards of the International Labour Organization must take effect as soon as possible, the Commission is proposing that the Convention include a challenge to Member States to try and speed up submission of their ratification documents and to submit them if possible no later than 21 December 2012. This challenge will be supported by a review of the ratification situation performed by the Council before January 2012.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we know and as someone has said this evening, the International Labour Organization considers the fisheries sector to be one of the most dangerous working environments. The number of fatalities each year amounts to approximately 24 000, and this gives an idea of the size of the problem. This sector therefore requires wide-ranging regulations and far-reaching international laws, able to ensure the appropriate safeguarding of the living and working conditions of fishermen throughout the world, who are often exposed to situations of harsh exploitation.

Convention 188 on work in the fishing sector is therefore a law of fundamental importance, aiming to establish a level playing field in the sector and fairer conditions of competition. As already mentioned, the Convention promotes dignified living and working conditions for fishermen, health and safety in the workplace, adequate rest periods, crew list, repatriation, recruitment, pay, and social security.

This initial debate has actually made us realise how much common ground there is on the importance of this provision. We would therefore simply like to emphasise the urgent need for the Member States to ratify it so that it can enter into force as soon as possible.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I am very happy to speak on this issue here tonight. I believe that the job of a fisherman, or indeed a fisherwoman insofar as there are some, is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Certainly, in Ireland alone, rarely does a year pass without some fishing boat being lost at sea, and many fishers are injured in their work.

As a former Minister for Social Welfare in Ireland it was my task to try and find a way in which the rights of people working on fishing boats could be respected. It is an extremely complex area, where the issue is whether one is working under a 'contract of work' or a 'contract for work' - the difference being between those who are working as a normal employee for tax purposes and thus pay their social contributions to the skipper who is an employer, and those who share the proceeds of the catch, who are not treated as normal employees. The difficulties in reconciling those positions are extremely complex. As a Minister I managed to find a piece of European legislation which resolved the problem for a short period, but unfortunately it was subsequently challenged and found not to apply precisely to the issues at stake.

The importance of having common minimum standards which are globally applied really goes without saying. These include standards of health and safety on board, accommodation, the provision of food, and indeed the guarantee that minimum rates of pay are also applied to those who are employees, and that there is an obligation on boat owners and skippers to ensure that people's contributions are fully paid up.

It is important that these are global minimum standards, because unfortunately the tendency has been for a race to the bottom in this area, as indeed in other areas too, so having this convention approved as soon as possible would certainly be something that I would urge at a very early stage. I think 2012 is a long way away and we should try to shorten this deadline if at all possible.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, it is vitally important that fishermen have work conditions that are reasonable, as safe as a high-risk occupation like fishing can be and that offer a decent return that allows fishermen and women to support themselves and their families. The financial return also needs to be a stable and reliable base for maintaining our coastal communities. As it happens, the coastal communities in my constituency are finding it very difficult to survive.

The question for me in this debate is whether ratification of Convention 188 of the International Labour Organisation, thereby extending the regulation and policy to those who work in fishing, will be a promotion and a protection to fishermen or an obstacle, and whether or not it can achieve the global level playing field that our fishing industry needs to survive.

A Kenyan delegation told me of a Japanese factory ship that harvests their waters and those of their neighbours. What conditions do those working in that factory ship experience? From what I was told I suspect they were not good. What I do know is that the fish caught do not benefit the people of Africa, even though they are from their territorial waters. When that fish is sold on the international market they are not sold at prices that Europe, especially Ireland, can match.

Fishermen out of work in Ireland are denied social welfare payments and this creates great hardship. Therefore, if ratification will achieve a significant decrease in fishing fatalities, ensure social security benefits for fishermen and social benefits, like medical care and the dole, then I welcome it and encourage its ratification. If it further promotes fishing as a viable industry for the small and medium operator, especially family-owned fishing boats, then I certainly can support it, because, as it is, fishing is dangerous and in many parts of the world exploitive - not just of fish, but also of people. Can it, and will it? I hope so.

(FR) Madam President, the sustainable management of fishing means regulating fishing efforts, of course, but it should also take account of fishermen's efforts. Fishing, as everyone agrees, and above all offshore fishing and deep-sea fishing, is the hardest job in the world, even if we are no longer in the era of the fishing conditions of the Basques and Icelanders of the 19th century, who embarked on long campaigns. It remains a very tough profession and worthy of respect, with 24 000 deaths every year.

Fishing is the perfect example of global activity due to the globalisation of the resource, namely the fish, which have no regard for national borders; therefore international laws are the only appropriate response. Since fishermen's work must be regulated internationally, the legislator is, of course, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and we are currently celebrating the 50th anniversary of the first ILO fishing conventions, on the minimum age, employment controls, medical examinations and accommodation. Today's convention, Convention 188, will thus amend, supplement and revise the previous conventions. This must all be ratified as soon as possible, before 2012. It is a fine example of joint management of jointly owned global resources by joint parties, and it is urgent, since the sea professions - dockers, fishermen, sailors - in today's globalised economic competition, are exposed to all manner of abuse, exploitation and trafficking, even cases of slavery, in the name of cutting costs, obviously.

Legal protection is therefore vital in terms of health, accommodation, safety, working time, living conditions, salaries, medical care, and thus employment contracts and social security. Hence we are now establishing a minimum legal status for fishermen and in so doing we are creating a level playing field for global competition.

This may not necessarily mean much to European fishermen who already have this, but for the fishermen of the world, of Peru, Asia or Africa, it is a great step forward.

(EL) Madam President, I think that this evening's debate is very important because, with the consent of the European Parliament, with the resolution that I imagine we are going to unanimously support tomorrow, we shall again give momentum to the implementation of the decent work agenda which we all supported last year. Convention 188 is nothing more than a part of the application of this agenda to the fisheries sector, which was not covered by the standard contract on seafaring work and, as previous speakers said, it is very important that we also have a minimum coverage at global level in this sector too.

The countries of the European Union will, I imagine, all ratify this Convention by 2012, as provided for. Eight Member States have already ratified it, meaning that the Convention will start to apply and all of us living on the coast will therefore be able to take pride in the fact that our fishermen have coverage and will not have competition from third countries which may have social support for their fishermen.

I would reiterate that Parliament has already voted in favour of protection for women working in or connected with fisheries. Female employment in fisheries, both direct and indirect, is very important, because if women in coastal areas did not stand by fishermen, these areas would be much poorer and much more sparsely inhabited, because needs are met by people, not just legislative texts.

We are therefore contributing to a culture of coastal areas, a social culture which will make use of the cultural elements of Europe linked to the sea and coastal areas. From south to north, every area has its peculiarities; however, the Convention which we adopt for ratification by the Member States provides cover in every instance and for fishermen's every need.

In particular, we must support measures for their education and care in old age.

(CS) Commissioner, like my fellow MEPs I consider it necessary to adopt standards that will ensure decent working conditions for employees in the fishing industry. It is not possible for the European Union in the 21st century to allow conditions similar to slave labour in any branch of work. I appreciate the fact that the proposed amendments were adopted in a tripartite format where governments, employers and employees drew up a comprehensive international work standard which takes account of the specific nature of this industry. It is on the plus side that the new arrangement determines a minimum age, medical examinations, rest periods and social security and that it is also concerned with living quarters, food, safety and health protection at work. All of these elements will undoubtedly lead to decent working conditions for fishermen while reducing injuries and deaths. Even though I represent a country that has no sea I welcome this standard, I support the fishermen and I wish them the quickest possible ratification of this Convention and not just because I enjoy fish.

(PT) I too would like to add my voice to those of the rapporteur, the Commissioner and all of our fellow Members who rejoiced at this initiative of the International Labour Organization and who are calling on all Member States to ratify Convention 188.

The issue is that the victims of deregulation of the fishing sector - that wild market without frontiers, principles or limits - are not only the sustainability of the resource that is fish, but also fishers themselves. The protection of fishers must become a fundamental part, if not the very heart, of the common fisheries policy.

That is my basic demand: that we do not stop at ratifying this international convention, but put the protection of fishers at the heart of the common fisheries policy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will allow me the pleasure of noting down the arguments expressed in the debate as they emphasised, from a very wide range of viewpoints, the importance of the debated Convention. They also emphasise, from a similarly wide range of viewpoints and through profound arguments, its importance to the everyday lives of fishermen, who number almost 30 million, as I mentioned in my introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion the formal process for this proposal is clear. Our subsequent political efforts must be directed towards achieving ratification as quickly as possible because the deadline set out in the Commission's proposal is the latest possible deadline and any reduction in the time taken would, in my view, be a good thing. I would like once again to thank the rapporteur Ilda Figueiredo for the work she has done and to thank all MEPs for the support they have shown for this proposal.

I wish to thank the President and the Commissioner, as well as all the Members who have spoken and supported the ratification of this Convention. I am sure that the report will be adopted tomorrow by the European Parliament, thus contributing to the swift ratification by the Member States of Convention 188, accompanied by Recommendation 199, on work in the fishing sector.

As has been said here, our goal is for it to enter into force soon, preferably before 2012, which is why we are calling for its ratification by all Member States. It will contribute significantly to achieving minimum international standards that guarantee better working conditions, more safety and fewer fatal accidents around the globe for this very dangerous, but also strategic sector.

It will also contribute to recognising the dignity of fishers, whose work is so hard and must be central to our concerns.

The debate closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 22.45.)

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)

Documents received: see Minutes

Presentation of the Czech Presidency's programme (debate) 

The next item is a statement by the Council on the presentation of the Czech Presidency's programme.

I should like to welcome most warmly the President of the Council, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mirek Topolánek, to the European Parliament. A very warm welcome to you, Mr Topolánek.

(Applause)

I should also like to welcome most warmly the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso.

Ladies and gentlemen, we all know that holding the Presidency is particularly challenging, and I know that Prime Minister Topolánek finds it not only intellectually but also emotionally very touching, with his political experience in the years of communism, to now be delivering his report for the European Union as its representative.

This is the second Presidency, the first being Slovenia, to hail from a country that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004. I am sure that I speak for all of you, ladies and gentlemen, when I say that the Czech Presidency has our full support and that we intend to do our utmost to ensure it is a successful Presidency for the European Union at this difficult time.

On this basis, President-in-Office of the Council, Prime Minister Topolánek, I should like to invite you to address this House. Once again, a very warm welcome to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Mr President of the European Parliament, Mr President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today for the first time as President of the European Council. The Czech Republic has assumed leadership of the EU after France, which I consider to be more than symbolic. France played an important role in the birth of the modern Czech state. The French court is where our greatest king, Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, grew up, and, following the model of the Sorbonne in Paris, he founded the university in Prague, one of the outstanding institutions of European learning. We are linked to France, then, both through the fulfilment of our national aspirations and in the promotion of universal European values.

Just as it was not easy to found a university in Bohemia to compare with the Sorbonne, it is not easy to take over the EU presidency from France. I see only one way of fulfilling this task honourably. It is no accident that I have chosen a medieval monarch as an example of our links with France and with European values. Charles IV, in his policies, could not uphold a narrowly Czech stance; on the contrary, he had to integrate and represent a whole diverse empire.

In a sense, the European Union follows on from this medieval universalism - if nothing else, in the fact that it prefers a common moral code and common legal basis over local power interests. There is also talk of a second European Union, bureaucratic, technocratic and soulless, but I believe in that first Europe: the Europe of freedom, justice, ideas and rules.

In that universe of values where the law is promoted above the individual, the size of the country does not matter. What matters is the ability to serve a common idea. The role of the country holding the presidency is neither to promote its interests nor to make decisions. Its role is to moderate and inspire debate. Today I do not stand before you as the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, but as the President of the European Council. The views which I shall be representing here, over the next six months, will not be my personal views or those of the Czech government. They will be the consensus of 27 countries, embodied in the conclusions of the European Council.

I cannot imagine coming before you in any other way. You, of course, as the directly elected Members of the European Parliament, have the right to ask me about anything, and, if you are interested, I shall always be happy to give you my opinion or to explain the Czech position; but I myself do not consider this to be essential. The arena for national interests is the European Council, which was conceived as such within the necessarily complex system of checks and balances of European democracy. However, the Council's primary mission is to seek a meeting-point, a compromise acceptable to all. I shall always rigorously, decisively and correctly uphold that here.

In the EU, they say the Czechs are always dissatisfied with something. That we are among the grumblers that others should be afraid of, that we are a nation of Hussites and hotheaded chauvinists. I fundamentally disagree with this type of criticism. Like our first president, T.G. Masaryk, I am convinced that the 'Czech question' is in fact a European question, and that it has always developed within a pan-European context, in accordance with common European values and in conjunction with developments in other countries.

As Masaryk wrote a hundred years ago in the second edition of his 'Czech Question': 'Our national literary and language revival took place at the same time as revivals and new developments in all European nations. This means that our revival was not as isolated and miraculous as it is usually said to have been, but was fully part of the Europe-wide trend.'

I believe these words are still relevant now, when the European Union as a whole, and its individual states, are seeking out a new face for Europe. A face in which traditional European values will be reflected, and which will also look boldly ahead into the third millennium. A face in keeping with the Union motto, 'In varietate concordia', an expression of unity and at the same time diversity. Just as in the 19th century, the Czechs are entering this debate as a young and small Member. Just as then, however, we consider ourselves a long-standing part of the great family of proud European nations.

Over the next six months we shall have the opportunity to demonstrate fully our attitude towards European integration. The Czech presidency comes in a year significant for a number of reasons. This year is the fifth anniversary of the historically largest EU expansion, in 2004, which was the symbolic and practical culmination of the successful process of reunifying a previously divided continent; and this year Europe celebrates 20 years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, which enabled the countries of the former Soviet bloc to return to freedom and democracy.

2009 will also be the 30th anniversary of the first direct elections to the European Parliament which you represent. Of the triangle of EU institutions, it is Parliament that we consider to be the source of direct political legitimacy. The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU, and with repeated calls for a reduction of the so-called 'democratic deficit', its authority has increased over the decades.

Finally, this year marks 60 years since the founding of NATO, which is the most important Transatlantic defence alliance. NATO is the manifestation, at security level, of the Euro-Atlantic ties that confirm the validity of our European civilisation's values on both sides of the ocean.

2009 will not only be a year of significant anniversaries, but also a year of important and difficult challenges. We must continue to resolve institutional issues. The international role of the EU will be tested not only by the still-unresolved conflict in Georgia, but also by the new escalation of tensions in the Middle East. Finally, the issue of energy security once again demands our urgent attention. In addition to our scheduled tasks we shall, like the French presidency, have to face new events. Further surprises can never be ruled out.

The country holding the presidency cannot influence the EU's long-term agenda or the emergence of new problems. What it can and must influence is the selection of presidential priorities; and, as is customary, I intend to set out these priorities here.

Our primary effort has been to ensure that these priorities not only represent the Czech point of view, but also reflect the continuity of developments in the EU, and the positions and ideas of individual Member States and political tendencies. This has been a broad and consensual task, not a confrontational and one-sided one. Even though it is of course impossible for everyone to be 100% satisfied with these priorities, I believe that all of you can find something in our programme that you can identify with.

At the same time, I am certainly not hiding the fact that for the Czech Republic, just like every other Member State, the presidency provides an opportunity to draw attention to areas where our specific know-how enables us to contribute something to Europe. What are those areas?

As a country dependent on oil and gas imports and as a former Eastern Bloc country, we are well aware of the importance of energy security as a requirement not only for economic wellbeing, but also for a free and independent foreign policy.

As a new Member State with experience of totalitarianism, our membership of the Community means a great deal to us, and we consider it our moral duty to strengthen cooperation with those who are left outside. Just as France put its know-how to use in relation to the Mediterranean, we want to convince the EU of the importance of the Eastern Partnership.

The third contribution that I want to mention here is our experience with the crisis in the banking sector which we went through at the end of the 1990s. We can contribute to the current debate with our recommendations and our experts. Due to the stabilisation of financial institutions we are one of the very few countries today that have not had to pump taxpayers' money into rescuing banks affected by the financial crisis.

Our priorities for the presidency reflect Czech know-how, respect the continuity of EU development and are in fact well-matched to the existing problems.

As you probably know, the motto of our presidency is 'Europe without barriers'. I would add to that the subtitle 'a Europe of rules'. This vision gains new importance in today's troubled political and economic situation. We believe that only a Europe that makes full use of its economic, human and cultural potential can hold its own, economically and politically, in global competition. This is doubly true in times of crisis.

The full development of Europe's potential is hindered by a number of internal barriers that we should try to remove. I am thinking, for example, of the last remaining obstacles to the full exercise of the four basic EU freedoms by all Member States - the unnecessary administrative burden for entrepreneurs, or the lack of connections between energy networks, which is an obstacle to increased energy security and the development of the internal energy market.

On the other hand, a Europe without barriers cannot be a Europe without rules and borders. The removal of internal barriers must go hand in hand with protection against illegal activities that threaten the safety and interests of Europeans, especially in the areas of protection of intellectual property, and illegal immigration. Only clearly set boundaries will enable us to play a more active role in breaking down external barriers, for example in international trade, so that we can make better use of the potential, and the comparative advantages, of European countries.

During the six months of its presidency, the Czech Republic will aim for these overarching objectives through the implementation of three main programme areas, the 'Three Czech E's': 1. Economy, 2. Energy, 3. The European Union in the World. With slight exaggeration, it could be said that these 3 E's have been transformed, at the beginning of the year, into 2 G's: Gas and Gaza. In physics, E means energy and G is the symbol of gravitational acceleration. For anyone in need of exercise, 2 Gs is plenty of exertion.

I shall say straight away that I could speak for hours about individual priorities and tasks; but more important than any words are the results of the Czech presidency so far. Today is the 14th of January, which means we have held the presidency for two weeks. Within this time, we have managed to find a political solution to the complicated problem of Russian gas, and to negotiate an agreement between the two sides in the dispute. We have also led a European delegation to the area of the Middle East conflict. The delegation completed a difficult round of talks with all the parties involved, and achieved the first successes in opening a humanitarian corridor to Gaza.

All this has come at a time when we have faced a difficult situation at home, with a government reshuffle, and have been subjected to attacks from the opposition, which has been irresponsibly torpedoing the Czech presidency of the EU and holding the country's foreign commitments to ransom in a domestic political dispute. I think the results we have achieved in spite of this are a more than adequate response to the doubting voices that said that the Czech Republic, for objective and subjective reasons, was not up to the task of leading the EU.

Turning, now, to individual areas in more detail:

The first E: Economics

The Czech presidency will press mainly for the full implementation of the conclusions of the G20 Summit Declaration of November 2008 and the European Council conclusions of December 2008. In accordance with these conclusions the key requirement for success is to prevent excessive regulation and to avoid protectionism - or in other words, to abide by primary EU law, to abide by established rules. The EU must not close itself off from the world; on the contrary, it must strive for the greatest possible openness in world trade and draw the maximum benefit from it.

Here, the words of my friend Joseph Daul of the PPE-DE Group are very much to the point: 'The current economic crisis is not a defeat for capitalism, but rather the result of political mistakes and a lack of rules for the oversight of financial markets.'

The priority tasks will be a review of the directive on capital adequacy of investment companies and lending institutions, the completion of talks on the directive regulating insurance, a regulation on the activities of ratings agencies, and a directive on electronic money institutions. The presidency will also press for a review of the regulation on payments in euros, and, last but not least, for prompt and thorough implementation of the roadmap of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, which was adopted in response to the crisis on the financial markets. At the same time, it is essential to thoroughly analyse the possibilities offered by the legislation currently in force, and to make full use of these.

Only an economically strong and influential EU can manage to resolve the important questions of global policy, security, trade and the environment. The presidency must therefore devote itself to the realisation of the European Economic Recovery Plan, with emphasis on its incorporation into the Lisbon Strategy framework: after short-term tools for strengthening our economies, the tools for medium- and long-term structural reforms will come into play.

An example of these important structural reforms is the common agricultural policy. The key lies in setting equal terms for all EU Member States in the making of direct payments - both in terms of the amounts paid, and in terms of the payment system (removing historical disparities, making allowance for the diversity of individual Member States' agriculture). The Czech Republic wants to incorporate this dimension into the debate on the future of the common agricultural policy after 2013.

In the long term, the best protection against the devastating impact of future crises is to strengthen the EU's competitiveness. As I have said before, this is about the full assertion and exercise of the four basic freedoms on which the EU is founded. To these, I would add a 'fifth freedom' - the free movement of knowledge, which is something of a return to the medieval universalism I have mentioned.

An important factor for improving competitiveness is an improvement in the quality of regulation, including a decrease in the regulatory burden, to make doing business easier, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. The Czech Republic is taking a very high profile in this area.

In the area of foreign trade, the presidency is focusing on a revival of discussions at the WTO. Here, we attach great importance to successful completion of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). The DDA represents an effort to achieve a transparent liberalisation of trade at multilateral level, which will bring long-term benefits. If the talks on the DDA are suspended, the presidency will attempt to set in motion some thinking on multilateral trade tools and will support a step-up of discussions within the framework of the other WTO agendas.

We must not forget investments in education, research, development and innovation, alongside the need to improve the regulatory environment and reduce the administrative burden. Here I shall quote the Chairman of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Martin Schulz: 'Europe cannot successfully compete with other regions of the world on low wages and social standards, but on technological innovations, higher quality of work and the competence and knowledge of its people.' I fully endorse this view.

The second E: Energy

The second priority, like the first, fits into the context of current developments. Even more urgently and compellingly, I would say. The global crisis may weaken Europe in the short term; but the energy shortage that threatens us would immediately, and in the long term, destroy not only the European economy, but also our freedom and security. The Czech presidency will definitely continue its efforts to provide secure, competitive and sustainable energy for Europe.

In the area of energy security, we would like to focus on three aspects: firstly, completing the Second Strategic Energy Review, including an analysis of medium-term energy demand and supply in the EU and, based on this, the identification of appropriate infrastructure projects. Secondly, completing the directive on the maintenance of minimum stocks of crude oil and petroleum products, where we support an increase in the mandatory minimum stocks from 90 to 120 days. Thirdly, reforming the Trans-European Energy Networks (TENs-E); here, the energy security legislation package approved by the Commission in November 2008 also includes the Green Paper on European energy networks. No less important is the strengthening of infrastructure on the Member States' territory, including the existing trans-border connections, and implementation of new energy network connections. In all related legislative acts, we hope to have the European Parliament's support.

Naturally, we are also interested in diversifying the supply and transport routes. It is clear that the construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline, for example, is an issue of the highest priority, and support for construction of new oil pipelines is equally important. Further, we must make efforts to diversify the energy mix, including the rehabilitation of nuclear energy and investment in new technologies.

As an example of our ability to achieve energy security in practice, we would point to the agreement we have brokered on the creation of a monitoring mechanism for the transit of Russian gas. The goal was to restore basic trust between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and to introduce elementary transparency to the issue. We have managed to get Russia and Ukraine to sign a single document, so that renewal of supplies to the EU becomes possible.

Now the EU must take decisions and measures to ensure that in future there is no repeat of this crisis with its impact on the Member States. Transparency in the gas business must be increased, and the supply routes and suppliers must be diversified. The EU countries' energy mix must be diversified. We need to think seriously about developing safe nuclear energy. The building of infrastructure in the EU must be implemented rapidly, in order to provide effective connections between Member States as a prerequisite for building an effective gas market.

In the area of the internal market and infrastructure, we must make efforts to achieve effective coordination of transmission system operators, to complete the building of a unified internal market for electricity and gas, and to ensure that the gaps in the transmission and transport system are eliminated.

On the question of legislative priorities in this area, we want to conclude the third package on the internal energy market, which means completing the review of two directives and two regulations on electricity and gas whose goal is to complete the liberalisation of the electricity and gas market. We also aim to bring the regulations properly into operation, and to establish an agency for cooperation between energy regulators.

Another area is the increase in energy efficiency, which the Swedish presidency wants to take on in greater detail; this means that the France - Czech Republic - Sweden trio of presidency countries will have tackled the energy issue truly comprehensively and from all sides.

While this priority is called Energy, it is inseparably linked with climate protection policy. In this area, the presidency will try to achieve a globally acceptable agreement on the setting of reduction commitments after 2012. This especially means getting the USA, India and China on board, and it will prepare the way for achieving a broad international consensus at the end of 2009 in Copenhagen. Such a consensus should also reflect current trends in the world economy. In the context of the coming economic recession and the supply crisis, it will be particularly important to harmonise the requirements of the environment, competitiveness and security.

The beginning of the year reminded us that as part of the priority of 'the EU in the World', we must also allow for unforeseen urgent tasks. The new escalation of tension between Israel and Hamas requires not only an active approach from the EU itself, but also coordination with important global and regional players. Again it is confirmed that peace cannot be achieved until Palestine begins to function as a fully-fledged state which is able to guarantee law and order in its territory and safety for its neighbours.

For this reason, in addition to current diplomatic activities, the European Union must continue its efforts to build the Palestinian infrastructure, with the training of security forces and reinforcement of the authority of the Palestinian administration. In the process of resolving the conflict, the Czech presidency will want to make use of its good relations with both Palestine and Israel; but it is obvious that without mutual trust, long-term peace in the Middle East is not possible.

I have already mentioned the Eastern Partnership. The Georgian crisis showed how important it is for the EU to have a strategy for that region. The deepening of the eastern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy, through a strengthening of cooperation with the countries of the region (above all, with Ukraine), and likewise with the countries of the Transcaucasian and Caspian region, is of great importance, not only morally but also practically. This cooperation will enable us to diversify our foreign trade and supplies of energy raw materials.

As far as Transatlantic relations are concerned, it is obvious that unless they are strengthened and developed, the EU cannot effectively perform its role as a strong global player, just as the United States is now unable to perform this role independently. In the long term, we can only succeed if we work together. The Czech presidency will therefore place emphasis on intensive dialogue with the representatives of the new US administration in the key areas of economy, climate and energy, and cooperation with third countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Middle East).

Also of fundamental importance for the EU's standing in the world is the position taken by the Member States when negotiating a new agreement on partnership with Russia. Events of recent years, and especially recent months, raise a number of questions and underline the necessity of a unified approach from the EU as a whole. Prerequisites for this are an understanding of Russia and a common analysis, and we therefore support the cooperation of experts on Russia across the European Union.

Under the Czech presidency, talks will also continue on enlargement covering the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey. The Western Balkans must not be forgotten because of our economic problems and current international crises. In the case of Croatia, the presidency will do all it can to ensure that this country joins the EU as soon as possible. The positive example of Croatia is a necessary condition for maintaining the European prospects of other Western Balkan countries. We shall certainly do everything possible to support their progress within the Stabilisation and Association Process.

As part of this project, the Czech presidency is also prepared to continue developing a southern dimension to the European Neighbourhood Policy and improving relations with partner countries. This includes strengthening EU-Israel relations and the Middle East peace process in general - the current dramatic events in that region must not deter us. On the contrary, they underline the necessity of finding a peaceful solution.

Last but not least, the priority of Europe in the World includes the area of internal security. This is because current security threats, by their nature, increasingly intrude into internal security. The building of a space of freedom, security and law is a common interest of the EU that touches the lives of all its citizens. In this context, the presidency will make efforts towards further progress in Schengen cooperation, in police and customs cooperation, and in cooperation between Member States in civil and criminal matters.

We are aware that the end of our presidency will be marked by elections to the European Parliament, a more intense political atmosphere, and the need to complete the legislative process for selected legislative acts, so that they do not fall by the wayside. Also on our agenda is the start of discussions about the new form of the European Commission.

It is also up to the Czech presidency to continue the debate with Ireland on the fate of the Treaty of Lisbon. I am convinced that it is necessary to conduct these talks sensitively and with respect for the sovereignty of Irish citizens. Besides, if a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon were to take place in the Czech Republic, all the signs are that it would not pass there either. It is necessary to find a solution that a majority of the Irish will be able to accept. This will undoubtedly help us in our internal political debate as well.

I began by saying that the Czech question is also a European question. Probably no other nation has devoted so much space, effort and time to a debate on its own identity as the Czechs have. What the European Union is going through now, a search for its form and the purpose of its existence, is something we know very well from our own history. In our role as the country holding the presidency, we therefore offer the Community our two hundred years of experience in seeking our own historical role, our own place in the family of European nations.

The Czech relationship to Europe was well described more than seventy years ago by the critic and philosopher František Václav Krejčí: 'We do not see the Czech lands as 'the heart of Europe' in a geographical sense so much as in a cultural and intellectual sense. We are in the deepest heartland of the continent, where influences from all its parts converge; we feel surrounded by all European nations, if not directly, then through the imaginative power of cultural works. We say this because we are at the crossroads of intellectual currents, and it follows that it is our mission to mediate, and especially to mediate between east and west.'

I think these words are an inspiration at the beginning of 2009, when the task facing the Czech Republic over the next six months is to be the moderator of debate in the European Union. Thank you for your attention.

President-in-Office of the Council, we wish to thank you for your most constructive, extensive report, and to wish you all the best for your Presidency!

Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the first few days of 2009 leave no room for doubt. The next six months are going to put the European Union to the test. Europe will have to prove its determination to help its citizens, workers and businesses to face and to overcome the economic crisis. Europe will have to prove its solidarity in emergency situations such as the sudden turn-off of the gas supply that we are experiencing at present. Europe will have to demonstrate its ability to use all its external influence to settle international conflicts as dangerous for world peace as the Gaza conflict is today.

In close cooperation with the Czech Presidency-in-Office of the Council - and I should like to welcome Prime Minister Topolánek and all of his team, I wish them every success at the head of the Council, and, once again, I wish to express my full confidence in the Czech Republic's ability to fulfil this very important role - in close cooperation with the latter and with the European Union, the Commission will strive to demonstrate that the Union is equal to the task. Together, we can show Europeans during these six months why the European Union is so vitally important today. We can show them why it is directly in their interest to voice their opinions by electing MEPs who will sit in the next European Parliament. Let us show our fellow citizens why Europe needs the increase in democracy and effectiveness provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon and why it should benefit from it, and let us also show them why, now more than ever, we need a Treaty of Lisbon that has the backing of all our Member States.

We have a solid foundation from which to start. In 2008, the Union demonstrated that it was capable of taking difficult decisions that commit our societies for many years. The energy and climate-change package clearly illustrates the political will of a visionary and determined Europe. With this package, we are able to take steps towards reaching an ambitious international agreement in December. In 2008, the Union also proved its capacity to adapt to change. It quickly found the means to react to the financial crisis, and it very quickly reached an agreement on a recovery plan to stimulate the European economy without delay. I shall come back to this.

The Union also enters 2009 secure in the strength of its international reputation. It was first in line to help resolve conflicts such as the one between Russia and Georgia; it will not diminish its efforts to help bring together parties in conflict such as in Gaza; and, in fact, it is thanks to the European Union that at least humanitarian corridors have been opened up to help the people of Palestine.

The European Union has also inspired the courses of action that the G20 has taken forward to tackle the economic crisis. It has reaffirmed its full commitment to the opening up of markets, especially to the conclusion of the Doha process for development and trade and also to the Millennium Development Goals, which the rigours of the crisis must not call into question. Europe must also continue to do everything it can to meet today's challenges, and I believe that we have reason to be confident.

In the course of this year the Commission is going to continue to do everything to ensure that we do not lose the momentum that we gained at Washington during the G20. We believe that it is important to continue to pull out all the stops to reform the global financial system, and we have an extraordinary opportunity with the G20 in London. The European Union must speak with one voice in London and must continue to show its leadership in the context of reforming the global financial system.

The Commission will continue to propose important initiatives this year, for example to better regulate the way in which the financial markets operate, to launch a new action programme in the field of justice, freedom and security, and to propose new measures for adapting to climate change. We shall draft our proposals with the budgetary review in mind. Furthermore, we shall pay particular attention to developments in the economic and social situation and shall take all necessary measures. You are still in the process of examining some very important proposals, ladies and gentlemen. We hope that they will be able to be adopted by the end of the parliamentary term, and this, in particular, thanks to the commitment made by the Czech Presidency. I have in mind, more specifically, the proposals linked to the economic and financial crisis, to the social package, to the internal energy market - which current events have shown to be so very crucial - and also to the telecoms package and to road transport.

I will focus my remarks today on energy and on the economy. It is here where Europe's citizens will feel most pressure this year. And it is here where decisive effective action by the European Union can make a real difference.

An issue which requires urgent and decisive European attention is gas, where, through no fault on the European Union side, we have had to plunge into a dispute between Russia and Ukraine on gas transit. The current situation is, in short, both unacceptable and incredible. Unacceptable, as the European Union consumers in some Member States are still without gas after a week without supplies. Incredible, because we remain in this situation the day after an important agreement was signed at senior level with assurances from Russian and Ukrainian leaders that they will implement the agreement and let the gas flow.

Without judging intentions, there is an objective fact: Russia and Ukraine are showing that they are incapable of delivering on their commitments to some European Union Member States. The fact is that Gazprom and Naftogas are unable to fulfil their obligations towards European consumers.

I would like to convey a very clear message to Moscow and Kiev. If the agreement sponsored by the European Union is not honoured as a matter of urgency, the Commission will advise European companies to take this matter to the courts and call on Member States to engage in concerted action to find alternative ways of energy supply and transit.

(Applause)

We will see very soon whether there is a technical hitch or whether there is no political intention to honour the agreement. I shall spell this out. If the agreement is not honoured, it means that Russia and Ukraine can no longer be considered reliable partners for the European Union in matters of energy supply.

(Applause)

In any case, the Commission will come forward with further proposals to improve energy security in Europe, following our strategic energy review of last November.

Implementation of the climate and energy package and the mobilisation of the EUR 5 billion of unspent money from the Community budget in favour of energy interconnections will also be crucial, and I would like to thank the Czech presidency for its support for the fulfilment of this commitment which was taken at the highest level at the last European Council. Europe must act now to avoid future repetitions of this type of situation.

Let me now widen the scope and look at the economy. All the signs are that the economic climate is continuing to worsen. Unemployment is rising. Production figures continue to fall. Things are likely to get worse before becoming better. We must not hide the seriousness of the situation, but we must not be negative and fatalistic. We have designed the right strategies to get us through this crisis. We can cushion its impact on the most vulnerable in our societies, and we can take decisions now which will stand us in good stead when we come out of this crisis, and we hope that we will come out of this crisis.

The top priority for the coming weeks must be to work together to turn our intentions into reality. The recovery plan proposed by the Commission and backed by the European Council is the right response. It provides a stimulus large enough to have an impact in every Member State: around 1.5% of European Union GDP represents a significant amount of money, if well spent.

It aims at maximum effectiveness by hitting two targets with one shot: the long-term health and competitiveness of the European economy, and the need for a short-term stimulus to arrest the downturn. It recognised that this is not an abstract economic debate, but a crisis that affects Europeans, their livelihoods and their well-being. The social consequences of the crisis must be addressed directly.

Finally, it uses the European dimension to best effect through appropriate coordination to ensure that action in one Member State has a positive knock-on in the others and sparks a positive interaction.

To put this programme into action we need the active commitment of the presidency, the support of individual Member States and of the Council, and the clear engagement of this Parliament. It means, in particular, swift agreement on the legal proposals in the package, from accelerating the use of the Structural Funds to the revised European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, and agreement on the release of EUR 5 billion of unspent commitments to strategic projects, with a particular focus on energy and energy interconnections. The Russian-Ukrainian crisis has made it clearer than ever that filling in the gaps in our energy infrastructure is to the strategic benefit of all Europe. It means effective implementation of the plan to release a stimulus of around EUR 200 billion into our economy. And, of course, it means keeping the situation under review because, as you will understand, the situation may evolve.

As we take this short-term action we must not lose sight of the long term. We can work best if we build on some of the successes on which Europe's prosperity has been based, such as the internal market. The motto of the Czech presidency, 'Europe without barriers', is indeed an important and inspiring message, but as Prime Minister Topolánek said, let me also emphasise that a Europe without barriers needs rules - European rules. Rules to ensure a level playing field between Member States and between economic operators. Rules to ensure that the benefits of European integration are shared out amongst citizens. Rules to ensure the long-term sustainability of our way of life.

We will work closely with the presidency and with this Parliament in this direction because the Europe we want and the Europe we need is one that combines freedom, solidarity and security for the benefit of all Europeans.

(Applause)

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, having only just taken office, the Czech Presidency finds itself faced with considerable difficulties and entrusted with the onerous task of managing three major crises: the continuation of the economic and social crisis, the gas crisis bringing Russia and Ukraine into conflict and seriously affecting the Union and its neighbourhood, and the outbreak of another war in the Middle East.

In the face of these challenges, the only stance that our countries can take is to join forces, show solidarity and take both coordinated and determined action.

I am pleased to note that the Czech Presidency, in close cooperation with the European Commission, has acted swiftly and as one in the energy crisis bringing Kiev and Moscow into conflict with one another. Although a solution is not yet in place, we cannot accept being held hostage; we need to act forcefully. You are right, Mr Topolánek and Mr Barroso. By including energy among its three major priorities, the Czech Presidency fully grasped what will be one of Europe's major challenges in the years to come, namely our energy independence and the necessary diversification of our energy resources.

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is, like all European citizens, extremely concerned about this conflict and about the threat that it poses to European countries as a whole. We cannot tolerate EU Member States being held hostage in this conflict, and this demonstrates, once again, the urgent need for agreement on a European energy policy. We must therefore give serious thought to ways of reducing our dependence and must take action to implement energy mixes.

Ladies and gentlemen, the situation prevailing in the Middle East also takes us back to the need to accept our responsibilities at international level. Yes, Europe is the world's biggest donor of humanitarian aid - we can be proud of that, and it must continue - but it is not humanitarian aid on its own that is going to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

What Europe needs is a strong, articulate political will, one with enough human, military and financial resources to make it a credible actor on the world stage. Why does the world have its eyes glued to Barack Obama? Because Europe is not yet capable of putting forward his vision, ideals and knowledge. Europe has criticised, and rightly so, the unilateralism of the current US administration, and if, as I hope, things change with the new occupant of the White House, are we ready to guarantee our share of multilateralism? Are we ready to release the military resources, not to go to war, but to guarantee peace? Are we ready to release the budgetary resources needed to give us the means to conduct our policy?

Mr Topolánek, you have rightly made the Union's external relations one of your priorities. Current events provide many examples of the urgency with which this subject should be treated, be it in relations with Russia, the United States or the Middle East, not to mention with the Mediterranean, the Balkans, Africa or the emerging countries. Europeans expect Europe to exert its influence on the international stage; all the opinion polls have shown this for years. Why wait?

Lastly, the Presidency-in-Office will have to cope with the economic and social crisis by overseeing the implementation of the national recovery plans, by leading the European Union at the G20 summit to be held in London in April. We call on the Czech Presidency to work hand in hand with the European Commission to define and implement, together with our international partners, rules to be imposed on economic operators.

The European Union must protect its social model, the social market economy, and must promote the implementation on the world financial markets of a market supervision system similar to that which prevails in our countries. Europe must be united and determined in the management of the financial crisis and of the economic crisis also.

We are counting on you, Mr Topolánek, on your Presidency, to show drive and to guide Europe during this difficult period.

(Applause)

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President. Prime Minister Topolánek, you are heading the last Council Presidency of the current term of the European Parliament. This parliamentary term started with the Dutch Presidency, headed by Mr Balkenende, and no one remembers what he said here and what we replied. Therefore, what we discuss and achieve together now, in the next five or six months, will be the fundamental precondition for a high turnout in the European elections. If people see that we - the Presidency, Parliament and the Commission - have come together and successfully met the challenges facing us in a crisis situation, I am sure that this will create a fundamentally positive and constructive mood in the run-up to the European elections.

That is why we, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, have an interest in the success of your Presidency. I had some doubts in the first few days of the Presidency, when Mr Schwarzenberg said that Israel was exercising its right of self-defence and aligned himself with one party in a period when the European Union was needed as a mediator. He put that right, which is a good thing. Mr Topolánek, you yourself said, 'we shall not mediate in the gas conflict'. You have now put that right.

There were some initial problems, but they have now been overcome, which is a good thing. If the initial uncertainties - and I should like to emphasise that Mr Barroso was right about this - now in fact lead to your activities producing positive results, you will have the full support of our group. That also goes for the speech you held here this morning, which we all listened to and noted with great goodwill and also with a feeling of confidence for the next few months.

I should like to take up one of the points you raised. You quoted my friend Mr Daul - a clever man, but in this case he was wrong - who said here that the financial crisis did not represent the defeat of capitalism. It is true that it has not defeated capitalism - unfortunately that still exists - but it has defeated the capitalists who told us for years that we had no need of rules, as the market would regulate itself, would regulate things itself. These capitalists have suffered a defeat, and when you - having up to now indulged in policies similar to those of the people who said we had no need of rules - tell the House this morning that we need a Europe of rules, I can only agree: we do indeed need more rules to manage, to overcome the financial crisis. Mr Topolánek, I should like to wish you a warm welcome to the club of regulators in Europe - it seems that you, too, have learned your lesson.

(Applause)

Prime Minister, this is a decisive period in international politics. If the European Union wishes to assume the global role described by the Commission President, among others, in the matters of energy security or the Gaza conflict, it cannot allow itself to disintegrate; we need the Union of 27 as a strong economic and political bloc. Only if we do not allow ourselves to be divided will we be strong. After all, the strength of others is that they can always hope for Europeans to speak with different voices. Karel Schwarzenberg says Israel is acting in self-defence, whilst Louis Michel says the country is violating international law. If that is what the European Union is like, there is no need to negotiate with it.

If Russia or Ukraine believes that one half of Europe is on their side and the other half on the other, we are not strong. Yet we are strong if we have a strong treaty basis; which is provided by the Treaty of Lisbon. If this Treaty is ratified under your Presidency by your government - which, of course, has been punished enough given your country's president - that would send out a strong signal that Europe is strong.

(Applause)

Prague Castle is the seat of Václav Klaus, who will be speaking to us in February, when he comes to Brussels. Prague Castle was also the seat of Charles IV, as the Prime Minister mentioned. Charles IV built the Golden Road from Prague to Nuremberg, which, in his day, was a tremendous feat, and was intended to connect peoples and nations. Before he became German emperor, with his seat in Prague, Charles IV was Duke of Luxembourg. Therefore, this period in Prague Castle was truly European. Let us hope that Prague Castle is soon occupied once more by someone as European as this.

(Applause)

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, on behalf of my group I welcome the President-in-Office. We wish you success, President-in-Office.

A great Czech once said: 'I am no longer a rookie: goals are expected of me; scoring is my job.' Well, what was true for Milan Baroš is also true for you and your ministers. Your work programme outlines those goals.

On the economy, you have said that barriers to the market - internal and external - must come down, and that Europe's answer to recession must not be Keynesian spending alone, but that we must strive for fairer competition, trade liberalisation, and freer movement of people and goods across national boundaries.

These are hard times for Europe's citizens. Your recipe will be contested, but not by Liberals and Democrats. For the experience of the Czech Republic - and so many others - proves the power of markets in lifting people out of poverty.

On energy, you are right to pursue the aims of the Strategic Energy Review, but the Review and our climate change targets should not be a ceiling to our ambitions, rather a springboard to greater and greener heights, to force the pace on Europe's switch from fossil fuels to renewables and put an end to our umbilical energy dependence.

Currently, our monitors are blocked from Ukrainian dispatch centres. Russia claims it cannot export gas because Ukraine will not transport it, and Ukraine claims it has no gas to export because the Russians have switched the transit route. Meanwhile, industry across eastern and central Europe is suffering, some people are freezing in their homes, and there are moves to reopen nuclear reactors condemned as unsafe by our Union.

That is not a functioning energy market. It is the plot of a Marx Brothers' film: A Night in the Cold - or, rather, twelve nights and counting. So stop talking about the internal market in energy and the development of renewals: use your presidency's powers to mobilise the necessary investment.

On the EU in the world, we welcome your presidency's ambitions. Europe should play a leading role in resolving conflicts, supporting development and promoting human rights.

But, if you truly seek to widen the EU's capacity to act, why have you delayed yet again ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon? If you want to prevent weapons proliferation, why are you building a ballistic missile defence system on European soil?

(Applause)

And if you want peace in the Middle East, why allow Europe to be ridiculed by so many different peace missions?

As events unfold in Gaza, it becomes harder for many of us to remain detached. This House will never unite around a common position if we seek to apportion blame precisely, but fault can be found on both sides, violence denounced, and an immediate ceasefire sought.

There is no excuse for Hamas rocket attacks, but nor for the use of dense inert metal explosives to maim civilians.

The tag line for your Presidency is 'Europe without Borders'. Perhaps its author had in mind that old Czech proverb: 'Protect yourself not by fences but by your friends'.

President-in-Office, we, your fellow Europeans, are your friends. Your country's President compared the European Union to the Soviet Union. Well, we do not bug private discussions, as he did to Members of this House.

He who wishes to remain on the margin is free to do so. But this is a Union of friends - friends, equals and partners.

Your presidency's aims are bold. We support them. Stick to them, and we will stick by you.

(Applause)

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (GA) Mr President, a better political and economic relationship must be promoted between the European Union and America. I hope that the Czech Republic Presidency will address this in the coming months. America will have a new president next week; and we all have major challenges ahead of us. Certainly we must regulate the financial markets soon.

President-in-Office, we welcome you to this House today, in particular we welcome the presidency of the Czech Republic to take over the leadership of the European Union at a very crucial time. On behalf of my group, the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, we also offer our support towards your programme to guarantee that there is a clear and stronger voice for the European Union, as well as the Member States within the European Union.

Many colleagues have spoken already with regard to the current series of crises, and, at the outset, I want to pay tribute to both your presidency and to President Barroso for the decisive action that was taken when the issue with regard to the cutting-off of the gas supply to the European Union was brought about, and not just because we apportioned blame but because we immediately intervened on a social level, an economic level and on a political level to bring both sides to sit down to talk each other where they had failed before.

That is why it is important under the presidency now to expand this idea of partnership with the East, that we look to the East and to the Balkans because they are the fault lines within the European Union at the present time, not only because of political instability but also because of our interdependence on energy and economic activity.

Finally, because time is so short, you spoke about the fifth freedom - the freedom of the movement of knowledge. That knowledge can give us the tools that we now require to move up the chain of the innovation, research and abilities that can be made towards us. Through your own history - individually, as well as a country - of totalitarianism, freedom, and greatness in education and innovation, we now look to you to give us the next step to where the European Union must move.

Let me finish with a short quote from John F. Kennedy who said in his inauguration speech: 'We stand today on the edge of a new frontier. But the new frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises - it is a set of challenges'. I know you have the capacity to meet those challenges.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the very moment that we are having this debate, bombs are falling on the people of Gaza. I think that our greatest priority as MEPs, and the greatest priority of the Council and the Commission, should be to stop the bombing of the people of Gaza. I think that is our duty at the moment, above and beyond deciding who is responsible and above and beyond the differences among us on that point. I must say that our group, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, has rather a clear idea on this, as we will say this afternoon.

Mr President, you began your observations by speaking of medieval times, an age that was violent, remote, dark with a few lights, but certainly violent and dark. In fact, regardless of the efforts of your coalition partners, the programme for these six months seems to us to bear the strong stamp of a slightly passé vision, let us say; the strong mark of a conformist, ultra laissez-faire approach, dominated by business and the market, which is now, Mr President, out of fashion.

I think that it is also a little indifferent with regard to the need for policies, laws and instruments on social issues that meet the real needs of citizens, and a little off-track in its view of environmental policy on the fight against climate change as a cost or an obstacle, instead of a major opportunity for innovation and sustainable growth. It even, if you will permit me, leans a little towards machismo, in saying that there is a need to review the Barcelona objectives on support structures for children, naturally with the aim of sending women back to the home.

This then, is a programme that sees migrants solely as a security issue, that looks to NATO rather than to multilateralism, that is still toying with the missiles issue, and does not really place the emphasis on what for us is truly important in foreign policy, namely cohesion: the cohesion of our Union.

Nor are we pleased with the fact that no mention is made of such an important sector as that of combating discrimination, and on this point I would like to know what priority you place on adopting the directive on discrimination. To sum up, this is a programme that reveals a world with many dangers and few opportunities.

You spoke of your mediation work in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine over gas, but it can be seen very clearly from your programme that it will not be during your Presidency that clear action is taken against those countries, such as Slovakia and Bulgaria, that are taking the opportunity presented by the gas crisis to reopen dangerous, obsolete nuclear plants. Additionally, Mr President, please remember that there is no safe nuclear power; perhaps there will be in 30, 40, 50 or 60 years - I do not know - but right now it does not exist. It is therefore not worth discussing it, because it is a very expensive mirage, and certainly distracts us from our real priorities.

Energy security and solidarity can be achieved through strong action, with no distractions, to promote energy efficiency and energy saving, which is an enormous sphere for innovation, employment and reduction of consumption. This is the roadmap that we should use to respond to the gas war, among other things. We are making a specific request to you, Mr President; we are asking you to persuade your colleagues to place at the heart of the spring European Council the aim of making a binding commitment to the target of 20% energy cuts by 2020, the Cinderella of the energy package last year, and to review your priorities by assessing in a less superficial manner the decisions taken in December regarding renewable energy.

Mr President, one last word on the future of Europe: the Treaty of Lisbon is not perfect, but it is really strange that you have not yet ratified it. Therefore, please, take this opportunity to explain to us why, and to tell us when you will do so.

(Applause)

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) The President-in-Office of the Council has talked about our complex historical experiences. I take the view that the Czech Presidency is an opportunity for us to help overcome the existing division of Europe into West and East. In his novel Schweik, Jaroslav Hašek once made a pun, a German-Hungarian pun, kelet oszt, nyugat veszti, which loosely translated means that the East gives and the West takes. Consequently, that is the way history has progressed. I believe that we have an opportunity to bring an end to this. I think that the Czech Presidency is also an opportunity for us to liberate ourselves from our own dogmas and prejudices. I offer, as an example of such dogmas, the recent article by Václav Klaus advising us how to overcome this financial crisis by temporarily softening social, environmental and health standards because, he says, these standards obstruct rational human behaviour. I would say that the opposite is true, that the Czech Presidency should help to ensure that we have a socially and ecologically driven economy, that is, an economy powered by social and environmental factors. I would like to note here that I agree with Prime Minister Topolánek on one thing: the need to rely on the flow of innovation to bring us out of the crisis and the need to develop - in the words of Richard Florida, if you will - a creative class that will help our economies escape the impasse.

I mean to say that we all need the courage to change. Stefan George, the great German writer, says that the future belongs to those who are capable of change. I hope that we will be capable of changing, our enslavement to the past, that we will be capable of closing the divide between Eastern and Western Europe and forming a single unit that is free from complexes about the superiority of the United States or anyone else. I should like to end my contribution by pointing out that, while Prime Minister Topolánek's speech was peppered with noble intentions, resolutions and goals, and while it is quite right and proper for the Czech Presidency to set out ambitious projects - I do have one sceptical comment, in the form of an aphorism by the Polish satirist Jerzy Lec, to the effect that going on a holy pilgrimage will not stop your feet from sweating.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (CS) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, no country has commenced its Presidency under such a barrage of negativity or been subjected to so many dire predictions as the Czech Republic. The French press in particular is falling over itself to depict the storm clouds gathering over the wretched Union because it is no longer presided over by someone as infinitely able as the French President but has instead been taken over by a band of Czechs.

Those Czechs indeed, who have caused such deadly offence by not yet ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon, under which a few large countries will permanently usurp decision-making within the Union. To make matters worse, those Czechs have a popular president with a disagreeably sharp intellect who not only opposes the Treaty of Lisbon, but can competently call attention to the ever-widening democratic deficit in the Union. It was because of such a deficit that, twenty years ago, we overthrew socialism in our country.

Yet the Czech Presidency is pursuing restrained objectives and sensible priorities, and will be very successful. Let us wish it well and give it our support, despite the embarrassing howls from the Czech Socialists who have long since exchanged love of country for proletarian internationalism, and thus today, on the instructions of their socialist masters, venomously seek to destabilise the Czech Presidency. I could not care less!

The plot is for the Czech Presidency to demonstrate that small countries are inept and that it is time permanently to hand over the reins of the Union, via the Treaty of Lisbon, to the large, capable and experienced countries. This is what makes this Presidency so important. It will prove that smaller countries are equally capable of managing the EU. What sets them apart is that they steer clear of megalomania, self-centredness, public relations hysteria, the self-indulgent hyperactivity of certain presidents and constant bragging about non-existent achievements.

I wholeheartedly wish Prime Minister Topolánek, Deputy Prime Minister Vondra and the rest much success. This will be more than just the success of my own country; it will be the success of a small and new country. That is the important message for the EU. You see, we have experience in one other area too. While the largest EU countries have lived as predictable democracies and have learned to deal only with standard situations, we have spent half a century living under a highly non-standard totalitarian regime. This has taught us to find creative solutions to non-standard situations, which is going to come in useful.

(CS) Mr President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union, ladies and gentlemen, I am proud of the dexterity and capacity for action demonstrated by the Czech Presidency over the issue of gas supplies to EU countries. And I would be delighted if the President-in-Office of the Council, Mirek Topolánek, in the talks on the future of the EU, that is, on the Treaty of Lisbon, could show the same determination as we witnessed in the gas negotiations with Vladimir Putin and Yulia Tymoshenko.

The ambition of the President-in-Office of the Council should be to play the role of a group leader, not just a maintenance man. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have a unique chance to demonstrate that all states, regardless of size, are equal partners in the European Union. If you can keep your nerve, Mr Topolánek, you will go down in history.

You have been given the opportunity and the power to declare publicly that the Treaty of Lisbon is dead in the wake of the Irish referendum and that it has led us up a blind alley. You are in a position to propose the creation of a new visionary document which will constitute a true common denominator of the interests of individual EU members and which will win the support of citizens in referendums. There is no need to promote blindly the Treaty of Lisbon, which reinforces the undemocratic power of officials while papering over the failure of the European elite to reach agreement and, in particular, their reluctance to be held accountable to citizens.

Mr Topolánek, you represent here a country which, in the last century, succeeded in breaking free from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which survived the treachery of Munich, and which withstood the horrors of Nazism. You represent a country where people took a stand against the invasion by Warsaw Pact troops. You represent a country which spent 40 years under the thumb of the Soviet Union, which spiralled down inevitably into planned poverty under the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, and which shook off a totalitarian regime without shedding blood.

I refuse to believe that as prime minister of a country with such historical experience, you would want decisions on social policy, energy, taxes, justice and security to be taken anywhere other than in the individual Member States. I do not believe that you actually want the exclusive powers of the Union to overrule the powers of Member States. I do not believe that you want the Union to intervene in the protection and improvement of human health, industry, culture, tourism, education or sport. I do not believe that you welcome the fact that, in more than fifty areas, the Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the right of national veto and lowers the voting weight of smaller countries, including the Czech Republic.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council and Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, have the courage to tell the other 26 Heads of State what you say in private at home. Say that the Treaty of Lisbon is no good and that you reject it. Do this in the name of democracy and freedom. This will not earn you the applause of the so-called 'European elite', Commission officials, or even the majority of this Parliament. But what you will earn is the admiration and respect of citizens, who are easily forgotten here, and you will boost your prestige in your own country. You are presiding over 450 million citizens, not just a few politicians and officials.

In the Czech Republic, you often refer to the Treaty of Lisbon as a necessary evil. Yet what makes the evil necessary? Stop persuading yourself that the Treaty of Lisbon is a necessary evil. It is simply evil, and you can change it. Initiate work on a new document, refer to the Rome Treaties and the Messina Declaration for inspiration, and promote the common interest of the European Union. That is, freedom, prosperity, competitiveness and security, not euro-health, euro-taxes, euro-parks and euro-beer.

Mr Topolánek, necessary evil is a coward's alibi. You are no coward, or at least I hope you are not. You are backed up by the Irish referendum, you are supported by the 55% of Czech citizens who are opposed to the Treaty of Lisbon, and you can rely on the powerful voice of the Czech President, Václav Klaus. I am sure you know that the greatest cowardice is knowing what should be done and not doing it.

President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Thank you for all your questions and comments on my speech. In the Czech Republic, too, we have a parliament where we are used to a plurality of views, so some of the views came as no surprise to me, although I could not fully agree with them. However, I would like to repeat at the outset - and I say this in reply to a whole range of questions - that I feel my role here to be that of President of the European Council, and during these six months I do not intend to push my personal or party-political views; but I feel I must respond on one issue, because it concerns me personally, and that is the very harsh assessments of the Czech president Václav Klaus, a president who has made a name for himself with European citizens, which I think is a good thing, and I am proud of it. Václav Klaus is the icon of the Czech transformation in the 1990s, and it is, I might add, thanks to him that we are successful today and that we have emerged safely from those first ten years. I am proud of the fact that we came safely through the Velvet Revolution, proud of the fact that we drove the Russian troops out of our country in 1991, that we joined NATO in 1999, joined the European Union in 2004, and that last year we eliminated the barriers between EU countries and can now travel from Lisbon to Vilnius without passports or any restrictions. I am proud to have been part of that, and to be standing here today, and it seems incredible to me that the Czech Republic now holds the presidency of a community which has a population of nearly half a billion and comprises as many as 27 countries. If the European Union loses the capability - leaving aside the question of rules and unification - for free public discussion, and seeks to unify this discussion too, then it will not be my European Union. If we lose the capability, the possibility of freely expressing our views, it is the road to disaster, and I strongly object to the attacks on Václav Klaus. He has a unique ability to insert his views into this unified and, I would say, over-correct discussion, and thereby set the parameters for fresh discussion. Free discussion should be a matter of pride for the European Union in future, and should never be stifled.

As for the Treaty of Lisbon - which deserves a mention - I would say it is essentially a 'middling' treaty. A little worse than the Treaty of Nice and a little better than the one that followed. That happens to be my personal view of it. I negotiated this treaty on behalf of the Czech Republic; we approved this treaty in parliament, I signed this treaty and I shall vote for it in parliament - but once again the idea that we should dictate in advance to individual Member States that they have to ratify a document, that they do not have a national right to follow their own procedure and decide for themselves whether to accept it, seems to me absurd. We need to change the institutions, we need to improve the functioning of the European mechanisms, we need to simplify the rules; whether all this is in the Treaty of Lisbon, I am not entirely sure. Each of us had a slightly different view of how it should look, and for me, Mrs Bobošíková, it is a compromise, perhaps a very complex compromise, and I shall support its ratification.

At least a few words should be said about the situation in the Middle East and Europe's position on that conflict. For a long time the European Union has been seen as 'a very big payer but not a player'. This means it has made a big contribution to investments, including humanitarian and development investments in that region, but has not pulled its weight within the 'quartet', and has not shown the responsibility which participation in the quartet entails. I think the existing situation, with the arrival of the new American administration, gives the European Union an opportunity to invest not only money in that region, but also its problem-solving initiatives and a higher level of activity. I do not wish to be the judge of one side or the other, because the fact is that the Israelis have a right to live safely without rocket attacks, and I have been in Sderot and Ashkelon and other parts of Israel. Likewise, the people of Palestine have the right, at this moment, to create their own state and a functioning administration, and to live a safe and decent life. This 60-year conflict has solved nothing. I have no illusions that we will solve it now; our short-term aim is to achieve a truce and a cessation of hostilities. I would like to assess not only the role of the European negotiators, and the mission led by Karel Schwarzenberg which has departed for the region, but also, of course, the role of the Arab states in the region, which has been positive. This can be said of Egypt's role or, for example, the role of Turkey and other countries. I think that after certain conditions have been met, such as a clampdown on arms smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, we could jointly achieve a situation - within the global security architecture, or through the European Union alone or only a part of that global architecture - where conflict could be ended, although I am not convinced that it would happen quickly.

On the questions of energy, energy security, climate change, and the European Union's role in the process: it should be obvious to everyone that if the European Union's leadership on the issue of climate change - whatever my own views on the subject - does not gain support from economies and major players such as the USA, the Russian Federation, Brazil, India and China, then this initiative by the European Union is isolated, a voice in the wilderness and, on a global scale, worthless. Our role is to persuade the other world powers and the biggest producers of emissions to follow our example, and this is where I see our role in the first half of this year, because in my view the climate and energy package is now signed and sealed, and is simply awaiting implementation, after it has been approved in the European Parliament, of course - as I hope it will be. The whole question of the energy mix is sometimes over-ideologised, over-politicised, and in my view the European Union should take a very practical and pragmatic approach to it, and should be looking at the short-term, mid-term and long-term targets, and the short-term, mid-term and long-term means of achieving those targets. I cannot imagine that countries which are 90% dependent on coal-based manufacture, such as Poland, are capable of radically, in some very ruthless manner, changing that dependence within the space of fifteen or twenty years. We must of course invest in new coal technologies, 'clean coal technologies', and in improvements to plant efficiency, because we cannot unilaterally and very rapidly change this dependence. We must discuss this, and must invest in innovation, and of course gradually adjust the energy mix in the directions we are talking about - in other words, in the direction of greater environmental protection, less dependence on fossil fuels and, of course, secure and relatively cheap supplies of energy so that Europe can remain competitive, able to compete on a global scale. The whole Russian-Ukrainian crisis is not only a crisis of confidence, but one where commercial, economic, political, geopolitical and strategic interests are involved. It is a multi-layered problem, and I certainly do not wish to be the judge of who at this moment is the short-term culprit, because for us, for the European Union and for European countries, both Russia and Ukraine are currently to blame. Russia is not supplying the gas, and Ukraine is blocking the transit of gas; in this matter, we must exert our influence in the region and must seek ways of ending this problem in the short term and - in the medium- to long-term - diversifying the sources and the transit routes, and ensuring the interconnection of electricity and gas systems in the European Union, so that we can achieve what has not yet been achieved: solidarity and the implementation of emergency crisis plans, because, although I do not want to be a prophet of doom, the crisis is not over yet, and the situation in Slovakia, Bulgaria and the Balkans is very grave and critical.

Based on my notes on what has been said by representatives of individual Parliamentary groups, it is not at all my view that our agenda is too liberal or too conservative; our agenda arises from the long-term aims and long-term agenda of the European Union, and the Czech contribution to it, the Czech imprint, showed itself in the very first days of the New Year as being well-conceived, because our emphasis on energy security may lead us, unexpectedly and none too soon, into some very thorough, in-depth discussion on how to ensure the independence and freedom of the European Union, which presupposes independence or less dependence on energy imports and sources outside the European Union.

Questions have been raised here regarding the anti-discrimination directive, the Barcelona Targets, and the low emphasis placed on social questions. I do not see it this way - though of course we have tried to reduce these basic targets to a rather symbolic form - because we certainly do not underestimate either the anti-discrimination question, or the question of protection for women. I assure you that we do indeed have very extensive experience of children having to stay in various institutions, and for us it is crucial that women and families should have a choice: that they should be able to choose whether they will, at a certain time, devote themselves to childcare, and we want to create the most varied mechanisms to make this possible, so that the family is not forced into a position of social need; and it is equally important that there should be an adequate range of options from child institutions, and believe me, a country such as the Czech Republic has a wealth of experience of this from totalitarian times, when this principle was rather forcibly imposed.

I think this is probably all I need to say by way of introduction. If there is anything Czechs do not lack, it is self-confidence, so I would like end by saying that we do not suffer from the slightest feeling of inferiority because the Czech Republic is the smallest of the big countries or the biggest of the small countries; we are the twelfth largest country in the European Union. I would simply like to remind you that when the Swedish presidency took over in 2001, the articles in the press were just the same as they were in November and December in the European media, doubting whether the Euro-sceptic Swedes, who do not have the euro and do not want it, were capable of tackling the issue of the single currency, whether they were capable of leading discussions on ratification of the Treaty of Nice, and indeed, whether they were capable, as a new country, of leading the European Union at all. If we now exchange the Treaty of Nice for the Treaty of Lisbon, and replace Sweden with the Czech Republic, those articles look exactly the same. We have no inferiority complex about that.

(CS) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I will continue with the Czech theme that has been set in motion here. What we are seeing is something you spotted and acknowledged yourself and which you stressed in your speech, namely that the elections to the European Parliament are fast approaching and you are very likely to hear a number of contributions both from Czechs and from other MEPs that are influenced more by the mounting pre-election atmosphere than by any attempt to evaluate the Presidency programme you have presented.

I believe that in the first days of the Czech Presidency, the Czech government has been confronted with a test of unprecedented magnitude and that it has passed this test with flying colours. I am very glad that a number of my fellow Members have emphasised this here. It has also become apparent that the 3E, the three priorities of the economy, energy and external relations, have been identified quite correctly as Czech priorities, because the events with which the year began - the conflict in Gaza and the crisis over gas supplies to Europe - can be grouped under at least two of these priorities. A fact we failed to acknowledge openly before has also emerged clearly, namely that energy security is an absolutely key issue for the future of the European Union and is more important than anything else, including I dare say the Treaty of Lisbon, since the Treaty will provide us neither with light nor with heat. Energy security is an issue not just for one Presidency, but for many years; it is a great challenge and a great honour for the Czech Republic to be able to make progress on this issue. At the same time, it shows how all of the 3E are interlinked, because energy security has implications for the economy, which will always feel the initial impact of restrictions, as well as for external relations, since we cannot safeguard Europe's energy security and diversity of supply without an Eastern Partnership, a neighbourhood policy or further enlargement of the European Union to include, for example, Turkey.

I believe that the Czech Republic will address itself to this task, that it will move this debate forward, and that it will leave its indelible mark on the Czech Presidency and the EU leadership. I wish all of us every success in this respect.

(CS) Prime Minister Topolánek, President Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know anyone in this Parliament, any Member, who does not want the Czech Presidency to be a success. Europeans in the east, west, north and south, in Old Europe and in New Europe, wish for the success of the European Union and the success of the Czech Presidency. It goes without saying that Members of this Parliament, irrespective of whether they come from the social democratic, populist, liberal or green camp, also have the same hope. Regrettably, however, I repeat regrettably, there are certain fears and certain doubts prevailing among the European public and even in this Parliament as to whether the Czech Republic will manage the Presidency successfully. There are several reasons for this.

The first reason is the instability within the ruling coalition in the Czech Republic. My fellow Members, for example, find it incomprehensible that, at the very beginning of the Presidency, ministers have been replaced and the government has been reorganised. How can new ministers, such as the ministers for transport and for regional development, who have no European experience, cope successfully with the European agenda and preside over the European Council? Nor can my fellow Members understand why, for example, the Christian Democrats who are currently in office in the Czech Republic and who are fighting for survival, should have chosen to hold their electoral congress during the Czech Presidency.

The relationship between the government and the Czech President has also provoked a number of questions, as we have already heard. I would like a clear answer as to whether the Czech Presidency, or the Czech government, agrees with the views of President Václav Klaus, who rejects the Treaty of Lisbon, denies global warming and argues that the current financial and economic crisis was caused by over-regulation and the existence of social and environmental policies.

There are also serious grounds for doubt concerning the failure to do your homework and honour the pledge made to Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy that the Czech government, as the country holding the Presidency, would ratify the Treaty of Lisbon by the end of last year. Prime Minister, I would like you to make a clear statement as to when the Treaty will be ratified in the Czech Parliament. I would also like a clear statement as to why ratification of the Treaty has been made contingent on the ratification of bilateral agreements with the United States over the radar issue and on a law dealing with the relationship between the two chambers of the Czech Parliament.

The Treaty of Lisbon, as we have heard here, is a necessity. We need it, among other things, in order to fulfil the Czech priorities. These priorities, I think, are correct, but in order to be in a position to continue pursuing them in the future, for example in terms of energy security and a greater role for Europe in external relations, we need closer cooperation and, to that end, we need the Treaty of Lisbon.

In conclusion, I wish the Czech Presidency the best of luck and much success. This is in the interests of both the Czech Republic and the European Union.

(DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, the European Union has had six months of drama, dynamism and declarations under President Sarkozy, and now you have taken over, Mr President, with a sense of humour that may take some getting used to. I hope that yours will be a constructive, productive Council Presidency, as the EU faces immense challenges. You yourself mentioned the war between Israel and Hamas and the economic crisis, and of course there are also internal issues such as the Treaty of Lisbon.

Allow me to take up one aspect of your speech: energy security. You stressed its fundamental importance, and I agree with you that energy is the basic raw material of modern society. Our lifestyle, our economy, our further development - all of this depends upon it. We cannot be dependent on energy supplies. Independence requires that we have a good mix of various energy sources.

Therefore, I hope that with your open, direct manner, you will be able to persuade your European partners to engage in a new discussion on nuclear power and, in particular, to encourage the German Government to end its anti-nuclear policy. This is a requirement of security for our continent.

There is a great deal to be done, and this is your opportunity to take Europe forward. I should like to express my thanks and my confidence in successful cooperation to come.

(PL) Madam President, President-in-Office, there is only one yardstick against which to measure the Czech presidency appointed by your Government, and the dramatic events of recent weeks, and that is the energy policy of the European Union.

Today we are coming to the end of yet another round of energy disputes between Russia and Europe, but we still have no systemic guarantee or political framework to avoid similar problems in future. After the energy crises of 2004, 2006 and 2008 it is high time for the European Union to get on with diversification, not just of energy supplies, but of the very sources of energy we so urgently need. For this reason I expect the Czech presidency to take fresh steps towards securing financial support for the Nabucco gas pipeline and a more vigorous energy policy in Central Asia. I therefore expect the Northern Gas Pipeline to be struck off the list of the European Commission's priority, for failure to take these measures will mean waking up next winter to the same problems as we have now.

- (FR) Madam President, Europe's credibility is at stake with regard to the energy issue. Thank you, Mr Barroso, for your very clear words this morning.

These Gazprom and Naftogaz companies, this performance that we have been seeing for two, three, four, five days now, it is unbelievable! From now on, we have to say: 'Gentlemen, enough is enough!' To do that, we have to act together. Thank you for the good coordination! Can someone here explain to me what these visits to Moscow by the Slovakian and the Bulgarian Prime Ministers are all about? This already shows Gazprom that we are not united. Explain these two visits to me.

Moving on, I believe that the Commission has a major role to play: we need to establish emergency gas plans. The first thing to do is to recast the Gas Security Directive, otherwise the European Commission will not have enough political power to act. European coordination is required. Secondly, we need an emergency 'Central and Eastern Europe gas infrastructure' plan, with the money that is available.

Thirdly, we need to combine Europe's economic recovery with a major energy investment plan. The main priority is the buildings in Eastern Europe. It is scandalous to see such a small proportion of the Structural Funds being invested in something useful! Rather than having stadiums built for European championships, I would prefer money to be invested for our citizens - in buildings, heating networks and renewable energies.

My final remark is that we are more dependent when it comes to nuclear energy than we are with respect to gas. We import 99% of our nuclear fuels! Stop linking nuclear energy to independence! Mrs Koch-Mehrin, you sound ridiculous when you mention that.

(CS) Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I am quite sure there is no one in this hall who envies the Czech Presidency the circumstances in which it has assumed the leadership of the European Community. Prime Minister, one of the main slogans you have proclaimed for your Presidency is a Europe without Barriers. This slogan can be interpreted in different ways, depending on one's political and personal experience. Personally, I believe that it cannot be understood as nothing more than a further relaxation of financial and market mechanisms; rather, I see it as a challenge to refine what Europe can rightly be proud of, namely the European social model. I am not thinking here simply of the chance to remove meaningless constraints, or of the prospects for employment. I view this opportunity as a chance to give the mobile workforce credible guarantees of equal treatment. This may include, for example, positive developments over the unresolved issue of cross-border health care during the Czech Presidency.

If Europe is to be without barriers, it might be good to start by not creating any new ones. Europe is not only the European Community; Europe also encompasses our neighbours, who belong not only geographically but also historically to Europe. I would like to know your opinion on this topic, as well as the strategy the Presidency will apply to our neighbours along the borders of the European Union. I am thinking mainly of Serbia and the sensitive issue of Kosovo, and I am also thinking particularly of Moldova, which has taken many positive steps towards closer relations with the European Community. In my view, not creating barriers also entails a principled but European policy towards Russia and China. It is necessary to seek a balanced relationship with these countries too, especially where European interests are involved.

Europe without Barriers also means paying serious attention to the fact that numerous minorities are to be found within the territory of the EU. This includes one minority we are reluctant to discuss in this Parliament, namely the non-citizens in some states of the European Union. The key to addressing these issues hinges, inter alia, on the introduction of a new policy, in other words in eliminating the policy of double standards. You have said that freedom and decision-making are of fundamental importance. Give the citizens of your own country a chance to decide in a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon and the siting of the US radar installation. This will confirm the sincerity of your words.

- (FR) Madam President, on behalf of my Independence and Democracy Group, I should like respectfully to welcome the Czech Presidency, and to do so by expressing the high regard in which we hold it, for the Czech people have experienced some great hardships and are better equipped than many of us to understand the value and the meaning of the word freedom. I should also like to welcome it by expressing our hopes. Mr Topolánek, Mr Klaus, you represent two hopes for us: listening to the voice of the people, that is, ensuring that the referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon is respected throughout Europe, and giving the people back their freedom in order to free them from the Brussels bureaucracy that is swamping us. Today more and more of us, the peoples of Europe, are Brussels dissidents.

(NL) Madam President, with only one minute speaking time, all I can do is plead with the Czech Presidency to help us ensure the European institutions respect democracy. In a democracy, it is the people who decide. As it happens, in the countries where the people were allowed to speak their minds - in France, the Netherlands and Ireland - the Treaty of Lisbon, otherwise known as the European Constitution, was consigned to the wastepaper basket. I hope that the new presidency will actually side even more with the citizens and freedom and not, as we have grown accustomed from most presidencies, with the arrogant European mandarins.

There is also the Turkish issue. The large majority of Europeans are opposed to the accession of a non-European country to our Union. In this dossier too, though, the eurocrats are imposing their own will, and we need the help of the Czech Presidency. Given that the Czech Republic shook off a dictatorship not so long ago, your presidency could prove to be a beacon of democracy and freedom in the next six months, if you dare to go against the wishes of this EU elite, that is.

Madam President, I welcome Prime Minister Topolánek to the European Parliament and I know from past discussions that Europe is in very good hands for the next six months. It is a historic moment for the Czech Republic and one to which you bring your customary political skill.

The Czech presidency programme has set some important priorities: the three 'E's of energy, economic improvement, and Europe's role in the world. In the early days of your presidency you have indeed been faced with substantial challenges. You have been to Moscow and Kiev and you are working hard to get a deal to restore the flow of natural gas to European countries. You have displayed great diplomatic skills so far working with Russia and Ukraine, but it is vital that the Russian Government understands that holding nations to ransom is no way to conduct business in the modern world. You have led the way for the EU so far, and I congratulate you, and also in your work to resolve the current crisis in the Middle East to bring about a credible ceasefire that will enable peace talks to resume.

The economic crisis remains high on your agenda. You are supporting sensible measures to ensure the economic slowdown is tackled. You have been clear about the importance of Europe and the Member States not imposing new and heavy-handed regulation at European or national level. You have spoken of mobilising those countries which share your liberal economic outlook to oppose protectionism at this time. What we must do is ensure that any regulatory changes are proportionate and sensible.

Finally, in a week's time there will be a new US President in the White House. I know we can rely on you, Prime Minister, to establish a good working relationship with President-elect Obama. I know you share my view that the future of the transatlantic alliance is vital to our security and our prosperity. I wish you every success. To quote Winston Churchill in his last great speech in the House of Commons: 'Never flinch; never weary; never despair'. Good luck.

Madam President, we have to admit that the Czech presidency faced a very difficult beginning. The worsening economic crisis, the brutal military operation by Israel and the biggest crisis so far in European gas supplies.

Your activity will become even more difficult with the rising political tensions related to the European election campaign. The end of your presidency will be marked by the election of 532 new MEPs. I underline this figure because it is not the one foreseen in the Treaty of Lisbon. I think that the ratification of the Treaty and its entry into force should be higher on your agenda both nationally and at European level.

It may look as though you are unlucky to be leading the EU in such a situation, but every crisis is also an opportunity. Use these opportunities. Make the EU more active, visible and credible in the Middle East. Try to develop a more responsible EU policy on energy and energy supplies. Do more to put the European economy back on track while preserving people's jobs. Mr Topolánek, I would like to see another presidency by a new Member State succeed. This is your special responsibility. This will prove that the newcomers are able not only to follow, but also to lead.

The main prerequisite for success is to bring together all 27 Member States and to make them unite around policies and actions. This will not be possible if there is no unity within your own country. The contradictory messages coming from different Czech institutions harm your prospects of success, so please do your best to put an embargo on all internal political games. It is not easy in a pre-election situation, but Slovenia is an example that you can follow. The second prerequisite is to unite behind you the main political parties in this Parliament. For six months, you must forget your own political membership and hold a broad dialogue. This is something to be learned from the French presidency.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the rise of extremism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia in Europe. The Czech Republic is also affected by this trend. I ask you to include this issue high on your agenda, particularly in view of the upcoming European elections. I wish you every success.

Madam President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for coming here today to outline the Czech presidency's programme. However, I will draw attention to some issues that I hope your presidency can address.

Firstly, the motto you have chosen is 'Europe without barriers'. I agree with the premise of this motto. It should especially hold true for European citizens who have the right to move and reside freely within the EU. I am the rapporteur on the application of the Free Movement Directive. Unfortunately, it seems that your motto is under threat from national authorities. The Commission has recently released a very disappointing report on the implementation of this directive. Given the directive's improper transposition by Member States, I would hope that you will give this issue much more weight than is indicated by your programme in the area of freedom and security.

Secondly, in addition to some daunting issues that you will have to confront during your presidency - such as the continuing global financial crisis and energy security concerns - you will also have a large legislative burden. Therefore, I trust that you will employ all the necessary means to properly conclude the numerous outstanding reports before the end of the parliamentary mandate. In particular, expectations have been created for European citizens on price reduction for voice, SMS and data roaming. I hope that you will honour your commitment to reach a first reading agreement with my Roaming II report. Thank you, and I wish you the best of luck during your presidency.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I offer a warm welcome to the Czech Presidency and I hope that it will succeed in moving Europe on from the useless persiflage of Brussels to action on combating the disgraceful human trafficking of illegal migrants taking place in the Mediterranean.

Minister Maroni, at a recent meeting of the ministers of home affairs of Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta, finally gave a wake-up call to Europe. It is time for Europe to realise the gravity of the situation in the Mediterranean: trafficking is taking place in illegal immigrants and drugs from Africa and Asia. The Czech Presidency must consider the urgent need for specific measures mandating the ministers of home affairs to conclude readmission agreements with the non-EU countries from which these illegal immigrants come.

We need to strengthen the action taken by Frontex, which ought, however, to be coordinated with the appropriate instruments and resources, and Europe must realise that such action will be effective only if it is accompanied by policies for the readmission of illegal immigrants and funds for countries, such as mine, that have to receive illegal immigrants. President-in-Office, go to Lampedusa and see how serious the problem is. We are becoming the centre for combating drug trafficking in the Mediterranean - a disgrace that we must root out. Go to Lampedusa as a politician and then return as a tourist, to the most beautiful island in the Mediterranean!

(Applause)

(DE) Madam President, Mr Barroso, Mr Topolanek, I welcome the Czech presidency! As a Prague citizen elected to the European Parliament as a German member of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I am particularly pleased that the Czech Republic is to hold the Council Presidency for the next six months. More than 40 years ago, following the occupation of Czechoslovakia, I went into political exile in Germany, and I still marvel that we are now free to drive forward the development of democracy and the respect for human rights in the Czech Republic and Central Europe.

The current political, economic and environmental developments would represent a great challenge for any Council Presidency - but this one, I believe, will overcome it. I should like to wish us all, not just the Czech Republic, all the best for this Presidency.

(Applause)

(EL) Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the priorities of your Presidency include the following: in order for the European Union to take international action, it needs to tie its security in with strategic cooperation with ΝΑΤΟ and to develop its own defence capability to complement ΝΑΤΟ.

The citizens are wondering who is threatening the European Union to the extent that it needs to tie its security in with ΝΑΤΟ? On the contrary, a visible threat to the European Union is the strategy being applied by Israel, the strategy of war, which the European Union has not roundly condemned and for which it has not imposed sanctions, as it has done in other cases.

You further state that you want an economy without borders and that excessive regulation should be avoided, that an increase in the level of protectionism should be avoided. Are these the lessons that we, as the European Union, have learned from the economic crisis? No protection for the weak and market speculation? It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the citizens are losing patience with the policies of the European Union. The Euro-barometer, which we always ignore, tells us as much.

What is topical today and what the mass demonstrations are highlighting is the need for a policy of peace, not complicit neutrality. The reactions and the grassroots protest are blatant proof of the need for justice and for political control of the market and of the price of commodities which will allow each state to perform the social role which its citizens allocate to it without the dogmatic limitations of the Stability Pact.

Mrs. President, I should like to welcome the President-in-Office and to wish him well in his presidency and also to wish his people well.

As an Irish Member, I should like to thank the Czech Government and people. When my people voted in a referendum to reject the Treaty of Lisbon, the Czech representation alone said it respected the Irish vote. In an environment of disrespect for the French, Dutch and Irish votes - and of people not allowed to vote - this respect was very welcome.

Respect is a valuable and necessary attitude. In Europe we are faced with many crises. You have spelled out an ambitious programme to deal with these. Such a programme requires respect between Member States. It also requires respect for the peoples of those Member States to have any hope of success.

I am impressed at the respect you have shown your people in acknowledging that they, like the Irish, would, if given a chance, probably reject the Treaty of Lisbon as well. Such respect bodes well for your presidency and for Europe.

(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it could be that you were not expecting such a friendly, benevolent reception in the European Parliament, Mr Topolánek - but the Czech Council Presidency is an event tinged with history. I have seen two landmark events in my political career, the first being German reunification and the second Europe's reunification following two bloody European civil wars in the last century. The fact that the Czech Republic is representing the Presidency in the European Parliament today is a reflection of the incredible historic changes to which we have been witness and for which we can be grateful. I assure you of the support of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, without reservation and without scepticism.

You rightly set the ball rolling with Charles IV, who was not only one of the first architects of a trans-European transport network but also the founder of one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Europe, and thus an exponent of a European universality that has possibly left at least as great a mark on us Europeans as the treaties we have concluded. The occasional Eurosceptic remark aside - which we are familiar with from your own country - you meet with our support. We in the PPE-DE Group are very staunch Europeans - there is no doubt about that - but precisely because of this we are able to recognise wrong turns taken by Europe and to help put them right. The Treaty of Lisbon is an excellent instrument for correcting any wrong turns taken by Europe. For this reason, I wish to express here the expectation that you, as President of the Council, will contribute to the entry into force of this Treaty and that your country will ratify the Treaty as soon as possible.

(ES) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I offer the Czech Presidency the same friendly welcome that I gave in 1991 when, as President of the European Parliament, I addressed the Senate of the then Czechoslovakia to invite them to join us. In my opinion, that great generation of Czech and Slovak citizens is embodied in someone who is well-respected in Europe and throughout the world. I am of course talking about President Václav Havel.

I have two comments and questions for the President-in-Office. You have taken a decision - and I am glad that you are talking about a Europe of rules - to subordinate ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon to ratification of the missile defence shield. Many of us believe that this is not the way forward, but you have taken the decision to subordinate your own country to something that must be considered jointly. There is one fact that cannot be ignored, however, which is that the gas dispute is a political dispute. In my view, it will be very difficult for you to have a policy towards the East in this situation. I also cannot understand why, when the Czechs are a people proud of their sovereignty and independence, you can subordinate what the Czechs have to decide to what the Irish do.

Secondly, President-in-Office of the Council, you have not mentioned the euro. Yesterday in this House we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the euro and the entry of your sister republic, Slovakia, into the euro. What are you going to do in order to defend the euro during the Czech Presidency?

(SV) Madam President, Mr Topolánek, Mr Barroso, it is absolutely correct that we are in the midst of two crises: a climate crisis and a financial crisis. To these, we can add an energy crisis. It is therefore important not to lose focus. My question to Prime Minister Topolánek is therefore the following: will the Czech Republic ensure that the emergency economic crisis programmes also work to solve the climate crisis?

After all, we have, here, the opportunity to help our citizens to both a better environment and new jobs and to help our small businesses. History has shown that every financial crisis is followed by a technological shift. With investments in new green technology, such as district heating, biofuels, combined heat and power, energy-efficient houses, solar panels, smart grids and so on we can benefit from the adaptations that are necessary in order to deal with the climate threat and create the economic upswing that Europe and the world needs. A simultaneous investment in climate-smart technology and employment will also stabilise the security policy situation with regard to Russia.

Those who opposed the energy package and a comprehensive common European energy policy will perhaps now understand why we put so much work into enabling the EU to speak with one voice on these issues. In any case, Europe's freezing citizens understand what needs to be done. We cannot have a situation like we had in the Middle East crisis, with three or four European delegations running around each other.

I therefore welcome the Czech Presidency and the well-established cooperation with the next country to hold the presidency, Sweden, and I wish you good luck.

(LV) Fellow Members, Mr Barroso, Mr Topolánek, I should like to express my appreciation of the Czech government for its resolve to continue the evaluation of the political, moral and legal aspects of the crimes of the Communist regime that was begun under the Slovenian Presidency. The consequences of the Communist regime's crimes are a repulsive scar on the face of Europe. However, under the influence of realpolitik, European politicians still pretend not to notice it. That shows that Europe still lacks self-respect in the face of Russia's authoritarian ideology. Unfortunately, for as long as the acts of Nazism are recognised as a crime against humanity but the crimes of the Communist regime of the USSR are excused, we have to face the fact that Europe and its historical truth is split between its eastern and western halves. Ukraine's gas supply is cut off and Russian tanks enter Georgia. For so long, Europe's common values remain nothing but a dream. I call on the Czech Presidency to carry out the resolve expressed in the Prague declaration.

Madam President, this is the first presidency of a former Soviet bloc country, and we are keeping our fingers crossed for you, Prime Minister, that it will be a first-class presidency.

You have inaugurated your presidency in a hot political temperature and the freezing wind of the energy crisis. I should like to congratulate you, Prime Minister Topolánek, for your quick action and commitment to finding a solution to the gas crisis and the mediation you have undertaken between Russia and Ukraine.

Two of the three main priorities of the Czech presidency - energy and the Eastern Partnership - need gas. This is the crossroads of both your presidency priorities. You have to find an emergency solidarity solution right now. You have to work on unblocking gas deliveries to 18 Member States whose citizens and industries are suffering. Then you have to find a lasting, sustainable and systemic solution for the longer term. We need you to design a comprehensive and decisive strategy.

I also welcome your priority on the Eastern Partnership, which would give us an appropriate framework for better cooperation with our eastern partners, who are so close to our borders. The European Parliament will complement it with its own dimension by building an interparliamentary assembly, which we call EURONEST. This partnership would contribute to preventing another crisis like the present one.

I am confident that the Czech presidency, which is confronted with such challenging times and crisis management, will be able to fulfil our expectations and that in six months we will have fewer barriers and a strong and safer Europe, also a sweeter Europe, as your slogan says:

(CS) Making Europe sweeter! I wish you much success.

(DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, 'Europe without Barriers' is a good motto, as it goes to the heart of the European idea - bringing people together. I also hope, however, that it proves possible to break down the barriers in the minds of some people, who still have political, if not ideological reservations about the European Union, and therefore close their minds to its further development as envisaged in the Treaty of Lisbon. There is a good deal more work to do on this in your country, too.

The Reform Treaty is essential. How are you going to make energy policy without the basis laid down for this in the Treaty of Lisbon? It cannot be done. Many other policy areas can be looked at in the same way. It is completely unacceptable to link ratification to other domestic problems, as this is a common Treaty and has nothing to do with domestic political disputes - the opposition against the government or vice versa.

Europe is a community of values. Human rights and the rule of law - where your country also shows deficits - take centre stage. I should like to take this opportunity to mention the case of Dr Yekta Uzunoglu, who has spent 14 years fighting for justice and compensation. I appeal to you to ensure that this unfortunate case, for which Václav Havel has already gone on hunger strike, is resolved under your Presidency.

At the end of the French Council Presidency, President Sarkozy said that the previous six months had changed him. I hope that this experience will also change you and several others in the Czech Republic.

Madam President, I should like to ask the President-in-Office four questions.

Mr President-in-Office, if, as you said, you find the Treaty of Lisbon worse than the Treaty of Nice, why did you sign it?

Secondly, will you please confirm that the Czech Republic will not be tempted to follow the Irish example and seek to pull apart the Lisbon package?

Thirdly, do you not see a contradiction in coming here and praising the legitimacy of the Parliament but declining to support the Treaty which so greatly increases its powers?

Fourthly, can the Czech presidency really have authority unless and until the Czech Republic ratifies the Treaty?

(PL) Madam President, President-in-Office, it is paradoxical that this multiple crisis that has afflicted the world, including Europe, can also be a great ally, as those who have got used to telling everyone how to run their business bear the brunt of the responsibility for this crisis. It was they who presided over it and got us into it.

Today we can see a wind of change in your statement and therefore wish the Czech presidency all the best. I would like to remind you of a fact from history that should be useful to you. In 1618, an unpleasant Habsburg diplomatic mission came to Hradčany whose behaviour was unprecedentedly arrogant. The Czechs rightly threw them out of the window in an act known as ''defenestration''. I look forward to such a political defenestration now. I hope you throw all dishonest advisers out of the window of decency and reason, and that you succeed in pushing European affairs forward. That is what Europe's citizens are expecting, and you will not succeed by listening to these charlatans.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as always in Europe we are living through important historic events, and the six months of the Czech Presidency is certain to number among these.

There are many major problems outstanding, to which this Presidency will have to find solutions: for the Treaty of Lisbon, which requires final adoption, the path has already been outlined, but what is needed is a further impetus to ensure that the process is not drawn out beyond the current year. The serious world economic crisis will continue to produce effects, and there is no doubt that these will be significant over the course of this year. It is to be hoped that the Presidency will continue along the road already embarked upon by the French Presidency so that the next G8 meetings, with Italy presiding, can produce results that meet Europe's needs.

Europe is facing a serious problem in terms of energy supply: this is a crucial fact, and it seems a complex problem to resolve. A solution may, however, be on the point of being found; in any case the future ought to be guaranteed, in view of the dependence of many states, including my own, on such supplies.

The situation in the Gaza Strip can no longer be tolerated. One should not negotiate with terrorists but the attacks on the Israeli people must stop once and for all, and we should no longer tolerate the death of innocent civilians on the front line of an absurd and, unfortunately, permanent war.

Immigration ought to be resolved at a European level and therefore considerable attention should be paid to the situation of certain states, including Italy and Malta, which have significant problems relating to this issue. The Cyprus issue should be tackled swiftly, in order to resolve once and for all relations between Greece and Turkey, and between Europe and Turkey, which, moreover, is still permanently awaiting accession.

Finally, Mr Topolánek, I hope to see you always present in this Chamber; I wish you all the best for your work, and I congratulate you on still being here with us after your first reply. With previous Presidencies, we have not been very used to that. Thank you; it is a good sign.

- (FR) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I have discovered from your Czech historians the reason why you have not ratified the Treaty of Lisbon: they talk in fact of the magic of the figure 8, as in 2008. This figure punctuates your history, they say: in 1918 Czechoslovakia was created and, in 1348, Prague. They cite forty-odd examples and, in particular, three recent painful ones: 1938, when France and the United Kingdom abandoned you; 1948, when you were set aside by a coup d'état; and 1968, when the Soviet tanks rolled in. So 2008, I can understand - you put it to one side because you thought ratifying the treaty that year was suspect, all the more so since some people were comparing the limited sovereignty of Brezhnev with the treaty. In spite of all his faults and his past, comrade Barroso, who is here, is not Brezhnev!

(Laughter)

We are part of a project that is characterised by its shared and voluntary sovereignty. The Treaty of Lisbon is just one moment in this history; it is just one stage in this history. I beg you: 2008 is over, ratify in 2009!

(Applause)

(LT) The Czech Republic is taking over the European Union Presidency at a time when we are debating how to transform the economy and whether the future model of the European Union will be more socially-oriented or more liberal. Sometimes this is even presented as a row between Old and New Europe, but I think the Czechs will be able to find consensus, as there really is not a great difference between these two conceptions. Their coming together is determined by globalisation and the multicultural economic environment which is still developing. The concept of a 'market economy' is understood very differently by various people and this is a behavioural factor. The countries in the post-Soviet bloc understand perfectly that the existence of market institutions and laws does not necessarily mean that the market will flourish successfully. They must match people's mentality and expectations. Although we sometimes try to underline those differences between the economic models for political gain, in the long-term political perspective delaying the reform of economic policy, if we take into account the changing multilingual and multicultural economic environment, will help radical populist groups come to power and will cause long-term political instability and economic backwardness.

(DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate the Czech Council Presidency on its assumption of office. This is the first Council Presidency from a former Warsaw Pact country and therefore of symbolic importance, as Mr Nassauer rightly said.

The matters of the gas negotiations and the activities of President-in-Office Schwarzenberg in the Middle East and many other examples show that the Czech Council Presidency is well prepared for the work that awaits it. Therefore, I attach particular importance to the fact that great store has been set by what has been called a strategic energy security concept. This example, in particular, makes it clear that there are many areas in which nation-states alone are no longer able to look after the interests of their citizens, and only a common European approach will do.

However, President-in-Office, only the Treaty of Lisbon confers on us this competence in matters of energy and energy security. Our current activities are as coordinators and are non-binding. In the case of many of the challenges we need to take up, we shall not be able to do so without the scope for action offered by the Treaty of Lisbon - the scope for greater democratisation, namely the reinforcement of the rights of the European Parliament and those of the national parliaments. I am assuming, therefore, that there was a mistake in the German interpretation when it interpreted you as saying that the Treaty of Nice may be better than the Treaty of Lisbon. You should still be able to correct the German version. For this reason, we should seek an opportunity to make clear that we can improve the way we overcome our shared challenges in all the major areas only with the help of the Treaty of Lisbon. Thank you very much.

(PT) Mr President-in-Office, you spoke of a Europe of rules. You spoke a lot about rules, in fact. Now, one of the rules of democracy is the fulfilment of undertakings. You made an undertaking to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon by the end of 2008. You did not and that was wrong. For that reason I ask: 'When will the Czech Republic ratify the Treaty of Lisbon?'

You also spoke about self-confidence. It sounded like arrogance to me. The Czech Government, including its President, has every right to say and do what it likes, but it cannot forget that it belongs to the European Union and now speaks on behalf of nearly 500 million citizens and 27 Member States.

That is why you cannot ignore the fact that 25 Member States have already ratified the Treaty of Lisbon and that Ireland has already planned a second referendum. Happily, the polls indicate a 'yes' majority. The Irish have realised that, in this particularly difficult international environment, the fact that they belong to the European Union and to the euro area has protected them from greater trouble.

What remains now is for the Czech Republic to state when it is going to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. As my group chairman, Martin Schulz, has stated, at a moment when Europe is confronting unprecedented challenges, it is necessary for Europe to speak with a single voice. Now, this will only be possible with the Treaty of Lisbon.

(IT) Madam President, Mr Topolánek, ladies and gentlemen, you spoke of the eastern partnership, Mr Topolánek. Partnership is a fairly recent invention by the European Union, which did not exist in the Europe which the founding fathers of the Ventotene Manifesto wished to see, or in the Europe of the initial periods after the Second World War. That Europe gave its neighbours, including those in Central and Eastern Europe, the prospect of accession. Europe has been a factor for peace not because it offered the prospect of partnership to its neighbours, but because it offered the prospect of membership, of becoming a part of the EU.

The French Presidency which preceded you, however, was very clear, if we are talking about barriers, in wanting to define the borders of Europe, by slamming the door in the face of Turkey, most of all, and making it clear that the European Union wants to close its borders. The result of that is that surrounding the European Union, where in past decades there was hope for countries such as yours, today, instead, there are wars and tensions in the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Urals and the Maghreb.

The call that we, the non-violent Radical Party, would like to make to you is to take into consideration the urgent need, once again, for the United States of Europe, opening up to membership, to members, and not to confused relations of partnership. That partnership rules out the inclusion of the most important thing: civil and political rights for citizens in Europe and at the borders of Europe.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate the President-in-Office on the ability which his presidency has already demonstrated to deal with a number of issues.

Many Swedes still have the feeling that Prague is to the east of Stockholm, due to the heritage of the political geography of the last century. That is wrong, and your presidency, Mr President-in-Office, will restore the Czech Republic to its proper place in our mental maps - at the heart of Europe in history, as well as in the future.

May I also express the hope that you will pave the way well for the Swedish presidency: as regards climate issues and competitiveness, where it is so important for you to demonstrate that we will tackle the economic problems with openness, without protectionism and with the dynamics of an open economy; and regarding energy issues, where you will play a crucial role, since you are clearly very well-placed. The times we are living in underline the need for reforms and change.

I think it is fair to say that solidarity and security as regards energy means that we need to reform and deepen the European internal energy market. Without that, we will be exposed to different threats and attempts to divide us, to fragment us. One aim should be to ensure that no one can control the supply and production of gas and electricity at the same time as distribution; to ensure that we will have one common market. If that can be achieved during your presidency, it will be a strategic step forward that I hope we can all congratulate you on in six months' time.

(DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, I and some fellow Members present here today belonged to the group of MEPs from the Joint Parliamentary Committee who particularly promoted the cause of Czech membership in the period up to 2004. Therefore, being able to welcome a Czech Presidency for the first time makes today a special day for non-Czech MEPs, too. I might add from the point of view of an Austrian MEP that it was not always very popular to campaign in Austria for the accession of the Czech Republic. Thus, we are certainly among those who offer the Czech Presidency particular support and do not intend to attach too much importance to teething problems - the rather one-sided initial position on the Gaza conflict and the Czech President's view that social and environmental standards are too high have already been mentioned. From an Austrian point of view, we are particularly hurt by the sympathetic reaction to Slovakia's plans to restart Bohunice, which would be a clear infringement of existing EU law.

The excellent philosopher and writer Jiří Gruša has written a 'User manual for the Czech Republic and Prague', which I can only recommend to all my fellow Members as an enjoyable and extremely humorous read. As yet, there is no user manual for Europe in written form but, if one should ever be issued, all new Presidencies would be well advised not to turn down the support offered to them in Parliament or by the governments of neighbouring States.

(DE) Madam President. President-in-Office, you have a particular responsibility. The Czech Council Presidency has got off to a bumpy start - its art installation has been provocative and given rise to indignation - but its serious efforts to find its feet and assume responsibility for the whole Union have been perceptible even before today. It seems to be well prepared. Its programme contains the right priorities. It will subsequently be judged, however, on the determination, personal commitment and European-mindedness with which these are implemented, and on the success rate.

Commission President Barroso said that the EU is being put to the test in these six months. The Czech Council Presidency and the Czech Government are being put to the European-policy test. These tests can be passed only if we all give of our best. For that reason, I would ask you to stop playing domestic policy off against European policy and burdening your Council Presidency with domestic issues. You should make clear to citizens that you already feel that, in the matters of the gas dispute, Gaza, Slovakia's actions with regard to Bohunice and the financial crisis, the Treaty of Lisbon would strengthen your role and enable you to carry it out in better harmony with the other European institutions.

The European Union is a community of values and a common system of law. Yes, we do have rules, and anyone breaking them, anyone not keeping to their promises, shows a lack of solidarity. We are united despite all our differences by our community of values, our common system of law, our political objectives.

Therefore, I would make the following appeal: do not hide behind Ireland, take a step forward, ratify the Treaty of Lisbon before Europe Day 2009, before the end of your Council Presidency. We shall judge you by your deeds and not by the comments by your President in the Czech Republic.

Madam President, I was interested that the Czech President-in-Office said that the opposition is trying to torpedo the Czech presidency because, from where I sit, the Czech President is doing a very good job all on his own of torpedoing the Czech presidency.

I notice the Czech presidency states that it is doing all it can to enlarge the European Union and to admit Croatia. If it is doing all it can, why can it not ratify the Treaty of Lisbon? After all, the Czech presidency agreed to it and, therefore, should fulfil its obligations.

We must be honest: it is not a great start to a presidency. The Czech President describes the climate change package as a silly luxury. The Czech Finance Minister describes the economic recovery plan as being reminiscent of the Communist era. We have a so-called work of art - which has given offence to everybody, but particularly the Bulgarians - and the first statement on the Gaza crisis had to be withdrawn several hours later.

What we need at the moment is leadership, and what I have seen so far has taught me that the sooner we get a full-time president of the Council the better, because it is only coherent European action that will deliver security to Europe, will deliver world influence and deliver economic recovery. So let us have some leadership.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(CS) Madam President, the Czech Presidency deserves recognition for its active role in settling the dispute over the renewal of Czech gas supplies. However, it would be a big mistake to turn away before addressing the long-term causes of this problem.

The origin clearly lies in Russia's ambitions to extend its sphere of influence into Ukraine and on into Central Europe. The aim of the EU must therefore be to keep Ukraine on the Union's radar screen. However, this will not be possible if Ukraine continues to sponsor opaque transactions and to cling to 'neighbourly prices' which fail to reflect the true market situation and which keep Ukraine politically dependent on Russia.

The Czech Presidency's priorities include energy security and reinforcement of the Eastern Partnership. A fundamental aspect of this partnership must be to help Ukraine set market energy prices, negotiated in the context of long-term contracts, as quickly as possible.

The Presidency should also exert effective pressure on Kiev to dismantle opaque economic structures which undermine efforts to reform and develop a legal state. Only strong external pressure on Ukraine and active cooperation can help it to abandon short-term and often personal interests in favour of genuine independence from Russia, and a legal state that is free of ubiquitous corruption. Unless a clean-up is achieved in Ukraine, we cannot expect the EU to respond effectively to Russia's increasingly assertive policy towards Central and Eastern Europe.

The right time to establish close cooperation between the EU and Ukraine will be immediately after the gas crisis has been defused. Unless the Czech Presidency, on behalf of the EU, succeeds in placing effective pressure on Ukrainian leaders, we will soon witness not only further days of freezing weather and no gas, with major consequences for the economies of Member States, but above all a dangerous shift in geopolitical relations in Central and Eastern Europe.

Madam President, like everyone in this Parliament I wish the Czech Presidency-in-Office well. However, I am appalled, President-in-Office, by your disgraceful comment here this morning that Lisbon is worse than Nice. That is not only untrue, it is divisive and it is a breach of trust. Now you have to seriously consider withdrawing your comments here this morning in relation to Lisbon.

We need the more united democratic effective Union offered by Lisbon to face the many problems, any one of which can plunge our world into conflict: energy security, climate change, the economic and financial crisis, and the many wars in many regions. As President-in-Office, your task is to mediate for, and lead, Europe based on our common values of solidarity - internally and externally - a social market economy, multilateralism and equality between men and women - and that includes the right of both men and women to share the task of parenting.

President-in-Office, you must park your conservative and neo-liberal views for six months, otherwise you are going to be in conflict constantly with this Parliament for those six months. Ireland will probably have a referendum on a clarified Treaty of Lisbon in the autumn of this year. I will work hard to ensure a positive outcome for Ireland and Europe. Your comments here today have made that task much harder. If the referendum fails, Sir, you will not be thanked by the vast majority of Europeans.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(PL) Madam President, President-in-Office, President of the Commission, I would like in particular to thank the President-in-Office for taking on the presidency and congratulate you on a difficult, but successful first two weeks in the presidency. I perfectly understand your words on national identity, an identity which we, the countries between the east and the west of Europe, have built up successfully.

I would like to draw your attention to a matter that I believe will be crucial in these six months: the third energy package. This package deals firstly with the common energy market, a common European agency for cooperation between national regulators, cross-border connections and joint investments, and therefore with integration - in other words, with energy solidarity and secure energy supplies.

Secondly, the third energy package also means liberalisation, the fair regulation of access to networks, that is, competition on the market, which means lower costs and damage to the environment and cheaper energy for consumers, and hence for the economy, which will help to deal with the crisis.

And thirdly, the third energy package fair rules for the operation of countries outside our markets, with common policies for supplying the EU countries and the possibility of transportation through third countries. In the context of the EU's eastern partnership and eastern dimension, the third package clearly speaks for itself.

The third package can be benefit each of the three main priorities of your presidency - energy, the economy, and Europe's eastern dimension. I call upon you to keep this priority and to fully ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(SV) Madam President, I, too, would like to welcome the Czech Presidency. During this Presidency, we will have low growth and unemployment will rise. We have a difficult economic situation. I was reading about President Klaus's solutions last week in the Financial Times, and I do not agree with them at all. He says that we must lower our ambitions with regard to environmental policy and climate policy and we must lower our ambitions with regard to social policy. That is absolutely the wrong way to go. If Europe is to be able to compete in future, we must invest in modern environmental technology. We must invest in modern infrastructure in order for us to have a society that is sustainable in the long term, and in an active climate policy. This will provide a higher rate of growth and increased employment.

It is a similar situation with social policy. We must invest in a social policy with fair working conditions, equal treatment of workers, a good working environment and so on. This will not mean lower growth, but growth that is more sustainable in the long term.

Finally, I would like to mention family policy. The family policy that I read about in your programme is an old-fashioned family policy. Modern family policy is about the equal responsibility of men and women for children and work. You point down a completely different path in your programme.

(BG) Thank you, Madam President. As an MEP from Bulgaria, I welcome the fact that the Czech presidency is including energy and energy security among its key priorities. During the last few days, a large number of EU Member States have become hostages in the dispute between Ukraine and Russia. In Bulgaria alone more than 160 000 households have been left without heating. Unfortunately, the Bulgarian Government was unable to help its citizens during this crisis. Bulgaria is the only country in the EU which does not have alternative sources, suppliers and reserves of gas. We must learn the lesson from this case.

Fellow Members, I think that I am speaking for the whole Parliament when I say that we cannot allow European citizens to pay the price for political games involving countries using their energy resources as political tools. This is why I believe that we need sustainable solutions in the energy sector. We need a common European energy policy. One important element in this is to improve the energy infrastructure. When we talk about European energy solidarity, we mean joint energy projects in the European Union and avoiding the current practice of bilateral agreements.

I would also like to believe that before long, it will be possible in Europe to build pan-European nuclear power facilities as joint projects involving Member States. In this context I also welcome the fact that the Czech presidency is making the expansion of forms of cooperation with countries from the southern Caucasus and the Balkans, and with Ukraine another key priority. It is only by adopting an integrated approach which takes into account the interests and opportunities deriving from these interests of both Member States and the countries from the regions just mentioned that we can guarantee overcoming and averting crises, such as the gas crisis we have just been through. We need to take action immediately and do what is best for the European Union. The need for concrete action aimed at establishing a common European energy policy is now greater than ever.

I wish the Czech presidency every success.

(HU) Madam President, Prime Minister, the Czech presidency has chosen the tagline ''Europe Without Borders'' as its motto, setting as its foremost priorities the issues of energy policy and economic stability. In addition, I wish to emphasise the importance of including a further priority, that of the European citizen.

I would urge that more attention be paid to issues that directly affect the daily lives of citizens. More emphasis should be given to the enhancement of state-of-the-art European social programmes, to guarantees of European solidarity and equality of opportunity, and to the implementation of the minorities policy. I agree with those who urge the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Citizens must be involved more closely in European politics because I believe that the lack of social packages and effective communication lead to a growing loss of confidence in European institutions. I believe the role of education is especially important ...

(The President cut off speaker.)

(CS) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the beginning of the Czech Presidency has been marked by the conflict in Gaza and the energy crisis. After a wave of dismissive and doubting remarks as to the Czech Republic's ability to lead the Union, Europe and other parts of the globe are watching with surprise how responsibly and effectively the Czech Presidency has acted as it deals with the unexpected crises. I wonder, however, whether they were so unexpected, and I applaud the fact that the Czech government started dealing with them early on, at Christmas, because the French Presidency had failed to nip them in the bud.

I would like you to engage just as fearlessly in negotiations with China, which is wilfully breaking the rules on world trade, promoting unfair competition and threatening the health of Europeans by churning out counterfeit and dangerous products. Today, for example, European parents have great difficulty in finding children's shoes that pose no health risks, yet so far the Council and the Commission have paid little attention to this issue.

I welcome, then, the fact that you have placed 'Europe in the World' among your priorities. I assure you that Europe is very open to world trade, but no President of the Council has yet been able to ensure fair reciprocity and to open up China to European producers. I hope that you and your first-rate team will be more successful.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I congratulate you on presenting a truly high-quality, realistic programme for Europe and also on your personal growth. Considering that you are the leader of a political party some of whose current ministers voted in 2003 against our accession to the Union, you are doing extremely well on the European scene. I just hope we will witness a similar mellowing of opinion among your party colleagues in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon too.

The media are reporting that the Irish, under pressure from the financial crisis, now understand better that the Treaty is a decent instrument which was put together for dealing with hard times. I hope that you too will start to view the Treaty in a positive light, even if it means deleting President Klaus from your mobile phone. I wish us all a successful Czech Presidency, notwithstanding the pluralism of our views.

(EL) Madam President, Prime Minister, in addition to the question of foreign policy, action to deal with the economic crisis and the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, one of the basic priorities of the European Union must be young people. I read about this priority in your programme. I believe that your programme should be more integrated and more pro-active on the question of young people.

Young people are no longer convinced by pronouncements and promises. They do not feel secure in the face of a state which is collapsing and which is unable to address the economic crisis. They do not accept education systems which send them to the market of unemployment and social disdain. They do not accept euro-scepticism, the fear of Europe. They have a problem with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. They clash on a daily basis. It is the new generation that can understand what is meant by ...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

Mr President, I should like to say to the President-in-Office that his country is symbolised for me by two men: Franz Kafka and Jan Palach. Both symbolise the struggle for freedom and for democracy and both showed the frustration, the pain and the sacrifice that can sometimes come in that struggle.

For that reason I think, Mr President-in-Office, you will have a particular insight into the struggle in Gaza and you will understand the pain and the frustration of the people of Gaza and the people of Israel. I hope you will, therefore, throw everything into stopping the slaughter that is going on there.

You will also be able to reach out to the American President on the issues of climate change and bring him into the equation for Copenhagen.

At home you will have the chance to make your mark in the remaining legislative proposals of this Parliament - and I highlight the new opportunities for citizens that will flow from cross-border health, an item I know is on your agenda.

You mentioned the free movement of knowledge. Nowhere is that more important than in medical science, and that goes, too, for mental health. I have had the privilege of supporting some of the work for reform on mental health in the Czech Republic. I know you will want to further those reforms not just in your country but throughout Europe. I would like you to cast your mind back to June when we set out the mental health pact for the European Union. It is not on your list at the moment, but I hope you will ensure that it is on your agenda as an item to be furthered because, above all, our task - your task - is to benefit those people in our community who are vulnerable and need our support. I know you will do your best in that, and I wish you well in all your endeavours.

(Applause)

(PL) I would like to start by recalling the Polish-Czech underground opposition meeting organised 21 years ago by Solidarity in the Giant Mountains on the Polish-Czech border.

The Czech Republic is the first country of Central and Eastern Europe to take the EU presidency. This is a duty, Mr President-in-Office. The Czechs heading the European Union are heirs to the Central and Eastern European tradition of the struggle to bring down the Iron Curtain and for a democratic community of societies on the continent of Europe. I stress the special intellectual and political importance of the Czech presidency.

Of its many priorities, the main one is to conclude the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and to strengthen European common foreign policy. Another very important outstanding task is to prepare a transatlantic strategy for transatlantic relations following the election of the new American president. And finally I would like to wish President Vaclav Havel a rapid recovery from his recent operation.

(SL) The Czech Presidency has expressed its readiness to intervene to break the deadlock in the negotiations regarding Croatia's accession to the European Union. Mr President, allow me to remind you in this regard that each candidate country is required to submit credible documents. If the documents are not credible, that fact should be drawn to the attention of the country concerned.

In the specific case of Croatia, Croatia has marked on its maps a border which is in dispute. Instead of mentioning that such and such a section of the border is in dispute, it simply marked the border as it sees it. Naturally, such a document cannot be credible, because it actually concerns a dispute between the two countries which will have to be resolved elsewhere. This is a bilateral dispute between two countries who are otherwise good neighbours on excellent terms, and yet it is a dispute that will have to be resolved elsewhere. Therefore, I would like to point out that Slovenia is not being capricious in mentioning that Croatia's documents are not credible. Slovenia is in fact making the point that Member States are obliged to draw this candidate country's attention to the fact that it is required to submit documents which conform to the European Union's standards.

And what is a possible solution? Many proposals have already been put forward and I believe that the Czech Presidency will likewise try to come up with an appropriate proposal. The solution might be for Croatia to submit a government or parliament decision which clearly states that these borders are orientational, provisional or any other term specifying clearly that the borders are temporary and that they have not yet been determined. That way, I think, we would make a small step forward and make it possible for Croatia to join the European Union as soon as possible, which would also be in Slovenia's interest.

In conclusion, allow me to wish you every success in heading the Council of the European Union.

(CS) Criticism has been heaped on the President-in-Office of the Council; I intentionally refrain from joining in. In Czech fairy tales, we usually find the castle occupied by a wise king who provokes no one, causes no offence, and does not claim to be an expert in all matters. This is not the case at Prague Castle. Well, nothing is perfect. Yet I have faith that the President-in-Office of the Council will cope successfully with this handicap and keep the promises he has made to us today. I have known him for almost 20 years, and I am pleased to see how membership of the European Union has fuelled his political growth. I am crossing my fingers for him because, as the Spanish say, Con mi patria, con razón o sin ella, as the English say, 'Good or bad, my country', and as I say, 'My country, through thick and thin'.

- (SK) I would like to begin by expressing my pleasure that right at the beginning of its presidency our fraternal neighbour the Czech Republic has dispelled any doubts as to the ability of a new Member State to manage and administer the affairs of the European Union.

The Czech presidency has demonstrated that it is capable of responding to and acting in critical situations, such as the war in Gaza and the disruption of gas supplies from Russia to the EU. As a representative of Slovakia, which receives almost 97% of its gas from Russia and which, together with Bulgaria, is in the most critical situation, I would like to acknowledge personally Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek's involvement in the negotiations with the Russian and Ukrainian parties. Prime Minister, Slovakia still has no gas and therefore still needs your active help. Europe needs a common energy policy and it needs to improve its negotiating position in the field of energy.

France started its presidency with the Russian-Georgian conflict and the Czech presidency has to handle the commercial and political dispute between Russian and Ukraine. I firmly believe that the time has come to learn a lesson from these events. It is important to identify areas where the EU is dependent on Russia, as well as areas where Russia is dependent on the EU. Relations with Russia are important but it is unacceptable that Russia should use gas as a political weapon. It is necessary to deal promptly with the issues of diversifying energy sources and constructing the Nabucco pipeline. Prime Minister, Slovakia is in an extraordinary situation and it sees you as an ally in the matter of a strategic decision on Jaslovské Bohunice. I would also like to request your help Mr Barroso, as President of the European Commission.

Personally, I think that many shortcomings still exist in the implementation of the free movement of persons and I therefore welcome the motto of the Czech presidency - Europe without barriers.

I wish the Czech presidency success in implementing its 3E programme and in bringing the EU closer to achieving the Lisbon goals.

- (SK) Prime Minister, we are former fellow citizens and as such I am delighted to welcome you to the European Parliament and to wish you good luck with implementing the objectives you have presented to us.

Your 3E priorities certainly sum up the current problems facing the European Union, although I trust that in the economy section you will not forget its social aspects which are so important for the majority of EU citizens. When I saw you at the celebrations for the adoption of the euro in Slovakia, I was delighted to discover that the new President-in-Office of the Council was a supporter of closer integration between the countries of the Union. Nevertheless, like most Members of this Parliament, I would be even more delighted if you contribute to the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in the Czech Republic. Failing this, it will be difficult to achieve the priorities you have set out for yourself. If we want the EU to become, as you have said, not merely a payer but also a player in world affairs, then we must take this step.

Prime Minister, as has been said many times, the European elections will be a significant moment during your presidency. Turnout in the elections will influence EU policy for the next five years and material support from the Council can play a major role here. When Slovakia is eliminated from the ice-hockey world championship and the Czech Republic qualifies for the next round ...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

Madam President, I would like to extend the warmest Estonian support for the Czech presidency. Truly increased competitiveness is the best remedy for the economic crisis, with the completion of four basic freedoms. President-in-Office, I support your idea of developing to the full extent the Eastern Partnership. We understand now how important it is to engage countries like Ukraine and Georgia to the rule of law and democratic accountability.

Last September the European Parliament suggested marking 23 August as a day of joint commemoration of the victims of Communism and Nazism. We trust that you will take the lead in convincing all the 27 governments to officially mark this day, beginning from next August. We also expect you to lead us to a European moral and political assessment of the crimes committed under totalitarian Communism.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(RO) 'Economy, Energy and European Union in the World' is the motto of the EU's Czech Presidency. Europe's citizens expect European institutions to protect them against crises and improve their quality of life. The European Union's economic recovery plan, increasing energy efficiency and energy supply security are currently the priorities of Europe's citizens.

I urge the Czech Presidency, in spite of the approaching European elections, or especially for this reason, to demonstrate vision, political will and, above all, commitment to Europe's citizens. Together we can reach an agreement at first reading on the directive on energy efficiency in buildings. I assure you that both the European Parliament and European Commission are ready to support you so that the directive on energy efficiency in buildings features among the achievements of the Czech Presidency.

Madam President, having had the traumatic experience of Russian Communism in the past, the Czech Republic has now gone to the extreme of attaching itself firmly and with obedience to the USA. This is demonstrated clearly not just by your stance on Gaza and the Treaty of Lisbon, President-in-Office, but also by your Government's decision to station American missiles on Czech soil. Your willingness to serve faithfully the Washington administration at the expense of putting Europe's peace at risk is unacceptable and suspicious.

Your country is today part of the EU, not of the US, and you must make sure your Government acts accordingly. American satellite states have no place in our Union. So, you must make up your mind: EU or US? You cannot have both!

(PL) Madam President, President-in-Office, the Czech presidency has been the first in many years to drop that old chestnut, the European Constitution, also known as the Treaty of Lisbon, from the agenda. This realistic approach inspires optimism, and shows respect for democracy and the principle of unanimity.

The Czech Presidency has decided to focus on the most urgent topical issues, including the Gaza conflict and energy security. Initially there was no plan to intervene in the gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but when it started to affect large numbers of Member States, Mr Topolánek stepped in to mediate. It is clear that in six months the presidency will not achieve all the aims it has set out to achieve, but the first two weeks already indicate that it can be an effective presidency, despite the Cassandrian prophecies of some politicians sitting in this House. On behalf of the delegation ...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(BG) Thank you, Madam President. I have heard the news that with the Czech presidency's support, something supposed to be a work of art has been put up in Brussels, which depicts my country, Bulgaria, as a toilet. This is deeply offensive and is contrary to the European Union's traditions of partnership and mutual respect. This is why we insist that this image is removed immediately by the Czech presidency and by whoever has actually dared to cause such offence to one of the Member States, which we cannot tolerate. If this image is not removed immediately, my colleagues and I will go and remove it personally with our own hands.

President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to start my closing address by thanking you for all your views; it was a very warm welcome and one that I was not expecting. I would also like to note that the Czech Presidency and I myself, in my capacity as President of the European Council, will be in close contact and will work in close cooperation with the European Commission over the entire six months. The first fortnight has shown how continuous, daily and very active contact, not only with José Manuel Barroso, but also with the entire Commission, has secured joint action over the issues that descended upon us at the beginning of the year. I am referring here not only to our cooperation with the European Parliament, but in particular to our communication with the European Commission as we sought to handle these ad hoc issues. I would like to extend my gratitude to President Barroso.

Before I came here, I swore I would tell no jokes. The one joke I did tell, which everyone at home would laugh at, fell flat. Never mind, I will keep on trying and perhaps eventually even the German translation will get it right and we will understand one another.

The Treaty of Lisbon cannot be a mantra. It must be a means, not an end. It is a means to improve the working of the European Union. It must never be a matter of compulsion. Each country has its own tools and rules of the game for achieving ratification. The fact that I signed the Treaty does not mean that I will influence the decisions of the two chambers of the Czech Parliament, which are autonomous and free and will decide for themselves. Likewise, we have no intention of exerting advance pressure on the decision of the Irish people. It is impossible to impose the validity of the Treaty in any way, although I do think that the Treaty is needed at this time and will facilitate the working of the European Union. That is my final observation on the matter and I will not return to it because I have explained my personal position.

I liked the quote delivered by the honourable Member Mr Kirkhope, and I will paraphrase another of Churchill's quotes to demonstrate what I think of the current time: 'No more crises tomorrow, my diary is already full.' I think what we have been through in the first few weeks shows that we chose our priorities correctly and that we were well prepared. Besides, we began to address the gas issue in mid-December, during the French Presidency.

I apologise to all those honourable Members whose specific questions I do not answer; I will try to generalise this discussion a little and I will try to shed light rather on the general approach to handling these specific problems.

The question of smuggling people, drugs and children, child trafficking and the like. Just as this Parliament is holding a debate regarding levels of freedom and security, so is the Czech Republic and we are keen to accelerate the directives and the entire legislative plan within the framework of Council decisions to combat people smuggling. I just want to say that we are ready for this and want to address the individual elements of these problems.

The large-scale discussion on Nabucco. We must concede, in all honesty, that Nabucco will be an alternative to other transit routes only if it also provides an alternative source of supply. As for the debate on Ukraine, my countryman Josef Zieleniec said it quite clearly - this is a political and geopolitical problem, and in my opinion if we do not give Ukraine a chance to resolve its internal problems, if we do not place restrictions on the conduct of the various players, whether they be individuals or firms in the gas market, then we could lose the pro-European orientation of Ukraine, which is, of course, a geopolitical problem. We can only speculate on the goals of the whole crisis - perhaps only a short-term price increase, maybe much greater pressure to build the Nord Stream, the alternative northern route, or perhaps the aim really is to inhibit Ukraine's European inclinations. Whatever the case, these factors are part of the problem, which is not just short-term and is not just about energy.

If I had to respond to the reference as to whether Europe should be more liberal or more socialist, I would attempt one more joke and say that I propose a compromise of a liberal-conservative Europe, but that really is my last joke.

With regard to the path followed by the Czech Republic and the adoption of the euro, on 1 January I declared that the Czech Republic would announce its date of entry on 1 November this year. My government is the first government that will meet the Maastricht criteria. I do not look on this as a race. I congratulate my Slovak counterparts, and we will wait to see how the financial crisis affects compliance with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact and what sort of effect it has on the de facto fulfilment of all the rules governing the euro area. I am concerned - and this also applies to the handling of the financial crisis - that the loosening of the EU's own rules is a destructive step, and therefore when we talk of a Europe of rules, we will naturally insist on compliance with the directives on state aid and competition, and this will be one of the criteria for assessing all proposals on how to address the financial crisis. Rules apply in good times and in bad, and they apply to everyone. Equality here must be absolute.

I will actually comment on 'A Europe without Barriers'. Yes, it is meant to have at least three senses. There is the economic sense, which involves the removal of barriers to the internal market, the mental or psychological sense, in other words the removal of barriers in the minds of Europeans, which is of course an objective of the recently acceding countries, and finally there is the removal of external barriers, the avoidance of protectionism, a genuine liberalisation of world trade as one of the tools for managing the crisis, boosting demand, and bringing about an effective realisation of the conclusions of the Washington G20.

I would like to say perhaps one thing here which affects me personally and which has already found its way into the media. Václav Havel is gravely ill and has been hospitalised. He is a man who symbolises both our pre-November and our post-November direction, and not just for the Czech Republic - he essentially symbolises the fall of the Iron Curtain. He was the first Czech to address this European Parliament, and on behalf of us all I would like to wish him a speedy recovery.

I have a few very specific responses for one honourable Member of this assembly. I was touched by Mr Rouček's concern for the Czech government, and I could list at least six examples from the last ten to fifteen years where countries holding the Presidency of the European Union had many internal problems yet enjoyed a successful Presidency. There was Belgium at the time the Maastricht Treaty entered into force, where constitutional changes took place without affecting the Presidency, there was the time of the French Presidency, when the European Union was enlarged to include Sweden, Finland and Austria while France was suffering an internal political crisis, there was the time of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999, during the German Presidency, when Gerhard Schröder was facing major problems and Lafontaine quit his party, there was the time the euro was introduced during the Spanish Presidency headed by José María Aznar, there was the time of the Irish Presidency, and I could mention many more. Do not worry about the internal problems of Czech politics; they will not affect the Czech Presidency.

On the Nuclear Forum: we cannot have a nuclear debate in which the dispute between the greens, liberals, conservatives, and so on ends up in a forced result. The Nuclear Forum, organised in cooperation with the European Commission and taking place in Bratislava and Prague, should launch a new debate on security, on opportunities, on risks and needs, and on all of those things that have actually become a little taboo in recent years. Breaking down this taboo is actually the objective of the Slovak-Czech Nuclear Forum. It is obvious why Prime Minister Fico is in Ukraine and Moscow; the problems of Bulgaria and Slovakia are critical because they are countries wholly dependent on gas supplies from Ukraine. Bulgaria is capable of storing only a third of the capacity it requires, Slovakia has already reduced production at thousands of businesses, its thermal power plant in Nováky has burned out and it is suffering a major crisis. I am in daily contact with Robert Fico and I support his mission, even though I do not think it will be successful at this time. We must be much tougher towards the two players, Ukraine and Russia, Naftohaz and Gazprom. Furthermore, I believe that the next steps must be far more effective and tougher on the part of both the European Commission and the Czech Presidency. We must look for the tools to overcome a number of technical problems. It is not possible for these supplies not to be resumed for a wholly irrelevant reason (that is, the use of technical gas), and we will be taking further action in this respect.

We talked a lot about the Balkans and related problems, and many questions were raised in this respect. Mr Peterle knows full well that, if the chapters in Croatia's accession process are to be unblocked, a bilateral solution must be found to the Slovenian-Croatian dispute. This is not a European dispute, although it is in fact starting to interfere with the accession talks. In this sense, my contacts with the two prime ministers and the two presidents, together with my personal input into this problem, will perhaps help to resolve the Slovenian-Croatian border problems.

There is much that I would still like to say, but I will try not to keep you much longer. I will attempt to make way for your next proceedings. I would like to end by saying that we greatly appreciate the opportunity to belong to a community of states built on values and on foundations that we, after November 1989, have been able to adopt once more as our own values and our own goals. We also value the opportunity to preside over this entire community. It is something so unique, something my generation, which was 33 years old in 1989, never thought it would live to see. We also appreciate the fact that we can tackle many problems. What we value most of all is the internal liberal debate. This is the freedom which allows us to articulate these problems within a spectrum of views which is relevant to their solution. I can unequivocally declare here that Tomas Garrigue Masaryk has said that 'democracy is discussion'. I am keen to follow in the footsteps of the first Czechoslovak president; I remain absolutely open to this discussion. I thank you for your attention today and look forward to meeting you again.

President of the Commission. - Madam President, this has been a very interesting discussion, and I am encouraged by the common understanding of the challenges and generally speaking by the support given to the Czech presidency. Once again I reiterate my wish to work loyally, constructively and in the best spirit, with our Czech friends. Their success is also Europe's success.

As some of you have underlined, this is the last presidency before the European Parliament elections. I think it is very important that during these months we all show how relevant all our institutions are to the wellbeing, prosperity and solidarity of our citizens.

It is very important to communicate, and that cannot be done only by the European institutions or only by Member States. We have to do it together in a true spirit of partnership, so a lot of what will happen during these months will be very important for the future of Europe, and also for the respect accorded to our institutions all over Europe.

I would like to use this time to answer some concrete questions put to me, specifically on energy. Yes, we need an urgent revision of the Gas Security Directive. The Commission said so when it presented its strategic energy review last November, and we are working flat-out to put the legislative proposal before the European Parliament and the Council as soon as possible. Yes, we need more solidarity and more progress in terms of energy security in Europe. That was the substance of our strategic energy review presented very recently.

I would like to use this time once again to ask all Member States and European institutions to work more actively on the mechanisms of European energy solidarity. Yes, we also need to accelerate investment in energy infrastructure, interconnectors and energy efficiency. That is why it is so crucial to get the EUR 5 billion of the Community budget allocated for these purposes.

I appeal to you, both Parliament and the Czech presidency, to translate this into practice as soon as possible. Yes, economic recovery needs to be coupled with smart green growth if we want to come out of this crisis stronger. Our proposals are on the table to accelerate the use of Structural Funds for these purposes. Funds are needed for energy efficiency and for energy interconnections, and by the coordination of national stimulus programmes we will align national efforts in this direction as well, in line with European Council conclusions.

Let me also say that getting through this economic crisis and putting Europe back on the path towards sustainable growth will also require respect for Community rules on equal opportunities. Europe needs to continue facilitating the participation of both men and women in the economy, as well as helping combine family and professional life.

A word also on the Treaty of Lisbon, which many of you mentioned: we need this Treaty more than ever, ratified by all Member States. Yes, we need to respect all national ratification processes, but when a government, on behalf of a state, signs a treaty it takes a solemn commitment to put it into force.

(Applause)

Many of you spoke about the Czech presidency and how important it is. As some of you said - Mr Nassauer, Mr Brok and others - the very fact that we have a Czech presidency is in itself an event of great importance. It is the first time a former Warsaw Pact country has assumed the responsibility of chairing the European Council. When you think about it, what a great achievement it is, 20 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, to have the Czech Republic at the head of the European Council, and to have Prime Minister Topolánek and Vice-Prime Minister Vondra cooperating in this responsibility. I have full confidence in what you are going to do.

Let me share with you an experience I had last year during the Portuguese presidency. Prime Minister Socrates of Portugal and I were in Zittau, on the border between the Czech Republic, Poland and Germany, and I saw the emotion Prime Minister Topolánek was feeling at that moment. That border, which once separated us in Europe, between the two sides of Europe, is now a free point of circulation among Europeans from all those countries. It was a great moment and a great achievement, of which we should be proud. That is why I really believe that it is important to defend our values to make a success of this presidency.

Some of you said it is important that the Czech Republic be successful, because it is a small country. I am sorry but the Czech Republic is not a small country, even in European terms. In fact, it is sometimes a sign of an inferiority complex to consider some of our Member States as small countries. Let me tell you that - as Paul-Henri Spaak, one of the founders of our European project, said - in the European Union there are no longer small and big countries; if you like, none of them is big: the problem is that some of them have not yet noticed it.

In fact, when we look at the rest of the world - when we see the dimension of America's strength in terms of defence and in technology; when we see the huge geographical dimension of Russia; when we see the huge demographic dimension of China and India - can we say that there are any big countries in Europe?

There are no longer big countries in Europe. All are great in terms of dignity. For the European Commission all the Member States have exactly the same dignity, but if we want to be big in the world we need the European Union to be strong. We need to act together; we need to use the leverage of all our institutions and, if we act together like that, we will make a difference in the world for good. That is why we need the Treaty of Lisbon. That is why we need a common purpose. That is why we need strong institutions. I wish the Czech presidency all the best.

(Sustained applause)

The debate is closed.

The vote will follow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - Some of us are very much looking forward to being addressed by President Klaus in February. How refreshing it will be to hear someone who has the intelligence and honesty to doubt the ideological orthodoxies of ever-closer European Union and climate change.

President Klaus has been quite right to compare the European Union to the old Soviet Union. My friend, the heroic Russian dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky says of the European Union, 'I have lived in your future and it doesn't work.' Mr Bukovsky is quite right, the EU is a form of soft communism.

We can only hope that the Czech presidency will be a little more sceptical of the great European project than some previous presidencies. One thing that the Czechs can do is to delay ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon until after the second Irish referendum. Then when the Irish vote 'no' again to the failed constitution the Czechs can acknowledge the democratic decision of the only EU nation allowed a referendum and stop the Treaty in its tracks by withholding their ratification. Let's hope that President Klaus is the man to do that.

Thank you, Madam President, and I offer my sincere wishes to the Czech Republic for success in its work. The signs do not augur well at the beginning of its Presidency: its fundamental Euro-scepticism, which has underpinned many Czech acts in the recent past (such as the failure, to date, to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon), offers no comfort even to optimists. The statement on Gaza made by the President-in-Office of the Council has also demonstrated a lack of institutional feeling: positions ought to be agreed with the other 26 Member States. Additionally, the failure to meet with the Socialist Group in the European Parliament sends out a very bad signal: it has never before happened that a President-in-Office of the Council has not found the time to hold a dialogue with a large political group in Parliament. Madam President, we hope that we will be surprised by effective, authoritative action: in that case, at the end of the six months, we will have the intellectual honesty to give credit for it.

The Czech Presidency put forward three priorities: economy, energy and foreign relations. Thus, the presentation of the programme of the Czech Presidency followed lines that were already known, but it had some peculiarities, specifically with regard to the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Czech Prime Minister affirmed the need to respect the sovereignty of the Irish citizens. He even considered that, if there had been a referendum in the Czech Republic, perhaps the result would have been identical to what occurred in Ireland, accepting that the draft Treaty might be rejected.

In relation to the gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine, he considered both countries were to blame, underlining economic, strategic and political reasons for their actions, and he supported a greater intervention of the European Union, but he was not very forthcoming with specific proposals.

With regard to socio-economic issues, he did not put forward anything different, which means maintaining the neo-liberal positions, the proposals rejected by the European Parliament on the Working Time Directive, the Stability and Growth Pact and the neo-liberal Lisbon Strategy, and he ignored the economic crisis and its serious consequences in the social dimension.

Moreover, in relation to the war crimes that Israel continues to commit against the Palestinians, he said virtually nothing, which we deplore.

in writing. - (PL) The Czech presidency has come at a difficult time for the entire EU. The financial crisis, the energy crisis and economic recession are more trying than at any time in its fifty-six year history. And to add to this we have the June elections to the European Parliament and the latest military conflict in the Gaza strip. I personally regret that the Czechs do not have the proper tools for the job. I regret that the Treaty of Lisbon reforming the EU is not a reality.

That is the reason for the lack of a common foreign policy: there is no system for making decisions, and the Member States are not bound by a principle of energy solidarity. And President Vaclav Klaus' views on climate change, EU reform and the euro, which are bizarre, if not hostile, have a great deal to answer for in this respect. I therefore appeal to the Czech government and premier Mirek Topolánek, to constrain Klaus' public declarations on EU affairs as much as possible. This is for his own good, as well as in our common interest.

The Czech ''three E'' priorities - economy, energy and external relations - are Europe's needs in a nutshell. I therefore believe that Mr Schwarzenberg's promise that the Czechs will significantly ''push European matters forward'', and that they ''will not be bottom of the class'' will come true. I wholeheartedly wish our southern neighbour a successful presidency!

in writing. - The Economic Recovery Plan - agreed in December - is a major step in the right direction to cope with the current economic slowdown. It must now see its concrete aspects implemented rapidly and effectively. In this respect, the Union ought to maximise its efforts in facilitating access to available resources. We should, therefore - while restoring confidence in our financial market - particularly improve and simplify measures in order to accelerate implementation of structural and cohesion funds. Cohesion policy is the greatest instrument of solidarity in the Union, and its role in tackling the negative effects of a global crisis of this scale is, of course, essential. Moreover, let me welcome among the priorities of the new Czech presidency the will to initiate discussion on the redefinition of the Less Favoured Areas parallel to the Commission communication. A better delimitation of these areas will indeed help in better targeting their needs and foster their development potentials and thus work in line with the objectives of social, territorial and economic convergence throughout the Union. We need indeed to further our efforts to avoid the negative consequences of the crisis not only on the economy but on our citizens, mainly the most vulnerable ones.

in writing. - (PL) I would like to thank President Mirek Topolánek for setting out the priorities of the Czech Presidency. The three 'E's - the Economy, Energy and Europe in the world, which will constitute the framework of the Community presidency, will suffer from additional, unplanned external events: Gaza and gas.

The problem of the Gaza conflict has political dimensions. However, it has now become so militarised that humanitarian issues have now come to the fore. People are dying there! Not just the Hamas militants who triggered the military conflict, but innocent children, women and men. The EU must in conjunction with the UN do everything possible to find a solution to this bloody conflict. Jews and Palestinians can live peacefully side by side. Please be unrelenting in your efforts to achieve this aim.

The gas crisis has hit many European states. The dispute between two companies, one Russian and the other Ukrainian, has snowballed into a dispute between the two countries. Now many citizens in many countries are suffering considerably as a result, and their energy supplies have been cut in the middle of a bitter winter. It has also resulted in significant economic losses, as the gas is also needed in manufacturing. It is therefore high time to set up an EU-wide oil and gas system benefiting from a variety of sources. We also have to urgently look for new sources of energy, and use modernised methods of coal gasification. Poland is taking steps of this kind.

I cordially wish our Czech friends success in bringing the aims of the EU to fruition.

The Czech Presidency finds itself in a difficult situation. It is hard to take the reins of power for the first time after a Presidency which, well established as one of the engines of Europe, has already steered the ship of the Union several times. Their situation is difficult since the financial crisis is only now making its effects felt all over Europe. And it is difficult because they have to contend not only with the extreme Eurosceptics within Parliament but also with high-ranking political representatives of their home country.

Nonetheless, the programme of the Czech Presidency seems to be one that tries to keep the European Union well balanced. With the lofty aim of the motto 'Europe Without Borders', it places at the forefront not only the problem of how to manage the economic crisis but also how to affirm effectively the EU's longer-term principles. The Czech Republic is the first country in the Eastern-Central European region incorporating all of the common characteristics of new EU Member States. Consequently, the programme of the Czech Presidency attempts a proportional representation of the requirements of new Member States.

We are delighted that the Czech Presidency's response to the economic crisis focuses on developing the internal labour force and promoting vertical mobility.

At the same time I would draw the attention of the Presidency particularly to the need for improving the situation of the most underdeveloped regions and of the Roma minority. Indeed, these are social and economic problems at a European level that transcend borders.

Besides making use of immigrant workers, the ageing of the EU population and the resulting social tensions can be managed in the long run by developing the internal labour force represented by those with uncompetitive knowledge and skills.

I want to congratulate the Czech Republic on taking over the Presidency of the European Union. I would also like to express my appreciation of the fact that it has been possible to draw up an 18-month programme as part of a cooperation process together with France, which previously held the Presidency of the European Union, and Sweden, which will take over the EU Presidency in the second half of this year.

The challenges facing this presidency just as it has started, such as the war in Gaza, the disruption to the supply of Russian gas, not to mention the global economic crisis, have confirmed the fact that the priorities identified by the Czech Republic are totally relevant.

Of the three priorities announced by the Czech Presidency, Energy, Economy and Europe in the World, I would like to refer to the energy aspect. I personally feel that Europe needs a united energy policy so that excessive dependency can be avoided on resources from a single area.

In this respect, I support the need to develop relations with new suppliers, as well as the importance of investing in unconventional technologies for generating energy. We need to improve the transport infrastructure and devote proper attention to building the route for the Nabucco gas pipeline. I also believe that it is essential to shorten the procedures for rolling out projects aimed at finding alternative and unconventional sources of energy.

in writing. - The failure of the European Council to date to address the real issues behind the Irish 'no' to the Treaty of Lisbon make it possible that there will be a second 'no' vote.

Realising that a second 'no' vote is a realistic prospect the Czech presidency is looking to prepare for the eventuality that the Treaty of Lisbon will not enter into force. It is looking to prepare a 'plan B' for the selection of a new Commission under the rules of the Treaty of Nice. The reported idea of selecting a Commission of 26 Commissioners plus a High Representative for European Foreign and Security Policy from the 27th Member State is just one possible way in which this issue could be dealt with.

People across the EU recognise that the Treaty of Lisbon is not the panacea that many of its most fervent supporters present it as being. On the contrary: it could serve to deepen the economic and social problems facing us.

On the crisis in Gaza, the response of the Czech presidency is very far from what is required. The EU must take concerted action to uphold the rights of beleaguered Palestinians and to try and end the bloodshed.

The Czech Republic, which took over the Presidency of the European Union Council on 1 January 2009, is facing, along with other states which joined the EU in 2004 and later, problems linked to the precarious state, in terms of thermal insulation, of a large number of residential buildings.

We should bear in mind the following: the significant energy savings and reduction in heating costs paid by citizens which could be achieved by renovating the heating systems in these buildings, as well as the limited opportunities to use structural and cohesions funds to invest in this area. I think therefore that the Czech Presidency of the Council should include this issue among its priorities.

Secondly, with regard to the European arrest warrant, the Czech Republic has made a statement, based on Article 32 of the Framework Decision, to the effect that it applies the surrender procedure 'only for acts committed after 1 November 2004'. Similar regulations apply in other European states too. Cases such as this undermine citizens' belief in the effectiveness of European policies in combating crime. The Czech Republic holding the Presidency of the Council provides a good opportunity to re-examine these statements.

in writing. - (EL) The statements by the Czech Prime Minister and President of the European Commission and the debate in general in the European Parliament on the programme of the Czech Presidency of the EU are the sequel to the single anti-grassroots policy of the EU under previous presidencies. They have sent a message that the attack by capital on the workers, on the grassroots classes, will continue unabated. The imperialist role of the EU will be strengthened, as the Czech Presidency took pains to demonstrate the moment it assumed office by supporting the criminal imperialist attack by Israel on the Gaza Strip and legitimising the barbaric slaughter of the Palestinian people, with the full support of the USA and in keeping with the US/NATO/EE plan for the 'New Middle East'.

The programme of the Czech Presidency signals continued intensification of the anti-grassroots attacks by the ΕU in order to shift the impact of the crisis in the capitalist system on to the working class and poor grassroots classes, an increase in EU aggression against the people and imperialist intervention and improvements to its capability for military intervention around the world.

The people need to respond to EU aggression by counterattacking. Resistance, disobedience and breaking from the reactionary policy of the EU, from the EU itself, are the way forward for the people.

I would like to begin my speech by raising again the idea which I spoke about on Monday during the opening of the plenary session. You are holding the presidency during a period which has a special significance for us. This year marks 20 years since the fall of the Iron Curtain. I was saying on Monday that for us, but especially for the millions of citizens who have sent us here, these 20 years have marked a period of waiting, to some extent, and acceptance, to another extent. Perhaps it was normal for us not to be able to escape more quickly from the burden of the 50 years which separated us from the rest of Europe.

I wanted to make an intervention to congratulate you on including the third priority, Europe in the World, but especially for dealing with the Eastern Partnership as a priority. The histories of our two countries, Romania and the Czech Republic, have two strong features in common: 1968 and then the Prague Spring, which represented for us Romanians, subjected to the most cruel Communist dictatorship, a ray of light which guided us along the path to freedom.

As a Romanian MEP, I would like to ask you to give proper, specific substance to the Eastern Partnership. There are millions of citizens in this region who need to rekindle this hope by symbolically going through again now, in the forthcoming months, the events of the Prague Spring. Both you and I have the opportunity to understand perfectly the weight of this expectation.

in writing. - (PL) We now have six months of the Czech presidency of the European Union ahead of us, a presidency which, as is now clear, will not be easy. The two major crises we have had to deal with in recent weeks show us that good leadership of the European Union involves not just carefully prepared programmes, but above all the ability to react quickly and appropriately to difficult problems. That is something every Member State preparing to take on the EU presidency should remember.

The Czech presidency follows on from a very dynamic and ambitious French presidency. It is unlikely that no comparisons will be drawn between the two. However, in my view the Czech authorities are well prepared for the job, and the Czech presidency will be an example of how even a small country that has only recently joined the Community is capable of providing it proper leadership. And not even political divisions in the national arena should stop them.

I would like to appeal to the presidency to devote some of its attention to everyday problems. Large-scale, ambitious plans are important and necessary, but very often far off the radar of ordinary citizens. And it is important that today, on the eve of the Parliamentary elections, the people of the European Union must feel that the Community was created for it, for its citizens, that it is there to improve their daily lives. So grand visions - yes, but through the prism of everyday life.

I wish you success!

The Czech Republic is taking the helm at the EU at a time when Europe is facing the challenges of the global financial crisis, the disrupted Russian gas supplies and the Gaza conflict.

I believe that the Czech presidency's ambitious programme will be achieved through close cooperation between the European Parliament and the European Commission. Europe must continue to take an active stance on all the items on the EU citizens' agenda. At the moment, the issue of energy security is particularly topical and the efforts of all the Member States need to be galvanised. The disruption of Russian gas supplies to European consumers in sub-zero temperatures, which has paralysed Europe, adds a new dimension to the concept of energy independence. This crisis situation imposes the need to reduce Member States' dependency on Russian gas supplies and to look for alternatives.

The citizens of a united Europe are expecting the Czech presidency to take an active stance and get involved in resolving this problem, which has long since gone beyond a trade dispute between Russia and Ukraine.

I wish the presidency every success.

I welcome the fact that the Czech Presidency has specified the energy issue as a priority.

The unacceptable events of the last few weeks concerning the security of the supply of natural gas to certain EU Member States have demonstrated yet again the need for a European energy policy, implemented through clearly defined European projects, supported by European funds. The EU's internal natural gas market can only function normally by rapidly developing storage facilities for natural gas, including liquefied gas, and by speeding up the implementation of the Nabucco project.

in writing. - (FR) I should like to send my best wishes to the Czech Government, which is presiding over the Union in delicate conditions, due to the complexity of its national political situation and to a particularly worrying international context.

The Czech Presidency must be determined and dynamic, just as the presidency embodied by Nicolas Sarkozy was over the last six months, in order to work actively in favour of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and to maintain a strong political momentum, on the basis of the preparatory work programme drafted jointly with France and Sweden, which will succeed it at the head of the Council.

In the face of the economic crisis, the coordinated recovery plan adopted by the 27 should be applied without delay, to protect industry, competitiveness and European jobs. Europe holds a vital part of the solution to the crisis, and the Czech Presidency must help to prove this.

I welcome the Czech Prime Minister's commitment to have the Treaty of Lisbon ratified by his country by the end of this presidency. Of the economic, diplomatic and institutional crises weakening Europe, the last one is the only one whose outcome depends solely on Europeans. The Czech Presidency must enable the Union to achieve this success, in order to guarantee future prospects to our fellow citizens.

1. Security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents (

After the vote on the report by Carlos Coelho

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make a point of order. You informed us that, at the request of the journalists, an estimable group, you would announce all the votes, but it seems to me that Parliament's rules ought to be made by parliamentarians, not journalists. I would like to know whether this is the association of blind journalists, because the journalists can very well see the outcome of the vote on the screens. In any case, deaf journalists may have some difficulty if you announce the results.

(Applause)

Mr Speroni, I have some difficulty in expressing my own personal opinion of the difficulties of journalists' work. Since this request has been made to the Bureau at this time, I think that a reply - and probably I personally share your views - a reply should be given by the Bureau; it has already been decided that the issue of the reply to be made will be on the agenda of the next Bureau meeting.

Mr President, I agree with the position that Mr Speroni has put forward. I recognise the difficulty you are in, but I would suggest that he is right. The screens do record every vote. To read out every amendment result would be very time-consuming - especially with a vote like we have today. I would suggest that you ask the Bureau to remit it to the relevant committee, and we will consider it for a future voting session - if that is acceptable to the House.

(Applause)

As I have already said, the issue will be referred to the Bureau, precisely so that it can give a definitive answer.

We will therefore move on to the vote.

2. Public contracts in the fields of defence and security (

3. Dangerous substances and preparations (dichloromethane) (

4. Authorisation to ratify the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 188) (

5. Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2004-2008) (

Before the vote on the first part of paragraph 32

Mr President, it is to complete the text of this amendment. After the text which reads '12 December 2006', we simply wish to add: 'and on 4 and 17 December 2008'. This is because there were decisions by the Court on these later dates, and it would not be correct to mention the decision in 2006 without mentioning the latest findings of the Court in December 2008.

Mr President, according to my voting list it appears that paragraph 36 was withdrawn, so I wonder whether we should have voted on that at all.

Amendment 8 has been withdrawn, and as a result you cannot vote on paragraph 36.

- Before the vote on paragraph 161

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on paragraph 166 I would just like to point out that the original English text is the authentic version, because there are too many translations which completely distort the meaning; for example, the Italian translation speaks of 'morte decorosa' [decent death]. I will not go into the details, but the authentic version is the English version.

Thank you for reminding us of this. I will mention it again at the appropriate moment without giving the floor again to Mr Cappato, because now we must vote on paragraph 161; we still have to vote on the original text of the paragraph, having rejected the amendment.

6. Maritime Labour Convention (

7. Development of the UN Human Rights Council, including the role of the EU (

8. Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (

Voting time

The next item is the vote.

I would like to inform the Chamber that during the vote, at the express request of the association of parliamentary journalists, for each set of results we must also expressly indicate the number of votes for and against and the number of abstentions. We had wished to simplify things for you, but it is not possible.

(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

(DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because it calls for a reform in the interests of protecting children, also introducing measures to increase the security of passports. All in all, therefore, it is a package that takes forward the fight against child trafficking and for greater protection of children.

- (CS) I consider it necessary to add biometrics to the security features of travel documents. However, in addition to improving the security of European citizens, which is our primary objective, we must also consider the reverse side of the coin, which is protecting the privacy of our citizens. I will strive to ensure that the implementation of this legislation and application at a national level does not lead to bureaucratic difficulties, or even the misuse of data, and that includes misuse by third countries outside the EU. I would like to point out the need to promote greater involvement from Europol and Frontex in this matter; only a high degree of cooperation between the law enforcement authorities of the Member States will produce the desired effect of making Europe a safe home for us all. I am glad that children from the age of 12 years will have their own passport. This measure will reduce child abuse by organised criminals across borders, which is another reason why I support this apparently controversial topic.

(NL) Mr President, I was happy to add my emphatic support to the Coelho report on biometrics in EU passports, because, if nothing else, this is a first step in the fight against the very many abuses and forgeries of passports. This is a form of harmonisation which, to say the least, we can endorse, as it is a useful and even necessary measure, certainly in the Schengen countries.

When a system of open internal borders is put in place, the larger external border should be protected as effectively as possible, of course. This report is a step in the right direction, because the external border is insufficiently protected at the moment.

I have one reservation, though. Better passports alone are not enough. Every year, hundreds of thousands of non-European aliens enter our continent, Europe. These are legal immigrants, semi-legal immigrants but also illegal immigrants. My country, Belgium, received more than 70 000 non-European aliens last year, in addition to an unknown number of illegal aliens. This is a tidal wave that we have to stop, and better passports alone will not solve this matter.

(BG) Thank you, Mr President. I voted against the Coelho report for two reasons. Firstly, I feel extremely concerned about citizens' rights and about the fact that collecting biometric data will pose a significant threat to citizens' security, particularly in terms of their freedom, and also the basic human right of freedom of movement will be infringed.

But what concerns me even more is that in my country it will be the second time during the last ten years that new personal identity documents have been introduced. On a personal note, it will actually be the third time in ten years that I have had personal identity documents issued. You might find this amusing, but in Bulgaria people are on such low incomes that the additional burden on their resources which they have to spend on buying new personal identity documents is simply unethical and immoral for these people. When we are talking about pensioners who receive BGN 100, which is equivalent to a pension of EUR 50, it is not right to charge them EUR 20 to have new personal identity documents issued to them. This is why I voted against the Coelho report, because I feel that it is highly inappropriate for my country.

Mr President, I just want to put on the record that I voted against the Cappato report in the end because I believe there is a better report due before Parliament which will deal with these matters.

I also want to say that Parliament does need to do something in relation to our records when there are Members of Parliament who have been here for over four and a half years, who have drawn a salary for all of that time, and who have spoken for less time than Mr Burke, who has been in the Parliament for six months. I think it is time we drew attention to this.

There are people who do not participate in this Parliament, in its committees or in its plenary. Some of them are members of small groups. They come in here and get speaking time before they rush off to the airport and spend their time in our national Member States, instead of being out here, telling people how awful democracy is in the European Union. Well, democracy is awful in the European Union if Members of this Parliament who do not turn up here can be paid a salary to continue with this sort of flagrant abuse of democracy. I want to put that on the record, Mr President.

I believe that when we are reforming, when we are making documents available, when we are ensuring that there is greater transparency, we should take steps to show which parliamentarians are participating in the work of Parliament and which are not.

- (CS) The European arms market operates inefficiently because it is fragmented. Today we have created a space for public procurement in this sector while respecting the exemptions for strategic reasons under Article 273 of the Treaty of Establishment. On the Committee, I have worked to end the waste of public funds brought about by opaque military contracts. In the past, the national interest clause was also abused in the case of public contracts for the army which clearly had nothing to do with the quality of security provided. I could name, off the top of my head, works contracts, catering and transport services. This proposal will save money that can subsequently be invested in research and technology to protect us more effectively against present and future threats.

Mr President, I am opposed to this report because of the threat which I perceive it poses to governments and firms that have invested hugely in defence R&D and which now find themselves robbed of return through the development and production phase.

Under this proposed directive, procurement contracts are now required to be opened up to European competition, leaving a defence company - even a country - with no means of protecting its international property rights and jobs. Given that several military defence companies in the United Kingdom have leading-edge R&D, the threat of this report is a major concern.

My unease is heightened by the recognition that a driving motivation in this report is to bolster EU integration and the European security and defence policy, rather than prioritising tangible economic benefit.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be briefer than usual; I voted for the Lambsdorff report, which takes a step forward on common security and defence. I wonder, however, and I ask you too: when will we finally have a truly European defence, a truly European army, a real opportunity to save money and be able to defend ourselves as a united Europe? I hope that it will be very soon indeed, Mr President!

In this case, it is not for me to give an immediate response, which would be complicated. Let us move on to further explanations of vote, this time on the Schlyter report.

- (CS) I supported the report on dangerous substances and chemicals, namely dichloromethane, making it possible to restrict this carcinogenic substance in paint strippers, even though provision has been made for exemptions under strict conditions. I am satisfied that the exemptions will not be used in practice since there are safe alternatives that not only consumers, but also professional users, will prefer to choose in the future.

Mr President, some substances are so dangerous that they must be completely banned or have their use confined to severely restricted uses, surrounded by the strictest health and safety precautions. DCM is one of these substances and must be taken out of circulation.

- (CS) I applaud the international agreement which will establish new employment conditions for workers in the fisheries sector. Fishermen face the highest incidence of serious occupational accidents and deaths. I would just appeal to the Council and the Commission to do their utmost to ratify the Convention much earlier than 2012. Please note in the Minutes that my voting equipment failed and that I did, of course, vote for this report.

- (SK) The own-initiative report from Mr Catania has prompted a significant exchange of views between political groups and members of Parliament.

The European Union is now facing very serious problems, such as the financial crisis and the energy crisis caused by the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. This is a period when we should act together and avoid any moves that might undermine our unity. The consequences of the crises will undoubtedly affect every citizen of the European Union, whether Slovak, Pole, Hungarian or German. I consider the attempts to provoke quarrels between Member States, which periodically crop up in our sessions, to be a sign of ignorance of the current serious situation where EU unity is under threat. We should concentrate more on finding solutions and on ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon in order to boost the competitiveness of the European Union.

I have repeatedly expressed the view here in the European Parliament that autonomy has no place within our common space. The key idea of integrating EU countries must not be forgotten, not to mention ignored or rejected. We must keep in mind Schuman's statement that an intelligent European cannot rejoice in his neighbour's misfortune since we are all bound by a common fate, both in good times and in bad times.

(DE) Mr President, the Catania report is a real sham. It contains no review whatsoever of the extent to which fundamental rights were respected in the European Union in the period from 2004 to 2008; it is merely a list of demands by the left wing in this House.

Its demands include the recognition of same-sex marriage in all Member States and the legalisation of drugs, euthanasia and illegal immigrants. The Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) delegation and myself reject out of hand the above demands, which were adopted by a majority, and therefore we - myself included - voted against this report.

- (SK) I voted for the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008.

I made my support conditional upon the rejection of the original draft wording in Article 49 concerning support for territorial and regional autonomy. I consider this to be a clear rejection of the attempts by provocateurs and conspirators at speculating about the status quo. The European Parliament does not, in other words, accept games with territorial and regional autonomy. This is a very valuable conclusion from today's plenary of the European Parliament and I think we are all to be congratulated on it.

- (CS) Mr President, I also voted against the adoption of this report from a Communist MEP on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union. Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that rapporteurs from other factions have managed to edit the text a little and that it contains some good paragraphs on the situation of minorities. Some passages, however, are not objective. In addition, the extent to which the report oversteps the bounds for a document mapping a past period is unprecedented. The report assumes an overly one-sided political view of human rights in the Union. The report tramples on subsidiarity by dictating rules on family policy and other ethical issues, which is contrary to the founding treaties.

(MT) I also voted against Catania's report, because it contains at least three references to abortion as a human right. This is something that I do not agree with and find unacceptable. It is a pity that an important report such as this one that covers such a vast range of subjects had to incorporate elements within it that are doubtlessly beyond the competence of the European Union, and that the European Union cannot and should not try to interfere with; namely due to the subsidiarity principle. This is why I voted against Catania's report.

(HU) Mr President, with regard to the Catania report, I voted affirmatively since it eliminates previous flaws concerning minority rights. This matter is particularly important for Hungary and for the minorities living inside as well as outside its borders. The report emphasises the protection of minority languages and declares that the use of one's mother tongue is one of the most fundamental rights. Unfortunately, this has not been so in several of the new EU Member States in recent times.

The report further stresses the necessity of defining and determining national minority status. I believe this is of vital importance for the 150 minorities in Europe.

Finally, I consider paragraph 49 to be especially important, for it affirms that self-governance is the most effective means of handling the problems of national minority communities. The way to do that is to follow the most exemplary models in the European Union as regards personal, cultural, territorial and regional autonomies.

Mr President, a society consumed by rights is a 'give-me, give-me' society which has lost its balance. It is this which drives the report's demand for equality between regularly married couples and homosexual relationships. The natural order is man and woman. We pervert it when we demand equality for its very antithesis.

Unfashionable as it may be, I unashamedly declare that the unnatural partnership between same-sex couples is not something to which I, as a legislator, wish to consent. Are my rights to espouse that position any less than those of the people who demand the opposite? In view of the intolerant climate in which part of this debate was held, it would seem so.

I disagree with this aspect of this report. If that subjects me to ridicule then so be it. I would rather stand for what I think is right than to applaud that which is wrong.

(NL) Mr President, in my career in this Parliament, I have rarely seen such a catalogue of politically correct nonsense and so-called progressive platitudes as in the Catania report. What takes the biscuit, though, is the fact that a report on so-called fundamental rights is de facto based on the Treaty of Lisbon, a treaty that was rejected in referendums, no less, and has currently no legal basis whatsoever. What arrogance! I wonder if fundamental rights might perhaps not apply to the European citizens, but only apply to the eurocracy.

Moreover, there is one fundamental right that is missing from this report, namely the right of people, for example people of one's own nation, to feel at home and safe in their own country, to defend their hard-earned prosperity, to maintain their language, their culture, their traditions and their laws. Now that would be a novelty in this temple of political correctness. Parliament has once again made an utter fool of itself by approving the Catania report by an overwhelming majority.

(NL) Mr President, the right to the free expression of opinion and the way in which this right can be exercised is without a doubt a key indicator for assessing our fundamental rights situation. The report is quite right to warn against the non-official censorship and self-censorship that come about when certain topics are excluded from the public debate. Just as justified is the section in the report that warns against individuals and groups who want to silence others by claiming that they are being permanently attacked, undeservedly so.

What is totally mystifying, though, is the call to 'resolutely prosecute any hate speech in racist media programmes and articles spreading intolerant views'. This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to the censorship and self-censorship that are lamented elsewhere in the report. It is the kind of legislation that got the largest Flemish party condemned in Belgium, because this party had criticised adopted immigration policy. People should therefore know what they want. It is impossible to be a little in favour of the free expression of opinion. Either one is in favour of the free expression of opinion, and accepts all the consequences that this entails, or one is not.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on fundamental rights, although I voted against in the final vote, I voted for paragraph 81, which I am in favour of. In this paragraph, my friend, Mr Catania, who is looking at me at this moment from his seat, states that he calls on the Member States to do all they can to facilitate and improve access by young people, the elderly and the disabled to the labour market.

Giusto Catania - who lives up to his name in being 100% just - must have thought, even if he did not state it in writing, that access should be improved not only to work, but also to benefits, since the elderly are mentioned. Therefore benefits for young people, the disabled and the elderly are relevant. I am sure - I see that he agrees - that young people also receive benefits as young people and then work when they are old. I see that he is applauding. I think that you too are in agreement, but since my observations go on the Internet I would like to make it clear that I have said this to gently point out that the elderly too have a right to benefits.

Mr President, in the Catania report many in this House have, once again, tried to use human rights as an excuse to promote abortion, despite the fact that abortion denies millions of babies yearly the most important human right - life, the human right on which all other rights depend.

Further, as an Irish MEP and voter, it is interesting to note that this report and the amendments link the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights with the legislation of abortion in the EU.

Mr President, at the outset can I ask the services to note that on paragraph 31 the first part of my vote should have been in favour.

I suggest that this report could have done more for areas of disability that need more work. On that note, however, I am happy that Parliament chose to support my Amendment 42 which urges the Commission to make sure that money goes only to Member States who meet the criteria of the UN Convention when it comes to deinstitutionalisation. This is a key issue for me and for many people in this House. There are many issues in this report - as others have said - that are for subsidiarity, and not for the European Union, which does not legislate on abortion and should not and will not be legislating on abortion. So I could not support the overall report. Instead, I abstained because I believe the disability amendment is important for those of us who care for those who do not speak, have no voice and are not listened to.

- (SK) The Catania report covers many human rights issues. I agree with some of the previous speakers and like them I want to express my fundamental disagreement with this report because of one key problem: the failure to approve key amendments which would have corrected what was originally a bad report.

The report retains references to 'so-called' sexual health and sexual rights, which, according to the definition of, for example, the World Health Organization, explicitly include the right to abortion and this is something that cannot be referred to in EU Community Law or forced upon Member States.

As a medical doctor I defend human life and human dignity from conception onward, and therefore I did not vote for this controversial text, which, moreover, fails to respect the principle of subsidiarity.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with what Mr Pirker said, and therefore I do not need to spend any more time on that. I believe that Mr Catania has written about the wrong subject; this report should not even have reached the Chamber, because the official services ought to check whether a report addresses the subject and title assigned, or whether it is something else entirely. This report is something else entirely, and does not, in fact, refer to the title and mandate given to it.

With regard to the specific question, relating to paragraph 49, I would have preferred the Chamber to have adopted the original text, with no amendment. I voted against the report in its entirety, for the precise reasons I have mentioned.

(NL) Mr President, rarely have I voted against a report with so much conviction as today. If we were to follow the recommendations set out in this report, we would create a dictatorship of political correctness in the European Union tomorrow, whereby, under the guise of so-called anti-racism in pompous declarations of principle, the free expression of opinion involving topics such as asylum and immigration would be curbed even further. This report sets out to open even wider the floodgates to legal and illegal immigration into the European Union, and fails to place the citizen's right to safety at the heart of its policy, but considers instead that it is the rights of criminals that should be recognised as so-called fundamental rights.

This is topsy-turvy land. In a normal society, rights and duties go hand in hand. In this bulky report, though, I cannot find a trace of duty on the part of aliens to integrate in our European society. Quite the reverse: only we Europeans are targeted ad nauseam. Well, our citizens are sick to death of the stigmatising finger-wagging from the European mandarins that is only aimed at them.

Mr President, there is much in the Catania report that I take issue with.

Firstly, I do not accept that it is the business of the European Union to bestow any rights whatsoever on us - in fact, history teaches us that the European Union has done precisely the opposite.

I also do not accept that the Charter of Fundamental Rights - which is a basic political document, concocted as part of the failed European Constitution - should be incorporated into European law, and particularly not incorporated into British law.

I am very much opposed to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I reject the absolutist approach to human rights. I would say that I am not opposed in principle to the recognition of same-sex partnerships but, again, this is not a matter for the European Union: this is a matter for the parliaments of individual Member States to determine on their territory.

Given that fundamental list of objections, I voted against this report.

Mr President, the experience of many ages teaches us that paper rights on their own are no adequate guarantors of civic freedoms. The rights that are spelt out in the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms are not so very different from those adumbrated in the constitutions of, say, East Germany or the USSR, but as the citizens of those unhappy polities discovered, paper rights in themselves are worthless in the absence of adequate mechanisms of parliamentary government.

There is no crisis of human rights in the European Union, but there is a crisis of democratic legitimacy. Allow me to suggest that one way to ameliorate that crisis would be to keep faith with our voters and put the Treaty of Lisbon, as we promised, to a series of referendums. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!

(PL) Mr President, all children have the right to the love of both their parents. Even if the parents' marriage falls apart, it is the good of the child, and not the 'discretion' of civil servants that should decide on the child's contacts with its parents.

Children have the right to speak with their parents in their mother tongue. If the parents are of different nationalities, they should have the right to speak in both of them. However, the Jugendamt is acting against the interests of children from mixed marriages by promptly restricting access to the non-German parent. The Committee on Petitions has recorded over 200 complaints in this matter. That is why I supported Amendment 24. Its rejection has led to my final vote against a report that negates the right to life through pro-abortion legislation and breaks the principle of subsidiarity.

Mr President, the UK Independence Party is opposed to racism, female genital mutilation, the criminalisation of homosexuality and prejudice against foreigners, wherever in the world that may occur. However, the British enjoy perfectly good human rights under our own law and we do not need the protection of the European Union. The EU is undemocratic and anti-democratic and it is not therefore a suitable guardian of anybody's human rights.

We would also like to remind Parliament that family law is a Member State competence and is not an area of EU jurisdiction. The issue of whether drug abusers should face criminal charges is a matter for Member State law and the EU should not seek to undermine and replace the judicial systems of Member States. Therefore the UK Independence Party MEPs voted against this report.

Mr President, when it comes to reports like these, I often talk to different voluntary and community groups from within my constituency, where you can gain a great deal of knowledge from other people's experiences and contacts.

I also regularly try to gauge the opinion of other MEPs across the political spectrum and from different countries, to try and understand the views and problems experienced by others. I fully concur with the sentiments expressed by my colleagues, Mr Hannan and Mr Callanan.

However, on issues such as the ones contained in this report, I like to speak to Members like Mr Allister, who, whilst not from my political party, is a hard-working and pragmatic Member in this place; his counsel is often wise and he is someone with whom I know I can agree to disagree in a civilised way - as I do on what he just said.

With reports like these - where you can cherry-pick the many different issues to determine how you vote on them - it becomes impossible to find a dividing line as to whether you should vote for or against, and so I copped out - I abstained. I apologise.

(HU) Mr President, the report we have just adopted, entitled 'On the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union', is comprehensive and represents a breakthrough in several aspects. Its presentation of children's rights and basic social rights merits special attention. I deem it exceptionally good that at long last it takes a correct approach to the problems and rights of traditional national minorities, laying down the principles of self-governance and language use, areas in which the Union has been quite late in creating norms.

This is why I supported and fought for the adoption of this report, and this is why the Hungarian delegation of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats also voted for it, in spite of several debatable adopted paragraphs which we cannot agree with, as we consider it unacceptable to regulate certain issues at EU level.

(HU) Mr President, I apologise that I did not sign up, I did not know. As a clergyman and member of a Hungarian minority subject to discrimination, willing to compromise if necessary, I voted in good conscience for the Catania report on fundamental rights, as I consider it a significant step forward in many respects, for instance as regards social rights.

I wish to express my special appreciation for the article on minority rights, which could form the basis and starting point for an EU legal framework for the protection of minorities. I agree with what has been said by Mrs Kinga Gál.

Compromise was needed because I must disagree with certain points, for instance with the paragraph on euthanasia or the questions regarding homosexuality. I reject the notion that religious leaders should be restricted in their freedom of conscience and religion concerning homosexuality.

I regret that paragraph 49 has failed to include statements on traditional minority and community rights or on territorial and regional autonomy.

(LV) Thank you, Mr President. In the final vote, I voted against this report, which was worthy of support in many ways. I voted against, because the report confuses traditional minorities and their rights with the economic migrants and forcibly relocated migrants who flooded into my country, as a result of the occupation of Latvia after the Second World War. During the course of 50 years of occupation, the indigenous nation was watered down to 50% and even to minority status in Latvia's 13 largest towns and cities, including the capital city, Riga. Thank you.

Mr President, today we have just voted on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union. It is with great regret that, together with my two Maltese colleagues in the PSE Group, we have had to abstain from voting on the report.

Although the report refers to numerous issues of fundamental human rights which are laudable, it includes other issues, such as abortion, which should never have been included in this report. As the Maltese social representatives in the European Parliament are against abortion, we have had to vote against these particular parts of the report.

There are, indeed, other issues included in this report, such as living wills and the right to dignity at the end of life, which are sensitive issues, regarding which we have had to abstain. That is why we abstained at the end of this vote. I would like to thank you for this opportunity.

We will now move on to the explanations of vote on the Cappato report, having already heard Mr Mitchell.

- (CS) Mr President, I did not support this populist text which, in the original version, contained a number of useful provisions on greater transparency in respect of political activities within the European Union. Unfortunately, it was amended. I have no intention of promoting nonsense such as the disclosure of the professional and personal documents which fellow Members exchange among themselves or which they receive from nongovernmental organisations and lobby organisations. While I do not consider such documents to be confidential, no national parliament in a civilised democracy imposes the duty to disclose professional - let alone all - correspondence.

Good. Last but not least, Syed Kamall!

Mr President, thank you for your very kind words. I hope to remember them evermore.

When we talk about transparency and access to EU documents, it is something that we can all agree on across the Chamber. After all, we are only here because of the taxpayers who voted us into office and the taxpayers who fund these institutions and fund our work. But let us be absolutely clear about this. When we talk about transparency of documents and access to documents, let us make sure that the taxpayer has access to those documents that they really want to have access to.

Recently, group leaders from Parliament went to visit the Head of State of a democratic country, the Czech Republic. The group leaders, who were representing Parliament, as far as we understand, insulted the President of that country. All that a number of citizens have been asking for is for those minutes from that meeting to be published. So let us be transparent, let us be clear and let us have respect for those who hold a different view to those who sit in this Parliament.

Written explanations of vote

in writing. - One of the top security measures that have been agreed to is the issue of biometrics in passport and travel documents. Of course this means a substantial expense running into millions of euros but one cannot compromise with security measures.

On the other hand one has to take into consideration the earnings of our people, which vary from state to state. The issuing of an ordinary passport in Malta incurs expenditure. Who is going to pay for the change to biometric passports: the state, the individual or a shared arrangement?

In the European Parliament we have agreed today that those Member States in which the inclusion of children on their parents' documents had been allowed will be obliged to issue individual documents for the children at no additional cost other than material expenses. It would be pertinent for the Government to take note of this as it has become a policy not to make referrals when irregular tariffs and taxes are collected by Government, as has been the cases relating to the VAT on registration and past payments on satellite dishes.

in writing. - (NL) Common sense has prevailed in the Coelho report, and this is why I have emphatically voted in favour of it. It is to be welcomed that the use of biometric data in passports and travel documents will become subject to stricter rules and harmonisation, especially since the abolition of Europe's internal borders has demonstrated the need for reinforced safety controls at the external borders. A uniform and harmonised system of biometric data, amongst other things, will enable us to fight crime more effectively. This report makes a hesitant step in that direction.

This regulation seeks to amend the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States. This is a regulation that we have disagreed with since its creation in 2004, as it introduces the harmonisation of security mechanisms and the integration of biometric identifiers, in the context of the security policies promoted at European Union level.

This amendment has the essential objective of introducing exemptions for children under 12 years of age, a derogation that is planned to last four years, so that countries with legislation that establishes a lower age limit can keep it, provided that they observe the minimum limit of six years (in the case of Portugal, France and Estonia), apart from other aspects relating to the protection and security of biometric data.

Even though the proposal establishes exemption rules for children under 12 years of age (a decision based on merely technical issues), we consider that it does not deal with the fundamental issue, that is, the use of biometric data, namely of children, and its harmonisation at EU level (and particularly as the issuing of passports comes within the competence of each Member State) in the context of its security policy.

For these reasons we abstained.

in writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Coelho on security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents.

It does not make sense, however, to accept a flawed regulation unquestioningly if there are some ways in which it could be improved.

For example, it is unacceptable for different Member States to apply different rules on the age for fingerprinting children, and therefore it is important to introduce measures, particularly with regard to child trafficking, that, if not always taken jointly, are at least more comprehensive.

Ultimately, it is important to me to emphasise that biometric data may under no circumstances be used for dishonest purposes. A strict, recurrent review of data security is therefore indispensable.

in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I am voting for the report on the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States.

I agree with the rapporteur's proposal to introduce the principle of 'one person - one passport', so that every person has a passport with his or her biometrical data.

The situation in which a single passport can be issued to a holder and his or her children, by including their names and surnames, or containing only the biometrical data of the passport-holding parent, may be conducive to child trafficking.

I also support Mr Coelho's initiative to allow two exemptions from mandatory fingerprinting in respect of children under the age of six and all persons who for various reasons are physically unable to give fingerprints.

I voted in favour of this report because it clarifies important points regarding the standards required for issuing biometric passports. Furthermore, I hope that the introduction of biometric passports (which happened in Romania on 1 January 2009) will result in Romania's inclusion in the US Visa Waiver Programme and accelerate the process for its integration in the Schengen area.

However, we need to focus our attention on the reliability of biometric technologies as they have proved to be ineffective in the case of identifying children under the age of 6. Member States should launch shortly a new pilot project to analyse the reliability of this identification system, which will certainly help to pinpoint any errors registered in Member States.

in writing. - (EL) Even children must be put on file because they are considered potentially dangerous to the EU. This is the proposal by the European Commission, the EU Council and the European Parliament. The only difference between the proposal for a directive and the European Parliament is the age at which a child is considered dangerous. The Commission considers that children become dangerous at six years old and must therefore give fingerprints which are incorporated in personal passports from that age, while the European Parliament, demonstrating its 'democratic sensibilities', considers that children must be put on file when they are slightly older, namely at 12 years of age.

This unacceptable directive, which has been approved by the supporters in the European Parliament of the one-way street in Europe, is the inevitable result of the EU's frantic 'anti-terrorism' policy which, in order essentially to safeguard the sovereignty of capital over the labour and grassroots movement, has dangerously christened even children as dangerous. It would appear that the EU is making appropriate use of the experience of the Israeli army, which over-defends the 'security' of the Israel state from Palestinian 'terrorists' by slaughtering countless children in Gaza as we speak. How old are the murdered Palestinian children? Are they six or twelve years old?

in writing. - (DE) I abstained from voting on the 'Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States'.

This report envisages a limitation on the biometric monitoring of citizens of EU Member States in that children under the age of 12 years are excepted from the requirement to provide biometric data. Such an exception is to be warmly welcomed.

Nevertheless, I reject biometric authentication systems out of hand. They lead to increased police-state monitoring of citizens. This is not the way to improve security. As the report broadly accepts this monitoring, I could not vote in favour; whereas rejecting it would have meant rejecting the improvement I mentioned. That is why I abstained.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the Coelho report on security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents.

I agree with the proposal to use passports for children too, in order to combat child abduction and trafficking. I support the minimum threshold of six years of age, but the name of the person or persons with parental responsibility for the child should be included in the document, for the reasons given above.

Finally, I agree with Mr Coelho regarding his proposal to introduce a three-year revision clause, with a view to waiting for the results of an in-depth, large-scale study examining the reliability and usefulness of fingerprints taken from children and older people: such a delicate and significant issue requires constant monitoring, so that it can be correctly handled in terms of Community law.

in writing. - (NL) This legislation allows fingerprints to be stored in passports/travel documents so as to allow the authenticity of the document and the holder's identity to be verified.

I voted in favour of the changes proposed by the rapporteur. What is positive is that the fingerprints of children under 12 can only be taken if the Member States already legislate for this. Compared to the Commission's and Council's option to take the fingerprints of children as young as six, this is a step forward.

Taking fingerprints also comes at a price. A visa will soon set you back EUR 60. Compulsory fingerprinting will increase that price significantly, so that a family of four who want to travel abroad will need to spend quite a bit of money before they leave.

At any rate, I take issue with the excessive use of fingerprinting or the use of biometric data. Is this not more trouble than it is worth? Its efficiency has not been proven, its use is not proportionate to the desired outcome and it is also very expensive. This is why I endorsed the amendments that improved the text, but ultimately expressed my dissatisfaction by voting against the legislative resolution.

in writing. - (SV) We have voted in favour of Mr Lambsdorff's report on procurement rules in the fields of defence and security.

It is clear in the report that the Member States have sole authority for defence and national security, which we feel it is important to emphasise. We believe that equipment, civil works and services should normally be procured in this field, too. However, we believe that it is a natural consequence of the nature of this market that procurement cannot be carried out entirely in accordance with the rules of the directive. These exceptions, however, should only apply when they can be justified on account of their significance in relation to security policy. We believe that in this way we can cope with the habitual use of exemptions for protectionist reasons, which is particularly damaging to Swedish industry.

in writing. - Alexander Graf Lambsdorff has presented a proposal concerning the Commission's 'Defence Package', covering procurement for both military and non-military security purposes as well as covering public contracts concluded between EU operators. This proposal improves upon the 2004 Directive (2004/18/EC) currently in force by increasing flexibility, transparency and, vitally, fair competition. The defence procurement market is a very specific one, and Mr Lambsdorff has provided a means of addressing its complex nature.

There are express exemptions for certain obligations relating to disclosure when contrary to the security concerns of the Member State.

While defence procurement remains essentially a national competence, this proposal helps create a single European market for defence and security materials through a structured legal framework. This is a market worth EUR 90 billion annually. Mr Lambsdorff has proposed a common position that I can support.

in writing. - (FR) Strengthening the competitiveness of the European defence industry, which is supposedly damaged by European markets that are too narrow and too closed in on themselves, has served as a pretext for this Directive on the opening up to competition of public contracts in this sector.

True, the text that is today being submitted to us does take account of a number of problems raised by the Commission's initial text, such as its scope, the non-application of the WTO agreement on public contracts, the financial thresholds and confidentiality.

However, it is in keeping with the logic of Brussels, whereby no sector, not even strategic or vital ones, can be exempt from its supervision, from liberalisation or from privatisation. It does not guarantee respect for Member States' sovereignty, even though they alone are legally responsible for their national security. It does not encourage the existence of far-reaching markets in Europe, where the States' defence budgets are drastically reduced. It does not introduce any system of Community preference, which alone would enable a true European market to emerge naturally. It strengthens the civilian/military dichotomy, which is so specific to Europe and which has already cost us so dearly. Above all, it puts economic and market considerations above everything else. These serious flaws on key points are the reason for our opposition.

in writing. - (PL) The European defence procurement market is highly fragmented, which has a negative economic impact. The main aim of the adopted directive is to do away with this fragmentation and to create a common defence market on the territory of the European Union, while taking account of the specific aspects of the defence market and protecting the security interests of the Member States.

The Member States have based their decisions on the premise that the current public procurement directive takes inadequate account of the specifics of public defence procurement. This has resulted in various instruments adopted in the directive on awarding contracts, selecting bidders or contractual terms imposed by the contracting entities. The controls built into the directive should also guarantee bidders adequate legal protection, promote transparency and non-discrimination in the award of contracts.

I believe that the regulations adopted will be an important contribution to opening the market, while taking due account of national security. The Directive should also lead to cost optimisation, both in national budgets and on the part of industry, and ensure that the armed forces will be equipped with the best equipment available on the market.

in writing. - The Conservative Delegation has consistently supported efforts to open markets and encourage cross-border trade between Member States of the EU. We welcome opportunities for British industry to have access to defence equipment markets that might hitherto have been closed to outside competition. However, we regret that such positive, practical aspects are secondary to the EU's political motive to create an integrated European defence industrial base, and to strengthen the European security and defence policy, to which our opposition has been consistent.

We have particular concerns about the negative consequences of insisting that, in spite of investment by national governments and firms in defence R&D, there should then be open competition for subsequent production contracts. This will remove the ability to recoup R&D investment and offer no means of protecting intellectual property, jobs or export opportunities. We are also concerned that an inward-looking European approach will be detrimental to our very necessary and fruitful defence industrial relationships with other countries - especially the US, but also Japan, Israel and other countries.

For all these reasons the Conservative Delegation abstained on the report.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the report by Mr Lambsdorff on public contracts in the fields of defence and security. The establishment of a European security and defence policy makes it necessary to build up the necessary capacities, for which purpose a high-performance European industry is needed. The establishment of a European defence technology and defence industry base and a European market for the procurement of defence material is intended to contribute to this.

These two measures can supply the capabilities required to meet global defence tasks and cope with the new challenges in the area of security. I therefore agree with the rapporteur that the proposal for a directive should aim to establish a uniform European legal framework which enables the Member States to apply Community law without jeopardising their security interests.

Finally, I agree with the introduction into the law of a review procedure. This achieves the purpose of affording tenderers effective legal protection, promotes transparency and non-discrimination in the award of contracts, and thus contributes to genuine market opening.

I voted in favour of the Schlyter report on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (dichloromethane). I consider that this proposal to amend Directive 76/769/EEC will contribute to an effective reduction in the risk of environmental and human exposure to substances with dangerous properties, such as dichloromethane (DCM), which has a unique profile of adverse effects on human health. The protection of human health must prevail over industrial interests.

We voted in favour of the compromise text, given that this measure can have positive impacts on workers in various industries, specifically the automobile and naval industries, as it minimises their exposure to quite noxious toxic agents. It deals with dichloromethane (DCM), which is a colourless chemical compound with a sweet, pleasant and penetrating smell, similar to ether. Its marketing is intended fundamentally for the production of pharmaceutical products, solvents and auxiliary products, paint strippers and adhesives.

DCM has a unique profile of adverse effects on human health, and is included in the list of 33 priority substances established under the terms of the Water Directive. This substance is classified as a Category 3 carcinogenic agent. It has a narcotic effect and, for a high level of exposure, causes depression of the central nervous system, loss of consciousness and cardiotoxic effects, with a direct risk of death as a consequence of inappropriate use.

According to the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, one of the main problems related to the toxicity of DCM consists of the risk to especially vulnerable groups.

Various alternatives to DCM-based strippers are already available on the market.

I agree fundamentally with the objective of the proposal: to reduce the risks of the use of dichloromethane (DCM) by the general public and by professionals.

DCM has a unique profile of negative effects on human health: it is a carcinogenic agent, has a narcotic effect and, at a high level of exposure, causes depression of the central nervous system, loss of consciousness and cardiotoxic effects, with a direct risk of death as a consequence of inappropriate use.

According to the Commission, between 1989 and 2007, 18 deaths caused by the use of DCM were recorded in the EU. I consider it imperative to apply European measures to prohibit or replace this substance.

Following the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I support banning the use of DCM by the general public, but allowing it to be used by professionals, in safe conditions.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the Schlyter report on amending the Council directive as regards restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations.

Dichloromethane, in fact, has many adverse effects on human health: it has a narcotic and depressive effect on the central nervous system, as well as causing cardio-toxicological effects at high exposures. It is therefore necessary for the current legislation on the health and safety of workers to be enforced, since, the enforcement procedures in this field are inadequate, mainly because of the large number, small size and mobile nature of the enterprises supplied. Finally, I agree with Mr Schlyter's statement that we need to take special account of the health of children, who are more susceptible to health risks because of the significant potential for a high level of exposure.

The vote that took place today on this report, which I presented on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007, is an important contribution to creating minimum international standards at global level that guarantee better working conditions, more safety and fewer fatal accidents, in a sector that is very dangerous but also strategic. It puts defence of the dignity and the hard working life of fishermen at the centre of our concerns, given that it is the area with the highest percentage of fatal accidents. It should be noted that the report had 671 votes in favour and only 16 against.

Convention 188 shall take effect after it has been ratified by 10 of the 180 Member States of the ILO, 8 of which must be coastal countries.

I would point out that the Convention revises the conventions concerning the minimum age of fishermen, medical examinations, fishermen's articles of agreement and accommodation of crews, and also covers issues such as health and safety at work, recruitment, placement and social security.

in writing. - (SV) The European Parliament is calling on Member States to ratify the ILO Work in Fishing Convention (Convention 188). This convention dates from 2007 and deals with important issues such as the fishermen's working environment, hours of rest and social security. It should be up to the Member States to decide, in a democratic process, whether or not they wish to ratify the present ILO Convention. I have therefore voted against the present report, as this is not a matter that the European Parliament should involve itself in.

The Union, through the common fisheries policy, seeks to make fishing activities more effective, so that the sector, including aquaculture, is economically viable and competitive, ensures adequate living standards for the populations who depend on fishing activities and meets the interests of consumers.

ILO Convention 188, adopted in June 2007, is a document that seeks to allow fair competition between the owners of fishing boats and to confer dignified working conditions for professionals in the sector. The convention pursues these objectives by establishing a set of international minimum standards for the fishing sector that, in certain areas, are within the exclusive competence of the Community. It therefore seems necessary to propose to the Member States that they should ratify this convention, in the interests of the Community and the consistency of the common fisheries policy.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support the report by Mrs Figueiredo on authorisation to ratify the Work in Fishing Convention (2007) of the International Labour Organisation (Convention 188).

One of the objectives of the 2007 document is to achieve and maintain a level playing field in the fishing sector by promoting decent living and working conditions for fishers and fairer conditions of competition in the world, seeking to remedy the low rate of ratification of many conventions in the field of maritime labour. To that end, the adoption of the Convention represents a step forward in establishing dignified working conditions for professionals in this important strategic sector, in that it covers a variety of aspects of professional activity, namely improved installations and safety conditions at work, pay, medical care at sea and on land, rest periods, work contracts and social security.

Finally, I applaud Mrs Figueiredo's initiative, because it aims to ensure that minimum standards applicable to all are universally applied, without prejudice to the existence of standards in individual Member States that are more favourable to workers.

I voted in favour of the report. In tackling the issue of fundamental rights in the EU today we must not, however, omit to refer to the terrible events in Gaza. What is happening in the Middle East requires the EU to pay constant attention to the issue of respect for fundamental human rights, which are unfortunately in jeopardy at these times. In fact, I would argue that, in the difficult negotiations which I hope can make progress, the authority and firmness of the Community institutions partly depend on the quality of democracy that we are able to achieve within the EU.

There is, unfortunately, a real danger that even in Europe the fight against terrorism may result in failure to respect fundamental rights and freedoms. I am hopeful about the statements by the US President-Elect, Barack Obama, regarding the commencement of cooperation on this issue between Europe and the United States. Thinking about all the aspects that make up the framework of the inviolable rights of man, I consider, finally, that special attention should be paid to the most vulnerable individuals, namely children, the elderly, migrants, and young people looking for work.

in writing. - Conservatives recall their long-held view that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should not be justiciable. In this context we believe that many of the issues dealt with by this report are properly in the purview of Member States and not matters on which the EU should try to impose a policy. The report also contains a number of issues which are matters of individual conscience, for example, the implicit recommendation on euthanasia and the decriminalisation of hard drugs. For these reasons, we are unable to vote in favour of this report.

in writing. - (IT) My final vote against the report in question is the result not so much of its content, but of its omissions.

It is not possible to discuss human rights without speaking of the first and most fundamental one: the right to life. Every year in the 27 Member States approximately 1 200 000 human beings are destroyed in deliberate abortions. This is a tragic figure, and in addition to this number there are the illegal abortions and the incalculable number of human embryos destroyed through the use of the in vitro fertilisation technique. We have a duty to note the diversity of opinions on this issue, but it is certain that this is an attack on the very basis of the culture of human rights. The resolution, however, not only ignores the problem, but seeks to ensure it is forgotten, focusing its attention only on the 'reproductive and sexual health' of women.

Nobody can be opposed to the health of women, particularly if they are young, pregnant and mothers, but this cannot justify the total omission of the rights of children. On the other hand, it is well known that the language of 'reproductive and sexual health' is used to surreptitiously include abortion, understood as a right and as a social service.

I voted against the report presented by Mr Catania because I do not agree with Article 49, a controversial article which encourages the problems of 'traditional national minority communities' to be handled through 'self-governance solutions (personal-cultural, territorial, regional autonomies)'.

I support the rights of persons belonging to minorities, but I categorically reject the idea of territorial autonomy based on ethnic criteria and of minorities' collective rights, an idea which has sparked in practice ethnic separatism and interethnic conflicts. In addition, vague, controversial concepts like 'self-governance' and 'cultural autonomy' also have the potential to cause conflict. These concepts extend beyond current European standards of international law with regard to the rights of persons belonging to national minorities and lead us into an area of controversy.

I believe that EU Member States have the sovereign right to decide alone to what extent they accept or reject such concepts. In fact, the EU must respect and guarantee the sovereignty and integrity of its Member States.

in writing. - (PL) Although the desire to respect human rights is one of the mainstays of all states and organisations at international level, this report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2007 is a scandalous breach of those same rights in Europe. For this reason I could not support it in today's vote. Yet again, we have an attempt to impose a particular view of the world, expressed by the author of the report, on the Member States. That is something I cannot agree to.

in writing. - UKIP is opposed to female genital mutilation, homophobia, racism and xenophobia. However we are also against EU control of fundamental rights. The UK already has perfectly good laws and safeguards on fundamental rights. The EU is not democratic and is therefore not a suitable guardian of people's rights. Moreover, family law is a Member State competence and not an area of EU jurisdiction. The issue of whether drug abusers should face criminal charges is a matter for Member State law and the EU should not be seeking to pervert the course of justice.

For a number of years the Council has been submitting to the European Parliament an annual report on the situation of fundamental rights in the Union, in relation to which Parliament has responded by drawing up an own-initiative report.

For the first time, this report was drawn up taking into account the results obtained by the Fundamental Rights Agency. It has special importance given the fact that no report on this subject has been adopted since 2003.

I consider that the rapporteur developed certain subjects too much, as they have already been discussed in separate reports, and there are various fairly controversial points, some of which I have voted against as they clearly go against my principles.

However, there are many other points with which I fully agree, and for this reason I abstained, not only because I believe that the text was substantially improved by the excellent work carried out by Mrs Gál, but also because I could not under any circumstances, in all conscience, vote against a report in defence of fundamental rights.

I voted against this report because it suggests approaches which encourage multiple abortions, same-sex marriages or autonomy on ethnic criteria.

in writing. - I support this Report which makes recommendations on a broad range of issues including discrimination, immigration, social rights and gender equality.

It notes that the recommendations of this Parliament in its report on CIA Rendition activities in the EU (Feb 2007) have not yet been implemented by Member States and EU institutions. The fight against terrorism can never be used to diminish the level of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Indeed, to defend human rights is precisely to fight against terrorism in both its causes and effects. In that respect, I welcome the statement by US President-Elect Barack Obama on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to never again practice Rendition.

The Report also suggests raising public awareness about women's right to fully enjoy their sexual and reproductive rights, including the facilitation of access to contraception to prevent all unwanted pregnancies and illegal high-risk abortions, and, to combat the practice of female genital mutilation.

Moreover, the Report urges Member States to take legislative action to overcome discrimination experienced by same-sex couples by recognising such relationships. Member States with legislation on same-sex partnerships should move to recognise provisions with similar effects adopted by other states.

in writing. - I supported the Catania report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2004-2008). In particular, I voted in favour of paragraph 32, which calls for the ruling by the European Court on the People's Mujahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) to be respected. This ruling demanded that the PMOI should be taken off the EU terror list.

I hold no particular brief for this organisation. A long time ago, I stopped signing their declarations regarding the situation in Iran, which I had more difficulty finding credible, particularly after participating in a Foreign Affairs Committee Delegation to Teheran when I could see for myself the emerging reformist opposition to the hardline fundamentalist regime in Iran.

Nevertheless, I do not have to support the organisation to deplore the failure to implement the Court's view that the PMOI's action gives no reason to include, or continue to include, them on the terror list thus visiting on them all the repressive consequences that follow.

in writing. - (PL) The report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008 acknowledges that the effective protection and the promotion of fundamental rights forms the basis of democracy in Europe. However, the Parliamentary commission notes that Member States have repeatedly refused EU scrutiny of their human rights policies and placed the protection of human rights on a purely national basis, thereby undermining the Community's credibility in the protection of fundamental rights in the international arena.

The European Commission should therefore concentrate on encouraging Member States to cooperate more closely with it by inviting them to include in future reports on human rights not just analyses of the situation in the world at large, but in individual Member States. Also deserving attention are a series of proposals aimed at effectively combating discriminatory policies in the EU, underlining that equal opportunities are a fundamental right of every citizen, and not a privilege. It is very disturbing that around 20% of children in the European Union live below the poverty threshold, and many of them come from single-parent families or families whose parents come from outside the EU. In this regard it is necessary to adopt appropriate means of accessing rights, concentrating particularly on the needs of children, and for Member States to take effective measures to tackle poverty.

in writing. - (FR) Mr Catania's report is nothing short of alarming. It is a catalogue of all the rights, privileges and exorbitant rights of ordinary law which, according to him, should necessarily be granted to minorities, especially if they are non-European. It is a set of instructions with which to destroy national and regional identities, to destroy the values, traditions and cultures of our countries, and to discriminate systematically and institutionally against Europeans in their own countries. It is an attack on our inalienable right to self-determination - which is granted to all nations except our own.

It is also the height of hypocrisy for an institution that discriminates daily on account of its political ideas and that applies without proper judgment or thought the label 'presumed guilty' to some of its Members, such as Mr Vanhecke and I, who are victims of a witch-hunt in our respective countries.

We are not here principally to defend these visible and noisy minorities, who are demanding more and more privileges and stigmatising countries and populations who are kind enough or foolish enough to take them in. We are here to defend our own, the citizens of our nations, this large majority - for now - of Europeans who are in your eyes invisible, inaudible and contemptible.

in writing. - (PL) I voted against the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008 authored by the Italian MEP Giusto Catania, as the author has not so much presented a description of the situation over the past four years as expressed his own opinions, suggesting and even attempting to impose upon Member States legislation that is exclusively within their competence. I do not believe that the countries of the European Union can be forced to issue legislation that their public finds unacceptable.

The very definition of 'marriage' should be reserved for unions between women and men. Mr Catania's proposal will not so much lead to tolerance of homosexual behaviour (which I support), but to discrimination against fundamental biological, that is, heterosexual, relations. Essentially, we need to ask whether the aim is actually to restrict the rights of the family in its traditional meaning, that is, mother, father and children. This makes the highly personal issues relating to a person's sex life into politicised acts, even if it is through public demonstration of one's homosexuality, for example through so-called 'love parades'.

In my view, this report, by using formulations such as 'reproductive rights', which in the present meaning of international law include abortion on demand, opens the floodgates to practices of this kind.

in writing. - (HU) I consider my fellow Member's report of special significance, since human rights constitute one of the pillars of the values set out in the Treaties of the European Union. In addition to democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights is what we require of candidate countries, and we also emphasise the affirmation of universal, inalienable rights in our international relations. However, the European Union will only be a credible global defender of human rights if in its own territory it uses unfailingly every instrument available to defend the values expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The report devotes a separate section to the Roma, who are the largest minority in the European Union, and who are most heavily burdened by social exclusion. It is the joint responsibility of European states to design a comprehensive and unified strategy to tackle the problems of the Roma, who for the most part live in deplorable conditions and destitution. A framework programme with action-oriented and clear objectives and deadlines is needed, one that makes use of effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

A programme must be designed which, independently of parties and government cycles, simultaneously addresses education, housing, health and discrimination and takes on poor practices in the Member States; such a programme should be capable of serving as the basis for immediate action in regions in crisis. If we can help the millions of Roma to become full-fledged European citizens and members of the European Community in a spiritual sense, this will represent a giant leap towards the social cohesion of the continent.

in writing. - (LT) One of the fundamental freedoms of citizens in the Community is freedom of movement. I believe that all EU citizens have the same right to participate in the political life of the European Union (EU), to freely express their political opinions and attitudes. These freedoms became even more important after EU expansion to the countries of Eastern Europe, as once the Eastern European countries had joined the EU, economic migration from the new Member States to Western Europe intensified greatly. Lithuania for its part leads in terms of the number of people who have emigrated since entry to the Community. When I met Lithuanian emigrants in London I learnt that many of these people plan to remain in the United Kingdom long-term, especially those who have started families there and are enrolling their children in schools. To my knowledge, such a tendency is also reflected in statistics. The situation is also similar in the other EU countries Lithuanians have emigrated to. I believe that it is particularly important to guarantee the right of these citizens to participate in European Parliament elections in the country where they are currently resident.

I would also like to stress that the participation of citizens in EU matters and elections to the European Parliament is not increasing, but quite the opposite, the EU is becoming increasingly distant from its people. Bearing this in mind, I think that once EU citizens are given the right to vote in European Parliament elections in their country of residence, this will only strengthen people's trust in EU institutions. For these reasons I voted for the 45th amendment.

in writing. - (PL) I voted against Giusto Catania's report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2004-2008). I voted against the report not because I am against fundamental rights. On the contrary, I believe they are of exceptional importance to the European Union and the whole world. The problem is that Mr Catania's report is harmful to the implementation of fundamental rights. Why is this? It is because the demand for European legislation to fight homophobia or recognise same-sex partnerships are not fundamental rights. If they are to be legislated on, they should be part of a completely separate report. The European Parliament cannot effectively extend the definition of fundamental rights because it does not have the authority to establish international law. In addition, some Member States disagree with such an extended interpretation. It is therefore nothing more than a political gesture and wishful thinking.

The danger is that this is an area in which the Member States do and should take their own decisions. Imposing such views is a slap in the face for cohesion in the European Union. I do not like homophobia, but legislating against it in community law is absurd. If the EU is to tackle homophobia, one could just as easily say that it should tackle anti-Polonism, Russophobia, Germanophobia, Francophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Papism, anti-clericalism, anti-Catholicism and a variety of other attitudes and modes of behaviour. And forcing Member States to accept the legality of same-sex marriages could be even more dangerous.

in writing. - I voted against Amendment 103 in the Catania report, which proposed that long-term non-citizens should participate in elections to the European Parliament as well in local elections in order to promote social and political integration.

In fact, elections to the European Parliament are equivalent to elections to the national parliament. To participate in them is the right of citizens. Otherwise, citizenship will lose its meaning, and also incentives would be lost for non-citizen residents to apply for citizenship. Only in this way can we retain the vital balance between rights and responsibilities that only citizens can have.

in writing. - (FI) The different policies Member States have when it comes to ethical questions gave rise in the political groups, and especially in our own, to just the kind of wide-ranging debate we might have foreseen. I can only say that we agree to disagree, and that has to be taken as a sign of just how diverse Europe is: we need to be able to find room for diversity of opinion. In many respects I admire my own group's basic positions.

With reference to point 61, however, I would like to say this. I would find it problematic if someone were simultaneously opposed to awareness of the right to reproductive and sexual health (which, generally speaking, is a euphemism for the right to an abortion) and the mention of facilitating access to contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Opposing both at the same time I would see as a reality gap that could only result in undesirable consequences. This I say with all due respect, and I want to thank all parties once again for this rewarding exchange of views.

in writing. - (EL) The PASOK parliamentary group in the European Parliament voted in favour of the Catania report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union, but writes to point out that it opposes the wording of paragraph 49 and the related Amendment 35.

in writing. - (FR) Entrusting a report such as this to a communist Member is a provocation for the hundreds of millions of victims of communism. In this report Mr Catania is inspired, it is true, by an ideology less brutal than communism, but just as totalitarian: euro-internationalism. His text in fact denies the most fundamental human rights:

the right to life, with the promotion of abortion and euthanasia;

the right of each child to have a father and a mother, by calling on the States to apply the 'principle of mutual recognition for homosexual couples, whether they are married or living in a registered civil partnership';

the right of European nations to self-determination and to remain as they are, flouted by proposals aimed at opening up Europe even more to global immigration - a development to which the nationals of our countries are meant to adapt;

and democracy, since the report claims to adhere to the Treaty of Lisbon, which was rejected by the Irish electorate.

Now more than ever, safeguarding our freedoms and the identity of our nations requires a new Europe to be built, the Europe of free and sovereign nations.

in writing. - (SV) The June List believes that protection of the fundamental freedoms and rights is of utmost importance, both within and outside the EU. It is extremely important that the Member States of the EU observe the fundamental freedoms and rights, and it is clear that we cannot leave it to the Member States to monitor themselves. However, the June List is critical of the establishment of a new European agency in this area and of the desire to conduct an 'external policy'. We believe that the UN - not the EU - with its global scope, extensive experience and competence, is best placed to monitor and implement the measures that are necessary.

I have therefore chosen to vote against the report as a whole, but I am very positively disposed towards some of the wordings in the proposal, which I have voted in favour of. I welcome the fact that the report deals with the unfair treatment of prisoners in the American detention facility at Guantánamo. There is only one way to go: try them or release them.

I am very concerned about the particular vulnerability of individuals from various minority groups and I believe that action needs to be taken, both at national and international level. I have voted in favour of this in the report, but I am sceptical about whether a judicial framework at European level is a good solution to the problem.

The report referring to the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union includes amendments that I have submitted, which I consider to be important for Romanian citizens (for example, the amendment on abolishing the labour market restrictions imposed on citizens from the new Member States).

In addition, I agree with many of the points put forward by the report, such as the strategy for Roma inclusion, the protection of minorities, the rights of migrant workers or child protection.

However, the report also includes some references which cast doubt on some of the fundamental principles of Romanian society (such as considering the family to be a basic element in society) or which contravene Romanian legislation (such as consumption of drugs).

For these reasons, I voted against the report in the final vote.

in writing. - I welcome this resolution, which maps out and summarises the most important concerns on the state of fundamental rights within the Union, and the recommendations it contains on how to improve human rights within Member States.

in writing. - The Catania report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in the years 2004-2008 stresses the need to protect the rights of minorities, to fight all discrimination against all vulnerable categories.

I welcome this report which includes important elements drawn from Written Declaration 111 on ending street homelessness, which was adopted by the European Parliament in April 2008.

I particularly welcome the report's call for the introduction of winter emergency plans for the homeless, for a framework definition of homelessness and for the gathering of reliable statistical data on homelessness across the EU.

Ending street homelessness is a fundamental issue in the European Union. This report is an additional step towards pushing the European Council, Commission and Member States to act on homelessness.

Finally, the Treaty of Lisbon will not advance the situation concerning fundamental rights in the EU. Support for this report does not imply support for that Treaty. In fact, the European Parliament's refusal to respect the Irish No vote runs contrary to the spirit of the Charter.

in writing. - (DE) If the population of individual EU Member States decides to allow homosexual couples to marry, to enter into a civil partnership or to adopt children, other Member States should not be forced to follow suit. If the convictions of religious leaders or politicians mean that they are not exactly ecstatic about homosexuality - as the politically correct mainstream dictates - they should not be condemned or persecuted for these convictions. The same goes for the racism cudgel that is readily swung at anyone drawing attention to aberrations connected with asylum and foreign nationals.

Instead, it is being attempted undemocratically, through the back door, to force homosexual partnerships on Member States - which is probably a foretaste of what awaits us if we implement the Treaty of Lisbon. Anyone daring to criticise homosexuality or point out goings-on in connection with asylum and coexistence with foreign nationals is to be stigmatised as a criminal - in violation of the human right to free expression. Therefore, the Catania report is to be rejected in the strongest terms.

The report presented by Giusto Catania is full of interpretations and recommendations of a general nature regarding the situation of fundamental rights in European Union Member States. However, the regulatory base that we need exists: the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The priority for us at the moment is not to add new regulations, but to make existing ones operational and effective.

One of the issues dealt with in the report is the free movement of labour which, unfortunately, not all European citizens can enjoy at the moment on an equal basis. Although the two-year period of labour market restrictions imposed on the new Member States expired at the end of 2008, six of the Member States have extended the restrictions for Romania and Bulgaria for another three years, justifying the decision to extend the restriction period on grounds of the current financial crisis. The report does not explicitly discuss this problem, even though it involves differentiated treatment among EU citizens, which is not justified on this occasion.

I voted against this report which contains, apart from at least ten points worthy of criticism (which is a kind way for us to describe them), an unacceptable reference to Council of Europe Recommendation 1201. This recommendation should not be invoked without explaining very precisely the interpretation which is being given to it as it could be interpreted as granting collective rights to minorities or territorial autonomy based on ethnic criteria. I welcome the approval of Amendment 35, which is very reasonable, but in my view, a number of aspects of the report cannot be accepted.

in writing. - (EL) The report endeavours to help conceal the so-called 'democratic and social deficit' of the - by its very nature - deeply reactionary EU, so as to make it more attractive and blunt the dissatisfaction caused by its anti-grassroots policy. It accepts and welcomes all the reactionary principles and institutions which have been adopted by the EU, such as the four freedoms in the Maastricht Treaty, by trying to ascribe an effective dimension to their application.

It is based mainly on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights accompanying the anti-grassroots Treaty of Lisbon, which is below the level of rights safeguarded in many Member States. It largely constitutes a report of ideas and a vague wish list, it addresses fundamental rights, such as labour, education and health rights, simply as 'opportunities' which need to be give 'equally' to everyone, something which is physically impossible in practice and, wherever it is more specific, it proposes addressing only certain extreme cases of poverty, discrimination and so forth with measures such as the adoption of a minimum wage and so on. Finally, the lack of any reference to anti-democratic decisions and the prosecution of citizens, such as the ban on communist parties and other organisations and the imprisonment of communists and other fighters in Member States of the EU in central Europe and the Baltic, is revealing of the nature of the report.

in writing. - (EL) I voted for the report on the situation of fundamental rights in Europe, because I believe that it touches on one of the most basic problems of our unifying structure by engaging in constructive criticism. Discrimination in the enjoyment of fundamental rights derives mainly from the sex, age, origin or sexual orientation of those discriminated against, as the report accurately points out. The problem is exacerbated when the victims of such violations cannot react, mainly because they are locked up in mental asylums, care homes and so on. Europe cannot remain indifferent in the face of this situation, especially where tightening human rights will help to consolidate the European area of freedom and security. Consequently, and given the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not binding and the very limited facility for private individuals to take recourse to the Community courts, I cannot but welcome the proposals made by Mr Catania on the establishment of a general obligation on the part of the Community institutions to take account of human rights in the performance of their duties and the setting up of a specialist agency for the purpose.

in writing. - (SK) The problem with the report is that it deals with many sensitive issues. Even though the report gives a number of recommendations in a variety of areas, including minority rights, the rapporteur has again included the issue of reproductive health in the report.

The proposed amendments and supplements relating to reproductive health which the EP has voted for deny the right to life and violate the principle of subsidiarity. Respect for every unborn child and the need to protect human life from conception onward are matters of principle for me. I do not agree that we should adopt decisions at a European level on issues where Member States have differing attitudes stemming from their Christian traditions. I do not agree that the EU should force Slovakia, Poland, Ireland and other Member States to agree to abortions or euthanasia, which are not allowed under their national legislations. At a European level, it is always the case that we talk only about the mother's right to decide on the life or death of her child, and we forget about the unborn child's right to life.

For these reasons I voted against the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008.

It goes without saying that the PPE and PD-L (Romanian Liberal Democrat Party) value and respect fundamental human rights and take a firm stand when they are violated.

I voted against the Catania report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2004-2008 because the report has gone beyond its mandate, making recommendations and comments which go beyond the 2004-2008 period, which it had to report on. Instead of dealing with specific cases of human rights violations, the Catania report makes comments and recommends Member States to apply regulations which contradict national regulations. For example, in Articles 38 and 76 the notion of same-sex marriage is used, something which violates not only our religious views, but also our legal and rational views.

Article 149 mentions legalising the consumption of drugs, something which violates Romanian criminal law.

While the initiative of producing a report on the situation of human rights in the European Union is commendable and some of the points made by this report are even correct, based on what I have just said above, I voted against it.

To think that fundamental rights are fully guaranteed and protected in the European Union and in the Member States would be an error of analysis and would be detrimental to political action. Fundamental rights, even in free and democratic societies, need to be protected and promoted. Separate issues arise, however, in relation to this report and this debate.

Firstly, there is the supervision of the protection of these rights at national level. In societies such as ours, this function is exercised primarily in the national context but, naturally, without prejudice to the ability to appeal at European level, which we have. Between the duty of the institutions to guarantee the Treaties and national sovereignty, there is a place for each party to exercise its function without prejudice to the institutional nature of the EU.

On the other hand, in this report in particular there is an undesirable confusion between what are fundamental rights and what are ideological options for the organisation of society. A debate on these is interesting. However, the attempt to impose these positions on the Member States, against their democratically expressed desire and against the principle of subsidiarity, proves precisely the risks of bringing national matters into the Community domain. For this reason, and because I disagree with much of the content, I voted against this report.

If I had been in favour of the 'no' campaign in the Irish referendum, I would have enthusiastically applauded the Catania report and its supporters. It represents such a gross disrespect for the principle of subsidiarity and tramples underfoot the institutional rules of the European Union and the powers of the Member States to such an extent that it gives credence to all those who feed distrust of the political voracity of Brussels. To attack the safeguard clauses, which are a direct expression of the Treaties and a fundamental guarantee of the democracy of the Member States, as serving 'to codify ... discriminatory practices' is pathetic and grossly undermines the fundamental rights of citizenship.

To assert that the signature of international conventions by a majority of Member States places an obligation on the whole EU to abide by them is a complete legal absurdity, a plunge into darkness that goes beyond the most extreme federalism. I also reject the absolutely perverse assertion of the 'lack of credibility' of Europe, which is bound to lead to our 'tactical inferiority': whatever specific problems it might have, Europe is not Sudan, nor the People's Republic of China, nor Cuba, Somalia or North Korea. In short, the report strays into areas of political struggle that have nothing to do with fundamental rights, thereby stripping it of credibility, consistency and effectiveness. I voted against it.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against the report by Mr Catania on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2004-2008).

I do not agree that the Member States damage the active role of defence of human rights carried out by the European Union across the world. Furthermore, I do not agree that the war on terrorism can be seen as a pretext for a drop in the level of protection of human rights, in particular the right to privacy.

I am therefore opposed to the points relating to the Roma, who do not need any special protection; otherwise, a major discriminatory situation would be created in relation to the Roma, whom this resolution deems to be an ethnic group different from others. Finally, I disagree with the paragraph on repatriation: the procedures to be used in repatriating an individual cannot be assessed solely on the basis of these parameters.

in writing. - (FR) There can be no European area of freedom, security and justice without the protection of fundamental rights. Europe has a duty to set an example and to be irreproachable in this matter.

Violations have been identified, revealed, including for example in closed establishments accommodating children and elderly people. There is also the eternal problem posed by the disastrous situation of some prisons, as the report that we have today voted in favour of highlights. We must also fight to ensure that social rights are recognised.

Poverty and job insecurity are attacks on human rights. How can we accept a situation where people have work and yet cannot afford a place to live, in Europe and in the 21st century?

We must proclaim the fundamental rights of each and every one of us. The European Union is endowed with a Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Let us make sure that it is respected!

in writing. - Mr President, I voted in favour of the report and I welcome in particular the inclusion of Paragraph 31 in the report according to which the European Parliament deplores the non-implementation by the EU of the judgments of the Court of First Instance on 12 December 2006 and on 4 and 17 December 2008 and the UK Court of Appeal ruling in favour of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran on 7 May 2008.

The European Union stands for democracy and the rule of law. The more appalling is the idea of one of its institutions acting against the Union's principles. I hope that the Council takes the position of the Parliament well into account when compiling the new EU 'blacklist'. Accusations of terrorist activity should actually be founded as well as the decisions on the inclusion of some organisations in the 'blacklist' should be more transparent.

Such issues cannot be addressed in an arbitrary manner, but in accordance with the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The EU cannot allow the global fight against terrorism be turned into a ground of political horse-trading and therefore must respect the aforementioned judgements of courts.

in writing. - (SV) I interpret paragraph 149 of Mr Catania's report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union as urging Member States to ensure that the equal treatment of patients within the health care system also includes addicts. I have therefore voted in favour of this paragraph.

in writing. - (HU) The last two rounds of enlargement of the European Union, in which the Central and Eastern European formerly socialist countries were admitted, opened a new chapter in the Community's approach to human rights issues as well.

Since then, it has become clear that the protection of fundamental rights - and within these, the rights of national minorities - in the new Member States represents the greatest challenge to the European Community.

Giusto Catania's own-initiative report emphasises that in addressing the problems of the traditional national minority communities, the principles of subsidiarity and self-governance must serve as the guideposts that could allow the elaboration of policies aimed at resolving the situation of the communities in question in a reassuring manner.

The report encourages the use of cultural, territorial and regional forms of autonomy.

I also welcome the fact that the report of my fellow Member Mr Catania calls for the elaboration of a definition of belonging to a national minority, and proposes the drafting of a minimum set of Community norms for the protection of the rights of such minorities.

in writing. - (NL) The protection and promotion of fundamental rights lie at the very heart of our European democracy, and are key conditions if we want to enhance our European area of freedom, security and justice. It goes without saying, therefore, that, in practice, these rights have been incorporated in the objectives of the EU's various areas of policy.

Moreover, we would ask the Council to analyse the situation in the world and in every EU Member State in annual human rights reports, in the interest of Europe's trustworthiness not to use double standards in its internal or external policy. The amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance concerning anti-discrimination, minority rights and social rights have been adopted either wholly or in part.

We were also successful in our attempt to include a reference to the need to take account of fundamental rights in legislation on criminal law procedures. The Catania report maps out the problems involving fundamental rights and gives recommendations for resolving them. It can therefore count on my wholehearted support, because respect for all people and their fundamental rights lies at the heart of the Greens' policy, irrespective of gender, age, nationality or socio-economic background.

in writing. - I was pleased to see the European Parliament support the removal of the PMOI from the list of terrorist organisations. Twenty thousand people in Iran who oppose the regime have been killed. As long as the PMOI remains on the terrorist list, more people will be killed in Iran for simply voicing opposition to the regime. The EU must follow the UK's lead and remove the PMOI from the terrorist list.

in writing. - (PL) During today's vote I spoke in favour of adopting Mr Catania's report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union.

Sadly, fundamental rights are often violated in the European Union, with discrimination against minorities and infringement of privacy being most commonly observed. Equal opportunities, particularly equality for women, is another problem. The rapporteur asked the Member States to reject arguments justifying violence and discrimination against women based on tradition and religion.

In many EU countries citizens, in particular the weakest ones, children are affected by discrimination and poverty. The report rightly condemns all forms of violence against children, such as domestic violence, sexual abuse and corporal punishment in schools.

The Member States fail to control practices in respect of human rights, thereby undermining the credibility of EU foreign policy in the world. In my view, the Community cannot apply 'double standards' in its internal and foreign policy.

in writing. - For me, the main importance of Mr Catania's report is to remind us that we inside the EU have our own issues to confront. We should therefore be very careful about taking a holier-than-thou approach when commenting on human rights outside the EU.

I served on the temporary committee into extraordinary rendition by the CIA. It was principally a platform for the left to attack their favourite bête noire, the United States.

In my view, we should be grateful to the CIA and the United States for helping to protect Europeans from terrorists bent on killing innocent citizens. It is an indictment of our own societies that we had to rely on America to do the job for us.

Absolutism over human rights is playing into the hands of those who would destroy us, and putting the human rights of our own citizens at risk.

I therefore voted against the report.

in writing. - (PL) The report on fundamental rights in the EU in 2004-2008 adopted in the European Parliament today contains demands for mutual recognition of homosexual couples in all EU countries and the implementation of such relationships in the legislation of the Member States. Another part of the report defends so-called 'reproductive rights', which in the language of international law also includes abortion on demand. Incorporating religious leaders among the authors of such comments.

The European left has hijacked the report on fundamental rights in the EU to promote pro-abortion and homosexual demands, which have nothing to do with fundamental rights. There are no documents in international or European law which support the existence of such 'rights'.

Despite the non-binding nature of the report, it is the most harmful document approved during the term of the present Parliament. It is the latest attempt to re-define fundamental rights and introduce changes to their meaning without needing to amend any treaties at UN or EU level.

One other aspect of the report is that the EU implement a special directive punishing 'homophobic' actions. Due to the broad and vague nature of this formulation, it is an attempt to exclude homosexual circles from the democratic right to free criticism. Applying this could have consequences in terms of censorship.

The result of the final vote (401 in favour; 220 against; 67 abstentions) shows how deeply divided MEPs are on this issue. That is a defeat for the rapporteur, as fundamental rights are something that should unite, and not divide, Parliament.

in writing. - I would like this report to have looked more closely at the situation of orphans and disabled children in institutional care in Romania and Bulgaria, the newest EU Member States.

There was a great deal of concern before those countries joined the EU about the standards of care for institutionalised orphans and disabled children. Perhaps the next such report could go into more detail on this matter.

More generally, I made my thoughts on this report known in the debate last month. I am worried that our culture of human rights has become infected by absolutism and that, in fact, by pandering to the rights of criminals and terrorists we are undermining the rights of everyone else.

Specifically, I believe that matters concerning abortion and contraception are not matters for the European Union, but should be subject to appropriate legislation at the level of the Member States. Also, I object to the call for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to override the law of the United Kingdom, which has negotiated an exemption from its provisions.

I therefore voted to abstain on this report.

in writing. - (DE) I voted against the Catania report. I am astounded that the House's services even declared this report admissible in its present form. It persistently infringes the principle of subsidiarity. In terms of its content, virtually everything is worthy of criticism. The nation-states must not let themselves be incapacitated or disempowered when it comes to fundamental rights. This represents an attempt to push through, to the detriment of the majority, minority rights that cannot be implemented at national level. A positive attitude to abortion is inconceivable to me. The actual subject, human rights and their implementation over the last four years, is not mentioned.

in writing. - I abstained on the roll-call vote on paragraph 62 because I believe that every country - which the EU is not - should ensure that legislation on female genital mutilation is locally originated and applied. An international agreement would be more appropriate and far-sighted. As it is, the EU has no current competence in health matters, nor should it seek them.

I also abstained on the vote on paragraph 72 because I am concerned about the implications on free speech. Although to be deplored, discriminatory comments do not necessarily fuel 'hatred and violence'. That we are asked to agree to this will mean that those who choose can use this as evidence of such.

My decision to abstain on Amendment 54 is based upon opposing the EU's Free Movement of People and the principle of mutual recognition, and not in any way a reflection on my views regarding same-sex partnerships, which I agree should enjoy the same rights as others.

in writing. - (FR) The European Parliament has just voted in favour of the Catania report on the situation of fundamental rights. At a time when we have just celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this report questions what we understand by the meaning of fundamental right.

Admittedly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was the result of a consensus reached after more than a year of negotiations between various pressure groups and lobbies, representatives of civil society and national governments, and so on. This exercise to which we, as representatives of the countries of the East, were not invited to take part in, is interesting in more ways than one. The Charter, as the Catania report emphasises, will be a non-legally binding text until the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all the Member States.

However, the Agency for Fundamental Rights, set up in Vienna, Austria, is based entirely on this political text, which it uses to justify the positions it adopts. It is therefore interesting to get a glimpse of how fundamental rights under the Charter are considered, by analysing the subjects dealt with by the Agency for Fundamental Rights. This exercise is all the more interesting when applied to the network of FRALEX experts recruited in summer 2008 and mainly belonging to the Dutch network 'Human European Consultancy'.

I voted in favour of this resolution as the ratification of the Convention will make a significant contribution to the promotion of decent labour standards worldwide. It also supports the agreement concluded by the social partners on certain aspects of the working conditions of workers in the maritime shipping sector as it strikes a fair balance between the need to improve working conditions and to protect the health and safety of seafarers, and also because this professional category exists in Romania.

The resolution tabled by Mary Lou McDonald summarises the main points which the proposal for a Council directive on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 and amending Directive 1999/63/EC must take into consideration.

Maritime workers belong to a category which carries out its activities in extremely difficult, often even dangerous conditions. This is why we need to have standards for working conditions, which enable us to take into account these workers' health and safety, as well as clear rules on their employment. The first step in establishing these standards must be to highlight the needs and problems which employees and employers in the maritime sector have identified, while also ensuring a degree of flexibility in their enforcement by Member States.

The documents which we are adopting at a European level must be followed by action by Member States and monitoring by the Commission to assure ourselves that the provisions are being applied. Furthermore, with regard to maritime labour standards, the European Union has the opportunity to establish itself as the leader in transposing these standards into principles which can be applied anywhere in the world.

in writing. - (IT) We voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a Council directive implementing the agreement concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Associations and the European Transport Workers' Federation on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC, as it consolidates international minimum labour rights. That is important to ensure better working conditions and greater safety, while respecting the dignity of these professionals.

However, we regret that the proposals that our group presented were not adopted, specifically those that sought to remove any legal uncertainty or prejudice to the work carried out by the social partners to reach agreement. The convention itself accepts that countries should not use flexibility, and that was what the proposal for a directive set out, with the agreement of the social partners. We therefore do not agree with the majority of the European Parliament on having included the issue of flexibility in paragraph 6.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to confirm my vote for the resolution on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (procedures relating to social dialogue).

I fully support the agreement concluded by employers and employees on certain aspects of the working conditions of workers in the maritime shipping sector, as it strikes a fair balance between the need to improve working conditions and to protect the health and safety of seafarers. Furthermore, I am convinced that it is essential to define and enforce global minimum standards of employment and health and safety conditions for seafarers working at sea or on board seagoing ships. Finally, I am happy with the role played by employers and employees in improving health and safety conditions for workers.

I voted in favour of the report. Now, more than ever, we are realising the importance of the role that can be played by a body such as the Human Rights Council (HRC). The action taken to date should be supported, and we should also appreciate the active role played by the EU within the HRC, despite the undeniable restrictions represented by the absence of the United States; in fact, this absence often places the EU in an isolated position. That, however, should not be an excuse for the EU, which ought to be able to make a political effort to build a united, cohesive leadership, overcoming the opposing geographical blocs that are often to be seen within it.

Thus, a very considerable amount still remains to be done to give the HRC greater credibility and authority and to prevent some governments being able to continue to avoid their duties in the international sphere. I therefore warmly support a new analysis with a view to the review, and I would like to confirm that the strengthening of the HRC is a vital stage along the road of civilisation which the EU has always supported.

I voted in favour of the Andrikienreport on the future of the UN Human Rights Council as I feel that the EU needs a long-term strategy on the activity of this institution, which must become the main global forum for human rights. I believe that EU Member States must demonstrate greater unity and efficiency in promoting certain EU common positions on human rights.

The EU must become a global leader and initiate strategies for protecting human rights worldwide. We need to focus greater attention on promoting human economic, social and cultural rights as poverty, backwardness and a low level of education and culture among the population have negative multiplier effects.

In order to obtain much wider support for its positions, the EU must create coalition-building mechanisms and start to organise regular meetings on specific issues with all the democratic states on other continents. It is also vital for states to send specialists to international forums, with real expertise in the relevant area, a fact which Mrs Andrikienė's report recommends insistently and with full justification.

in writing. - (NL) I have voted against this report, because this UN Human Rights Council cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legitimate institution. It is unacceptable to me for countries like Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and a number of African regimes to be issuing resolutions which denounce the human rights situation in other countries. The situation of political or religious dissidents in those countries makes a complete mockery of this institution.

I voted in favour of this motion for a European Parliament resolution because the respect, promotion and guarantee of the universality of human rights are an integral part of the European Union's legal acquis and it is one of the EU's fundamental principles. I also voted for it because the United Nations Organisation and its UNHRC are one of the most suitable organisations for tackling comprehensively issues linked to human rights and the challenges in the humanitarian sector. I believe that human rights and democracy are key elements in the EU's external relations and external policy.

in writing. - President, I was very pleased to vote for the Andrikiene report on the United Nations Human Rights Council since I welcome the fact that this agency has far greater credibility than its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Commission was widely discredited due to several of its member countries having very dubious human rights records.

The regular scrutiny of the rights records of member states is a key component to the Council's greater standing. This will be particularly important in the next round of scrutiny, which will involve Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China.

Welcome, too, are the provisions in the report which aim to assess coordination on these issues between EU member states. It is vital that the EU, as an organisation that puts human rights at the heart of its mission, works with multinational co-partners such as the UN with similar ideals to realise greater cooperation. Cooperation is vital to ensure that human rights are no longer sidelined as a foreign policy objective for commercial or strategic reasons.

This report reveals a certain dissatisfaction of the European Parliament with the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), since the Member States of the EU represent a 'numerical minority', which, in its understanding, 'seriously obstructs the EU's ability to influence the agenda of the UNHRC' and to ensure its desired role as a 'leading force'.

This lofty vision is based on the unacceptable attempt to impose the EU as the model in terms of human rights, particularly when the facts demonstrate its hypocritical human rights policy, as is demonstrated by the complicity of the EU in relation to Israel - see its abstention on the UNHRC resolution on Palestine.

The report is replete with contradictions, namely when it 'regrets the division of the UNHRC into regional blocs' while, at the same time, it states that it supports the existence of 'a coordinated common position within the UNHRC' by the EU. Is this too not a policy of blocs, or is a policy of blocs only bad when it does not work in the EU's favour?

Contrary to the EP, we do not consider it 'regrettable' that the United States is not represented in the UNHRC, firstly because of its constant breaches of human rights and international law and also because they did not present their candidature to avoid the shame of not being elected. It is understandable why ...

in writing. - (SV) This report contains a surprising number of intelligent views considering the fact that it has come from the Committee on Foreign Affairs. For example, the view is put forward that it is a positive thing that the Member States of the EU are increasingly choosing to speak out and not allow the EU Presidency to speak for all countries. Statements of this kind are very rare, and I welcome them.

Unfortunately, the positive elements are too few and far between. One of the most objectionable wordings is found in recital H, where it complains about 'a persistent desire on the part of Member States to act independently at the UN'. 'One state, one vote' is, after all, one of the foundation stones of the United Nations. The Committee on Foreign Affairs also regrets the growing division of the UNHRC into regional blocs. Paradoxically enough, certain regional blocs - the EU, for example - seem to be desirable.

The European Parliament neither is, can, nor should be a guarantee that human rights are not violated in the world. This is shown, in particular, by the statements made by Members of this House on homosexuals, for example. Even though the essence of the report is probably good, I have voted against it in today's vote.

in writing. - (DE) The EU claims to put human rights and democracy at the heart of its external relations. This House calls on the EU to pay attention to credibility on human rights issues when ratifying agreements. Yet the EU's own credibility has already gone west: CIA overflights, its failure to take action on United States torture prisons and its zigzagging on international law - with regard to the Kosovo crisis, for example - have seen to that.

How can a community purporting to set so much store by democracy deny referendum results, repeat votes until they produce the desired result and punish Member States for election results? If the EU was really so concerned about respect for its oft-cited community of values, it would have had to break off accession negotiations with Turkey long ago, but at the very latest since its display of warmongering. Instead of really working to promote human and people's rights and common values, the EU is at present apparently throwing away approximately EUR 15 million each year on a superfluous European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA).

in writing. - I voted in favour of the report on the development of the UN Human Rights Council because, while recognising both the unquestionable achievements and efforts which have been made to boost the credibility and level of protection of human rights, I firmly believe that the operation of this body can also be improved in the future.

At the same time, I feel that the European Union must continue to have an active, high-profile role in setting up and operating the UN Council.

I also appreciate the fact that the report is calling on the European Union to reaffirm and defend vigorously the principles of the universality, indivisibility and independence of human rights.

If the United Nations and the various agencies and organisations that are associated with it are supposed to be, by their nature, a mirror of the world, it is natural that the image thus reflected is not one that we would desire or would like to construct. These considerations are necessary in relation to the debate on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

To debate and decide, by voting, on human rights in a world with countries that do not pay any attention to them can be expected to have a bizarre result. This is not only a question of legitimacy. It is, above all, a question of language. What evaluative standard on human rights can one suppose the Governments of Libya or Zimbabwe share with democratic states that are answerable to their populations? None, of course. However, it is precisely to facilitate dialogue between those who speak different languages that diplomacy exists. Among equals mediation is not necessary.

Thus, the existence of places of dialogue must be a policy to be stimulated and promoted. Otherwise, I cannot believe that we can or should have as a standard for our values and our actions something that is decided in such a context.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the Andrikienreport on the development of the UN Human Rights Council, including the role of the EU. The European position within that Council is crucial.

In fact, the EU, which places human rights and democracy at the heart of its own external relations, above all in the action it takes within international human rights organisations, has been committed from the outset to maintaining an active and visible role in the creation and operation of the Human Rights Council, with the aim of upholding the highest standards in terms of human rights, by sponsoring or co-sponsoring texts defining standards.

I therefore welcome the proposal by Mrs Andrikienė, which will examine the measures the EU can adopt to improve its influence in the Human Rights Council and give a new impetus to the Council, so that it becomes a more effective operational body.

in writing. - (PL) On 15 March 2006 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution replacing the UN Commission on Human Rights by the Human Rights Council, an international support body to promote and protect human rights.

The change of name was accompanied by the introduction of new mechanisms and procedures increasing the potential of the Human Rights Council.

The aim of the report is to assess the achievements of the Council, and compare the expectations with the results. It is above all to set out potential improvements in its operations.

Let us not forget that democracy and human rights are the mainstay on which the European Union operates in the international arena. The European Union has given itself a very prominent role and is active in international human rights organisations, and was also active in appointing the Human Rights Council. It has co-authored texts such as conventions or resolutions setting out the norms for the protection of human rights.

Unfortunately, the European Union often lacks the capacity to anticipate issues (due above all to the time-consuming procedures that are sometimes required to draft common positions), and to show leadership in human rights initiatives.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues support the work of the UN and the UN Human Rights Council. We accept that further reform of the Council is required to ensure that human rights around the world are improved.

We agree that EU Member States work towards agreeing positions in the Council but underline the importance of each of them safeguarding their own national interests and positions.

Our support for this report does not imply support for the paragraph in the report (Paragraph 56) which calls for the UN resolution on a death penalty moratorium to be implemented. The death penalty is a matter of conscience for each Conservative MEP.

I am voting in favour. The approach of the next appointment with the electorate requires us to supply the voting citizens with all the tools they need to access the European Parliament's documents. At a time when the electorate is being asked to place its trust in these institutions, we need at the same time to work to remove all the obstacles that still exist in terms of transparency and accessibility.

To that end, I believe that voting citizens should also be given the possibility of checking on the activity, participation and attendance by MEPs in Parliament's work, in absolute, relative and percentage terms, and that steps also should be taken to facilitate access to data on Members' allowances and spending. Finally, I hope that all this can be achieved by the end of this parliamentary term.

The right to have access to the documents held by Parliament, the Council and Commission is a fundamental right which all citizens and residents of the European Union have (in accordance with EU Treaty Articles 254 and 255).

However, I would like to highlight one aspect. I believe that publishing the European institutions' working documents is only a first step because the majority of Europe's citizens do not understand the procedures we use and will not know how to find the information they need. I agree in this respect with my fellow Member, who is proposing the creation of a single European access portal for all documents, with a structure which makes it easy for anyone to understand. This portal should present information in an accessible, simplified manner so that European citizens can use it without any problem. Such technical solutions definitely exist and I hope that the financial resources will be found for implementing this portal.

However, I voted against the report because, while the general framework is right, some of the features proposed by my fellow Member are unacceptable.

in writing. - (NL) As I am in favour of maximum openness in all EU institutions, I have emphatically voted in favour of this report. It is a good thing that various European institutions are being given a serious ticking off. The European Council takes major political decisions and discusses very important and controversial issues. Also, it is disappointing and unacceptable that the Council should not allow the precise positions of the different national delegations to be known at the time of decision-making. Parliament should also put its own house in order, though, and should guarantee maximum openness in all its facets.

in writing. - (NL) Explanation of vote on behalf of the CDA delegation in the European Parliament concerning the Cappato report on access to documents.

Today, the CDA delegation in the European Parliament abstained from the vote on the report on access to documents. This was not because we have a problem with transparency. We are in favour of transparency and democratic control. Not for nothing did former MEP Mrs Maij-Weggen stand at the cradle of Community legislation in this area.

We have abstained because the Cappato report contains too many inaccuracies, incorrect ways of putting things and over-simplified statements. For example, in our view, the openness of Council documents should be guaranteed, but there is a clear distinction between documents for legislative and other procedures. The rapporteur, however, draws no distinction between these procedures. We are also concerned about the major administrative burden which the recommendations in the Cappato report would entail.

We were unable to endorse the report on account of the inaccuracies and woolly statements. Since we did want to support the principle of transparency and democratic control, in the end we abstained from the vote.

in writing. - (NL) I emphatically voted in favour of this report. It will not hurt for once. Whilst we have to applaud the fact that some of the European institutions are coming under heavy criticism, I should like to make an observation. In the light of the fact that the European Council is at the helm and ultimately takes decisions on very important and controversial issues, it is unacceptable that the Council should not allow the positions of the different national delegations to be made public at the time of decision-making. It is also true that Parliament should put its own house in order, and should guarantee maximum openness in all its facets, before it hauls others over the coals.

in writing. - The present own-initiative proposal by Marco Cappato requests that Parliament endorse the report on the implementation of Regulation 1049/2001, which deals with public access to documents held by Parliament, the Commission and the Council when used in their legislative capacity.

While the aim to increase transparency in the European institutions has my full support, there are three main points in this Regulation which I feel warrant further examination.

(1) The vital protection of client-lawyer confidentiality is not sufficiently protected as it stands in the Turco judgment referred to in the initial paragraphs, and the call to apply it cannot be supported.

(2) The individual processes whereby national governments reach decisions may also be undermined by removing consent required to release documents transmitted to EU institutions, and

(3) These EU-wide recommendations do not take into account the different approaches relating to freedom of information in Member States.

A certain degree of confidentiality is required to ensure full and frank political discussions among political groups, and the broadcasting of these opinions has the potential to do more harm than good. The prospect of restrained exchanges replacing vigorous debate does not bode well for our democratic institutions.

(Explanation of vote abbreviated under Rule 163(1))

There is no question for anyone acquainted with the arcane mysteries of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council that seeking access to information on the European Union's institutions remains a journey full of pitfalls for the average citizen. There are many reasons for this.

Indeed, it is just as much a question of the huge number of documents issued and the countless forms in which they are published (reports, opinions, resolutions, directives, regulations, and so on), as it is of the lack of simplification and clarity of the institutional registers and of the web pages and the lack of transparency and communication.

This report rightly proposes resolving these kinds of problems by ensuring that the European institutions are more transparent.

Indeed, this forms part of the wider issue of increasing the part played by citizens of the Union in the way in which the latter operates and understands matters. The peoples of Europe do not want systematically to be excluded from decisions that have a direct bearing on their everyday lives and in relation to which they have no right to inspect or to object. On the rare occasions when they have had their voices heard by referendum, they have disowned their leaders and Brussels bureaucracy, which is blind, deaf and unresponsive to their needs and wants.

Making the European institutions more transparent is a first step towards a new Europe, a Europe of the peoples and a Europe of the sovereign nations.

in writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of the Annual Reports on simplified access to documents of the EU institutions.

There is no question that it should be made easier to access the various European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The citizens of the European Union must not be given the feeling that they are excluded from the operations and votes of the EU institutions. In addition, they have a right to be informed about everything possible.

However, we should look into whether publication should perhaps be limited so as ultimately to prevent people losing the overview. Firstly, no one wants a data overload and, secondly, staff privacy must continue to be respected, as it is usually the case that, by virtue of data protection, there is no small number of details that are not universally accessible even to other institutions, including national ones.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the proposal submitted by Mr Cappato on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

It is of fundamental importance for the European Union that citizens feel the Community institutions to be close to them. This can only be achieved through public access to the documents of the three institutions. I am therefore fully in agreement with the rapporteur when he states that we must call on the EU institutions and the Member States to promote a common administrative culture of transparency, founded on the principles outlined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the recommendations of the European Ombudsman and the best practices of the Member States.

Finally, I welcome the initiative from Mr Cappato, because I believe that, to improve and speed up integration processes, the provision of information to the public ought to be a very high priority, in view of the problems regarding the absenteeism of Italian MEPs from the Chamber.

in writing. - (PL) The Treaty on European Union lays down that priority must be given to transparency and ever-closer links between the peoples of Europe and that decisions must be taken as openly as possible, and as closely to citizens as possible. Transparency allows citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration will enjoy greater credibility, be more effective and responsible towards its citizens in a democratic system.

The ECJ judgment in the Turco case will have resounding consequences for transparency and access to the documents of European institutions concerned with legislative issues.

The judgment confirms that the priority should be given to the principle in question, and that it should apply to all community institutions, and (which is very important) the possibility to derogate from this should be given a narrow interpretation and assessed on a case-by-case basis from the perspective of the overriding public interest, which is openness. Openness increases confidence in institutions by allowing open debate.

The ECJ stated that the refusal to grant access to documents in this case cannot be the basis for a general requirement subjecting legal opinions on legislative issues to confidentiality.

in writing. - (DE) I rejected this report. The demands it makes go way beyond what I understand by transparency. I consider even the publication of MEPs' attendance registers and voting lists dangerous without extensive additional channels of explanation. I have a high attendance record and am therefore above suspicion. It is important to preserve legal protection of personality for MEPs, too. Europe could increase transparency by publishing public meetings of the Council and the Commission to begin with, before forcing MEPs to lay themselves bare. In addition, there must be confidentiality among the institutions during difficult negotiation phases.

in writing. - (SK) Based on experience in the Member States, the EU has started to recognise a real 'right of access to documents' and 'right to information' arising from the principles of democracy, transparency, public interest and openness.

The European Parliament is convinced that the ordinary citizen's access to information on EU institutions raises problems due to the lack of efficient inter-institutional policies on transparency and citizen-oriented communication.

In the interests of greater transparency, EU institutions should respect the principle of multilingualism. In 2008 I presented a Written Declaration of the European Parliament on this issue. The EU operates in all of the national languages and not just in one single language or collection of languages which it may have chosen and which may not be understood by a significant section of its citizens.

The translation of legislative, political and administrative documents allows the EU to fulfil its legal obligations and at the same time the system of multilingualism helps enhance the transparency, legitimacy and effectiveness of the Union. This assists proper preparation for the elections to the European Parliament that will be held in June 2009.

I hereby call on the institutions of the EU to ensure that provision is made in the 2009 EU budget for the resources required to cover the shortfall in posts for official translators within EU institutions; the EP calls on EU institutions to translate all legislative, political and administrative documents for this parliamentary term without delay into all the official languages of the EU in order to allow citizens to follow the political work carried out by all of the institutions.

In doing this we can really contribute towards greater transparency for our citizens.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes

Situation in the Middle East/Gaza Strip (debate) 

The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the situation in the Middle East/Gaza Strip.

It is a particular pleasure to welcome the President-in-Office of the Council, Czech Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Karel Schwarzenberg, who has to travel on to South Africa today. Previous Presidencies have arranged for a representative to take the place of their Minister for Foreign Affairs, and so we particularly appreciate your presence here today, Mr Schwarzenberg. I wish you a very warm welcome!

We are of course also pleased that the competent Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, is present - as she almost always is. As you know, the Commissioner is also very knowledgeable about the problems of the Middle East conflict and, like Mr Schwarzenberg, she has travelled to the region. I wish you a very warm welcome too, Commissioner.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the floor in this timely debate on the dramatic situation in the Middle East.

Since the start of Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip on 27 December, we have witnessed a steep deterioration of the situation on all levels. The humanitarian consequences of this operation are dramatic for the population in Gaza. Since the start of the operation, over 900 Palestinians have died, of whom roughly 30% were women and children. We are profoundly disturbed by the loss of civilian life, and the matter has been repeatedly declared in our presidential statements. The European Union deplores the ongoing hostilities which have led to such high numbers of civilian casualties, and we want to express our sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

We are particularly concerned by such incidents as the attack on the United Nations school in Jebaliya and the firing on humanitarian convoys leading to the death of humanitarian staff. Over 4 200 Palestinians have been injured, according to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. According to the United Nations agency, an estimated 28 000 people have been displaced since the beginning of the hostilities. A large number of them are seeking refuge in the shelters; the rest of the internally displaced people are staying with relatives.

The greatest humanitarian needs are related to the large number of wounded and the overwhelmed health services, whereas displaced people and host families need specific assistance such as food, shelter, water and non-food items. Since the water system was badly damaged and needs urgent repair, the Gaza population has hardly any access to safe water. Therefore, providing drinking water is of the utmost necessity.

There are also extensive food shortages at all levels of the population. Since 4 November last year, foreign NGOs' personnel have not been allowed access to Gaza to deliver and monitor humanitarian aid properly. Also, the number of trucks entering Gaza has increased since military operations started. The current daily average of 55 trucks remains pitifully insufficient compared to a need for at least 300 trucks daily to cover the needs of the 80% of the population which has become aid-dependent.

The European Union has been closely following the tragic events from the outset. Three days after the operation started, foreign ministers met in an extraordinary session in Paris to discuss the situation. They agreed on the need for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and immediate humanitarian action in stepping up the peace process. The summit aimed mainly to assist in ending violence and alleviating the humanitarian crisis. The presidency led a diplomatic mission in the Middle East. The EU ministerial troika visited the region on 4-6 January for meetings in Egypt, in Israel, with the Palestinian authority, and in Jordan. The High Representative also visited Syria, Lebanon and Turkey.

The outlines of a solution to the crisis have started to emerge. First and foremost, there must be an unconditional halt to rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel and an end to Israeli military action, to enable the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and the restoration of public services and badly-needed medical treatment. The six-month ceasefire, which expired on 19 December, was far from perfect. Israel suffered through periodic rocket fire and the knowledge that its foe was amassing greater firepower. Gaza endured a really punishing economic blockade, totally undermining its economic development.

In order to achieve a sustainable ceasefire, we have to look for a sensible compromise entailing an end to rocket launches and reopening of the crossings. A viable solution must address the tunnels across the borders, especially along the Philadelphia route, to prevent the smuggling of weapons. It must also lead to the systematic and controlled opening of all border crossings to enable the Gaza economy to develop.

We believe that the deployment of international missions to monitor implementation of the ceasefire and to act as a liaison between the two sides could be helpful. In this regard, the European Union is ready to return its observers to the Rafah crossing and to extend the mandate of the European border mission in scope and content. We acknowledge that Israel has agreed to a daily lull to allow desperately-needed food, fuel and medicine into Gaza. However, only a full and immediate ceasefire would allow the delivery and distribution of the large quantities of humanitarian aid that Gaza so desperately needs and for the resumption of basic services. Israel must ensure the unhindered and safe access for humanitarian aid and other essential supplies, including food, medicines and fuel, to the Palestinian civilian population of the Gaza Strip, as well as the safe passage of civilian persons and humanitarian personnel into and from the Gaza Strip.

But even a durable and comprehensive solution in Gaza will not be sufficient to install peace in the region. We need to address broader and more complicated challenges. We need a new and inclusive strategy that addresses the internal Palestinian political situation, as well as a resumption of the peace talks which have been suspended due to the Gaza crisis. Palestinian reconciliation, and a government representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, is more necessary than ever. We therefore support the mediation effort undertaken by Egypt in accordance with the Arab League's resolutions of 26 November 2008.

As pointed out in the conclusions of the GAERC in December 2008, the European Union is prepared to support any stable Palestinian government that pursues policies and measures reflecting the Quartet's principles. The European Union stresses the need to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East and calls for the resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and the resolving of all outstanding issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including all core issues.

A durable and comprehensive solution will ultimately depend on real progress in the Middle East peace process. Urgent and great efforts by the parties will be needed to achieve a comprehensive peace, based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace, in secure and recognised borders.

The latest outbreak of violence in the Middle East might not only set back prospects of a peaceful settlement in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The political damage the fighting is causing, both in terms of regional polarisation and radicalisation, and in the further discrediting of moderate forces, must not be neglected either. Only a viable Palestinian state will bring security to a region that has suffered for too long. This is especially in the interests of Israel and its neighbours. Therefore, urgent measures must immediately be taken to reverse the damage done by the military action in order to restore the possibility of an equitable negotiated outcome.

(Applause)

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think we all would have hoped for a better start to 2009. Unfortunately, we face a terrible and appalling conflict in Gaza, which is now in its third week.

It gives cause for immense concern. We discussed it yesterday at a meeting with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development and those Members of the European Parliament who had been in Gaza at the weekend.

The President-in-Office of the Council has already mentioned the terrible statistics of the dead and injured, which get worse every day. There is increasing evidence of victims suffering from extreme burns, and aid agencies report that the population is suffering from acute shortages of food, fuel and medicine, not to mention the destruction of houses and infrastructure.

However, Israel has also suffered losses and has faced hundreds of rockets being fired into its territory by Hamas, targeting Israeli civilians. War, unfortunately, always produces immense human suffering, and this war is no exception. Therefore, beyond its immediate devastating impact, it pushes the prospect of peace much further away, undermines the Arab Peace Initiative and could potentially have a very negative impact on the stability of the whole region.

I should like to outline quickly the diplomatic activity that we have taken together to bring this conflict to an end, and then to look at the mid- and long-term challenges. We have been active from day one, which I think was important. We know that we are not the main player in the Middle East, but we were, and are, an important player. Therefore, in response to the outbreak of the crisis, the emergency meeting of the EU foreign ministers in Paris on 30 December 2008 was very important in developing proposals from the outset - the Paris Declaration - for bringing this conflict to an end, which we then used in our delegation and visit to the Middle East.

Here there are three elements. First and foremost, the Paris Declaration called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, including both an unconditional halt to rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel, but also an end to the Israeli military action. We called for a ceasefire to be accompanied by a permanent and normal opening of all border crossings, as provided by the agreement on movement and access in 2005. We expressed willingness to re-dispatch the EU Border Assistance Mission (BAM) to Rafah to enable its reopening, and we also indicated that we were willing to examine the possibility of extending assistance to other crossing points, provided that our security concerns were met.

Second, we stressed the urgent humanitarian needs, which we said had to be met. Here we urged the immediate opening of the crossing points to enable pressing medical assistance, fuel and food to be delivered to the Gaza Strip, to enable humanitarian workers to gain access and for the injured to be evacuated.

Third, we reiterated our position that there is no military solution to this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that the peace process is the only way forward and that efforts have to be stepped up as soon as we find a durable ceasefire.

As you have heard, our mission was carried out in tandem with a visit by President Sarkozy, who had planned to make a trip to Syria and Lebanon and who then decided to visit Egypt and Israel to reinforce these efforts, still on the basis of our declaration of 30 December 2008. France is currently chairing the Security Council, so it was an important initiative.

We coordinated closely, including a joint meeting in Ramallah, where President Sarkozy outlined his ceasefire plan, for which we - the troika - had to some extent paved the way through our discussions with key stakeholders, particularly Egypt and Jerusalem.

These efforts reinforced each other, sending a strong, united message from the European Union, and the troika not only conveyed this EU institutional position but also manifested our presence. I think it was important that President Sarkozy also went to Syria and then Mr Solana accompanied him to Syria and Lebanon and also consulted with Turkey. I think all of this was needed.

I particularly stressed the humanitarian situation, as has already been said, and I called particularly for the opening of the crossings and also for the possibility of at least some hours of ceasefire to allow the work of the international organisations to be carried out. Israel accepted some of these points, and, in the negotiations with the Israeli Government, I also secured the co-location of an ECHO official in the Israeli Defence Force premises to coordinate the channelling of humanitarian aid with the Israeli armed forces, as had been done in the war in Lebanon, and that was a powerful tool for better coordination.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to all the courageous colleagues still working in Gaza, to those from UNWRA and ICRC, with whom we are working and who receive a lot of our funding, but also to many others.

(Applause)

I would also like to offer my sincere condolences to the families of those workers who have already been victims of this tragic episode.

The Commission has been spending quite a lot also on immediate humanitarian funds and we are ready to do more in the future.

What have these negotiations achieved? As the President-in-Office has said, they contained the major elements for the latest Security Council resolution, which then, a few days after the negotiations, was adopted with the abstention of the Americans. An immediate ceasefire, Egyptian guarantees to stop smuggling through the tunnels, opening of the crossings for humanitarian aid, including deployment of a force - possibly with international participation and/or the Palestinian Authority's security forces - policing the 15-km-long Philadelphia corridor between Gaza and Egypt.

We understand that the Palestinian Authority has accepted this proposal and now Israel and Hamas are studying it. We think it is very important that very soon something works. My latest information is that everybody is working very closely on it and maybe in a few days we will really have such a ceasefire. I hope that this will be the case.

On mid-term perspectives, sadly both Israel and Hamas have initially rejected this UN Security Council resolution, but from these daily contacts I hope that an agreement can be achieved quite soon. It is important to say and recognise that Egypt has been playing a leading role in direct contacts with Hamas, and also that in this regard President Sarkozy's visit to Syria, as well as the Turkish efforts, have been very important.

I also understand that the summit of the Arab countries could take place in Qatar at the end of this week. We aim, as this intense diplomatic activity shows, to support all relevant actors who have the leverage with Hamas to help deliver a sustainable solution as set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1860.

As soon as this ceasefire is agreed, we will have to think, probably in the form of a conference, how to formulate more concrete measures to alleviate the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population in Gaza. However, we have to be clear in saying that whatever we do, it must not contribute to an endless cycle of destruction and reconstruction with no peace.

Under the right conditions I might come back to you and seek your help to contribute in a meaningful way to constructive efforts, as I have done in the past. You know that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is touring the region and hopefully he too can contribute to this final success that is absolutely necessary to getting this lasting ceasefire.

As a long-term perspective, we have to say that the current offensive clearly contributes to a weakening of trust between Palestinians and Israelis. Military operations can never bring a lasting peace; only a negotiated political agreement can do this. Dialogue should therefore resume both between Israelis and Palestinians and among Palestinians.

Once hostilities have stopped, I think it will be important to resume talks aimed at a comprehensive peace as soon as possible. Here we have to work with the new US administration to ensure it is able to support bilateral negotiations from the beginning. In this regard I welcome Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton's commitments at her Senate hearing yesterday. We will insist that parties negotiate on substance, and not just on process, and that the Anapolis process comes to a successful conclusion. This crisis shows that a successful conclusion is more urgent than ever.

The question of Palestinian reconciliation will also be central. It is unlikely that Hamas will be eradicated by this operation. Possibly it will come out debilitated militarily, but strengthened politically. Hamas's position that President Abbas's term will end on 9 January is another issue which is closely linked to the reform of the PLO and of Fatah. To achieve lasting peace it is clear that a strong Palestinian Authority needs to speak for all Palestinians and that it needs to be committed to a two-state solution through peaceful means.

The conflict in Gaza also, unfortunately, has potential negative repercussions in terms of regional support for the peace process. Israel's image with several pro-peace Arab regimes has been dented by the excessive suffering of the Gaza civilian population. Israel's leaders and the Israeli population should understand how negative this is for their aspirations as a people to live in peace. We are their friends and must tell them that we are doing this. Israel therefore cannot afford to waste any time in reaching peace.

This is my first short, or not so short, analysis, and we will have to try to work in order to get this durable ceasefire in order then to be able to go on and get peace negotiations under way with a new American administration.

Mr President, 17 days of fighting in Gaza have quite simply left a heartbreaking situation. The worst part, because it is irreparable, is the loss of human life, including innocent civilians and children. However, we can also see destruction, chaos, hatred and revenge; the Palestinian cause divided; the radicals being strengthened to the detriment of the moderates; and a peace process that has been completely derailed.

As pointed out by the President-in-Office, this is because all the battles in a war may be won, but the most important battle can still be lost, which is the battle for peace.

Mr President, rather than trying to apportion responsibility or blame to either or both sides, the most important issue - as the Commissioner has just said - is to bring about an immediate ceasefire, as called for by UN Resolution 1860. As the UN Secretary-General has just reminded us, both sides must comply with this resolution.

It is also vital to alleviate the terrible humanitarian and economic situation that exists in the Gaza Strip, which is governed - in inverted commas - by Hamas, an organisation that is on the EU's list of terrorist organisations. However, we must remember that not only is Hamas one of the causes of the conflict, it is also a consequence of terrible circumstances.

Mr President, my political group supports and wants to recognise the efforts made by all the political groups in this House to support the motion for a resolution that we will adopt tomorrow. We also want to pay homage to those Members who have attended the negotiations, particularly the representative of my group, Mr Brok, who had a very difficult task.

Mr President, my group supports the efforts of the Commission and the Council to bring about a ceasefire as soon as possible, in collaboration with the Arab countries - Egypt in particular - and the other members of the Quartet.

We are very hopeful about the statement made yesterday to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by the Secretary of State-designate, Hillary Clinton, as regards offering pragmatic, dialogue-based and effective diplomacy.

Finally, Mr President, I come to the most important element: the European Union is a union of values with, in prime place, the value of peace. I believe that the European Union must make every effort and use all its political weight in the interests of this cause, without allowing our thoughts to become muddled or our hearts to become hardened to such a conflict.

(Applause)

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, debates of the kind we are holding today are very difficult for us all. The reason they are difficult is that Israel is a friend, that many of us - and this is particularly true of me - feel bound to the country by ties of deep friendship. With friends it is all the more important to discuss controversial subjects openly.

So far, this conflict has claimed 1 000 lives in 17 days. It is a bloody conflict, and women and children are suffering particularly as a result of it. There is a UN resolution that forms a basis for declaring an immediate ceasefire and opening negotiations. It is crystal clear that the conflict can be resolved only on the basis of international law, and the fact that international law and international humanitarian law must be respected should be obvious to a democratic country based on the rule of law. It is actually a shame that we are having to discuss this. Therefore, all we can do to overcome the humanitarian crisis is to appeal for an immediate ceasefire. What we say in our resolution is not just anything, but something that is vital in order to put a direct and immediate end to the loss of life, the starvation and the misery.

It is quite clear that the State of Israel has a right to defend itself. It is entitled to defend itself against people whose aim it is to destroy the State. Yet a democratic country based on the rule of law must always ask itself whether the means it uses to do so are proportionate. In my estimation - and, I believe, that of most of my fellow Members in this House - the means are not proportionate.

(Applause from the left)

We must tell our friends in Israel, regardless of their political orientation, that we are aware that Hamas is no peace movement. We know that it is led by people who do not share our fundamental values, and of course each rocket that is fired at Israel is an attack against which the State is entitled to defend itself - but, in spite of everything, it is a mistake to refuse to engage in dialogue. If dialogue is the fundamental precondition for peaceful development, to refuse to engage in such dialogue is to perpetuate the armed conflict. A fundamental adjustment is needed, therefore.

There will have to be dialogue with Hamas. If Israel cannot engage in this directly - I can understand the point of view of Israeli politicians who say we cannot talk to Hamas, even though many of the country's citizens believe they should - if parliamentarians and members of the government say they do not want to, there are enough opportunities for international mediation. For example, there is the Quartet, and one of the possible tasks of the European Union within the Quartet is to enable such mediation on dialogue.

It is a fundamental error to believe that there can ultimately be a military solution to this Middle East conflict. I consider this a fundamental error regardless of which side believes it. There can be no solution via terrorist acts, and there can be no solution via conventional military action. The only solution there can be is dialogue between the parties to the conflict, with the help of international mediation.

What is needed is an immediate ceasefire. This must be guaranteed by means of the mechanism provided by the international community, if necessary with the help of a multinational force with participation from Arab and, in particular, Muslim States. This would be a way to now bring about a ceasefire and an improvement.

When I was a young lad and entering politics, I was told that one does not talk to terrorists. At that time, the main terrorist was Yasser Arafat. A couple of years later I saw pictures on television of this terrorist leader receiving the Nobel Peace Prize together with Israeli politicians. What was possible then can be possible also in future. Therefore, one question is whether progress is made to the extent that the available mechanisms produce the necessary dialogue. On behalf of my group, I should like to thank all those, including from other groups, who worked on our resolution. If this resolution, which is supported by all the groups in the House - I consider this a good sign - can help improve the atmosphere, we shall have made a contribution, however small, to ending loss of life that is intolerable to all.

(Applause from the left)

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the day will indeed come when we have to separate the good from the evil, but I think that, today, it is more urgent that we make our demands, which are: an immediate truce, with an end to rockets being launched into Israel and to Israeli operations in Gaza; the delivery of humanitarian aid; a lasting ceasefire, with an end to trafficking in weapons and munitions, with effective surveillance of the border between Egypt and Gaza, with the withdrawal of Israeli troops and with the reopening of the crossing points; and, lastly, the lifting of the embargo - and all of this, at the same time.

This will be a highly complex phase, one that will no doubt or most probably require the presence of an international force, and I believe that the Union should prepare itself to take part in this. I should like to make two additional points.

In order to succeed, the European Union will have to speak and act clearly and not in a disorganised manner. It is very useful to have good intentions, but it is more important to be effective. The United States will also have to make a commitment, as will the Arab League and its member countries.

Lastly I would add that, in order to offer a real alternative to the situation in Gaza, Israel will have to significantly improve the situation in the West Bank: 634 checkpoints, the splitting in two of the road network, 8-metre-high walls, as well as the countless acts of humiliation inflicted on the Palestinians, do not offer an appealing enough alternative to the inhabitants of Gaza to make them turn their backs on Hamas.

To conclude, I would say that the day will inevitably come when everyone will have to speak to everyone else.

(Applause)

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, like everyone, we are all, obviously, involved in and upset by this situation, but I believe that it is a duty, at least for me, to reject any kind of hypocrisy.

The problem has very remote roots: the legitimate and sacrosanct right of the Palestinians to have a free state is coupled with the equally sacrosanct right of Israel to be recognised, and we know that Israel has been removed from the map in many countries. We know that France, Italy, Spain and Germany would certainly not have stood for being removed from the map; they would not have agreed to be considered non-existent. We know that it was not Israel that started this umpteenth war and that terrorism is still one of the main problems.

I therefore believe, Mr President, that, setting aside hypocrisy, we now have a duty to start thinking in different ways. We cannot believe that dialogue with terrorists is justified by the fact that so many civilians have died, because this would create an excuse for any terrorist in the future to use violence, force and death in order to obtain political legitimacy.

I believe that we, as the European Union, should finally start behaving more consistently and find the ability to tackle the problem of economic relations with countries that do not recognise Israel, and to provide humanitarian corridors that enable civilians, both Palestinian and Israeli, to reach a place of safety. In this case it is the Palestinians that are suffering more, having said that, Mr President, I believe that it would also be right to review the position on aid that has been given and which is being given now, but over the use of which we have no control.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is certainly enough to make one weep. The hope for peace and security for those concerned vanished in the smoke of Gaza and under the bodies of the dead, and of the children, and of the women, and of the men, and of the wounded. We are further now from a hope of security than we ever have been. All those who think that this war is, according to the logic of the Israeli argument, a war justified by the fact that there was a rocket attack on Israel, and that the Palestinians should be taught a lesson, have not understood a thing. They have not understood a thing, for teaching someone a lesson is a dismal way of educating them and one that has never worked. Since the time of Clausewitz we have known that he who starts a war must know how to finish it, must know what the aim is. Well, the aim of this war is more security for Israel. We can say today that the aim of this war will never be achieved by this war and the way in which it is being waged. The more civilian deaths, the more Palestinian deaths, the less security in the region! That there is the drama, the tragedy that is currently taking place in that region. And that is why we have to be very clear here. Mr Schulz is right: Israel needs to be protected from itself! Israel needs to be saved from the temptation of a solution that involves war and armed force. The Palestinians need to be protected from Hamas. Palestinian civilians need to be protected from Hamas. That is our task. It is not easy, but we must be clear. I call on the Council to stop thinking in terms of upgrading, increasing, improving relations with Israel while the situation remains as it is. This is a poor solution; this is not the right solution!

(Applause)

I call on all those who rightly advocate a dialogue, a debate with Hamas, not to be naïve, to bear in mind the fact that a debate must be held with Hamas in order to improve the situation in Gaza, since they hold the power, but, at the same time, to realise that Hamas's strategy requires there to be casualties. Israel has fallen into Hamas's trap: the more deaths there are in Gaza, the better it is for Hamas. That is one of the truths that Hamas must also be told. We refuse to accept this suicidal strategy of Hamas's that seeks to create victims and martyrs in order to launch acts of aggression against Israel. Hamas must be told this, too.

To conclude, I am going to tell you something: the only ones who can resolve the Hamas problem are the Palestinians. As long as Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, as long as Israel fails to offer a positive solution to the Palestinians of the West Bank, more and more Palestinians will turn to Hamas. If we give the Palestinians in the West Bank a hope of life, they will rise up against Hamas and they will rid us of Hamas. Free the Palestinians from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Palestinians will free themselves from Hamas.

(Applause)

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Rahed is 50 years old; he has lost his home, his three children, his wife and two sisters-in-law. Rahed is in despair, and is in the centre that we visited. He said, in deep distress, 'Hamas will say that it has won when this attack is finished, and Israel will say that it has won, but in reality it is we civilians who are dead.' I would like to say another thing: in reality, with the dead bodies of women and children that we saw, and with over 4 000 wounded in the hospital without any treatment, what is dying there is justice; what is dying is the dream of a Europe that wants human rights to be universal, and that is a tragedy!

We are ineffectual. Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, you know that I have great respect for you, and I know that you are taking action and working together with others to achieve much. I believe that we must understand, clearly and unambiguously, that this military war, this militarism on the part of Israel, is leading not to Israel's salvation, but to its end, including its moral end. This is what David Grossmann says, moreover, when he commemorates Mr Rabin, killed by a fundamentalist Jew, not a fundamentalist Islamist, because he wanted to achieve peace. Bring in a cease-fire! Bring in a cease-fire! That is what a Norwegian doctor said to me, who is operating every day and working round the clock (we are sending doctors to Gaza). A cease-fire is what we want!

The Security Council must start to turn its words into concrete actions. We agree with diplomacy, but we must use not only diplomacy, we must also use the instruments that we have. One instrument that we have in relation to Israel is in fact the upgrade, and I am pleased to hear that today, for example, the European Commission's representative in Tel Aviv has said that now is not the time to think about upgrading. We should take a break from that, because what we must do is to bring about a cease-fire. This is extremely important. I think it is important, and that it is a strong message.

You were speaking about protection and international protection. I believe that it is a mistake to think only about Gaza and Rafah. Protection for the civilian population comes from the north, it comes from the Israeli attacks that come from Herez. Border control is control of the main borders, Rafah and Herez, because for a long time, since 1992, since the Oslo agreement, as you very well know, Palestinians have not been able to exit through Herez, and not even sick people get out through there.

We must therefore think not only in terms of the tunnels, and the weapons with which Hamas can arm itself, but in terms of absolutely all the prohibitions that exist for the Palestinians. We need a cease-fire and an opening-up not only of humanitarian corridors, but an opening up of all the crossing points, because if the people do not have food to eat, if the people do not have trade, what can be done? Then that will be truly serious pressure for Hamas to stop existing and stop carrying out actions that harm the Israeli population. Israel, however, should know that it is the West Bank which is militarily occupied and it should truly make peace, and not build settlements.

(Applause)

Many thanks, Mrs Morgantini. I should like to express my respect to you and the other MEPs who took the initiative to travel to the Gaza Strip in recent days.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, Palestine is Islamic territory, inalienably so. Since its creation in 1987, the Islamic movement Hamas has stuck firmly to this basic principle. In this, it receives full backing from the Islamic Republic of Iran. This ideological point of view leaves absolutely no room for the Jewish state of Israel in the Middle East, and the baneful effects of this Muslim totalitarianism are making themselves cruelly felt in the Gaza Strip.

Typical of Hamas's philosophy is the military use of mosques in Gaza, with all the tragic effects that this entails. I would in this respect refer you to the lucid report in last Monday's Frankfurter Allgemeine. If Europe really values the continued existence of the Jewish state of Israel, a confrontation between Hamas and its ally Hezbollah in Iran is on the cards. Are we prepared to brace ourselves for this grim, albeit realistic, prospect? After all, a cease-fire or temporary armistice is to Hamas and company a mere pause for breath in the Jihad against Israel.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that I believe that the vast majority of this House shares the wishes for peace and the concerns that have so far been expressed by many of us here. I also believe that what was said by the Council can be endorsed, and I would argue that the Commission has so far pursued a course that may be beneficial to dialogue: the opening up of the humanitarian corridors and the bilateral cease-fire might herald a subsequent commitment to organise an international safety zone.

Here perhaps Mrs Morgantini is right, in asking that this zone should relate not just to Gaza, but should extend to all Palestinian territories. Basically, I have the impression that the wishes and the diplomatic activity of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, to some extent at least, can be seen as adopting the same approach as that which the Pope sought to adopt on this issue. I humbly wish to share the same kind of approach: after all these years, we must still seek a solution for two peoples and two states - that is a point which we must not forget - and we must seek, finally, to affirm international law. There is not and never will be a military solution - Mr Schultz said that too, and every now and then I must refer even to him - and I must say that undoubtedly there will never be a military solution that resolves the problem in the Holy Land. On this point, I believe that the European Union has the tools to support whatever diplomatic effort may be of use here.

I am sure Mr Schulz will be pleased to hear you mention his name in connection with the Holy Father!

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I should like to describe my starting point. Hamas opposes a two-state solution, rejects the right of existence of the State of Israel, has taken power by means of a brutal coup against its own people, fires rockets at civilians, and uses civilians, schools and mosques as human shields. How, when trying to protect one's own civilians, is it possible to react proportionately if the other side is using its own civilians as human shields? Therefore, the concepts of numerical comparison and proportionality are not applicable in a situation such as this. In a war situation there is no proportionality - each war and each casualty is one too many, and it is not possible to balance figures for each side against the other. This seems to me to be the sensible starting point. Therefore, we should not be engaging in the kind of one-sided finger-pointing we have seen, but instead attempting to bring about a ceasefire and to provide help in this regard.

I believe that President-in-Office Schwarzenberg and his delegation, and also Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, with the help of other national delegations, have done more in this regard than any other party, for which I wish to thank them sincerely - I have seen no sign of the United States, hardly any sign of the UN and no sign of the other members of the Quartet. We must ensure that this ceasefire has two components: there must be an end to the Israeli attack, and Hamas must be prevented from getting its hands on new rockets from Korea and Iran that would put Tel Aviv within range. For this reason, it must be ensured not only that the firing stops but also, by means of international agreements including the Quartet and the Arab League, with Egypt in the key role, that the 15 km border is patrolled to the extent that no more shots can cross into Gaza. At the same time, the Israeli attack must be stopped.

There is one final comment I should like to make. This is just a small first step. If Israel wishes to have moderate Palestinians to deal with in future - which would mean a two-state solution - then, once this is all over, care must be taken at long last that the moderate Palestinians supporting President Abbas have accomplishments to show to their own population, which means an end to the resettlement policy and to several other things. After all, if the moderates have no successful achievements to show to their people, the radicals will triumph. This must be the starting point of a new Israeli policy.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of this vast tragedy our words are liable to be inadequate. An army that kills hundreds of civilians, women and children, places itself at the same level as the terrorism that it is claiming to combat. On the other hand, anyone who knows Gaza, even if only through having seen it on the map, knows that no military operation could be conceived without admitting the likelihood of a massacre of civilians.

Can Israel today say that it is safer, after having given rise to so much hatred and despair? If not with Hamas, directly or indirectly, then with whom must a way out of the blind violence be sought? Our resolution reinforces the call for a cease-fire already expressed by the United Nations Security Council. We urge the parties to abide by it and we call upon Europe to take action to render it possible.

The risk is that this massacre, far from vanquishing Hamas, Mr Brok, will weaken the Palestinian Authority itself even further, as well as those in the Palestinian world who have staked everything on negotiations with Israel. We should ask ourselves, honestly, what have they actually gained so far? Nothing. That is the answer that we must give if we truly wish to start rooting out the hatred and the violence.

- (FR) Mr President, we are all partly responsible for what is happening today in the Middle East. We, in Europe, and we, in the international community, have allowed the situation to get worse; we did nothing when Israel's security was under threat, and we did nothing when the blockade was making life in Gaza absolutely impossible.

Today is the 19th day of war; 995 people have been killed, including 292 children, and there are thousands of wounded, some of whom are still waiting to be evacuated. There are tens of thousands of refugees who no longer have a home and do not know where to go. The humanitarian situation is becoming worse and worse: 700 000 inhabitants of Gaza no longer have electricity, one-third of them no longer have water or gas, and it will soon be three weeks since this situation first began, three weeks in which these people have lived or, rather, have done their best to survive. There is too much suffering, too much hardship, and this must end, this must stop now!

Our responsibility to ourselves, as Europeans, is not to be obliging towards anyone. Our responsibility to ourselves, as Europeans, is to put pressure on the two parties so that they finally agree to negotiate. It is a matter of days, perhaps even hours, before the point of no return is reached with a land offensive, particularly in Gaza town. Israel must be guaranteed its security, and the people of Gaza must have a guarantee that they will be able to live in peace in the future. The borders must be controlled, and the blockade must be lifted. All of us here know that, in order to obtain this agreement, it will perhaps be necessary for Europe, the United States and the Arab states - which are meeting the day after tomorrow - to all speak with one and the same voice.

I should like to express my firm conviction before I conclude. It is not the war that must be won today, but peace.

(Applause)

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I truly welcome the comments by the Commissioner and Mr Pöttering, in denouncing in no uncertain terms the grave responsibility that Hamas bears for having put an end to the truce, but equally clearly judging the Israeli reaction to be totally disproportionate. Beyond the words, however, the crisis remains, and there are still thousands of people - the civilian population and children - who are in desperate need of humanitarian aid.

In all conscience, and without hypocrisy, perhaps we should ask ourselves some questions. While our children were celebrating Christmas, how many children died in Gaza? Two or three hundred; and how many Israeli civilians? Could the international community have done more? In my opinion, the answer is yes. It ought to have done more. We should feel the full weight of our responsibilities. It is not enough to broadcast views on Hamas, on Israel, on the initial responsibility, or on who is more to blame. Unfortunately, above and beyond the emergency, Europe remains inadequate. In my view this is a serious inadequacy: an incapacity to build a real, strategic and lasting peace policy.

Today, clearly, we must issue a strong demand for a cease-fire, but this is not enough. We must set out strict conditions to accompany the peace and development process in the Middle East. To finish, I would also like to refer to the words of the Pope, who said that we need to give specific answers to the general aspirations of many in those lands to live in peace, security and dignity, as Mrs Morgantini also pointed out.

Mr President, I really am finishing. Violence, hatred and distrust are forms of poverty - perhaps the most terrible to combat.

- (FR) Mr President, in Gaza, we have seen war and we have seen death, but we have also seen people, living people, people who have the right to live and whom we have a duty to protect. Protecting the civilian population - this is the real emergency. Nothing can excuse the fact that not everything has been done to protect this population, and I would ask you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, do you feel, today, that you have done everything you can to ensure that the Israeli authorities call an immediate halt to this indiscriminate and disproportionate military operation? The answer is most certainly 'No'.

When rumours of the operation were circulating in the embassies the Council, against Parliament's wishes, reaffirmed its determination to step up its relations. This was a tragic mistake! When NGOs call on the Security Council to have the International Criminal Court investigate alleged war crimes, the Council is unable to invoke the 'human rights' clause of its agreement with Israel. I am sick of hearing that we cannot do better, that we have done all we can. It is in fact the deadlock of your essentially humanitarian policy to alleviate the damage caused by the military occupation and the war that is the biggest failure. How far will we have to go in terms of violations of international law before we have the 'human rights' clause applied? If we are not capable, today, of asking ourselves questions about the scope of effective mechanisms for applying pressure and for implementing, then I do not really know what kind of situation will justify our finally taking action. I tell you straight: if the business-as-usual approach continues and remains an ongoing part of our relations with Israel, with the 1 000 deaths in Gaza, you will bury Article 11 of the Treaty, you will bury the Union's 'human rights' policy and you will bury the European project!

(Applause)

Mr President, returning from the Gaza Strip after seeing the massacre - predominantly of civilians - I feel the urge to express my wholehearted solidarity with the Palestinian people. For 17 days, they have been facing the enormous Israeli war machine that is flagrantly violating international law. I also express support for the peace forces in Israel calling for an end to this war.

After a long closure and siege that converted Gaza into the largest open prison in the world, the building of the shameful wall around the West Bank, the continuous expansion of the settlements, and the effective division of the Palestinian land, the occupying forces have moved to the fiercest military operation. In this, the rocket attacks against southern Israel - and I stress that I am against any attack from whichever side on civilians - served as the pretext. The ending of the ceasefire against the background of the power games in view of the Israeli elections is an insult to a whole nation.

The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution. Israel is a state, not an organisation; it is a member of the United Nations. It has a responsibility towards the international community, and has to comply with this and all other resolutions adopted by the United Nations. There should be respect for international law. No impunity should be permitted any longer. There should be a full international investigation.

The international community demands an immediate ceasefire, the immediate withdrawal of the military forces, access to humanitarian aid, and freedom of movement for the population. Let UNWRA carry out its mission.

The EU has taken steps, but only at a humanitarian level. It has to show decisiveness at the political level. Use the clauses in the association agreements. Stop the upgrading of relations with Israel. Stop arms exports to Israel.

There can only be a political solution to this conflict. There should be a full return to international law, which means ending the 42-year-long occupation of Palestine, and establishing a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, thus building a peaceful future for both Palestinian and Israeli children. To save future generations, we need to stop the war now.

- (FR) Mr President, several thousand years ago, David confronted Goliath in order to find out whether the land was destined for the Moabites, the Philistines or the Hebrews.

Currently the same drama is continuing on this land, the source of one of the three pillars of our civilisation. Today it is urgent, right, legitimate and necessary to ensure the security and recognition of the State of Israel. To do so, a single solution is required, and that is to guarantee the birth of a truly sovereign Palestinian State. Here, as elsewhere, multiculturalism has its limits. Where there are two peoples, there must be two States.

If the European Union's aid is indeed effective, then it must be focused on one objective: that of ensuring the growth of this Palestinian constitutional state where the rule of law protects the weak and helps the strong. There is a sense of urgency, since, on this land, the extremists on all sides are powerful and in the wrong, while the children are moderate and victims.

The solution for transcending the demands of 'an eye for an eye' is neither moral, nor military, but political. So, it is time to get down to work!

Mr President, I abhor terrorism. I repudiate the propaganda of terrorism. Maybe coming from Northern Ireland heightens my awareness, so when I hear Hamas bleat because of necessary retaliatory action against its years of indiscriminate raining of rockets upon innocent citizens in Israel, then I am unimpressed because I know that Hamas, like the IRA in my country, are masters of the twin arts of terrorism and propaganda.

The situation is demonstrably clear. Israel accepts a two-state solution. Hamas cannot even abide the right of Israel to exist and thus unleashes endless relentless terrorist attacks upon its territory. And when, after much forbearance, Israel hits back, they cry victim. Sorry: they are the perpetrators and if they want peace the answer lies in their own hands. Stop shelling Israel.

(EL) Mr President, we all realise that the situation in Gaza is tragic. It is bordering on a humanitarian disaster and it requires immediate action. I would like to congratulate the European Commission on having stepped up its efforts, the Presidency on its initiatives and on coordinating national action being taken in this sector, and Egypt on the important and sensitive role which it is playing.

There is now an urgent need for a ceasefire and for a cessation of hostilities on both sides, for corridors from Israeli territory and Egypt to address humanitarian needs and for border controls to stop the illegal movement of weapons and people. As the Commissioner said, the signs for a truce plan are encouraging and I hope that it will be accepted immediately and will be respected in practice.

So what are our next moves? Both the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council have already said that we need to support our objectives for viable peace and the creation of a Palestinian state which will live in peace and respect next to Israel. They are not new. We have announced them and we have supported them without result. The vicious circle of violence continues with negative consequences not only for the people of Israel and the Palestinians, but for all peoples in the area and for the security of the international community.

Now we need to take stock of our actions, our political choices and our practices and take more courageous and different steps. There is an urgent need for us to engage at bilateral level with Israel in an honest, in-depth dialogue and self-criticism within the framework of our friendly relations and partnership and for us to identify the mistakes made in promoting mutual trust between these two peoples. We also need to strengthen this sort of dialogue with all Palestinians, to make them understand the importance of peace, cohesion, human life and unity between them.

(DE) Mr President, after Prime Minister Topolánek made some joking remarks today, I can say that, as an Austrian MEP, I am pleased that both the Commission and the Czech Council Presidency are represented by Austrians. I wish you a very warm welcome! President-in-Office, I realise of course that your loyalties lie with the Czech Republic.

Ladies and gentlemen, when, shortly before Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, I travelled to the country as part of a delegation with Mr Schulz, as Chairman of the delegation, the Deputy Prime Minister at the time said, 'do not interfere, this will work well'. Others - such as former Minister for Foreign Affairs Josip Elin - said, 'this will lead to chaos' - and he was and remains right. Unilateral disengagement without negotiations, without having a negotiating partner, does not make sense.

However, neither was it very well-advised of us to decide against entering into dialogue with even moderate representatives of Hamas - who may not even have belonged to Hamas, but rather have been nominated by it in the joint government. By taking this position, we helped to destroy this joint government. I know that there were some who wanted to hold talks but were not allowed to - that, too, was a mistake. We need dialogue!

I do not like Hamas, firstly because it is a terrorist organisation and secondly because of its fundamentalist views, but this is not a matter of liking or disliking; it is a matter of solutions. Therefore, we must return to dialogue and talks, as many of our fellow Members have already said today. Also, the people in Gaza must be given the chance to live half-decent lives. Why are they voting for Hamas? The answer is that they see them as the only chance, the last chance, of even surviving - and this must be changed. We must give these people an economic basis for survival, too; we must lift the boycott and end their isolation. That is the only real requirement.

Mr Brok, whom I hold in very high regard, said that the principle of proportionality was not applicable - but that is not true. The principle of proportionality applies to private as well as international law. Anyone violating it also violates international law - and that is something this House really cannot accept.

(Applause)

Mr President, a friend who knows I was in Gaza just three days ago challenges me. 'Have you never seen pictures of five-year-old Jewish children facing Nazi rifles with their arms above their heads?' she writes. 'They break your heart.' And her words highlight why we make allowances for Israel that we would not make for any other country.

They do not, however, explain why a people that suffered so much in the 20th century should now inflict so much suffering on another people in this one. Israel has turned Gaza into hell: the ground is shaking with explosions, even during a ceasefire; there are donkey carts on the street and F-16s in the sky, 21st-century killing machines just dropping bombs; 300 children are dead already, hundreds more torn apart limb by limb.

This is not a proportionate response of a civilised power. It is evil. It is evil. Yes, the Hamas rockets must stop. I have said so to Hamas representatives in Gaza myself before now, but let us have no more sanctimonious talk from Israeli officials about the need to fight terrorism, because Palestinians being bombed could name terrorists and they would name Olmert, Livni and Barak.

We have some responsibility for Israel's actions. On no occasion in the past, on no occasion I can think of, has the European Union ever backed up its criticism of the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis with any kind of action. We give a green light to Israel to proceed as it would wish and we have compounded that failure by ignoring the lessons of history. You cannot make peace without talking to your enemies, yet we refuse to talk to the elected representatives of the Palestinian people.

Now we are completing negotiations with Israel on an enhanced cooperation agreement. We do not plan to condemn Israel: we intend to reward it. Those who want peace in the Middle East, those who want to see justice for both sides, must recognise that it is time to think again.

- (GA) Mr President, the war in Gaza is frightening and scandalous. Everyone knows that a military solution will not work in the Middle East. A political resolution is the only way to re-establish peace and reconciliation in the area. In order to do this, the violence must be ended immediately.

I support the creation of an independent, sustainable Palestinian state, but a reasonably good economy and a proper political plan must be but in place. It should be our aim to ensure that those two states exist in the region and have respect for one another.

Israel is entitled to protect itself, but it has gone too far with these attacks. The attacks are immoral, and the international community cannot accept them.

The peace process in the Middle East must be put in place immediately. I hope that America's newly elected president, Barack Obama, will be working on this. We wish him every success with this important duty and with the challenge ahead of him.

(ES) Mr President, I too was in Gaza a few days ago, and it was a very intense experience. We also went to Egypt. I believe that we are at the end of an era: the Bush era, and that the last throes of President Bush are proving particularly bloody and painful.

We are at a turning point when we can adopt a different policy towards the Middle East, in which I want the European Union to take the lead. Mr Obama is also taking this line as he says that he will talk to Iran. Yes, Mr Obama is going to talk to Iran and we must talk to everyone, including Hamas, in the Middle East.

This new policy in the Middle East must be a policy of cooperation and, at the very least, it must abide by our values and by international law. The hundreds of children whom we saw in Gaza, who clung onto our arms and who looked at us with eyes full of hope deserve an answer, just like the children of Israel.

This requires concrete action; it requires action on the ground, to give hope to the moderates. The most regrettable aspect is that Prime Minister Fayad, President Abbas, President Mubarak and King Abdullah are currently being accused of treachery in the streets of the Arab world. When I stopped my taxi in the Sinai desert to have a coffee, we only saw Khaled Meshaal on the huge screens.

That is the result, the collateral damage of this attack on Gaza. It will not bring peace to Israel or the security that we want, and even less so will it bring anything good for us. If we do not stop this conflict, it will bring hatred to Europe's own streets.

(PT) One thousand is the number of the day, one thousand deaths to teach a black lesson. Excuse my frankness: how many more lives will it cost to elect Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak in the February election?

We are here today to demand a cease-fire and an end to the slaughter of civilians. However, the resolution also raises issues about our own liability. It reminds us that the Council decided to upgrade diplomatic relations with Israel, against the opinion of this Parliament. This was complicity by anticipation. Today I hear: 'It is necessary to talk to Hamas'. We would have saved years if we had respected the elections in Palestine.

The role of Europe is not to support the politics and the destruction imposed by the stronger side. It is to listen to the clamour that is filling the streets and squares of our cities.

We demand a cease-fire now, but we must realise that peace depends on an end to the occupation. This word has fallen into disuse, but it has to come off the list of banned words where it was put by power politics.

Mr President, what is happening in Gaza is heartbreaking. That the devastation is perpetuated by a supposedly western nation is unfathomable. I agree 100% that Israelis have a right to live without the threat of rocket attacks. But what is being done in Gaza is not justice: it is slaughter. There is no excuse; there is no possible justification.

The most shameful thing for us in the EU is that it is being carried out by one of our preferred trading partners. In 2007 the value of EU-Israel trade was EUR 25.7 billion. Given the amount of money we contribute to Israel's economy, we carry a grave responsibility when that money contributes to the death of civilians and children. If we do not act, the blood of those in Gaza will equally stain our hands.

I call on this Parliament and all EU bodies to impose trade sanctions on Israel immediately and to keep them in place until a meaningful ceasefire is agreed. If we do any less than our utmost to stop this killing, we become accessories to the slaughter.

- (FR) Mr President, once again, weapons are doing the talking in the Middle East. Once again, the main victims are women and children, of whom thousands have been wounded and hundreds killed. Once again, history is repeating itself, in all its horror, on Europe's doorstep. However, we note that, in spite of its initiatives, Europe is not making an effective contribution in this major conflict, even though it is taking place in its immediate area of influence. An overwhelming majority of the public are finding this difficult to understand, and they are increasingly refusing to accept such powerlessness.

Commissioner, we must vigorously and authoritatively take up the leadership in order to bring about peace. The Union for the Mediterranean must play a major role, as must the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly. In line with this, the European Parliament must support the Franco-Egyptian peace plan in favour of an immediate ceasefire, the securing of the borders between Israel and the Gaza Strip, the re-opening of the crossing points and, above all, the lifting of the blockade of Gaza.

We must also call for the immediate application of the UN resolution. Once this first stage is over, we must go further by proposing the implementation of a military force, not a multinational one but a Euro-Mediterranean one. This gesture would be the founding act of a confirmed political will to achieve a 'European peace', something for which all the peoples of the Mediterranean have been waiting for so long.

I should also like today to draw your attention to a new situation. With the Middle East conflict, we are little by little entering very dangerous territory, that of the clash of civilisations. Indeed, ever since the start of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there has always been a groundswell of Arab public opinion. Today, it is Muslim public opinion, which extends far beyond the geography of the Arab states. This suggests a radical change in the nature of the conflict. Europe has an historic responsibility, that of urgently strengthening the dialogue between civilisations.

- (FR) Mr President, I have taken the floor so many times in this House to say that we should seize any opportunity of peace, however slight, and that, in spite of everything, we should talk to Hamas, because it won the elections, that I no longer wish to return to these subjects.

I am overcome with sadness and anger, and while I do not wish today to let myself become overwhelmed with emotion in the face of this massacre, in the face of the war propaganda that I hear around me, in the face of the confusion, in the face also of the wave of hatred and anti-Semitism that is beginning to sweep through our streets, I have but a few words to say: Europe must go back to basics, and for me, these are obvious facts, but sometimes it is good to point them out.

Firstly, a Palestinian's life is equal to an Israeli's life, but not only his life, his future and his freedom, also. Secondly, international law must be respected, and international law of course means an immediate ceasefire. There are all the UN resolutions and the Geneva conventions as well, however. The fact is, this region, today, has become a lawless region where everything is seemingly permitted and where a population is being held hostage. Thirdly, justice will have to be served for all these crimes, no matter what they are or where they are committed. There will never be security without peace, or peace without justice. Transitional justice does exist, it is made for that, and, if it is not applied, the hate will continue to spread. Over the last few days we have built up a capacity for hate that will prove more dangerous than the bombs. Europe must enforce the application of the conditions of its partnership agreements, including paragraph 2 of its association agreements on respect for human rights. This is an obligation of these treaties from which it cannot be exempt. Lastly, Israel is not a special case. It has responsibilities as a State and it cannot be put on an equal footing with Hamas. When it comes to international law, there is no such thing as a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.

On Sunday we left behind us in Gaza a population that was caught in a trap, imprisoned in a ghetto below the bombs, and hundreds of thousands of children whose futures are today in our hands, and we came out of Gaza simply because we are Europeans. The only Palestinians leaving Rafah are those who go feet first in ambulances, because they are dead or because they are wounded.

Europe will no longer be Europe, and no citizen will recognise himself as European if we forget these basics.

(Applause)

- (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by echoing the words of Mr Cohn-Bendit. It is despair that grips us today; this war is a tragedy. The images of suffering and of death that have flashed across our screens non-stop for three weeks now are unbearable, as are, I hasten to add, all the images of war, all the conflicts, including those that are spoken of much less, if at all, such as Congo, Darfur, Zimbabwe and, before that, Chechnya, the horrors of which took place amid a deafening media and, I would stress, political, silence.

I have already stressed on several occasions in this House the fact that the indignation of some of my fellow Members varies according to circumstances. However, as Mrs Morgantini has also often pointed out, there are no accounts to be kept when it comes to people dying; there is no hierarchy in suffering; every casualty, be it a man, woman or child, from whichever side, is one victim too many.

So, what should we do now to ensure that our debate today is not what it often is - a somewhat pointless, futile confrontation? Continuing to hurl abuse at each other about the historic responsibilities of the different parties seems to me to be a perfect example of such futility.

I have taken the floor late in this debate, so the arguments have been heard. Questions can certainly be asked about the scale of the Israeli crisis and of the Israeli counterattack, but not, under any circumstances, about Israel's right to security. Which of our western governments would agree to watch thousands of missiles fall on its citizens without reacting? The question answers itself.

Above and beyond the call for an essential negotiated ceasefire, for a guarantee, of course, of the delivery of humanitarian aid, and for an end to the supply of weapons via the tunnels, the real issue, today, is necessarily aimed at the future. The fundamentals of peace are well-known: they have already been identified at Taba, Camp David and Annapolis. Mrs Ferrero-Waldner has made this point. Most, though not all, of course, of the elements are on the table, and this involves sacrifices being made on both sides. And, when I talk of sacrifice, I agree with Mr Schulz, who is not in the Chamber at present. It is not a question of knowing whether a dialogue will be held with Hamas, but of knowing how it will be held, and under what conditions.

Most of my fellow Members have exceeded their speaking time by 50 seconds, so allow me to finish, Mr President.

The answer is that given by Yasser Arafat, in May 1989, when he declared his freedom-destroying and deadly charter null and void. Those words, moreover, have become part of the Palestinian vocabulary. Inter-Palestinian reconciliation, above all, comes at this price, and our role as the European Union is to get the protagonists in Palestine and Israel, but also their Arab neighbours, Egypt and Jordan, to become partners of a lasting peace agreement.

(Applause)

(DE) Mr President, on Sunday, 11 January, we visited the border city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip, which is completely sealed off. This means that the civilian population has no chance of escaping the daily bombardments by the Israeli army. If you have not seen it with your own eyes you cannot imagine how much the people of Gaza are suffering and how urgent it is to reach a peaceful, definitive solution to the conflict. We were all deeply affected on a personal level by the immensity of the suffering of the Palestinian people, and also of the devastation.

Therefore, I wish to reiterate, in the strongest terms, that the Israeli bombings must be brought to an immediate halt, as must Hamas' rocket fire into Israel, and the smuggling of arms into the Gaza Strip from Egypt must also be stopped. In addition, the borders must be opened immediately to allow into the area the aid deliveries that are ready and waiting to supply the civilian population. We also saw doctors at the border ready to travel into the area to provide help, but being unable to as the border was closed. Therefore, I would appeal once again for the borders to be opened to allow the assistance to be provided.

- (CS) Mr President, who would not experience anguish on seeing children killed by a missile? This is a terrible feeling, but it should not warrant hypocrisy. Which European countries would show as much restraint as Israel and, for years, put up with an attack of more than 7 000 missiles, at each moment threatening the lives of more than one million civilians?

However, the inhabitants of Gaza are not just innocent victims. They enthusiastically, knowingly, freely and democratically elected Hamas and its charter. When they spoke of liberation, they did not mean the liberation of Gaza, which is already free, but the liberation of Tel Aviv and Haifa from the Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel. Anyone who elects criminals must logically share their fate. Especially when these criminals hide behind the skirts of women and children as they would hide behind hostages, when they fire missiles from schools and transform mosques into huge weapons depots. I remember the bombing of Dresden in 1944, when British aircraft razed the city to the ground and killed 92 000 civilians, mostly women and children. There was no hypocritical umbrage. The Germans freely elected Hitler and shared in his fate. The Gazans also knew who they were electing and why.

By the same token, a significant portion of the funds flowing from the EU into Gaza ended up in the hands of Hamas. Perhaps this was so that Gazans, with full bellies and well provided for by the EU, could devote all of their attention to excavating tunnels for smuggling in increasingly lethal weapons to be used against Israeli civilians. Proportional indeed!

(SV) Mr President, there are two important things that characterise the debate here today. The first is that an overwhelming majority of this Parliament wants to bring about a quick ceasefire. The second is that there is overwhelming support for the requirement for all parties involved to accept the state of Israel's right to exist within peaceful borders. This is the starting point that is important for the European Union. It is important, because it is a tragedy that we are witnessing in Gaza. Every life that is lost is a tragedy, whichever side of the border they are on. Let us not think that this tragedy would be any less if those who deliberately kill civilians succeed in reaching even further in amongst civilians by means of rocket fire.

It is also a tragedy because it creates obstacles to the realisation of a Palestinian state and thus a peaceful solution. It is a tragedy that is also befalling the international community, because what is happening now has not happened overnight, but has been built up through rearmament, through the smuggling of weapons and through rocket fire over a long period.

What is important for us to see is that this is not a tragedy that is built on conflict between Jews and Palestinians. I strongly object to anyone trying to demonise a nation. When I heard Mr Davies trying to lay the blame on a nation, I heard a tone that I do not think should be heard in this Parliament. It is not a conflict between Palestinians and Jews, it is not a conflict between Israel and the Palestinian authority, it is a conflict between extremists and moderate forces in the region. Let us support the moderate forces by making it clear to everyone who is pursuing hatred and wants to eliminate the state of Israel that they will not succeed. If Europe sends out this message, we will also strengthen the moderate forces and lay a better foundation for peace.

(PL) Mr President, I would like to address those who have detonated their charges of deception and demagogy in this House. This is one in a series of wars, each of which has its similarities, but also its differences. The conflict we are discussing today is an asymmetrical conflict.

For three years, Israel was bombarded with home-made missiles, and not a single word of censure was uttered in this House against those who fired them. Today we are condemning Israel. It is easy to condemn Israel, because it is a member of the UN. It has something to condemn, it has authorities. There is a government that can be condemned and censured. On the other side is a terrorist organisation whose real identity is not known. An organisation which plays with the lives of innocent people by acting behind their backs. Another asymmetrical element is that we count the Palestinians who have been dramatically killed while being used as human shields, without countering this with the Israelis who have been killed and the thousands who live under threat, because bloodshed cannot be compensated by more bloodshed. But the worst thing in this House is the asymmetry between words and actions. It is easy for us to talk, but very hard to take effective action. Without an international presence, this conflict will never be resolved.

Finally I would like to address those protesting against Israel's disproportionate action. Ladies and gentlemen, would you want a terrorist organisation to fire 7 000 missiles from Israel into Gaza? Would that be proportionality? Because this is a disproportionate conflict in which the law is ineffective, we will have to simply get used to it, otherwise we will just be going round in circles and using words which are not backed up by reality. Opinions uttered in front of the television by a warm fire are not adequate to the truth about this conflict.

Ladies and gentlemen, I really must insist now that you keep to your speaking time. I have never interrupted speakers, even when their speaking time had elapsed, but Mr Schwarzenberg is already giving us more of his time than we were expecting. He has until 5.20 p.m. at the latest, I have been told. I would entreat you to bear in mind the time for which you applied. Being a general, Mr Morillon will set a good example.

- (FR) Mr President, achieving a lasting calm in Gaza will be possible only if a multinational intervention force is deployed under UN control. For the first time, Israel seems resigned to this solution, which has been demanded time and time again by the Palestinians. I do not know when this force will be able to intervene; intervention will not be possible before an agreement has been reached between the parties to the conflict, but we all hope that this will be as soon as possible. I do know, however, that this mission will require those conducting it to be completely impartial. I believe that the European Union will therefore be in the best position to take action and - why not, Mr Pöttering? - to do so within the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean.

It will be in the best position to take action since, rightly or wrongly, the Americans are considered to have sided with the Israelis, and the Arabs, with the Palestinians. Do you not think, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that we ought to prepare ourselves for this?

Mr President, long-lasting conflict and occupation give rise to anger, rage and disappointment at the efficacy of legal authorities, producing something we call the 'Hamas effect', as a serious factor. The denial of Israel by Arabs, Islamics and Hamas is unacceptable, as is using children as human shields. Neither should the constant threat under which Israeli children live be allowed.

The question is whether, in this vicious circle of aggression, the present Israeli authorities are able to take the lesson from the six-year-long history in the area, and apply the scalpel-like strategy for two states. I know that they fear the threat from an aggressive and unpredictable neighbour shelling them with rockets, but in this matter the international community, including the EU, could come with help.

Is this risky solution acceptable, today, to Israel? But is there any other solution? If there is, tell me. To expect Hamas to die out naturally, or by bombing them out, looks like a naïve expectation, so more courage is needed by Israel. The Western powers did not create two states in 1948, but they should do so now. The core responsibility does not fade away. Let us be more courageous in this strategy.

(SL) The Israeli state has ordered the Israeli army to destroy Hamas in Gaza. However, the Israeli army is eradicating Hamas by killing Palestinians in Gaza. One third of all the dead are children and half of all the dead are women and children - but they are not members of Hamas.

The extent of the military violence is huge and disproportionate. And how can a ceasefire be achieved when neither party recognises the other's legitimacy? The enemy needs to be perceived, not as the object of attack and destruction, but as a subject, a partner with whom a ceasefire is possible and who will be responsible for preserving peace in the future. Israel has to recognise Hamas and initiate dialogue with them, and vice versa - Hamas has to recognise Israel. There is no other way. Any kind of peace is better than bloody conflict.

Military violence must immediately give way and priority to a political solution. However, Mr Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, is still trying to boost his bedraggled reputation by not allowing a ceasefire.

- (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, let me congratulate you on the results of your joint negotiations, the troika negotiations in Israel. Unlike the press, we know that it was your mission which led the Israeli side to debate the opening-up of humanitarian corridors and a daily ceasefire. I think this is the first time the Israelis have accepted Europe as a major partner and the Czech Presidency as an important representative.

Despite enormous pressure from the left, the European Parliament yesterday agreed on a quite exceptional resolution. Even in such extreme circumstances, this is a balanced resolution, a resolution that can be supported by the right, a resolution which is not just a pamphlet or a political victory for the left. We have avoided inserting an equals sign, however notional, between an existing State and a terrorist movement. Recognising the existence of the State of Israel, renouncing violence and the entry of Hamas into PLO agreements remain the key objectives, as does the requirement of achieving a permanent ceasefire as soon as possible.

Yet we have provided no added value. The three leading Israeli representatives, Barak, Livni and Olmert, are currently at odds over the conditions and guarantees under which they are willing to implement a ceasefire. The key is clearly Egypt and it consists in a guarantee of tunnel checks and smuggling checks which would be acceptable to the Egyptian side. What is the Council doing at this time? How is it proceeding in negotiations with the Egyptian side on the technical mission, international monitoring, technical surveillance, and the opening of the EU BAM Rafah? What can the MEPs meeting tonight with the Egyptian ambassador demand of the Egyptian side, or vice versa, how can we contribute to the negotiations with Egypt?

- (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call on the Council and the Commission to step up pressure on both sides of the conflict in order to stop the ongoing violence. We have here Security Council Resolution 1860 and we must comply with its provisions. It is necessary to adopt safeguards ensuring the long-term ceasefire and to allow a humanitarian corridor to be opened. It has been stated repeatedly here that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The road to lasting peace leads only through political negotiations. Here it is necessary for the European Union, in cooperation with the new United States government and the League of Arab States, to play a much more prominent political role than has been the case thus far. The long-running conflict must be ended through a political agreement based on a two-state solution, enabling Israelis and Palestinians to live together in peace within secure, internationally recognised borders, and striving to build a peaceful system of regional security throughout the Middle East.

Mr President, we are debating yet another humanitarian tragedy in our neighbourhood - next door to my country - by two of our partners in the Mediterranean. Alas, the Palestinians have not yet accepted that suicide bombs or Kassam rockets will never deliver liberation from the occupation of their land. Israel does not realise that such an extensive military response nourishes new potential suicide bombers and invites new Kassams at the first possible opportunity.

What about the innocent civilians, the non-combatants, women and children? Nobody cares about them. Nobody cares about children killed, mutilated, burned and traumatised by the hundreds - children of Israel and of Palestine. We, from the comfort of our television sets, feel nauseated watching them. How about those on the ground?

What can we do? Just entering into the classic blame game does not help the civilians. Making calls and resolutions does not help the civilians. How can we pass from words to deeds? The time is right to negotiate with the interested parties the formation of an international force - as was suggested by other colleagues - to go into Gaza with a large police component composed of Arab countries to train and help a Palestinian authority police force in a large UN mandate to impose law and order, as well as a military European force to ensure there is an end to rocket firing and weapon smuggling, and that there is the full opening of the crossings. We can no longer leave the fate of the civilians in the hands of the opposing sides.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a great Italian anti-fascist, Piero Gobetti, said that when the truth lies all on one side, to adopt a Solomon-like position is to be totally biased. That is the case for Gaza at the moment; I hope that Parliament will be able to say the right words to stop Israel. If it does not do so, it will be seen as shameful by history, the Palestinians, European public opinion and Arab public opinion.

Israel is bombing and decimating a ghetto. The sons of those who were exterminated have become exterminators. There is no excuse for this, nor is the argument that Israel has a right to its own security enough. Anybody, if he wishes to, can see that nobody is today able to threaten Israel's security or its existence. This is clear from the imbalance of forces on the ground; it is clear from the numbers of the dead and wounded; it is clear from the support that the West continues to lavish on Israel. The only purpose of this massacre is to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. In this way, peace is being killed, and therefore we need to stop Israel.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council and the Czech minister for foreign affairs, because they are still with us; we are not very used to a strong presence in this Chamber, such as that demonstrated today by the Czech Presidency.

I believe that Mrs Muscardini is right; I advise those who do not know what things are like in that area and who need to be able to express precise opinions to go and see how things are on the ground, by going either as a tourist or for other purposes. Some of us have been to Palestine under various circumstances, as observers for the Abu Mazen elections or other elections, and I believe that only seeing things in person can give one an accurate idea of how things stand.

I believe that throughout these events, which date back decades and are not just recent, the only losers have been ourselves in the western world, because we have never seriously tackled this problem and never sought to resolve it; we continue to see it as a problem between two opposing parties.

I have been to Palestine several times, and I have been to Israel several times, so I know the situation, not perfectly, but well enough, and I believe that in reality there are not two parties involved there but three. In this specific case the problem is between the terrorists and the state of Israel, and the Palestinian people are the victims caught in the middle. Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people; perhaps it represents a section of it, but it certainly does not represent the entire Palestinian people.

I have a film, which I believe that many Members will have had; the film shows all the Israeli victims, including children and people of all ages, victims of all the rockets that have been fired and are still being fired by Hamas. It is no accident that there is a large difference between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

I address this comment to the President-in-Office of the Council, and to our fine Commissioner, representing Europe. I believe that we need to tackle the situation properly. I believe that the most important thing of all is that today the position of Abu Mazen should be reinforced; he is the weakest figure of all in this situation, together with the Palestinians, who count for nothing in this affair. I believe that the real losers are all of us.

(EL) Mr President, public opinion throughout Europe is calling for one thing from the Union: to put a stop to the slaughter of the Palestinian people. We must condemn blind violence whatever its origin, but we need to be consistent in recognising that Israel is responding with state terrorism on a massive scale. The asymmetrical retaliation, the blatant disregard for any concept of international and humanitarian law on the part of Israel cannot be tolerated.

It is unacceptable for white phosphorus bombs and experimental weapons to be used against civilians and it is inhumane for innocent women and children to be targeted. If this happened in Africa or some other part of the world, our reaction would be immediate and the UN Security Council resolution would be binding. However, in the case of Israel, we confine ourselves to statements and fruitless discussion.

I believe that we should use every political tool, including the Association Agreement, to persuade Israel to stop the illegal violence against the Palestinian people and to stop prohibiting access to humanitarian aid.

We cannot be bystanders because that makes us complicit in the slaughter. The only solution is an immediate ceasefire and the opening of humanitarian corridors to Gaza and the start of dialogue with all sides.

Mr President, the horrific events in Gaza during the past two weeks have brought international condemnation against Israel. We have witnessed colleagues during this debate today lining up to see who could express the strongest outrage against the Jewish State.

However, for one country in the Middle East, this was exactly the outcome it had sought: Iran has supplied missiles, munitions and other sophisticated weaponry to Hamas for years. It has provided money and training for Hamas fighters. Its objective was to provoke Israel into a ground war and the bloody result, with gruesome photos of dead children on TV screens and in newspapers around the world, is the best possible recruiting sergeant for fundamentalist Islam and the Iranian mullahs' vision of a global Islamist movement united against the West.

The fascist regime in Tehran is the main sponsor of war and terror in the Middle East, and the tragic outcome is exactly what Tehran wanted. It distracts domestic attention in Iran from the economic crisis caused by the collapse in the price of oil, and it distracts international attention from the mullahs' rush to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran's foreign policy objective is to become the dominant regional power in the Middle East. It wants to unite the Islamic world in submission to its own austere and disturbing vision of a totalitarian Islamic brotherhood, where human rights, women's rights and freedom of speech are ground into the dust, and, shamefully, the West has done nothing to confront or expose Iranian aggression. Faced with mounting evidence of the mullahs' sponsorship of terror, the West has gone out of its way to appease Tehran, even agreeing to its primary demand of disabling the main Iranian opposition movement, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, by placing it on the EU terror list. This must stop.

Mr President, firstly, let us be clear that this Parliament will today support the UN Security Council Resolution 1860. It should be implemented without delay. As one of the MEPs here who has been in Gaza through the blockade, a ceasefire and a withdrawal are not enough. Of course we want the rockets to stop and the terrorists to stop their movements, but we must see a ceasefire and an end to the blockade so that the people of Gaza can begin to live their lives.

This is an issue of respect for international humanitarian law. Human Rights Watch and Islamic Relief have told me that the three-hour daily pause is simply woefully inadequate to get in and to distribute aid. It is an issue of proportionality. Save the Children say that the killing of 139 children since the conflict began, with 1 271 injured, cannot be justified as self-defence.

I welcome the statement today by the EU envoy in Israel, Ramiro Cibrian-Uzal, who said that the EU and Israel have put negotiations on the upgrading of relations 'on hold' at this time for these reasons. So they should.

(DE) Mr President, first we need an immediate and permanent ceasefire on both sides - there is a broad consensus on this in this House. However, afterwards, we - the EU and the international community - cannot leave the fate of the people in the Gaza Strip in the hands of Hamas and Israel alone.

Hamas does not have the interests of the inhabitants of Gaza at heart, as it knew very well that Israel would respond to constant rocket attacks - and not only during election campaigns. During the last year, surveys in Gaza have shown a fall in political support for Hamas in favour of Fatah. It seems that Hamas is cynically counting on political support for Hamas increasing again with the large number of Palestinian victims, out of victim solidarity.

Israel, on the other hand, has almost exclusively the interests of its own citizens in mind, and so international criticism is directed mainly at the extent of Israel's military operation and at the country's acceptance of the large number of civilian casualties.

Therefore, we Europeans should not stop at negotiating a further ceasefire and financing the repair of the infrastructure. I can already see the Commissioner's letter of amendment: I am sure the draft is already finished and ready for submission to the Committee on Budgets.

Nor is it sufficient to keep an eye on whether Egypt closes the tunnel system at the border with the Gaza Strip to arms smuggling. I call for the whole Quartet, including a strong Arab presence, to make a joint commitment to sending troops with a robust peacekeeping mandate to the Gaza Strip and the surrounding area - in the interests of the people in Gaza, Israel and Egypt. In parallel, the peace process itself must be driven forward rapidly. Otherwise, I fear that we shall see the kind of incidents we have been seeing in Gaza with ever greater frequency, and neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis deserve this.

(ES) Mr President, the Spanish members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament view the situation in Gaza with horror, pain and shame, but also with a commitment to defend peace, protect those who are suffering most and maintain dignity and hope.

Our horror is at the repeated scenes of murdered children and women heartbroken in their endless suffering following the bombing of the ghetto that Gaza has become. Picasso depicted this same horror in his Guernica painting of our Guernica razed to the ground by the Junkers of the Condor Legion seven decades ago.

Our pain is at the enormous suffering of so many victims. Our shame is at the inability of everyone - our countries, the European Union and the international community - to firstly prevent and secondly end the criminal aggression which we condemn.

Our shame and also indignation are at so many lies, so much ambiguity and so much hot air. Our shame is because we know exactly what is happening, yet we are not acting with the necessary forcefulness and coherence. History will therefore demand an explanation from many as accessories to the crime, at the very least due to their failures.

As it is always 'better late than never' and as it is vital to keep open a door to hope, the European Union must support the belated Security Council resolution. However, it must ensure that this is strictly observed, just as our association agreement with Israel must also be strictly observed, which provides for its suspension in the event of behaviour such as that which is occurring.

Incidentally, is Hamas also responsible for the media blackout that I have not yet heard anyone condemn?

Mr President, I wish to begin by expressing my deepest sympathy for all the innocent people, both in Israel and in Gaza, who have suffered in recent weeks and months as conflict rages. But we need to take care that our natural humanity, our very justified concerns, do not distort our view of the true nature of the situation that we are dealing with.

In Gaza, Hamas has created a terrorist fiefdom: it tolerates no opposition to its views, it has murdered those Palestinians who opposed it, it has split the Palestine Authority, it refused to stop terror attacks on Israeli civilians, it refused to recognise the right of Israel to exist, it refused to acknowledge the peace agreements previously negotiated. I recall the words of Hanan Ashrawi three years ago, when I was monitoring the Palestinian elections. She foresaw the imposition of rule by the forces of darkness - how right she was!

We should not be surprised that a Hamas MP should take pride in stating that death was an 'industry' for the Palestinian people. He was referring to the use of suicide bombers and the deliberate use of civilian human shields to protect potential military targets. It is, of course, a direct contravention of international humanitarian law to use civilians in this way.

Faced with such an intractable, callous and hateful enemy, what do we expect Israel to do while its citizens are constantly subjected to terror attacks? The international community took little notice. When Israel took non-violent action, such as imposing blockades or cutting electricity, it was castigated. Now that it has taken military action in reaction to Hamas provocation, it feels the weight of international disapproval.

The sad reality is that the Palestinian people have been atrociously served over many years by those who have control over Palestine Authority areas, by the international community, which has tolerated extremism and corruption, and by the Arab world, which has done nothing practical over many decades to improve their lives or prospects.

We need a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. It is not just peacekeepers that the Palestinians need but a decent civil administration, free from corruption. The civil administration needs to be put under international control but first of all the terrorist lifeline - weapons, monies and political indulgence - must be cut.

Mr President, I could agree with what Mr Van Orden says about Hamas, but the fact is that none of what he says justifies the bombing of civilians by Israel. That is the fundamental point: we have to stop the bombing, whether it is coming from Hamas or coming from Israel.

I hope the resolution accompanying this debate will receive a strong vote in this House tomorrow, and I hope it will strengthen the hands of the Commission and the Council in pressuring both Israel and Hamas to stop the killing. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, it has turned it into the largest prison in the world, and for the last three weeks it has turned it into a slaughterhouse, illegally using terror against terror, killing civilian men, women and children, and killing the possibility of a viable two-state solution in the process.

There can be no upgrading of Europe's relations with Israel so long as it fails to engage in constructive and substantive negotiations with its neighbours and all the Palestinian elected members, including Hamas. It should be made clear by Europe that any escalation of this war on Gaza will be followed by an escalation of our reaction to that war.

(HU) Mr President, Commissioners, members of Council, fellow Members, I find the behaviour of the parties in the Gaza conflict to be cynical. I consider it cynical and unacceptable that Hamas uses the civilian population - even children - as a human shield. I consider cynical and inhumane the Israeli stance which, on the pretext of self-defence, uses disproportionate means, shooting masses of Gaza residents and most severely affecting the civilian population, including children.

I consider cynical and mendacious a foreign diplomacy which, with notable exceptions, strives to maintain appearances and yet even after so many days is unable to secure protection for the civilian population or aid agencies, and unfortunately is unable to protect children either.

I speak up for the children, because no end can justify the means of unnecessarily ending innocent lives. We must consider each child's life to be of equal value, on either side of the border. This is the fundamental axiom which each party to the conflict must hold equally important, if there is ever to be true peace in that region.

Acceptance of the values of respect for human life, protection of civilians and promotion of humanitarian aid can form the foundation for reaching a lasting ceasefire, achieving peace within Palestine and between Palestine and Israel.

Mr President, Hamas unleashed terror on Israel's citizens and has provoked retaliation. It seems from this distance that some of them relish the new civilian - including child - martyrs and the publicity it gives their cause, no matter how horrible it is for right-thinking people to take that in.

I have never given succour to terrorism, nor am I a critic of Israel, which has a right to peaceful coexistence in the region, but we would have to be turnips not to feel emotional upset and moral shame at what is happening at present in Gaza. The Israeli response is totally disproportionate and the deaths of young children are particularly shameful.

I have not, to date, opposed the new EU-Israel agreement. I believe the advice of the Dalai Lama last month here in Parliament that the best way to influence China on Tibet is to keep good relations with them. I think that also applies to EU-Israel relations, but how can we get their attention to express the level of revulsion felt here at the scale of what is happening?

I may add that yesterday a note on the humanitarian needs of the region was distributed to those of us who attended the joint meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Development Committee. I urge the Commission and the Council to ensure that a totally comprehensive humanitarian aid package is ready so that we can move in there and help these suffering people at the first opportunity.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, one thing that was mentioned at the beginning was whether we should contact Hamas. I do not think it is yet time to do so. In the last months, Hamas still definitely behaved as a terrorist organisation. As long as it behaves as such, it cannot be officially contacted by the representatives of the European Union.

I admit, being an old man, that I have seen many terrorist organisations during my time growing up from their beginnings, becoming more or less acceptable, and being accepted by the international community. I have seen it in Africa. I have seen it in Ireland. I have seen it in many places. That happens. But first of all they have to stop acting as a terrorist organisation. Then I will be ready to speak with Hamas or with anybody else, but not before they have given up acting as a terrorist organisation.

I think it is important to state this, because the European Union cannot give up its principles. There are ways of hearing what their ideas are, there are indirect contacts with politicians in the region who are in contact with them, which is important and good, but it is not yet time for the European Union to have direct contacts with Hamas. I think we should be adamant about that.

In other respects, we should praise Egypt very much for its important role in the last weeks and days for its efforts and hard work on achieving a ceasefire and maybe even an armistice with, at the very end of the process, peace in the region. I know how difficult the question is. We are in contact with the Egyptians the whole time. We know what important work they are doing, and I would like to congratulate them.

There was a question on how we can assist in the region. First of all, those who are on the spot will tell us clearly what they need. It is not for us to decide what we should give them. They have to ask us and the European Union. Many European Union Member States have stated their readiness to help in every possible way - technical ways, sending advisors, preparing whatever means are necessary - but this must, first of all, be with the consent of the relevant states there. That is the first task to be carried out.

I heard one important suggestion, which was to prepare a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. I think it is a very good idea and we should follow it. This region really needs a genuine build-up of the ideas which helped Europe so much after the war.

Ms Ferrero-Waldner and others mentioned what the mission achieved. I think we achieved a lot, and I would like once again to commend Ms Ferrero-Waldner, who did the main work in our delegation in the humanitarian sphere, where what we have achieved still works today. But, let us be clear, even these very difficult negotiations in the Middle East are based on the design already structured during our delegation's visit to the Middle East. This basically deals with how to organise peace and what is necessary. Our plan is based on what we found out then and discussed with our partners.

There was a discussion about upgrading our relations with Israel. As you know, that was a decision taken by the Council of Ministers of the European Union in June 2008. This can be changed only if the ministers of the European Union decide to alter the decision. It cannot be changed, even by the words of a very respectable representative of the European Union in Jerusalem. I admit that in the current situation it would be premature to discuss how to upgrade our relationship with Israel and whether there should be a summit in the foreseeable future. For the moment we really have more urgent and more important questions to solve. Again, I would state that the decision was taken by the Council of Ministers, and that is it.

What can be done to stop Israel? Let us be frank - very little. Israel acts as it acts and, being a lifelong friend of Israel, which I state today and I state quite frankly, I am not so happy with what it is doing at the moment. I think its politics are also harming Israel. That is one thing, but the European Union does have very few possibilities, other than speaking very clearly and very honestly and asking our partners to stop it. The solution has to be found by our partners in the Middle East, by Israel, by Egypt and the others involved. The European Union can help there. The European Union can assist by offering every type of help if a ceasefire is agreed to achieve the stated aims: closing the smuggling passes, closing the tunnels, guarding the sea etc. It can help in Gaza in many ways, such as reconstruction or assisting with humanitarian aid. The European Union can do all that, but, to be quite honest, we do not have the power and means to say 'stop'. Does Parliament think we can send a huge armed force to the Middle East to stop the fighting parties? No. We do not have the possibilities, and both Israel and Hamas are dependent on powers other than European powers. Israel has mighty allies outside of Europe too. There are limits on our power to achieve something. We can help, we can assist, we can offer our good services and we can be very engaged. In that respect, we have achieved quite a lot. But do not overstate our possibilities.

Mr President, Israel states it is exercising its right to self-defence. In that case, the rudiments of the just war principles, including proportionality, must be adhered to.

The fact that Israel is ignoring this is patently clear, and for us to ignore this fact is patently wrong. The use of phosphorus on civilians with the claim of civilisation is not compatible.

Clearly, the EU alone cannot resolve this. But there is a white elephant in the room. We need the resolve of the USA. Their disappointing response has been imbalanced and unjust. The timing of these actions by Israel has been strategically calculated, but, Mr Obama, 20 January is fast approaching. The world is waiting and the EU is a willing partner!

Will you restore those values we share with you or will you allow such injustice to prevail - yet again? Will you work with us to provide protection for all concerned? The Palestinians ask you - how can it be right that your country asks for humanitarian aid on the ground, but remains silent when there are only bombs from the skies?

Colleagues wanting to break Hamas with military means alone: go and see Gaza and the West Bank. Reawaken your basic humanity and you will see why Hamas gains strength.

This is not the way to help Israel or Palestinians. An immediate ceasefire is only a necessary start.

Mr President, it is very clear that the parties to this conflict are failing to respect international humanitarian law and that the civilian population of Gaza is consequently paying a very heavy price. There must be accountability in international law where such warfare principles as proportionality and non-discrimination are not respected. One of the tenets of a just war provides that conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured. Unfortunately we have seen a large degree of carelessness by the Israelis. While acknowledging the fact that Hamas began the rocket attacks against Israel, the Israeli reaction has, in my opinion, been disproportionate. The numbers speak for themselves: over 900 Palestinians have been killed in contrast to a much smaller number of Israelis. Israel must realise its responsibility to measure its use of force right away in compliance with international law.

On the other hand, it cannot be overlooked that Hamas is still listed as a terrorist organisation by the EU and continues to refuse to renounce its arms struggle. Not only that, but Hamas has consistently declined to recognise Israel's right to exist. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups must recognise that the people of southern Israel have a right to live without bombardment.

Mr President, for all those who observe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this might be a time in which we are tempted to put our hands in the air and scream in despair. I do not think we should, however, because I think the greatest test of our humanity today is to really understand the issues at hand.

The first issue is that there can be no lasting solution to this conflict without stopping the bombardment of Israel. The second issue is that there cannot be a lasting solution to this conflict without opening Gaza to humanitarian aid. Indeed, President Peres has been absolutely right in saying that Gaza should be open for aid and not enclosed for rockets.

I think this is quintessential, and everyone agrees to this. There cannot be a return to the status quo ante, and I think we could do a number of things here. Firstly Parliament can bring both sides together to talk; secondly we should stand behind the Commission and the Council and support their efforts; and finally we should firmly support the Egyptian track of negotiations, because that is the only track that can lead to a solution and to the ceasefire which we currently all hope for.

Mr President, it is not just the Members of this House who have been outraged by developments in Gaza. The European public have also been outraged by the suffering of the people in Gaza and the Israeli blockade for far too long. Added to this are the constant attacks and the terrifying Israeli military assaults on innocent civilians, especially women and children. The calls by the world community for an immediate ceasefire are falling on deaf ears.

Palestinians need urgent access to food, medical aid and security. Israel must, at the very least, respect the principles of international law. Unless it does so, Israel should lose any remaining support it has from the international community.

It is unfortunate that the UN's resolution has been sidelined. It is also regrettable that the EU still needs to find a role. Perhaps it can do so if it takes stronger measures than it has done so far. It is not enough just to put the upgrading of the relationship on ice. We have leverage. We are a major trading partner. We are a major funder in that region. So we are able to exercise that role.

Mr President, is it ethically acceptable and is it excusable in international law that, in its endeavour to neutralise Hamas terrorists, the State of Israel can embark on a major military campaign of terror and gross violation of UN conventions and human rights against 1.5 million trapped, innocent civilians? Is such action consistent with our own EU values of justice and democracy? Is the Israeli lobby so strong that it can cause the US and the EU to - in effect - stand idle and just watch unspeakable atrocities being committed in the name of the fight against terror?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then we should all commend as brave the Israeli Government for their action in Gaza. If the answer is no, then we should strongly and clearly condemn Israel and must take swift and effective steps against it, including trade sanctions, in order to end the carnage in Gaza today and in the future. I disagree strongly with the minister who left, who said that we can in effect do very little. We can do a lot and we must.

Mr President, I was elected to this House 25 years ago. This is probably the most important debate in which I have taken part. Madam Commissioner, I hope you listened very carefully to the Foreign Affairs Committee last night and to this Parliament today. I hope you may reply in your debate to say, unlike President-in-Office Schwarzenberg, that there is moral power that the European Union may exert on the aggressor on this particular occasion.

The Israeli people are a just and honourable people who have suffered miserably throughout the centuries in this continent. They will understand your recommendation to the Council of Ministers now that the EU should withdraw any contact with the Israeli authorities until they stop the bombing.

(ES) Mr President, we must tell Israel with absolute conviction to stop killing and to allow the wounded to be treated and the victims to be fed. It must be told that its attitude towards international law will have consequences for its relations with Europe.

I want to congratulate the few young European voluntary workers who are suffering together with the people of Gaza, in particular Alberto Arce. They represent the best of the values of solidarity and freedom held by this Europe of ours, which needs to act accordingly in such a terrible conflict.

(DA) Mr President, I just want to say two things. First of all, I would like to remind everyone that our decision expressly states, and reiterates, that we have put our support for upgrading on hold, and I very much hope that we will not merely carry on as if nothing has happened just because the Presidency says so. My second point is that Israel has at no time delivered what it promised in connection with the negotiations. There was no ceasefire because Israel did not actually lift its blockade during that period, and I feel I must also raise Annapolis, where Israel promised to freeze settlement activity. What actually happened? It simply went and increased the rate of settlement. The rate of settlement building has never been as rapid as it has been since Annapolis, and I believe that as long as no progress is made on the ground we will never get Hamas to act in accordance with the rules we want it to play by and that, for that reason, we must ensure that Israel fulfils its side of the bargain.

Mr President, yesterday we had a joint meeting of the Delegations for Relations with Israel and with the PLC, and one can imagine the intensity, emotion, accusations - and the suggested solutions - after 18 days of war in Gaza and around 1 000 deaths.

The fact is that Israel, after eight years of waiting and absorbing around 8 000 missiles that terrorised one million citizens along the Gaza borders, finally ran out of patience. They began securing safety for their citizens, as is their full right and obligation. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and is the clear culprit and a burden for the Palestinian people in Gaza. The solution lies in an invigorated Quartet and particularly in redoubling the joint effort between the new US administration and a stronger and more integrated EU.

I welcome the Czech presidency, its priorities and its immediate and active involvement in the region.

(RO) This conflict, which has lasted a very long time, is based on problems to do with territory, as well as cultural differences which are sometimes treated in an exaggerated manner. The long-term solution is a protected, secure Israeli state, along with a sustainable Palestinian state. This solution cannot be achieved, however, through terrorist attacks or armed actions.

In order to achieve a normal way of life, the Palestinian people need to create for themselves a state based on democratic institutions and the rule of law, which would ensure economic development. They need to renounce terrorist acts and turn their concerns to creating a normal political climate, facilitating the election of politicians to lead the state, who genuinely wish to resolve this conflict through negotiation.

(GA) Mr President, I would like to lend my support to those condemning the attacks and to show my solidarity with the people of Gaza.

Minister Schwarzenburg says that the European Union cannot do very much. The European Union should abandon the upgrade of relations with Israel and the agreements that are currently in force should be cancelled until Israel fulfils its duties under international law.

Even before the recent immoral attacks, we saw years of collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The scale and type of attacks carried out on Gaza by a modern army against a besieged people, who are already weak as a result of isolation and siege, is absolutely horrific. The blame that was put on those same people was wrong - we must be clear in saying that the biggest victims here are people, the innocent people of Gaza.

(PL) It is with great pain that we observe what is going on in the Gaza strip. We do not support Hamas' methods of fighting and provocation, but Israel has chosen a disproportionate means of resolving its dispute with the Palestinian people. There has been a definite violation of the principles of international law. Neither party to the conflict is interested in peace for the other party. Both parties see only their own interest - that is national egotism.

International opinion is against the continuation of this war. The European Union and the UN, supported by many countries, should intervene decisively. It is time to end this unfortunate war. Israeli troops should return to their barracks. Hamas has to stop firing rockets at Israel. We must guarantee more urgent humanitarian aid to the civilian population and administer care to the casualties, of whom there are said to be approximately 3 000. We need to build the country up and help it return to normal life. That is the scenario I ask from the current leadership of the European Union and the European Commission.

Mr President, I would just like to ask whether we will still be having a debate on gas today or whether it has been deleted from the agenda. We are waiting here. There is not only a Middle East debate but also one on gas on the agenda. Has it been deleted from the agenda?

That is the next item on the agenda.

(SL) I was disappointed by the last announcement by the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, which is currently heading the Council. Of course, we can pin all our hopes on our Commissioner. But the death toll is rising. If we continue to talk in this manner, in a week's time 1 500 people will probably be dead.

Speaking to Hamas is difficult. It is on the list of terrorist organisations and it is difficult to take action against it. Israel, on the other hand, is our friend, Israel is our partner and an important member of the international community. Israel has to abide by international decisions, the resolutions of the United Nations and also by the recommendations of its friends and partners. If it fails to do so, its friends and partners must be able to condemn its actions and to threaten sanctions against it, as well.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I will be brief because it was a very long debate. Let me say first of all, as a member of the Middle East Quartet for four years now, the European Union has a role to play, but of course we do not have the strongest role to play. That is sometimes frustrating for all of us, particularly in such a difficult moment when you would like to immediately achieve a durable and sustainable ceasefire as we have proposed, but when it can, unfortunately, not be achieved so quickly.

I would like to give you, at least tentatively, the latest information that I got now, which is in the news, saying that sources in Egypt close to negotiations report that Hamas is reacting favourably to the latest Egyptian proposals. There is movement in any case. I am not yet sure whether this is really confirmed, but there will also be a Hamas press conference in the evening at 20.00. Hopefully things will go forward. At least, this is what we all want.

Second, despite all the frustrations, we have no other possibility than to go on working for peace. This is what we will do. I am committed to that as long as I am a member of this Middle East Quartet. We can only achieve it together and we also have to help and enhance Palestinian reconciliation efforts, because only then will it be possible to totally avoid the anomaly of Gaza.

Third, as soon as there is a ceasefire we will try to do everything to totally restore the basic services to the population that have been so badly disrupted. I think, most importantly, what is necessary now is to put an end to this destruction and to go for reconstruction and try to come to peace.

We have talked at length about this, so I will not extend myself, but this is my spirit and I hope there is a good moment.

To conclude the debate I have received one motion for a resolution pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Given the barbarity that has struck the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, which the recent resolution of the UN Human Rights Council denounces and condemns, what is required and demanded is the following:

A firm denunciation of the violations of human rights and of the crimes perpetrated by the Israeli army, the state terrorism of Israel!

A clear condemnation of the cruel aggression of Israel against the Palestinian people, which nothing can justify!

An end to the aggression and the inhumane blockade imposed on the population of the Gaza Strip!

Urgent humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population!

The withdrawal of Israeli troops from all the occupied Palestinian territories!

Respect for international law and the UN resolutions by Israel, the end of the occupation, the settlements, the segregation wall, the assassinations, the detentions, the exploitation and the innumerable humiliations that are inflicted on the Palestinian people!

A just peace, which is only possible by respecting the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent and sovereign state, with the 1967 borders and its capital in East Jerusalem!

In Palestine there is a coloniser and a colonised, an aggressor and a victim, an oppressor and an oppressed, an exploiter and an exploited. Israel cannot continue with impunity!

in writing. - The reaction to the conflict in Gaza has to be more balanced than it currently is. No excessive violence can be excused, yet we have to look deeper into the origins of the conflict.

Negotiations with Hamas as it is are not possible. A terrorist grouping which is cynically using its own people as a shield against attacks is not interested in negotiating a true peace.

Furthermore, we need to take into account that Hamas has assumed an important role in the chain of terrorist movements which lead to Hezbollah and the Tehran terrorist regime. So Hamas has to be seen as part of wider efforts to destroy the fragile stability in the Middle East and substitute this with fundamentalist extremist regimes that allow in principle no right of existence for Israel.

Indeed, we need to understand that the question of Israel's security is also linked to the EU's security.

The EU must exercise its authority to address first and foremost the roots of the conflict. To avoid further killing of Arabs and Israelis, the Arab partners have to recognise unconditionally Israel's right to existence and contribute to stopping the infiltration of extremist movements and even more deadly weapons to this region.

in writing. - (FI) Mr President, it is an incontrovertible fact that the civilian population in Gaza and southern Israel have been deprived of the right to an existence worthy of human beings. One news agency told a story of two children who were about to cross the road in Gaza. They did not look right or left to see if anything was coming - they looked up because they were afraid of what might come down from the sky.

There are clearly two guilty parties when it comes to Gaza's massive humanitarian crisis. The irresponsible action of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the cowardly way in which it hides among the civilian population, and the provocation it engenders with its rocket attacks are all indications of the unsustainability of the Palestinian government. Israel's disproportionate attack on the already frail and desperate Palestinian enclave is another indication of its indifference to international humanitarian obligations.

We must call for an end to this madness in the shape of an immediate and permanent ceasefire. As a first step, Israel should allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, where an improvement to living conditions would also constitute one of the paths to peace in the long term.

The Middle East Quartet needs to make a move in the right direction, with the new US administration showing the way. Egypt has a special responsibility, because of matters to do with borders, and its role as mediator with the Union has given us hope.

World history shows that the quest for peace pays off in the end. We cannot give in, adapt or become accustomed to the notion of an unresolved conflict, because there is no such thing. According to Nobel Peace Prize Winner Martti Ahtisaari, peace is a matter of will. The international community may try to encourage and foster this will, but only the parties concerned can produce it, and lasting peace.

Commissioner, could you take this message from Europe: 'People of the Holy Land, show that you want peace.'

in writing. - There is something disturbing about a world apparently helpless to save innocent children from being blown apart in war.

Despite all the words, there has been no let-up in the bombardment of Gaza, which has, so far, resulted in the deaths of 139 children and injury to 1 271. Sadly, these shocking numbers will increase.

Hamas rocket attacks on Israel have provoked the response it desired - counter-attacks and the loss of civilian life and a further entrenchment of positions.

I deplore that innocent civilians are used as human shields. This has to stop.

I do not apportion blame - there is wrong on both sides, but I do stress the need for an immediate and effective ceasefire.

It is vital to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance and aid to Gaza without delay.

Would that humanity could only see the futility of such wars.

Every image of the dead in Gaza inflames people across the Arab world, and I am worried that the essential tenet of the Middle East peace process is slipping away: the so-called two-state solution, an independent Palestinian state coexisting in peace with Israel. It is incumbent on the international community to redouble its efforts to find a solution.

in writing. - (FI) We are all now witnessing the wholesale slaughter of civilians by Israeli soldiers in Gaza. We, or more precisely many Members on the right, are closing our eyes to what is happening. It could not happen without the political right-wing elite in the United States of America and the EU closing their eyes. The eye-closers are also the ones arming the killers of civilians.

It is time we raised the matter of severing diplomatic relations with the perpetrators of genocide and the ethnic cleansers.

in writing. - (HU) The situation in the Middle East fills me with anxiety. What will it take to have peace? How many civilian casualties will it take before there can be a true ceasefire? In Bosnia-Herzegovina it took at least 10 000 for peace negotiations to begin, for peacekeepers to arrive on site and for disarmament to begin.

A few days ago we commemorated the destruction of Nagyenyed (Aiud). 160 years ago, several thousand innocent civilians, including women and children, were massacred in this Transylvanian city and its environs. Since that time it has not been possible to remember these victims together with the majority population.

There may come a time when Israelis and Palestinians not only remember each other's victims together, but join forces to build a lasting peace and future.

Until then, the task of the European Union is to serve as a responsible example. There is a lot for us to do in building peace within Europe, too. We need cooperation between majorities and minorities on an equal footing. At the very least, we need to join together to remember the victims. There is still a lot to be done in the EU in the area of respect for individual and minority rights.

in writing. - (PL) During January's plenary session, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the conflict in the Gaza Strip. Both sides in the conflict were urged to implement an immediate and lasting ceasefire and to halt military activities (Israeli's military action and Hamas' rockets), which had for some time prevented aid and humanitarian assistance from getting through to the citizens of the territory where the conflict was being played out.

It has already cost thousands of victims, with civilians, including women and children who have been suffering for almost three weeks. There is a shortage of basic necessities such as drinking water and food. UN facilities have been attacked.

The resolution calls for observance of international law, which would resolve the existing conflict. Israel is our friend, and is entitled to defend itself as a state, but it must be firmly stated and underlined that in this case the means it has used are highly disproportionate. Israel needs to talk with Hamas, to negotiate, because the previous methods have not worked.

The European Union also faces a difficult task: it needs to find mechanisms which will lead to dialogue and understanding between the parties which will permanently end the conflict as soon as possible.

Gas supplies by Russia to Ukraine and the EU (debate) 

The next item is the Council and Commission statements on gas supplies by Russia to Ukraine and the EU.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the Council would like to thank the European Parliament for placing this item on the agenda of its first part-session this year. You will probably agree with me that the Czech presidency displayed remarkable foresight when it placed security of energy supply as one of the cornerstones or priorities of our presidency this year.

The European Union is undoubtedly facing a major gas supply disruption as a result of the dispute between the Russians and the Ukrainians and between the Gazprom and Naftogaz organisations. The extent of this supply cut now covers about 30% of the Community's total gas imports. So this is a situation that not even the Cold War years have seen us exposed to - the total cut-off that we are facing today.

The Council and the Commission were aware of the potential problem. As you know, we faced a similar situation three years ago, in 2006, and this is more or less a recurring annual problem, as each year Russia increases the prices of the gas it exports to its neighbouring countries towards market levels. Therefore, we were extremely vigilant, in view of the Community's large degree of dependence on Russian gas. Indeed, for some Member States, dependence on the gas supplied by Russia reaches about 100%.

I would like to stress in particular the difficult situation of countries like Bulgaria or Slovakia. It also gives us an explanation as to why, for example, in the central and eastern European countries, this is problem number one - the people are freezing and it is on the front page of the newspapers. I know that in some other countries, which are not facing the problem with that kind of intensity, the situation is probably different, at least in PR terms.

This time, we already received a formal warning from the Russian side on 18 December 2008 through the EU-Russia early warning mechanism that a problem might occur if the ongoing negotiations between Ukraine and Russia did not result in an agreement on prices, transit fees and payment of the debts. So we were not that surprised by what has happened, but we were surprised by the magnitude and the intensity of the cut.

Contacts, therefore, took place at the highest level prior to 1 January 2009 in order to avert the disruption of supply. The Czech presidency had been monitoring the situation well before the beginning of the year. I personally already met Russian officials in Prague two days before Christmas Eve.

The Commission took adequate precautions in order to follow the development throughout the holiday period and shared its information with the Gas Coordination Group in early January. Both prior to and after 1 January 2009, the presidency and the Commission - working very closely with Andris Piebalgs - received assurances from both actors that gas deliveries to the EU would not be affected.

As you know, the Czech presidency, together with the Commission and with the aid of some Member States, has been in contact with both the Ukrainians and the Russian gas companies and travelled several times in order to meet with both sides.

In these contacts we have not sought to blame either side, or take sides, or even act as a mediator, since this is a commercial dispute. Rather, we have emphasised to both parties the gravity of the situation, stressing the fact that the credibility and dependability of Russia as a supplying country and of Ukraine as a transit country are both clearly damaged. As the gravity of the situation has increased, we have also acted as a 'facilitator' as far as deliveries of gas to the Community were concerned - a role that was very much appreciated by both parties, because they were not talking to each other at all.

Let me give a brief synopsis of what has happened since the early morning of 1 January 2009 - New Year's Day. On 1 January 2009, Russia announced it had stopped deliveries of gas to Ukraine, whilst keeping deliveries to the EU at full level. That same day, the Czech presidency and the Commission issued a statement calling on both sides to look for a prompt solution and honour their contractual obligations towards EU consumers.

On 2 January 2009, as it became clear that deliveries to the EU were beginning to be affected, a formal declaration by the Czech presidency on behalf of the EU was issued and early in the morning on the same day in Prague, we received a Ukrainian delegation led by the Minister of Energy, Yuriy Prodan. This was made up of all parts of the Ukrainian political spectrum, such as the adviser to President Yushchenko, representatives of Naftogaz and the representative of the MFA.

On 3 January 2009, we had a lunch in Prague with the Director of Gazexport Alexander Medvedev, and I personally took part in both meetings. Both meetings revealed a flagrant lack of transparency as regards contracts between Gazprom and Naftogaz and especially a lack of confidence which prevents progress in reaching an agreement. The stories given by both sides were totally different on certain issues, so that was the moment when we started to push the monitoring issue.

In an effort to tackle this problem of divergent views, the idea of a joint fact-finding mission by the presidency and the Commission, led by the Czech Minister of Industry and Trade, Martin Říman, and by Matthias Ruete, the Director-General of DG TRAN, emerged, and it obtained the mandate to do this from an extraordinary COREPER I session, which we called on 5 January 2009, the first working day after the holidays.

The mission went to Kiev. They also visited the dispatching centre and then the next day they travelled to Berlin to meet the Gazprom representative on 6 January 2009. Also on 6 January 2009, as the gas supplies were severely reduced to several EU Member States, leading to a major supply disruption, an extremely strong statement by the presidency and the Commission was issued, calling on both sides to immediately and unconditionally resume gas supplies to the EU. The presidency and the Commission then sought to accelerate the conclusion of a prompt political agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine so that gas supplies could be restored without further delay. Gas supplies were also the number one topic of the European Commission's meeting with the Czech Government, traditionally the strategic session, which took place on 7 January 2009 in Prague and also dominated the first informal council which we organised in the Czech Republic - the general affairs informal meeting held in Prague last Thursday. Again, we were planning to discuss energy security in advance, but, of course, we had to react promptly and thus adopted a strong declaration by the presidency on behalf of the EU, which was approved by all.

Following the complete standstill reached by gas supply transiting through Ukraine on 7 January 2009, with severe consequences for those Member States with little possibility to mitigate the cut, we stepped up pressure and after lengthy and difficulty negotiations got both sides to agree on sending a monitoring team composed of independent EU experts, accompanied by observers from both sides. This team was tasked with providing an independent monitoring of gas flow transiting through Ukraine to the EU and is deployed in both countries. Monitoring was defined by Russia as a precondition for the resumption of gas supplies.

Deployment of this mission was not easy to achieve, as you probably observed. First, the resistance of the Ukrainians to include a Russian expert in the monitoring mission had to be overcome, then an annex added unilaterally by Ukraine to the agreement painfully brokered by our presidency was refused by Russia.

After several trips by Prime Minister Topolánek to Kiev and Moscow and difficult negotiations with President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko and also Prime Minister Putin in Moscow, the agreement was eventually signed on 12 January and created a legal basis for the deployment of the monitors, and asked for the resumption of Russian gas supplies to the EU. Russia then announced that the supply would be resumed on 13 January at 08.00 in the morning, but then - I do not know whether it was 13 January - the progress did not take place as expected.

On Monday 12 January we, the Czech presidency, convened a special Council of Energy Ministers in order to press for further transparency on transit-related issues, identify short-term mitigating measures to be taken until supplies are fully restored and identify medium- to long-term measures that are needed to prevent the consequences of such major disruption in future.

The Council also adopted the conclusions reflected in document 5165 which urged both sides to resume gas deliveries to the EU immediately and to develop solutions that prevent recurrence. Furthermore, in these conclusions, Council agreed to urgently develop the strengthened medium- and long-term measures relating inter alia to transparency regarding the physical flow of gas, demand and storage volumes, regional or bilateral solidarity arrangements, to address the issue of missing energy infrastructure interconnections (which is a huge problem), to continue to diversify the transport route and sources, and to address the financing aspects of this, also by speeding up the revision of the Security of Gas Supply Directive.

A further meeting of the Gas Coordination Group on Monday 19 January now looks likely.

The Energy Council, the TTE, will revisit the issue at its scheduled 19 February meeting through the conclusions it will adopt on the Commission's Communication on the Second Strategic Energy Review.

These conclusions and the Commission Communication will be discussed at the March European Council meeting which will no doubt devote adequate attention to the events of the past weeks.

Allow me also to make a couple of final remarks in that introductory statement. First, the key objective of the presidency in the recent dispute has been an immediate resumption of gas supplies in the contracted amounts. The dispute is not over yet, as we all know. Therefore it is essential that the EU does not become entangled in the bilateral quarrels between Gazprom and Naftogaz.

Second, both the presidency and the Commission keep urging both parties to dialogue in order to reach a compromise under which gas supplies to the EU could be restored. The failure to respect the agreement of 12 January by either Russia or the Ukraine would, in the view of the presidency and the Commission, be unacceptable. The conditions for the resumption of supply - as stipulated in the agreement - have been fulfilled and there is no reason therefore not to restore the supply fully.

The presidency is well aware of the number of problems which persist. These need to be addressed, otherwise the insecurity concerning Russian gas via the Ukraine will linger on.

First, there is this issue of the technical gas that the Ukraine needs to keep its transit system running. It is necessary that both sides reach a transparent agreement defining who is responsible for the technical gas supply and who pays for it.

Second, it is crucial that the Russia-Ukraine contracts on gas prices and transit fees set clear and legally binding conditions preventing similar disruption from recurring. The presidency, together with the Commission, have repeatedly called on both sides to sign such a contract. However, neither we nor the Commission intend to intervene in the negotiations on the contractual conditions between the two commercial subjects.

The presidency is also aware of the widely-shared consensus among the Member States that short-, medium- and long-term solutions be adopted without delay that would prevent similar situations from recurring in the future. Energy security is one of the top presidency priorities. The presidency has taken the lead in chairing the discussion on possible solutions for our energy dependency trap: be it the informal Council, as I mentioned, or the TTE-Energy session. Of the issues mentioned in the Energy Council Conclusions, I would like to mention the following.

Firstly, the Member States agree that the creation of a functional and efficient solidarity mechanism is one of the cornerstones of future EU energy security.

Secondly, solidarity presupposes interconnections of European energy networks, as well as improvements in energy infrastructure.

Thirdly, increased gas storage capacity is crucial for the operability of the solidarity mechanism.

Fourthly, in the light of the current crisis, the presidency also urges agreement on the review of the Directive concerning measures to safeguard the security of natural gas supplies by the end of 2009.

Furthermore the EU needs to diversify its gas resources and supply routes. To this end, the presidency will organise the Southern Corridor Summit in May 2009, expecting tangible results as regards the diversification of resources and supply routes and as regards closer cooperation with the countries of the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia.

EU energy security is not feasible unless internal energy security market is completed and functional. Therefore the presidency is looking forward to close cooperation with the European Parliament to compromise on the Third Energy Package at second reading.

The presidency is also ready to continue discussions of the Second Strategic Review with the aim of reflecting its outcomes in the Spring Council Conclusions.

Finally, in order to boost energy security the EU should strengthen the transparency mechanism and so on.

I think the Community is prepared for the situation both politically and technically. Politically, the presidency, together with the Commission and other Member States, has invested, and will continue to invest, considerable effort in order to solve the situation. Technically, during these recent weeks, we have acted in accordance with the Directive concerning measures to safeguard the security of natural gas supply.

This Directive established the Gas Coordination Group, which now proves its value. It requires Member States to prepare national emergency measures for this type of situation, sets minimum standards for the security of the gas supply to household consumers, and it prescribes that the Gas Coordination Group should ensure the Community coordination.

This mechanism has had a considerable effect in mitigating the effects of the crisis. To give you an idea, gas from storage was used and sold to neighbouring countries and even to members of the Energy Community, alternative fuels were used for electricity production, gas production was increased - including from Algerian, Norwegian and other Russian sources - extra deliveries of gas were made to neighbouring countries.

I stop here. I assure you that everything is being done, both at the political level and at the technical level, to incite the Ukrainian and Russian negotiators to re-install full contractual gas supplies to Europe and to minimise the negative consequences to our citizens and economies until that is the case. As you know, we are on the hotlines all day in Parliament because time is expiring and we need to have results. If we do not have results, it will inevitably have political consequences in our relations with both countries.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we are currently living through one of the most severe energy crises in European history, comparable with the oil crises that we had in the 1970s and 1980s. The difference is that those oil crises were global while this is very clearly an EU crisis.

Where are we today? Well, in spite of promises made and the protocol signed on Monday 12 January 2008 between Russian and Ukrainian ministers, myself and the two companies involved, Russian gas is not yet flowing through Ukraine to EU consumers.

The Commission has fulfilled its part of the deal: providing a European team of monitors to be spread over key places in Russia and Ukraine to observe the operations and report on their accuracy. We were able to mobilise a team composed of Commission officials and industry experts in 24 hours and they were already in Russia and Ukraine last Saturday to enable the flow of gas to resume as soon as the protocol was signed.

Yesterday Russia resumed gas deliveries to Ukraine in relatively small quantities that meet less than one third of the normal flow, but decided to use an entry point which, according to the Ukrainian company, is difficult to use, and this led Ukraine to stop transport. The report of our monitors confirms that it was technically difficult (though not impossible) to ensure the transport under these conditions.

Today, unfortunately, the same situation occurred and the only solution is for the two parties to ensure full coordination of their technical operations, so that volumes and entry points match the requirements of the gas transport system.

If there is no further coordination, there will be no gas supply, and EU monitors and the Commission on the spot are trying to encourage both sides to find this technical agreement.

At the same time, I do not take sides. I do not want to blame one or the other party. But it is very clear that both parties have lost their reputation as reliable energy partners of the European Union.

(Applause)

Returning to the history of the last month, I wish to say that the EU reacted promptly, voiced its concerns, and both parties have been constantly urged by the highest-ranking political leaders to restore immediate supplies and to fulfil their obligations.

In normal contacts with both parties earlier in the years, knowing from previous experiences that deals are usually struck in the night from 31 December to 1 January, we always reminded them: 'Please find a solution to your bilateral gas issues because it is affecting our transit'.

Well, unfortunately this was not the case. We know where we are today in spite of all these efforts, and I strongly believe that the solution is in the hands of the two parties. But do they want a solution? The presidency and the Commission have called and are still calling on Russia and Ukraine to resume gas flows immediately. We have done our part. We are genuinely able to provide a full response about where the gas goes: not one cubic metre of gas goes in a different direction without us noticing. I believe that the measures that we have taken are sufficient.

But if both parties say that some other measures are necessary, we are ready to consider that, because I also see the lack of coordination and contacts between the two sides.

This is the immediate crisis. What next? I know that whatever solution we will find now is temporary, so to restore the credibility of this transport route we will need a long-lasting solution; so the contacts between those parties will definitely be continued during the Czech presidency, but will also, unfortunately, have to continue under the Swedish presidency.

But I believe that we have provided answers for security of supply in the Second Strategic Energy Review, in the work Parliament and the Council have done on the energy and climate change package. These are the solutions provided, and we cannot rely on external suppliers which unfortunately do not honour their contractual obligations and do not take into account consumer interests.

But I would like to stress particularly two issues that should be addressed immediately:

One is the lack of interconnection. Yes, there has been solidarity, but in a lot of cases it was hampered by the lack of sufficient infrastructure to deliver gas from the storage facilities that are there to the places where there is an acute need of gas supply. I believe that the debate on the recovery plan, where infrastructure is also mentioned, is really a good instrument to address these places, because there is not always enough commercial interest to really provide for this type of intervention.

Second, we definitely missed an opportunity in 2004 when we discussed the Gas Supply Security Directive. The instrument which was prepared was weak and did not meet the current needs. We have prepared, and we will shortly be submitting, the new draft proposal on the Security of Gas Supply Directive; an impact assessment is being made and in the coming weeks it will be here in Parliament.

I believe we should react immediately and really find coordinated Community mechanisms to respond to this type of crisis.

The presidency has really worked very hard and I would like to congratulate the presidency for always taking the lead, with the full support of the Commission. I believe that in these difficult times the European Union has proved that it is speaking with one voice. The European Union is led by the presidency and supported by the Commission.

But I also very much welcome all the activities that the European Parliament carries out, because Parliament provides the basis for an agreement. If two parties do not speak at government level, if the companies are trying to play games, which could provide for political stability? It is the broad political basis in Ukraine and Russia that speaks together, and I would thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski for his activities in providing this exchange of views, and also President Pöttering who took part in conciliating both parties. The solution is so easy if they would just talk to each other.

So I believe these were very important activities and I very much hope that after today's meeting in Parliament - because it is followed by both sides - there will be additional encouragement to resolve the issue. The party suffering the most is the party that is not responsible for this crisis, the party that has come in to facilitate matters; and this facilitation costs European taxpayers and European consumers money.

So I believe it is high time the gas flowed again towards the European Union in stable conditions.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, this major disruption in supply is a dramatic one for European citizens, European industries and European jobs and it comes on top of the economic crisis. We parliamentarians of this House, in our coming European elections, will all have to answer questions about what we have done to protect our industries, our jobs and our citizens.

Contrary to some initial opinions, the problem concerns political and multilateral entities and is not bilateral and commercial in nature. Three years ago, when we witnessed the first gas crisis following Russia's cutting of energy supplies, Europe realised its vulnerability and its limitations. Already then it became obvious that we need a common EU foreign policy on energy.

Our group, the PPE-DE Group, has supported this idea from the very beginning. It was our group which took the lead by asking for an own-initiative report towards a common European foreign policy on energy, which I had the honour to present to this House in September 2007 and which was unanimously supported by all the political groups and adopted almost unanimously.

It called for a comprehensive strategy with a precise road map towards a common EU external policy on energy, recommending a number of actions to be taken: in the short term, solidarity mechanisms, unity in defending our interests, more efficient energy diplomacy; and, in the medium term, diversification including Nabucco, storage, investments and interconnections.

Some of our recommendations have been addressed - albeit belatedly - in the Commission's second strategic energy review. We welcome this and also the efforts of the Czech presidency to solve the current crisis and to mediate between the two sides.

However, this is not enough if we are to avoid similar situations in the future, and this will only be possible if we equip ourselves with a truly common EU energy security policy and solidarity, which would offer lasting, sustainable and systemic solutions. It means the combined weight of Member States, represented by the European Commission, in negotiations, and a single EU voice vis-à-vis our partners, be they producers or transit countries. Meanwhile, we could envisage buying gas directly from Russia at the Russian-Ukrainian border.

I have two questions for the President-in-Office and the Commission. Commissioner Piebalgs and Deputy Prime Minister Vondra, could you elaborate on the scenario of the EU stepping in and taking over responsibility, with the Ukraine, for the transit? Secondly, what pressure instruments does the EU possess? What action could we take in response? Our group would expect the presidency and the Commission to undertake swift and radical actions and measures vis-à-vis our energy partners, Russia and Ukraine, to restore gas supplies. Our group will ask Parliament to be closely and permanently involved, even during the campaign and until the elections. I would inform you that we have established a contact group between the European Parliament, the Russian Parliament and the Ukrainian Parliament.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, my group requests that a temporary committee be set up pursuant to Rule 175 in order to answer many of these questions, which Mr Saryusz-Wolski has also raised; in other words, that we join with the Commission and the Council too, of course, to draw the appropriate conclusions - which we can hopefully draw together - from the situation by the May part-session.

The talks we have held with the representatives of Gazprom and Naftogaz - Russia and Ukraine, in other words - have confirmed our impression that both sides are behaving irresponsibly. I can reaffirm clearly what Commissioner Piebalgs said: at the moment neither is acting responsibly, nor as a responsible partner of the European Union. This must have the appropriate consequences.

For all my support for the initiatives taken, I must say that we have known for some time that Ukraine is refusing to build the monitoring stations it promised; the money provided by the European Union remains unused, and we have not reacted. We have also known for at least two months that agreement was not reached by the deadline of 1 November that was laid down at the beginning of October. In my eyes, 18 December was perhaps a little too late. The Commission should have done rather more here to be prepared for the worst-case scenario, and should also have told Member States what was possible. Admittedly, a great deal of solidarity was shown, but I should have expected it to foresee the possibility of a negative development such as this.

Yet what is important now is not that we point the finger - this is not my intention - but just that we draw the appropriate conclusions, that we are better prepared next time; or rather - much more importantly, of course - can prevent such a situation recurring.

I must add, Commissioner, that we have perhaps spent a little too much time discussing liberalisation and markets - particularly in the gas sector, as you are well aware. This would not have done us any good, and indeed it is not doing us any good now. As we have always pointed out, the gas sector is unusual, it is tainted - one could even say determined - by politics, and it is no use elevating the liberalisation of the gas sector to the supreme principle when we still have Ukraine and Russia playing this out politically. We do need a strong common line of communication in this regard, and this must be demonstrated just as strongly.

I agree with much that has been said here. We need more pipelines; we agree that the Nabucco pipeline is a very important project. You yourself also mentioned the trans-Sahara gas pipeline, to which we must give some thought. These things will not happen overnight, but signals must be sent out. We need many more interconnectors and interconnections. Yet these, too, will not just appear. Do not think that the market will take care of this, as it will not, since it has no interest in doing so. After all, these are investments that are not immediately profitable, but are made so that there is a reserve. The same is true of the gas reserves, of course. It is absolutely unacceptable for many countries to have few or no gas reserves or even refuse to notify the Commission of such reserves. We have to make common cause in this regard.

For all my criticism of details, this House and the Commission must really call several Member States to order and require them to pursue a common European energy policy at long last. I agree with Mr Saryusz-Wolski on this point: we have indeed called for this together, and received far too little support from the Council - or rather the Member States. If we want this, I do ask that we develop a common strategy on it by May - our last sitting. After all, it is unacceptable for this Parliament to go into recess or to the elections without our really having drawn the appropriate conclusions from these tragic events - hopefully together.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (HU) We now have an agreement and many promises, but still no gas. Enough of this! We cannot allow Europe to be an innocent victim of a cynical power play. If the gas supply does not resume immediately, this must have clear and decisive consequences. We cannot tolerate a situation in which millions of Europeans are without heat, we cannot tolerate several hundred thousand jobs being endangered.

Until now, Europe has avoided conflicts with the countries concerned and has made political concessions and gestures. This policy has failed. We Liberals have long been demanding a significant reduction of our dependence, our energy dependence, on Russia.

The clear lesson from this crisis is that the Nabucco pipeline needs to become a true alternative, and must therefore be given financial support. We need to create a common energy policy with stronger solidarity among Member States, with better coordination and by linking up the networks. We need to speed up the development of renewable and alternative energy sources and to improve energy efficiency.

However, this will resolve our problems only in the medium and long term, and thus we need to remind Kiev and Moscow firmly to fulfil their international commitments, and to announce that insofar as this is not done, there will be consequences for all aspects of our bilateral relations.

Russia must give evidence of acting in good faith and do everything in its power to see that gas delivery resumes without delay. Ukraine must also be made aware that although at the moment it is paying a political price for gas that is lower than the market price, this price is actually costing them more than market price because it extends Ukraine's vulnerability and susceptibility to blackmail.

Now the European Union is also being put to the test before its citizens. Is it able to defend its interests effectively? If it fails this test, then Europe has no real future, but if it succeeds, it can look with optimism towards the future.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the gas crisis in Europe is a permanent one and much more profound than the European political elites would present it. We must emphatically underline that it is not purely economic in character. It is above all a political crisis, based on Europe's helplessness in the face of Putin's aggressive policy.

Let us not deceive ourselves - Russia is not concerned with a few dollars. The background to the events of the last few days have been the aggressive actions of the Kremlin, which aims to extend its domination in the region of South-Eastern Europe. Ukraine is of strategic important to the Russians not only because a gas pipeline to Europe passes through its territory, but because the Russian Black Sea fleet is stationed at Sebastopol. The lease on this base is due to end in 2017, but few believe that the Russians will voluntarily leave the Crimea. Gazprom's demands are backed by the entire political and military machinery of the Kremlin, whose aim is to discredit and weaken the Ukrainian government and bring Ukraine to its knees. Unfortunately, Europe's passive attitude has helped Putin to draw closer to this goal.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I too wish to start by saying that the Czech Republic has had a very tough start to its Council Presidency and that, in connection with this new gas crisis, it could not have done any more in recent weeks to put right the lack of clarification in matters of European external energy policy that there has been in previous years.

We are all currently seeing a demonstration that the oft-cited phrase 'external energy policy' stands for a common strategy that does not exist in Europe. Over and above this debate about Russian gas, Europeans collectively must answer the question as to what relationship they actually want to have with Russia in future. Gas is just one issue, the trade in raw materials is just one issue, but we are talking about the fundamental relationship of the European Union with its largest neighbour on the east of our continent, and that does need to be clarified.

At the same time, it must be clarified how the European Union means to deal in future with the countries that are still wavering between Russia and the EU. In my opinion, we could actually have foreseen what has now happened in Ukraine. It is no surprise to anyone familiar with Ukraine that not only Gazprom and the Russian State but also Ukraine mix politics and economic interests. The worst threat facing Ukraine at the moment is that the interests of certain political players could now result in the loss of the closer relations with, and reputation in, the European Union that the country has achieved. The criticism that has been levelled at competent figures in Russia during this dispute goes at least equally for Naftogaz, RosUkrEnergo, those in charge and the Ukrainian Government.

This is much more than a trade dispute, and I think that the Czech Presidency has steered us through it well over these last few days. I hope that the plans the Commissioner has presented will bear fruit. I should like to congratulate the Commission on its clear position on the inappropriate attempt to re-connect the high-risk reactor Bohunice to the power network. That would not be helpful, but rather would constitute a further infringement of Community law, this time from within the European Union.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FI) Mr President, Commissioners, President-in-Office of the Council, the Commission has taken on the role of mediator in the dispute over gas between Russia and Ukraine and done its best to start deliveries.

It has not been my custom to praise the Commission, but, on behalf of my group, I would now like to say thank you. It has acted not as a judge but as a doctor; not a surgeon, though, but more like a psychiatrist. There is now a need and a use for such people.

They get cold in other parts of Europe when in Ukraine the President and Prime Minister engage in a power struggle. Given such circumstances, the proposal yesterday by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, that the EU should introduce sanctions to safeguard the flow of gas is irresponsible. Should we agree that the EU should start to boycott Russian gas? Poland, of course, should set an example to others in this and refuse Russian gas.

Our group hopes the Commission will continue to mediate actively to bring about harmony.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, I quote from a speech made on this subject by my colleague, Godfrey Bloom, on 25 October 2006: 'The thought, the idea or the concept that the United Kingdom's energy supplies could possibly be controlled by some sort of arrangement with a gangster like Putin is absolutely ludicrous. It is absolute madness to expect anything from a piece of paper signed by Putin. The man is a gangster'.

Mr Putin is now doing what any competent gangster would do - withdraw supply and force the price up. Europe will face two options: be prepared to pay much, much more for a precarious gas supply from Russia, or find alternative suppliers, if that is possible. The UK must ensure its dwindling gas supplies are kept as a national resource and not allow them to become an EU common resource. We must also embark on a programme of building new nuclear power stations.

- (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, despite all the current efforts of the European Council and the Commission, some Member States remain without supplies of Russian gas, their economies are at risk and people are afraid of freezing. This is a high price to pay for the European Union's short-sighted foreign and energy policy. And, unfortunately, it is being paid by the weakest.

Ladies and gentlemen, empty gas pipelines, production cuts and chilly schools are the price of the unnecessary Russophobia that is harboured by those members of the Union who have opposed the resumption of strategic partnership negotiations with Russia. It is the price of our uncritical support for the orange segment in the Ukrainian political spectrum, and for trying to manage policy on Eastern Europe from Brussels. It is the price of our fanatical rejection of nuclear energy. Furthermore, it is the price of the long-term efforts to interfere in the national energy policies of individual Member States. What advice would you give to the Slovak Prime Minister Fico, who now faces a 'Sophie's Choice'? While temperatures are 20 degrees below and the gas has stopped flowing from the East, the Commission in Brussels is threatening to penalise Slovakia if it restarts the nuclear power plant in Jaslovské Bohunice. Is it really meant to stand by while factories collapse and people freeze during the 20 days of reserves that remain to Slovakia?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are now seeing the importance of energy self-sufficiency for each State in the European Union. How nice it is to have a warm home-spun shirt instead of a threadbare EU overcoat. We should learn the lessons from this and avoid the transfer of energy-related powers to Brussels, as sought for under the Treaty of Lisbon.

Mr President, it is almost uncanny how history has repeated itself over the interruption of gas supplies through Ukraine at this time of year. Yet we should not be surprised, for when better to catch people's attention, especially during a cold spell?

It is not difficult to figure out the Russia agenda in all this, but I was particularly struck by the idea floated in the press that Gazprom urgently needs to make a deal based on higher gas prices, linked to last year's oil price high, before those gas prices come down following the oil price fall.

Be that as it may, the implications remain the same as three years ago. EU Member States are at risk of over-dependence on gas imports from one dominant supplier. It is no longer good enough to say that we need Russian gas and they need our hard currency, so the trade is safe. We need to take action to safeguard security of supply.

Member States must bite the bullet and be prepared to pay for adequate gas storage facilities and stocks. Agreeing a level of how many days' supply constitutes a reasonable reserve would be a good start. Diversifying supplies is another obvious step to take and the construction of LNG terminals around Europe is a good example. Looking at the Nord Stream and Nabucco pipeline projects in a more favourable light seems logical. We need to redouble efforts to improve efficiency and increase conservation of energy in electricity consumption - both in industrial use and domestic consumption. There are huge savings to be achieved.

Above all, we need to rebalance our energy mix and to do so with the twin objectives of security of supply and climate change policy. By increasing the share of electricity from renewables, nuclear energy and clean coal technology, we can do both, but each of these options takes time to deliver and, in the mean time, we must tackle improving energy efficiency with urgency and imagination.

(NL) Mr President, I can endorse the view of many fellow Members. What has unfolded in recent weeks has led to great surprise. Even yesterday, I found myself considerably irritated when I listened to Russian and Ukrainian counterparts declaring here that they were certainly not at fault. We are constantly receiving contradictory information about what exactly is going on. We hear one story, then another, and it is very difficult for us MEPs to find out the precise facts. We hope that this confusion will be resolved in the next few days and that gas, as promised, will flow once more.

Should gas flow once more, does this mean we go back to business as usual? I should not think so. In 2006, the same thing happened, but then the impact on the European Union was far less serious; the cause of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev back then was the gas price, which resulted in a break in the gas supplies to Europe. We warned back then that there was a risk of a repeat scenario, and that has now come to pass. We know that gas supplies are re-negotiated every year, because Ukraine and Russia work with one-year contracts. It was not until last month, when the crisis broke out again, that the European Union swung into action. Much of what we already discussed in 2006 has eventually failed to have any effect. Even then, we knew we were too dependent on one pipeline that supplies nearly 80% of the gas via one country. Even then, it was discussed that we should work on alternative supply routes as a matter of urgency. Even then, it was clear that we were not entirely sure if we could help each other as EU countries in the event of problems in certain countries, as is currently the case in Bulgaria, Slovakia and a number of other countries. Little has been done about this in recent years. It became clear in recent weeks how difficult it is to put a mechanism in place with which we can help each other out.

Russia and Ukraine have dealt themselves and their reputations heavy blows. It is, in my view, not up to us in the first instance to blame one country or the other. What is obvious is that both countries have little awareness when it comes to customer-friendliness. In actual fact, they are now causing major detriment to their top customer. We are one of Russia's good customers, we pay for this pipeline through Ukraine, we pay our bills on time and we pay global prices for the gas. I think that this cannot be hammered home enough to both parties.

This situation does throw up a number of questions, of course. What about the conflict of interest in the gas sector in Russia, the Kremlin's influence on Gazprom? I happen to be a little more knowledgeable about Ukraine and I know from experience that the gas business in that country is a very shady one; I believe that we should look into a number of matters in greater detail. Like Mr Swoboda, I am in favour of a parliamentary inquiry into how this situation came about, into what the EU failed to do that it should have done in recent years, and into how exactly these gas sectors in Ukraine and in Russia are set up, so that we might be able to prevent a similar situation from happening again in future, or gain a better understanding of what is going on right now.

(PL) Mr President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, in the agreement signed in October last year, Ukrainian premier Yulia Timoshenko and Vladimir Putin stated their readiness to move to world prices for the transmission and storage of gas over three years. This agreement was underlined by a formal agreement between Gazprom and the Ukrainan Naftogaz.

However, Gazprom has recently issued a demand for a huge price increase to unrealistic levels. This type of blackmail is possible because Gazprom has a monopolistic hold over Ukraine. Many countries of the European Union are in a similar situation. This means that unlike petroleum, there is no free market for gas in Europe.

In the United States the price of gas has recently fallen to USD 198 per 1000 cu.m., while Gazprom is demanding USD 450 from Ukraine. This situation has to be changed through diversification of gas suppliers, and by building a transmission network within the European Union and among neighbouring countries so that, as with oil, there is a true pan-European gas market, which will curb the potential for monopolistic pricing blackmail.

(PL) Mr President, this gas crisis shows how important it is for the European Union to speak in one voice on the matter of gas supplies, particularly gas supplies from Russia, which is not a reliable partner and supplier.

In July last year the European Parliament adopted a report by the Committee on Petitions which I had authored, clearly stating that the question of energy and gas supplies to Europe is not a matter for bilateral relations. The issue then was the Northern Gas Pipeline from Russia to Germany. I now appeal to the Commission, as well as the Presidency, to ensure that the European Union speaks with one voice, and that it be made an issue of EU-Russian, rather than bilateral relations. I call for the implementation of all the demands contained in the report of 8 July last year, which stated that the European Union should be genuinely and truly integrated.

(PL) Mr President, several politicians have spoken in the debate on gas on one side or the other of the conflict. However, we do not know the facts of the situation. The EU observers are helpless. All we know is that we are dealing with frivolous organisations.

The situation is also evidence of the European Union's deficient energy policy. No support is given to alternative ideas, such as building nuclear power stations. The use of coal is opposed under environmental pretences. We have reached a situation where the only alternative has been to make Central Europe dependent on the East, the situation of poor Slovakia being a case in point.

- (SK) In connection with the Ukrainian-Russian conflict involving gas supplies I would like, as an MEP representing the citizens of the Slovak Republic, to draw the European Union's attention to the fact that this conflict of interests affects not only the two parties that are blaming one another for the mess, but also a third party whose citizens are becoming the victims, as there is still no prospect of Russian gas being delivered through Ukraine.

Slovakia has been without gas for eight days and, with the current emergency restrictions on industry and companies operating under a crisis regime, we can maintain supplies for only eleven days. Slovakia's gas is again stuck somewhere between the two warring parties. To put it briefly, two parties - two truths, no gas.

Let me inform you that today, at 11.45, Ukrainian Prime Minister Timoshenko rejected Slovakia's request to renew natural gas deliveries, explaining that: 'Ukraine does not have enough gas, we do not have our own reserves and neither will you'. I would also like to emphasise that as a result of our dependence on Russian gas and the impossibility of reopening the V1 nuclear power plant at Jaslovské Bohunice, the energy security of the Slovak Republic is increasingly under threat.

Commissioner, I thank you for your proposals and efforts to find a solution. I do know of one measure you can take - suspend the contributions to Ukraine as one of the irresponsible parties.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a dramatic situation, as we know. The actions of Russia and Ukraine are irresponsible. It must also be said that the Commission is blameworthy in that we were relatively slow to take action, although it is also true that Commissioner Piebalgs has addressed this issue excellently over the past few days. The team of experts was a splendid idea, and I think he deserves thanks for the events of recent days.

However, this is also the time to ask why our reactions to such events are always so short-term. How many times has Russia attracted attention in this regard? It is certainly not the first time. We have now seen gas supplies being turned off periodically for several years, and so we must ask ourselves whether we - the European Parliament and the European institutions - have really done enough about the issue of security of supply, or whether we have been perhaps prioritising other issues. I think that Mr Swoboda was right to ask this question.

We have made a great effort to work out whether and to whom and on what conditions to sell and privatise the networks. We have spent weeks, even months, addressing the issue of how to respond to the climate issue, and not given sufficient thought to the fact that there is a third very important political project too: that of security of supply. What have we done to ensure a more varied energy mix in Europe, and to reduce our dependence? What have we done to ensure that coal power stations also figure in this mix? With our climate policy, we have actually discredited these coal power stations and thus increased our dependence on gas. What have we done to increase our support for nuclear power? The answer is far too little, far too timidly. What have we done to get other permissible pipelines sorted out? What have we done in the field of LNG? What has been done in the field of external energy policy? The events of the last few days have meant that it is high time we addressed the issue of security of supply in energy policy. That is clearly the crucial question.

(FI) Mr President, Commissioners, Parliament will soon vote on three of the packages on the electricity and gas markets. We have just approved the energy and climate package, but now there is a crisis we should organise a meeting on a bigger scale to include our partners. We have the political capacity for that and we have need of cooperation.

I am also in favour of the notion of a work group set up under Article 175 that would report back to this Parliament, in May, for example. The Russian and Ukrainian delegations should also be present.

It is a serious situation, as has been said. Millions of people are freezing and factories are being shut. By preventing gas from reaching the EU, Ukraine involved us in its problem. Russia did the same when it cut off the EU gas section.

Gas is flowing, however, through other transit countries. Thanks to speedy action on the part of the Union - and thanks go to the Commissioner for this - the meter readers are in place. Russian gas has evidently started flowing to the Ukrainian network, but it is still not reaching the Union. A peculiar situation has come about. Both the EU and Russia are trying to construct energy pipelines in new areas: the EU outside Russia and Russia outside its former Soviet Republics. It is work for those in the pipeline industry.

I would not be too inclined to impose sanctions on the parties in the row, however, and I do not think that sanctions are wise. I am sceptical about using force, as it might hurt us more than it hurts them. On the other hand, I would regard linking the Energy Charter Treaty to the future Partnership and Cooperation Agreement as being especially important. One possibility would also be to set up a syndicate to administer the flow of gas through Ukraine: that would be a quick and urgent measure. A neutral party also ought to be involved.

- Thank you very much for this final point.

(SV) Mr President, the EU is the world's largest economic power. Nevertheless, many people are freezing in their own homes. Why is the EU unable to guarantee heating? Now, as never before, it is clear that the EU must reduce its dependence on Russian gas. The EU must build up a common electricity and gas market in order to protect its population's access to energy. This requires solidarity within the Union. France and Germany are in a key position. No one, not even Germany, can count on more gas from Gazprom for many years to come. Nord Stream is no solution. The mediation in the gas war between Russia and Ukraine will give the EU a good opportunity to demand that both parties follow rules that are compatible with a common energy market within the Union. We must take advantage of this opportunity.

(LV) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to look at this problem in a broader political context. In reality, the so-called Russo-Ukrainian gas war is one of the stages in the fight for influence in Europe. Both Ukraine and Georgia are states that we should gladly have on our side, but Russia wants to renew its former influence over them. Just as the middle of summer, with the beginning of the Olympic Games and the middle of the holiday season, was chosen for the invasion of Georgia, so the middle of winter, the time of the New Year holiday, was chosen for the gas war. Moreover, neither state was shown the expected path to membership in NATO and the European Union. It was already foreseeable, once we were unable to strike back appropriately against Russia for its aggression against Georgia, that Ukraine would be the next target. Russia's political technology is one of the strongest in the world and that state has demonstrated that it is prepared to sacrifice enormous resources in order to achieve its political goals. On this occasion, by dragging out the conclusion of the agreement in order to discredit Ukraine. This type of political technology also has enough resources to influence processes in countries in which it has an interest, and, unlike us, it plans and forecasts events. A compromise must be reached, gas supplies must be restarted, if Russia has enough reserves to supply. Thank you.

(BG) Thank you, Mr President. The general opinion is that Bulgaria was the country most affected by the gas crisis. It goes without saying that blame is still being apportioned by both whoever is guilty of cutting off the gas and whoever is guilty of the fact that Bulgaria has ended up with reserves which are not sufficient for it to withstand this gas crisis. However, let us now look at what we could do in the future. One option is a purely internal political one that involves finding an alternative source which Bulgaria can use to meet its needs in other similar situations. But the other option we have at the moment is directly dependent on the will of the Commission.

We have, or rather, Bulgaria has a huge energy source which was closed at the time for political reasons. This source is the Kozloduy nuclear power plant. At the moment Bulgaria has been operating electrical power stations run on coal, which pollute the environment much more than a nuclear power plant does. I am sure that fellow Green Members will agree with this. Shutting down the first four blocks at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, which underwent dozens and dozens of tests that proved they were completely safe, was a huge mistake. This has caused huge harm to the Bulgarian people and now the Bulgarian people are continuing to suffer even more because we do not have anywhere to obtain energy from.

This is why I am making the following appeal to the Commission: it is high time to allow both Bulgaria and Slovakia to open their totally safe nuclear power plants, providing them with a safeguard against their energy shortage.

Mr President, Russia's use of interrupting gas flow as a diplomatic weapon has once again proved why we need a common EU external energy security policy by intergovernmental cooperation. Such a policy has the obvious benefit of minimising our exposure to Russian strong-arm tactics by encouraging alternative sources such as LNG, and new gas pipelines such as Nabucco and the trans-Saharan route, and building an integrated EU electricity grid.

However, it will also provide an impetus to the green agenda by encouraging renewable energy and energy efficiency and a renaissance of nuclear energy. I support Slovakia's emergency demand to the Commission to reopen their closed Bohunice reactor, which will also help to address climate change.

There is no doubt in my mind that Russia is bullying Ukraine and trying to destabilise the government by even implicating the United States now in this whole debacle, ahead of the presidential election in Ukraine next year, and also jeopardising Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic aspirations.

However, the EU has been dragged into this row as a collateral victim of the Kremlin's gas diplomacy. I cannot help feeling that Russia's action was timed to coincide with the start of the Czech presidency, although Prime Minister and Council President-in-Office Topolánek has shown great skill in handling this emergency.

Ukraine is possibly guilty as charged of siphoning off some Russian gas, but it is perhaps understandable in the context of the bilateral arrangements still unresolved between these two countries.

Ukraine is currently obliged to pay an intermediary company an extra USD 500 million a year. Given that Ukraine's gas debt to Russia is USD 2.4 billion, the debt could have been wiped off in about five years by scrapping this payment, which, allegedly, according to the deputy prime minister of Ukraine, ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians.

We need to resist any attempt to drive a wedge between Ukraine and its future with the West, and in particular its future as a full member of the European Union. The best way to ensure that Russia can no longer bully or put pressure on Ukraine, or even provoke the EU into bullying Ukraine to settle, is to champion a common EU external energy security policy which will show solidarity between the Member States at times of crisis and energy shortage.

Mr President, the problem we are coping with is not a mere Russia-Ukraine dispute. There is a Europe-Russia dispute having as its object the geopolitical status of Ukraine, a European Union-Ukraine dispute having as its object the European perspectives of Ukraine, a European Union-Russia dispute having as its object the Russian monopoly on the gas supply and a European Union-Ukraine dispute having as its object the Ukrainian monopoly on gas transit.

All these disputes combined place us in the middle of an energy war, which is about power-sharing. In this war we are not hostages but combatants. We are not mediators but one of the sides having a legitimate interest. This war extends its consequences from one crisis to another. Could we cease the combat and organise a peace conference?

We need rules for a free energy market shared by our Russian and Ukrainian partners. We need guarantees and mechanisms to enhance these rules and an arbitration system for dispute settlement as well as an institution to put in motion those mechanisms. We need a common European energy policy, served by appropriate legal and political instruments and consolidated by an integrated agreement with the supply and transit countries, Russia and Ukraine respectively. Sanctions cannot work. Confrontation is not the solution either. Let us be united and negotiate strategically and comprehensively. To this end, we have to organise an interparliamentary ad hoc working group formed by European Parliament, Russian Duma and Ukrainian Rada representatives to follow the process of consensus and strategy-building on a permanent basis as long as necessary.

(NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our society cannot function without energy, as is evident right now. Gas must continue to flow and in the short term it is, to my mind, especially important that all diplomatic paths be negotiated. This is what the Commission and Council are doing right now in a very commendable way so as to ensure that the gas supplies are back on track as quickly as possible; threatening with legal action is not a very effective course of action, of course.

In the medium term, I think it is very important to set up a European market for energy, provided that measures are taken that we have so far failed to take. It is time for action. I can see the Member States playing an important role in this, as in the accelerated installation of the Nabucco and North Stream pipeline, for example. Above all, we must ensure that one European network is created for both gas and electricity, which will reduce our dependence and enable us to create a properly functioning market and to show more solidarity and better anticipate shortages. We will have to roll up our sleeves, though, and I wonder why the Member States have so far failed to take any measures.

(PL) Mr President, the European Union has successfully tackled global warming: adopting a motion was enough to achieve instant success. We managed to lower temperatures in Europe and bring in a winter that has affected the entire continent. This is proof of the European Union's power and capability according to the principle 'to want is to succeed'. But our success has turned into defeat, because now we need more heating for our homes and workplaces. This was something officials did not foresee.

In energy policy, the European Union is beginning to resemble the doctor in Hašek's story, 'The Adventures of the Good Soldier Švejk', who prescribed one treatment for all illnesses - an enema. The European Union has limited itself to verbal declarations, conferences, and in particular flirting with Russia, giving Russia the courage to use energy resources as an instrument of political pressure. To make matters worse, it found an ally in the form of Germany, with whom it is building a gas pipeline under the Baltic.

The conclusion is clear for all to see: we need to take urgent measures for independence from Russian gas supplies, bearing in mind the maxim of 'the weakest sink first', meaning that first we need to rescue the countries bordering and wholly dependent upon gas supplies from the East, such as Poland and the Baltic States, unless the European Union considers private interests and the interests of those representing Russia to be more important.

(BG) Thank you, Mr President. At the moment, citizens in 18 Member States are being held hostage in the political dispute between Ukraine and Russia. I use the term 'political dispute' because we all witnessed how Gazprom and the energy supplies from Russia are being used as a political weapon to exert pressure on a sovereign state. Europe's citizens are being held hostage. The gas is supplied from Russia. The valve has been turned off in Russia. Yes, Ukraine does bear some guilt and so, I appeal to both the Council and the European Commission to tell our friends in Ukraine in no uncertain terms that unless both the opposition and government adopt a united stand on the key issues affecting their development, they will not be able to cope with this pressure which is being exerted on them and us respectively. Just as we have a consensus in our countries on key issues, they too must have a consensus on key issues.

Secondly, Gazprom must pay our countries penalties because at the moment Bulgaria, which is the most seriously affected country in Europe and is totally dependent on the gas energy supplies in Russia, must claim its rights and must claim them against the supplier, which is Russia in this case.

Thirdly, when it comes to energy in Europe, the one and same message must be given. We must clearly say 'yes' to nuclear energy in Europe, 'yes' to alternative energy sources, 'yes' to the different pipelines which make us less dependent on a single supplier, 'yes' to bigger storage facilities and 'yes' to more links between Member States so that we can avoid a similar type of crisis.

Last of all, I would like to say that in our case, the Bulgarian Government is also coming in for severe criticism. During all the years it has been in power, the government has been concealing the supply agreements with Russia and has not been doing anything to diversify our country's supply sources.

(BG) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, as a representative from the most affected country, I am appealing to you and the institutions which you represent to take immediate action to restore the supplies, while using every political means and every grounds under international law. I hope that, on the grounds of the principle of solidarity, the Council and Commission will accept the Bulgarian proposals to include as part of the unused EUR 5 billion the projects for establishing cross-border links between Bulgaria and Romania and Bulgaria and Greece, and for expanding the storage facilities at Chiren so that the most urgent needs can be covered, as well as for developing opportunities to jointly use the liquefied gas terminals.

As rapporteur for one of the documents in the third energy package, I feel that the issue of ensuring transparency above all and complying with the rules is more important than all the other issues relating to the third country clause. I also hope that the Commission will respond as soon as possible to the request that we sent with Mrs Podimata concerning the long-term measures which will be adopted so that we can actually have, prior to the Spring European Council, a common policy and effective measures that will resolve problems similar to those which have occurred just now and were described today by Mr Barroso as unprecedented, unjustified and incomprehensible.

(BG) In spite of the agreement between Russia and Ukraine to restore Russian gas supplies to Europe, our hopes of receiving gas have been dashed yet again. No matter whether the reasons are technical, financial or political, this unprecedented gas embargo cannot be justified. During a winter with record low temperatures, it is reckless and inhuman to condemn millions of European citizens to being cold. For Bulgaria, the EU country most affected by this, it is especially important for the principle of Pacta sunt servanda to be observed and for the gas supplies to be restored immediately. Fair compensation should be sought for the harm and suffering caused to people and for breaching the agreements.

I would like to congratulate the Czech presidency for its active role as a mediator involved in resolving the crisis. Now more than ever, the European Union needs to put into practice the old motto of solidarity proclaimed by the Musketeers: 'All for one and one for all' and provide financial aid to countries that have suffered, like Bulgaria, for vitally important projects which will provide it with energy security. It is high time to demonstrate the strength and unity of our union by adopting a long-term energy strategy.

(LT) It is clear that this gas supply crisis is a political problem, not a commercial dispute. Both Gazprom and the Naftogaz company are carrying out the principal task in this conflict - trying to prove to all of us and society how impossible transit is in a technical, technological and economic sense. This is repeated constantly. All the more so because these partners of ours, the European Union's partners, are guided neither by elementary business practice nor by the Energy Charter. It seems that this does not exist for our partners. Unfortunately, I cannot see any willingness on the part of either Kiev or Moscow to come to an agreement. It seems to me that they are aiming to buy time in these negotiations and I believe that only political measures will help solve the political problem until the technical questions surrounding transit are resolved. I think that we must strive for political agreements and political guarantees between the European Union, Russia and Ukraine, until our goals are reached in the medium or long-term. One other thing on energy solidarity. Bulgaria's Prime Minister and Slovakia's Prime Minister are going to Moscow and Kiev to negotiate. This week of energy solidarity should not end with the negotiations once more taking on a bilateral format; I think that energy solidarity would be for Bulgaria and Slovakia to renew nuclear power operations in this situation. This would be true energy solidarity.

Mr President, I draw three fairly obvious conclusions from the impasse with Russia and Ukraine.

Firstly we must reduce dependency on gas, more and more of which will have to be imported. This means increasing our commitment to indigenous energy, including especially renewables and nuclear power.

Secondly, we must improve EU solidarity with mutual support between the Member States for electricity, gas and oil supplies. This implies much improved and extended grids and pipelines. Why should Bulgaria have no gas, while Romania on the other bank of the Danube has gas? Why does Slovakia have no gas while neighbours, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic do? These gaps in the gas grid must be closed, urgently. What is the timing for this, Commissioner Piebalgs?

Thirdly, we must diversify our sources of supply and our storage facilities for gas and oil. Why are we not making fuller use of the depleted southern North Sea gas fields for storage?

We must greatly expand our liquefied gas infrastructure and develop pipeline systems from alternative sources and through alternative routings. We need better and more connections with Norway, with North Africa and West Africa, with the Caspian and Caucasus, with the Levant and Gulf States in the Middle East.

In conclusion, I therefore ask the Commission and Council if they are promoting renewables and nuclear urgently enough, investing sufficiently in the construction of pipelines and LNG terminals and in developing the political relationships which will ensure continuity and diversity of supply.

We clearly cannot depend on Russia or the Ukraine to anything like the present extent. We must put our own European interests first and without delay.

(PL) Mr President, President-in-Office, Commissioner, Russia's behaviour in shutting off the gas to customers in the European Union is intolerable from the viewpoint of the contractual undertakings signed by Russia. European customers pay for their gas supplies from Russia within a specific time, and have the right to expect deliveries to be on time, regardless of any disputes between Russia and Ukraine. Premier Putin's decision to halt supplies before the TV cameras is not only in breach of signed contracts, but also shows that Gazprom is not a business operating under market principles, but a firm carrying out the Kremlin's political behest. This debate should send out a clear signal to Russia and Ukraine to immediately reinstate gas supplies.

I would also like to say that the behaviour of the Ukrainians is disappointing. Lack of understanding with Russia, vague rules on paying intermediaries for gas and political infighting at the highest places in government compromise Ukraine in the eyes of the public and prevent that country from implementing its European aspirations. This is very painful for me, as Ukraine is am important neighbour and strategic partner for us.

The present gas crisis has finally confirmed that Europe needs to look after its own energy security. We cannot tolerate inaction any longer. I call, Commissioner, upon the European Commission to immediately put forward legislative initiatives which will make the necessary diversification of energy supplies possible, which will secure genuine, and not feigned energy solidarity, and result in the interconnection of the national gas transmission systems of individual Member States.

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, in the light of the intense economic crisis and severe consequences of the gas conflict, synergy is required among all the national and European institutions. The scale of the problem requires us to focus our efforts and alliances at EU level and beyond party boundaries on behalf of Europe's citizens and their interests and rights.

Alternative sources of energy and new technologies will reduce our dependency on importing raw materials and energy. The economic and social problems arising from the gas crisis are now being followed by ecological problems. The switch from using gas to fuel oil for whole industries, as has happened in Bulgaria, is hampering the European Union's plans to cut greenhouse emissions. We appreciate the European institutions' prompt intervention, but we need a privileged partnership for improving our energy independence. This is why the European economic recovery plan must take into account through financial support the current needs for building an alternative energy infrastructure, especially for the most dependent countries, like Bulgaria.

We call on the European Parliament to adopt a clear position supporting coordinated actions taken by all the institutions aimed at resolving this gas crisis and preventing a recurrence of such a crisis in the future.

(SL) The transport of Russian gas across Ukraine is not just a bilateral issue or a commercial dispute. It is a problem with a strong multilateral component, because the sale and transit of gas can constitute a commercial activity only if the necessary conditions are met. The minimum conditions in this regard are, in my opinion, transparency, clear-cut rules, competitiveness, credibility and control.

My question and concern is who will compensate the companies which have already had to suspend their activities? Who will compensate the individual citizens affected? By this, I mean that Europe needs to call somebody to account.

What can we do now? Let us intensify our diplomatic efforts. We must be quicker and more efficient at shaping common energy policy. The third area I would like to draw your attention to is diversification: diversification of sources, supply routes and the countries from which we import energy products.

As regards gas, I would like to mention two priority areas, in particular: the use of liquefied gas and the Nabucco pipeline project. Both of these will result in our diversifying supply routes and exporting countries. The Nabucco project must be given precedence over the North Stream and South Stream projects, not only at a European level, but also at the level of each Member State.

For this reason, I would like to request that the Commission provides us with at least basic information on the progress of the Nabucco project. I would also like to ask what additional action the Commission has taken in order to prevent these kinds of difficulties recurring in 2010, and to give us some indication of when gas is likely to start flowing into the Union again.

(HU) Madam President, now that gas delivery is expected to resume as a result of the initially hesitant but ultimately coordinated, decisive intervention by the European Union and in spite of various technical and other supposed problems, we can breathe a sigh of relief, but we cannot rest on our laurels.

For one thing, the cause of the dispute between Russia and Ukraine has not been uncovered and resolved, and thus could flare up again at any time. In addition, the gas crisis has once again demonstrated our dependency and vulnerability. Recognition of this fact can unblock the delay in developing a common European energy policy, the first step of which is for Europe to take joint responsibility for securing supply.

In order to do so, we need to develop new sources and delivery routes, as well as interconnections between the networks of the Member States. We cannot, however; expect these developments to take place on a market basis; rather, European sources need to be made available based on common European interests.

The Nabucco pipeline represents a long-term solution, while development of the networks connecting the new Member States could already begin today, using the EUR 5 billion designated for the purpose in the economic stimulus programme. This would mean getting two birds with one stone, since this infrastructure could stimulate the European economy and provide jobs, while at the same time it could mitigate the effects of similar crises.

(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a new problem: it has been the subject of debate for years here in plenary and in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. Moscow has never made it more obvious how vulnerable we have become and how easy it is to bribe us. It is now time for action.

Commissioner, your diagnosis of a lack of interconnection could not be more accurate. We have to work on this, as it is, indeed, something we can do something about. We have to interconnect the gas networks within the EU. One of the main reasons this has not been done is that the licences are national. We should harmonise these more effectively, as they are different in every Member State. We have to find solutions to better streamline the national procedures. I am aware of the fact that the Committee has little authority in this area, but we should still try to bring about a break-through. What might work - and this is also mentioned in the Commission proposal - is if a coordinator was appointed for each cross-border project who could mediate in the area of interconnections and could get things moving. This coordination may be fundamental, and indeed it is where wind energy is concerned. I am pleased to find out that, in your second review, you clearly stated that coordination will be a feature of the planned development of an offshore network for wind turbines, particularly in respect of the connection with land networks.

Secondly, we should turn our attention much more to liquefied gas (LNG), seeing as it is much more flexible and leaves us far less vulnerable. Thirdly, the networks should be aligned to sustainable energy which, as we know, will be generated locally, and we must ensure that it is granted priority access to the network.

Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, it is clear what we have to do. I assume that the political will is now here for us to swing into action and that fundamental and specific decisions will be taken at the forthcoming spring summit.

(PL) Madam President, a customer who pays an agreed price has fulfilled an obligation. Russia is responsible for the crisis, and should be subjected to sanctions, Commissioner. Ukraine is clearly in the middle. If Russia cannot accept Ukraine's political direction, it will have to get over it, as it got over the loss of political influence over the countries of the Soviet bloc. The world is changing, and it simply needs to accept this fact.

Russia's theatrical performance in shutting off the gas seemed to show that it did not care about selling us its product. At least that was how it looked. I believe that for the good of its economy and of its people, Russia should pay attention to the market and to its image as a trustworthy partner. The two parties' dependence on one another, I stress, is probably the most important aspect of this contract and of cooperation.

I believe that the Russians will ultimately discover this truth, and Europe will consider Russia and become a good mediator.

- (SK) Gazprom and Naftagas are gambling with the trust of European consumers. Hundreds of companies in Slovakia have been forced to suspend production and people are freezing in their homes in Bulgaria. European citizens should not have to pay the price for commercial and political games.

It is hard to judge which party is more to blame, but one thing is clear - Slovakia and Bulgaria urgently need help. They need an immediate solution, they need an immediate renewal of gas deliveries and they need to know what will happen with their nuclear power plants.

I believe that despite all that has happened we will not turn our backs on the countries of the former Soviet bloc, including Ukraine, which want to free themselves from Russian influence. The citizens of Ukraine should not suffer just because their politicians have failed.

Madam President, generally speaking, I could agree with those colleagues who commended the active role of the Czech presidency.

However, I cannot agree with the political tone expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister Mr Vondra in his introductory remarks. His political tone is too calm. Yes, we have spoken, and we speak, with one voice, but this voice is not strong enough. Because, when we consider the plight of the millions of citizens in Europe suffering in this severe winter, we cannot be calm here. I wonder why it is so. We will have to act, and I agree with most of the colleagues who asked for an investigation, because we have to find out which of the two sides is more irresponsible. Both are responsible! Perhaps the reason for this calm political talk is the fact that now it concerns not only Russia but also Ukraine, and this is not correct.

I really think that not only this Parliament but also the presidency should raise its voice in the name of the citizens who are suffering.

Madam President, this crisis highlights the importance of making the EU more energy-independent, but, while we are discussing energy supply, we must not forget the fundamental importance of also controlling energy demand.

We have a 20%-by-2020 EU energy efficiency improvement target and a number of pieces of legislation focussed on energy saving. These energy efficiency actions will not only help to tackle climate change and fuel poverty: they will also very significantly improve Europe's energy security.

There is of course a good reason why the Commission's action plan on energy efficiency has an international element to it and recognises the importance of encouraging energy efficiency improvements in countries outside Europe, not least countries supplying and transiting energy to Europe. The fact is, if they use less, we are likely to get more. That is important above and beyond the immediate political side to this crisis.

(HU) Madam President, I suggest that we speak clearly. The European Union has not learned from its experience in the 2006 gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine, and failed badly in the present crisis. Decision-makers reacted to the turning off of the gas taps as if this had been completely unexpected. This energy supply crisis, the most serious to date, may be the final wake-up call for Member States, and we must take steps to reduce our energy dependency.

I trust that it is now clear to everyone that the conflict that has erupted between Russia and Ukraine is not merely a private bilateral legal dispute, if only because it affects hundreds of millions of citizens of the European Union. The present crisis is not only a test of our common energy policy, but also of EU solidarity.

What is at stake now is whether Member States can move beyond the policies based hitherto on separate deals. What is at stake is whether the European Union is capable of speaking and acting in unity in so crucial a matter.

Madam President, I am glad to see Mr Vondra back. I thank him for explaining the gravity of the situation, but when is the Council going to learn that until the EU speaks with one voice on energy issues, in particular in relation to Russia and the Ukraine, we are going to be in a weak position?

I am going to give you an example where the Council does not do that. We shall shortly be starting negotiations on the second reading of the energy liberalisation package. The Commission came up with a very carefully crafted position on third countries investing in the EU, suggesting that the Commission speak on behalf of the EU on these issues. What have you in the Council done? You have retreated to national positions and said, no - we Member States we want the final say, not the Commission.

It is this divide-and-rule, the oldest trick in the book, which you and your fellow colleagues have fallen for. Until you understand that pooling your powers to gain more leverage internationally is the way to go, we will always be in a position where we are vulnerable. You must answer the European citizens as to why they are now sitting in the cold. You have to change your position on this line. Will you do so?

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, firstly let me offer my apologies to you. I am here for the first time and perhaps I spent so long on the introduction that I contributed to the delay. But I think this summary of how we have been acting since the early morning of 1 January was worthwhile.

Speaking with one voice is exactly what we are trying to do in this adventure. I think we are quite successful in doing that for the time being.

You mentioned the internal energy package. This is not a subject of the current debate; we are discussing the emergency situation. But I can tell you that, from what I know of the discussion in the Council, the various fears about going for complete unbundling were simply motivated by strategic concerns in some countries. This is the debate about a third-country clause etc. However, I mentioned in my statement here that the Czech presidency takes this as one of its priorities, and we will do whatever we can to find a solution and compromise between the Council and Parliament.

But do not expect that it will bring us a miraculous solution like in those kinds of gas games in central and eastern Europe. It is different from being on an island, where you have the freedom to bring energy into any port you wish, as opposed to being located somewhere like Slovakia or Bulgaria. Yes, you are right that there are countries which are better equipped, even in that particular region, for that kind of emergency situation. However, I think we should also be aware of the fact that, for example, you cannot build gas storage facilities wherever you want. You need the right kind of a geological environment.

For example, we are fortunate in my country that all storage facilities are located in the eastern part of the country. We can pump from those storages and distribute gas even if there is almost no supply from outside. We are able to survive for a few weeks or months, but no longer. On the other hand, Slovakia unfortunately has those geological positions in the western part of the country and to reverse the flow is not an easy operation. You need to have the compressors on the pipelines and, if you do not, then it causes trouble.

To those who argue that this is a political problem: concerning speaking with one voice, I can tell you from all my experience that of course it is a political problem. It is a political problem because people are freezing so it is a politically difficult situation. Of course I agree with those, like Jacek Saryusz-Wolski or István Szent-Iványi, who argue that this is a kind of cynical game and, in fact, at the heart of this is the fight about who is going to control the infrastructure in the country in question. Others, like Hannes Swoboda and Jan Marinus Wiersma, stress that we should not take a black-and-white approach to this and that Ukraine deserves some attention - you are also right: of course Ukraine is not making this easier. That is, at least, my own view. But then we should be aware of the fact that Bulgaria and Slovakia are in a terrible situation, because suddenly there is a country that wants to exploit this difficult situation and to put those countries into conflict with Ukraine. That is what we can see right now, from the developments today, for example. So it is difficult - what can we do?

Then there are those who are afraid to enter into the game at all because they view it as being like the card game Schwarzer Peter, with the danger that whoever ends up with the black card will foot the bill. I do not think that the one who is afraid to play is courageous. I think a courageous person is one is willing to take a risk.

Why not buy gas on the Ukrainian-Russian border? An excellent example! We have discussed this, but who are the contractors on the EU side? They are private companies who are afraid because they do not have control over the gas coming in. There obviously should be a solution but that would require the willingness of Ukraine to give up a stake in the pipeline. As you know, their Parliament prohibits that and they are not ready to do it. European companies should take a certain role, and there is nothing that can be done in a matter of weeks or even months. So we need to step up the pressure. But today, for example, we said that legal action must follow here. I think this is important on both sides.

I do not want to repeat myself and again take longer than I should. I want to thank you above all for your interest and your active attitude - from Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, the PPE-DE Group, to all of you here. We need your help and your attention. We need your help in drawing attention to this issue to those in European countries where this is not a problem on the front pages. That is mostly in this part of Europe, where there is no emergency situation. That would help us to speak with one voice in a more active way.

Last, but not least, I agree with most of you who were arguing for the need for a more strategic approach, the need for medium- and long-term solutions - this is exactly what the Czech presidency is planning to do. We have the six months - and we have perhaps four months to work with you on it - but we are in complete agreement with the Commission and Member States to move the agenda forward in order to make this a key item for the March European Council and, of course, also to organise in May the Southern Corridor Summit in order to promote the diversification of the supplies such as the Nabucco project and others.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I will try to be as brief as possible. From the foreign policy point of view, there are many consequences and we started to look into these consequences in 2006 when we had the first wake-up call. The most important thing is what we can do together in the future. We have one problem and that is, of course, the Treaty. In the Treaty there is no common external security policy. In the Treaty of Lisbon we will have a solidarity clause, which could then be used to give the better coordination that has been used and mentioned everywhere. Secondly, for two years we have had energy diplomacy. Quite a number of memoranda have been signed. We have been working on this but much is still theory or is in the preparation phase. It is very difficult to get all the actors together at once. We can normally only do the framework, for instance for Nabucco. We tried then to get the volume of gas needed in order for Nabucco to be supplied and built. There, I think that public-private partnerships are necessary. This is my second point. The third is, of course as we all know - and it has been said so often - that this gas conflict is a commercial one, but one that also has great political connotations.

We also see the very poor state of Russian-Ukrainian relations, but our main goal has to be to stabilise the situation as much as possible. One of those possibilities will be our new Eastern Partnership idea where we will want the eastern partners to work together. On Ukraine, we will be holding a joint international investment conference on the rehabilitation and modernisation of Ukraine's gas transit system at the end of March. I think this is a highly timely event. Concerning the bilateral relationships - EU-Russia or EU-Ukraine - I think it is clear that the energy supply and transit aspects of the new agreements currently being negotiated have taken on a new importance and will be there.

My final point is that we are not only looking towards the east, but also towards the south. We have already been working with many Arab countries on initiatives to get gas, via Turkey, hopefully to a Nabucco pipeline. That means that diversification of pipelines, sources and, of course, of different energy - as has been said here - will be the way to go in the future. For this, we also need the right legal basis and this is difficult.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, I will just say a couple of things. First of all, our task is to restore supplies immediately because people are suffering, industry is suffering, people are losing jobs; so that is the main task, not to create additional obstacles.

But, after that, an analysis should take place, and measures should also be taken. We should revisit some of our stereotypes, because if 2006 could be called a wake-up call, this is a real shock.

In reality we are underestimating what really happened. If two countries' governments have accused each other of turning off the tap of the gas pipelines, then the only conclusion that I can draw - because I trust the countries and governments - is that somebody tampered with the pipelines, and that is very difficult to believe.

So what has happened is really extraordinary and I believe it should have a huge impact on the energy policies that we are trying to create. That is why I believe that no issue should be taboo any more. We really should discuss how to guarantee security of supply under all possible conditions.

And, to be honest, I never expected full disruption of supply. It was never in my expectations: it was a shock for me too. You can blame me as Energy Commissioner, and say 'You should have foreseen this'. But it was never to be expected. It is something new that never has happened before and we should in future be prepared for such a type of measure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday 15 January 2009).

Written statements (Rule 142)

The European Union is facing, once again, a crisis with its supply of natural gas. It is not clear who is to blame. Russia? Ukraine? Both? I urge the European Commission to make public information indicating the reasons which have sparked this situation. The European Union must assume the responsibility of stating who is actually to blame.

The crisis has highlighted, unfortunately, that many of the European Union's countries are vulnerable to energy blackmail and may end up suffering as a result of the misunderstandings, more of a political than an economic nature, between the countries from the former Soviet Union. It is obvious that we must speed up the process of creating a common European energy policy, based inclusively on a common external approach. We must expedite the process of diversifying supply sources and transit routes for natural gas. In fact, accelerating the Nabucco project is vital.

I think that the Energy Commissioner must submit a report detailing the actions which have been taken or, more precisely, which have NOT been taken by the Commission to support the Nabucco project during the last year.

in writing. - (PL) In today's debate much has been said about gas supplies and the links, interconnections and dependency of the European economies. We must learn from the present crisis.

We also have to regard the Yamal 2 project as something rational and in our interest. It is not only better than the Baltic pipeline to Germany, which bypasses Poland, but will increase our energy security. If it is built, Yamal 2 will mean a significantly greater transit of gas via Poland to Europe, as well as being a more cost-effective and efficient solution than the Northern Pipeline, and in addition, it can be built more quickly.

This I believe is the way we need to direct our efforts to ensure energy security for all EU Member States.

The gas crisis spotlights two major problems which the European Union is facing.

On the energy front, we still do not have a common strategy, due to the absence of the cohesion required for this. At present, 11 of the 27 EU countries have been affected as a result of supplies being cut off. However, the dependency on Russian gas is a common security problem, bearing in mind that the energy weapon can be used at any time, especially against Russia's former satellite states. In this situation, it is the EU's duty to find a solution for creating a secure energy zone for new Member States. The real problem for Europe is diversification of gas sources and not the transit routes between Russia and the EU.

Secondly, the gas crisis shows the political weakness of a divided, hesitant European Union. One of the glaring shortcomings comes from the EU presidency. We need, particularly in times of crisis, a representative voice to speak on behalf of the EU. A choir of several voices risks casting ridicule on the idea of a United Europe, not to mention its international image and influence. This is why it is necessary to establish a European presidency for a longer duration, which is also independent of Member States' political structures.

in writing. - Another wake-up call.

The current gas crisis shows once more how weak and ineffective our EU energy policy is. When under big pressure EU national governments rely, basically, on their own resources and sources. This is not surprising under the circumstances, but it shows another facet of lack of EU solidarity. This crisis also highlights what is a must for future steps in EU energy policy if we wish to have one, in reality. As for oil stocks we should develop gas storage. We need to diversify gas suppliers, supply routes and delivery mechanisms (as in the case of liquefied natural gas). The construction of the Nabucco project should be speeded up and the money for this project should be enhanced by involving the EIB in its funding. The argument that not enough gas would be available were new transport routes to be developed does not stand scrutiny. We need to develop renewable energy resources at a faster pace and save energy. Last, but not least, we need to develop cross-border energy interconnectors, so that EU Member States can help each other if need arises.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen.

The energy sector represents a major economic and geopolitical factor. Nowadays, almost half of the EU's energy is dependent on imports, with the forecasts indicating to us that imports will account for 70% of the natural gas supply and 100% of the oil supply by 2030. These must be the main motives for us to devise a common energy policy as a matter of urgency. This requires us to base the implementation of a common energy policy on three pillars: interconnecting the national networks completely at EU level, diversifying our supply sources and adopting active measures aimed at saving energy.

All of these measures must also result in avoiding energy crises like the current crisis involving the gas supplied by Russia through Ukraine, which is creating major problems for the EU's population and is disrupting its economy. Is it really possible to steal gas from a network like a wallet from a pocket? Is it really possible to cut off a supply just like that, in a couple of minutes, without notifying the user beforehand? I think that before examining the non-compliance with international treaties and agreements and the fact that the supplier which receives the largest share of its revenue from gas exports treats Europeans, who are paying reliably for this gas, with indifference and disinterest, we must look at solutions for the EU's energy security.

, in writing. - (HU) The European Union has not learned from its experiences in the 2006 gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine. Decision-makers reacted to the turning off of the gas taps as if this had been completely unexpected. This energy supply crisis, the most serious to date, may be the final wake-up call for Member States: we need to take steps to reduce our energy dependency. The conflict that has erupted between Russia and Ukraine is not merely a private bilateral legal dispute, given the fact that it affects hundreds of millions of EU citizens.

The present crisis is not only a test of our common energy policy, but also of EU solidarity. What is at stake now is whether Member States can move beyond the policies based hitherto on separate deals. What is at stake is whether the European Union is capable of speaking and acting in unity in so crucial a matter.

The inactivity of the past days is particularly painful, given that the European Commission made a good job of defining the steps which may reduce Europe's dependence. We can only agree with what is set out in the Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan. Investments must be made as soon as possible in developing alternative delivery routes and in linking up existing networks. Support for energy efficiency infrastructures needs to be expanded and we need to strengthen the energy dimension of the EU foreign policy that is currently taking shape.

I believe that the current crisis would not have had such a drastic effect if the Member States had not come to their senses only at the last minute, and had committed themselves to a common European energy policy in more than just words.

in writing. - (PL) It appears that the present crisis in the supply of gas to Ukraine and to Europe has far greater ramifications than previous crises which were the result of the same problem of Russia's monopolistic position in gas supplies to the EU. It has helped us to grasp the true meaning of concepts and terms we often use, but do not always comprehend, concepts such as energy security, EU solidarity, common energy policy or diversification of supplies and means of delivering gas and other fuels. We do not even need to know the real reasons behind Russia's behaviour to draw our conclusions. Knowing the motives is obviously important for making a moral and political assessment of how individual countries and firms behave, but the fact remains that regardless of the motives of the individual parties to the agreement, some citizens of the European Union have been exposed to the painful results of having no gas. The truth is important, but it will not deliver gas. Let us use this opportunity to get serious answers to several questions. Will we be able to draw the right conclusions from the present situation? Will we be able to rise above the short-sighted perspective being used by political parties who are at present in the opposition, and who are cynically using the situation to make unfounded attacks on their own national parliaments? Will Nabucco be built? Will we increase our mandatory fuel reserves? Will the ideological opponents of atomic energy change their views? Let us hope so.

in writing. - (PL) Madam President, the lesson of the present gas crisis is compelling, and the European Union must learn from it. It is yet another turning point, and should be the last one that exposes the lack of governance of 27 countries. This is what the people of Europe expect, even in those countries not directly affected by the gas blockade, and which are less reliant on supplies from Gazprom.

The mechanism of solidarity, sketched out in the 2004 directive, is wholly unsuited to today's challenges. We need to agree on a practical common policy on solidarity, security and diversification in energy. We do not need slogans. We need investment in infrastructure. We need to secure ourselves against a future crisis by increasing our gas storage capability. Energy solidarity requires cross-border connections joining the transmission networks of individual countries. Poland is a good example of this: although it is supplied mainly by pipelines from Russia which bypass Ukraine, and therefore less exposed in the present crisis, it is nevertheless cut off from Western Europe's transmission and storage system.

We are concerned that one outcome of the present crisis is that it has reduced the credibility of Ukraine, and not just of Russia. This effect of the gas war is no less important than the temporary problems experienced by consumers during a harsh winter.

It is very difficult for us to discuss the topic of the gas crisis given that the Council, EP and European Commission ended up with their hands tied at the end of it. But the debate is very important, albeit inadequate. I would like to thank all fellow Members from various political groups and Member States for their expressions of support for Bulgaria and the other countries which suffered from the crisis.

At the same time, this does not make gas appear and create normal European living conditions for our fellow citizens. As a result of this crisis, Bulgaria has turned from being an energy centre in the Balkans into a gas crisis capital.

This is why urgent action is needed. The consequences of this crisis are humanitarian and economic. This is destabilising our country, on top of the financial and economic crisis. The EP must adopt a resolution where it sets out its position and the measures which will help us overcome the crisis. Here and now. These measures must include nuclear energy and a quest for new sources of natural gas. We need a new action mechanism and set of tools.

If the EP is not part of the solution to the problem today, it will become part of the actual problem. This will result in a negative political outcome for the EU.

The current crisis has highlighted once again that the main problem is dependency on the energy resources located in the Russian Federation and the use of this situation by the Russian Federation in a manner which lies outside standard international procedures.

The declarations made by the President of the European Commission and the President of the Council during the time of the crisis in Georgia referring to a change in the EU's relationship with Russia need to be put into practice.

The Treaty of Lisbon needs to be ratified so that we can create a common European energy policy.

We must start building the Nabucco gas pipeline without delay.

It is absolutely necessary to promote energy projects which raise the profile of the Black Sea region and use the energy sources from the Caspian Sea region.

The enlargement of the European Energy Community to the east and the inclusion, as a priority, of energy as a topic in the new framework created through the Eastern Partnership may also contribute to resolving the current situation.

in writing. - (ET) Madam President, honourable Chairman.

It is unfortunate that the Czech presidency began not as previously planned, but with the imposed resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian gas conflict, in the same way that the previous presidency had to begin by seeking an end to the Russian-Georgian War.

Everything has a positive side too, however. Thanks to this war over gas provision, energy matters have risen to the forefront, especially the realisation of the need for a common energy policy.

This common energy policy cannot, however, be shaped in Brussels, if Member States are not motivated by common interest, but instead conclude bilateral agreements on terms that are favourable only to them. In this sense, a common policy must arise from the capital cities of the Member States, not from the corridors of power in Brussels, as one would anticipate.

I hope the spokesman is successful in strengthening that understanding.

in writing. - Russia blocked gas supplies at an extremely inopportune time for European consumers and it is essential that the gas deliveries are restored without further ado. But, after having resolved the crisis, we must take a long look at our dependency on gas from Russia, and there are two aspects that ought to be considered.

First, Russia must assure its capability of fulfilling its commitments to the EU. The failure of outdated technology and infrastructure may jeopardise the stable flow of gas to the EU. It should also be noted that despite ambitious plans on the Nord Stream gas pipeline there is no certainty that the output of Russia's natural gas fields is sufficient for meeting their commitments.

Second, the Kremlin has a history of using economic instruments as political tools. The European Union should never become a victim of such political behaviour. I encourage the EU to diversify its energy package to avoid its dependence on one single natural gas provider.

In my opinion, there are two aspects to the problem of gas supply from Russia to Ukraine and then on to the EU. The first is that many people are up in arms hollering 'How dare Russia do this!' I ask: Why should not it? If the EU itself is primarily a neo-liberal project where the market supposedly resolves everything, why should not Russia be allowed to behave commercially and demand payment of the money owed to it by the debtor? The gas crisis was not triggered by Russia but by Ukraine, and it is not a political problem, but an economic issue. This needs to be made quite clear! The second aspect is the focus (which I have criticised several times in the past) of EU bodies and institutions - and Parliament is no exception - on problems that are irrelevant and only divert attention away from the really urgent issues. This was reaffirmed by the reaction to Russia's legitimate decision to suspend gas supplies. Rather than the embarrassing pampering accorded to the Ukrainian administration as a sort of 'protective filter' between Russia and EU countries and rather than dreaming up the perfect shape for a cucumber, the EU should have been preparing for a crisis of this kind long ago. How has the EU helped the Slovaks and Bulgarians, for example, who have been hit hardest by the gas crisis? Was it able to help them at all? If not, there is something wrong with integration.

In the gas war between Russia and Ukraine, those who have ended up affected most are the most innocent. The current situation clearly shows how dependent Europe is not only on the source of the resources, but also on the transit countries. It also shows how unjust the criticisms have been about the alternative pipelines, such as the Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines. Unfortunately, it highlights too how helpless the European Union is in providing assistance to its Member States which were most affected and in guaranteeing its citizens' security.

Our basic task now is to restore gas supplies. The EU also needs to utilise its entire political resources to persuade Russia and Ukraine to free the 18 Member States which they are holding hostage.

The second measure needs to be support for the countries most severely affected. In the climate of an economic crisis and contracting markets, the blow from a gas shortage may prove to be fatal for many companies in my country and thousands of people will end up out of work. Who will be responsible for this?

The third and most important measure in a long-term plan is the construction of the alternative gas pipelines, especially Nabucco, investment in connecting up the Member States' gas supply networks and the building of storage facilities to ensure larger reserves.

The only conclusion from all of this is that we need a single European policy, but it is a pity that we always realise this after a deep crisis.

in writing. - (PL) Madam President, the matter of the crisis in gas supplies to the EU, in Ukraine and in the Balkans should be viewed primarily as an element in the struggle for political and economic influence in the former Soviet republics.

The country that is being fought over now is Ukraine. Russia has joined in the election campaign that is underway there. It wanted to use this to show the Ukrainian public that if it remains true to Russia, Ukraine would have cheap gas and oil.

The present conflict also shows that this kind of geopolitical influence is more important to Russia than good relations with the EU. Russia has factored the economic costs of shutting of gas supplies into its actions. So we should not delude ourselves - this is only the start of the struggle for influence in Ukraine.

In its inherent blindness, the European Union wants to continue to rely on imports of gas and oil for energy. At the same time its own resources of coal and lignite (in Poland included), are lying idle. I do not know whether this is political stupidity, or simply a matter of keeping energy pressure over particular countries in the Community.

The issue of Ukraine and the European Union being supplied gas by Russia must be resolved as quickly as possible. The European Union needs an energy security policy, as well as a diversification of its resources and solidarity in the energy sector in order to prevent such crises which affect its citizens.

More than half the EU's Member States are affected by Russia halting the supply of gas. In Bulgaria, the supply of gas to industry has been reduced or interrupted as this country is 90% dependent on gas from Russia.

I support the stance of both the Presidency and the Commission in urging both sides to engage in dialogue in order to reach a compromise. Without technical coordination between the two sides, gas cannot be supplied. In the future, we need to keep the dialogue open with both sides in order to avoid ending up in similar situations.

The Council and Parliament are proposing, through the energy package which is under discussion, a series of measures which involve using more energy suppliers for the consumer's benefit. We hope that the package will be adopted at second reading.

This crisis must be resolved as soon as possible because it is affecting both Europe's citizens and its industry. We need a common external policy in the energy sector.

Question Time (Council) 

The next item is Question Time (B6-0001/2009).

The following questions are addressed to the Council.

Subject: Justice in Russia

How does the Council Presidency view the justice system in Russia, in particular the imprisonment of opposition politicians - for example Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose trials and conditions of detention constitute a violation even of Russian law? How much importance will be attached to these abuses when the partnership and association agreement is being negotiated with Russia?

Subject: Justice system in Russia

One of the main obstacles to unconstrained political and economic relations with Russia and to a new partnership agreement is the presence of the major shortcomings in the Russian justice system. What steps is the Council taking to urge the review of political judgments - such as those in the Yukos case resulting in the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and Bakhmina - and the equally illegal enforcement of those judgments, and to support the creation of a justice system independent of authoritarian political structures?

Subject: The rule of law and the judicial system in Russia

As a value-based community, the EU should make the rule of law and respect for human rights the cornerstone of its relations with third countries. The judicial system in Russia is being politicised and is openly being used as a tool in the hands of Kremlin rulers. Lawlessness and corruption should therefore be on the list of priority for the EU when it seeks to pursue future relations.

In view of the latest spectacular cases concerning Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and Bachmina, my question to the Council is: How does the Council respond to Russia in cases of such unlawful and corrupt court decisions? How will the Council handle this issue in the EU-Russia relationship and what measures will the Council take to ensure that Russia makes changes to its judiciary system?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I know that my friend Milan Horáček is a man who has been committed for a long time to observing the human rights situation in Russia, and I want to thank him for doing that because this is exactly what this body, this organisation, should do.

Regarding the question on that particular issue, I would like to assure him that the Council fully shares the concerns about developments as regards the rule of law and democracy in Russia.

The Council is of the view that our partnership with Russia must be based on respect for international law, democratic principles and human rights. Therefore, the Council will continue to press Russia to implement fully the obligation it has signed up to as a member of the Council of Europe, and of course the OSCE, and also in the framework of the PCA - the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU.

The cases quoted by you and your colleagues are of great concern and the Council will continue to follow developments closely.

The Council raises its concerns with Russia on a regular basis as part of the political dialogue, in particular in the twice-yearly human rights consultation introduced in March 2005.

Russia's actions in this and other areas will be taken into account in the negotiations on a new agreement with Russia - that is very important - and also in other aspects of EU-Russia relations.

Achieving robust provisions on human rights in the new PCA currently being negotiated is also one of the EU priorities as set out in the negotiation directive which was approved by the Council last year.

The strategic partnership with Russia, which some are talking about, must be built on shared values; otherwise it would have no sense. The EU needs the new agreement, but so does Russia. It is crucial that the negotiations, as well as the text of the agreement itself, mirror values which are dear to us, such as the rule of law. Personally, I can promise that I would like to stress that the unity of the EU is absolutely decisive for achieving results here.

(DE) Madam President, I have a problem with the fact that the Council has repeatedly told us in the past that relations with Russia take priority, but in the particular cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and also Svetlana Bakhmina there is no progress of any kind to be seen.

(DE) Mr Vondra, I hold you in high regard as an experienced human rights activist, and I also regard Czech creativity very highly, hence my questions. Can you help us find new ways to bring the issue of the Yukos prisoners closer to a solution after years of talking, in other words to develop a degree of actionism? Also, how can we bring the human rights issue into somewhat sharper focus in practical terms in the negotiations with Russia?

Minister, thank you for your answers. Would you agree that, if the Council had strongly and convincingly presented this problem to the Russian side, demonstrating that the EU is serious about such a scandalous violation of justice, economic relations would also have been on a better footing today?

Would you agree that unless the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev case finds a just and transparent solution, the EU cannot expect Russia to meet its economic commitments either?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I think that, having a Czech presidency, you cannot expect us to stay silent. I was not silent when we were discussing energy security and I was not silent in the past when we were discussing the Khodorkovsky case and other cases.

You probably know that we will have a troika meeting in February where the presidency will be represented by the Foreign Minister, Karel Schwarzenberg. Certainly, in those cases to which you refer, we will consider the steps, but of course whether there are results or not is totally in Russian hands. We can simply create a certain environment to keep up the pressure, but it is up to Russia to respond.

I should like to welcome the Minister to the Chamber and welcome the Czech Republic to the presidency. I wish that every Member of this Chamber could say the same thing. I have to say I was shocked by the tenor of some of the questions directed at the Czech Prime Minister today. One of our colleagues, Mr De Rossa from the Irish Republic, invited him to withdraw his remark that the Treaty of Lisbon might not be as wonderful as Mr De Rossa thought, which apart from anything else was rather insulting to that majority of Mr De Rossa's own constituency...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

Subject: World trade liberalisation

As part of the priorities of the Czech Presidency, the Czech Republic has outlined on the Presidency website its ambitions in relation to world trade liberalisation. Can the Presidency elaborate on its ambitions in this regard and in particular on the steps it proposes to take in relation to food security in the EU?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I thank you for this particular question, because I come from a country which is a great friend of free trade. It is the bedrock of our economy - about 80% of our GDP is somehow produced by the activity which relates to this trade. So you can be sure that our presidency is keen that the Union remains fully committed to reaching a balanced, ambitious and comprehensive agreement in the WTO Doha Development Round. We will be working hard on that.

Regarding the question of my presidency's ambitions in relation to world trade liberalisation, the presidency has clearly defined its main priority on this subject in the context of the Council's 18-month programme for the French, Czech and Swedish presidencies, as well as in its own work programme, which was published last week and was also introduced here to some extent by the Prime Minister today.

According to this programme, trade policy remains a very important tool for addressing the opportunities and challenges of globalisation and fostering economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all citizens in Europe. Efforts will be sustained to promote an open, market-oriented and rule-based world trading system for the benefit of all.

Trade policies should also contribute to the Union's environmental and climate objective, in particular by encouraging the expansion of trade in environmental goods and services. The Union continues to stay fully committed to reaching a balanced, ambitious and comprehensive agreement in the WTO Doha Round.

Moreover, my country has set three priority areas for its presidency of the Council. One of these priorities will be the European Union in the world. In this context my country will highlight the importance of trade policy as a means of driving forward external competitiveness, economic growth and the creation of new jobs following the EU's new trade policy strategy called Global Europe, as well as under the revised strategy for growth and jobs.

Parallel to the multilateral system, the Czech Republic will back the Commission's efforts to negotiate trade agreements with promising partners or regions - such as Korea, India, ASEAN, Mercosur and the Andean Community countries and Central America, and potentially China as well - and to negotiate free trade agreements with the EU's closest neighbours, for example Ukraine, or to start such negotiations once the prerequisite conditions have been met, as in Russia.

The presidency will present its programme on the trade area to the Committee on International Trade on 20 January 2009.

Regarding food security in the EU, the presidency is of the opinion that protectionism will not help to secure food supply in Europe or worldwide. Therefore, the presidency supports the liberalisation of world trade within the framework of DDA and discussions on CAP reform with a view to making European agriculture more competitive. That means dismantling export refunds.

These elements, such as transparent liberalisation of world trade and competitive agriculture, are the base for enhancing food security as well. Food security in the EU has much to do with the international trade in food products that makes them available at competitive prices and sets the right incentives for those Member States where they can be produced most effectively.

Food security nowadays lies not only in the local production of food, but in a country's ability to finance the import of food through exports of other goods. In this sense, an open, multilateral trading system with a diversity of countries supplying food products may be a better guarantee for stable and secure supplies.

Thank you, Council, for the detailed answer, which I will need to study, although I do not think we will agree. I would draw your attention to a report voted through this Parliament on global food security, for which I was a rapporteur, which very clearly says that the market will not provide us with food security and certainly will not give farmers the income stability that they require. So could you clarify for me whether you believe that free trade in agriculture is the way forward and that that is your priority under your presidency?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I can give you a short answer - yes! If there is free trade in agriculture, there is no hunger in the world.

(DE) Mr Vondra, it is always being said that agricultural policy is there for only the 3% who farm, but there are 100% of us who eat. I, for one, eat heartily, and I should like to state very clearly my belief that food security is existential. We are currently seeing the problems of energy dependence. I am in favour of free world trade, but we must be able to feed ourselves from our own soil, and so we need to preserve our farming structures: this cannot be left solely in the hands of the market.

First of all, like my colleague before me, Mr Hannan, I would like to welcome the Czech presidency - it will be an interesting contrast with the last presidency of the EU - and once again apologise for the disgraceful behaviour shown by some of my colleagues in this Chamber.

It is all very well saying that we want to kick-start the WTO talks, but we have had Indian elections, we have had US elections and we have got European elections. With all these elections going on and changes of administration, how can we really kick-start the WTO talks?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I think on the CAP reform we were among those who were trying to push the Commission to come forward with the new budgetary reform proposals, the white paper. I was even trying to orchestrate some kind of a joint effort with my colleague from Sweden, because 2009 is the year of the Czech and the Swedish presidencies and we have pretty similar views. But it is not up to us to bring a legislative proposal.

I say to my friend Bernd Posselt, we come from similar cultural backgrounds, but I think you know we are both living examples that there is no hunger in Europe thanks simply to the fact that trade in agricultural products has been growing in the past couple of decades. I know that we also need some tasty products to keep on the market like Bavarian and Czech beer, but I think in general, again, free trade promotes wealth in Europe as well as in the world.

Here is the question on the CAP. The Council recalls that, in the context of the political agreement reached on the CAP health check in the Council on 20 November last year, it was agreed in the joint Council and Commission declaration that, in the framework of the discussions that started in Annecy in France on 23 September on the future of CAP after 2013 and without prejudice to the new financial perspective for that period, the Council and the Commission are committed to closely examining the possibilities for the development of direct payments in the Community and addressing the different levels of direct payment between the Member States.

I can tell you that the incoming Czech Presidency intends to organise the discussion of this issue at the informal Agricultural Ministers' meeting to be held in Brno in May. My colleague from the Government, Petr Gandalovič, is really eager to open this debate.

Our goal is to moderate a discussion on the future of the CAP aimed at exploring agrarian policy instruments, particularly in the area of direct payments, which would enable a non-discriminatory and effective use of financial resources gathered from European taxpayers and spent on the CAP, strengthening the competitiveness of European farmers, improving the position of Europe's agricultural and food industries in a globalised and open world market, improving the quality of agricultural products and the provision of non-marketable outcomes of agriculture, as well as contributing to sustainable rural development.

The outcome of the abovementioned dialogue should result in paving the way towards - I would like to emphasise - the modernised CAP providing equal conditions for all Member States.

Subject: Future of the Common Agricultural Policy 2013-2020

One of the priorities of the Czech Presidency is the Common Agricultural Policy. What measures will be taken by the Czech Presidency to negotiate the future of the Common Agricultural Policy?

(GA) Madam President, I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his answer. I would like to ask him a question about the Czech President's plans to provide support to disadvantaged areas. As I understand it further help is needed, and is needed desperately, by disadvantaged areas in the European common agricultural policy. I would like to find out what the Presidency intends to do about this.

President-in-Office of the Council. - The problem of disadvantaged areas throughout Europe is one of the particular problems which are constantly being discussed in relation to the CAP. I think that we are all, or mostly all, in agreement that we should move from direct payment to a payment for developing rural areas, if there is some kind of redistribution, rather than to continue with protectionist measures.

So there are the ways and means, and certainly we are working closely with Commissioner Fischer Boel. I am not an expert on agriculture but I think you certainly would have the opportunity to also approach our Minister for Agriculture and discuss this in detail.

May I wish the Czech presidency every success during its term in office. I would like the Minister to comment on the experience to date of Czech farmers and the Czech agri-food industry of the common agricultural policy, whether they are satisfied and whether it has made good improvements to their particular lots in different enterprises. How do they - and how do you, the Czech people - view the common agricultural policy as applied to the Czech Republic?

(RO) Unfortunately, the economic crisis is leading to job losses. Purchasing power is decreasing. Quality of life also means, however, healthy food.

Romania has a very large number of farmers, but their farms are small in size. I would like to ask what support you have in mind for small agricultural producers, especially in the new Member States.

President-in-Office of the Council. - In the new Member States you have different conditions. For example, my country does not have as many small farms as in certain other European countries. We have a very competitive farming industry with large farms but, if you go to neighbouring Poland, for example, the situation is somewhat different.

On Mrs Doyle's question of how we are doing: well, I have some farmers in my constituency in Northern Bohemia and, on the one hand, they are doing better because they got more money. So we have farmers with Hugo Boss ties now. We did not have this five to ten years ago. On the other hand, they also feel some kind of injustice because of the differences in payments between the older Member States and the new Member States. It is a question of elementary justice in the system, and it should be corrected.

At the same time, we believe that the CAP should be reformed. This is the only way to keep Europe competitive. So we have here a complex problem. I am not an expert who can go into the details, but I think that we should at least be able to agree on the basic lines.

And Mrs Ţicău's question?

I am sorry, Minister, I was not sure if you had addressed both questions.

President-in-Office of the Council. - I was trying to respond to both questions.

That concludes Question Time.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes

Situation in the Horn of Africa (debate) 

The next item is the position of the Council and the Commission on the situation in the Horn of Africa.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, at this late hour I wish to make a few remarks on the Council's position on the Horn of Africa.

The Horn of Africa of course is a challenging region which deserves our particular and increased attention as it has a major impact on the EU. The EU closely follows developments in this region and prepares to engage even more with the countries of the Horn of Africa.

I know that Parliament also keeps abreast of developments. The visit that your delegation made late last year to Eritrea and Ethiopia and also Djibouti was important. I also took note of the motion for a resolution on the Horn of Africa that has been elaborated partly in the context of this visit. It clearly displayed to the region and to Europeans the growing engagement for the Horn of Africa within the EU. On behalf of the Council, I welcome the involvement of Parliament in our efforts to address the challenges in the Horn of Africa.

There are several sources of tension in the Horn of Africa. I will get to them in more detail. However, in the view of the Council these tensions are often linked in one way or another within the region. For this reason, the Council is particularly looking to discern the regional links between ongoing conflicts. What are these links between conflicts?

First, there is a dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which might be considered as one of the principle causes of instability in the whole region. This is reflected in the following ways: the support of opposing warring factions in Somalia; destabilisation efforts in each other's countries - let me mention Ogaden, Oromo in Ethiopia in particular; it is reflected also in support for the revival of the peace process in Sudan; Eritrea has suspended its membership in the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD).

And, last but not least, the conflict in Somalia has caused one of the most serious humanitarian situations that we face in the world today. The increase in acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia is another serious consequence of this conflict.

Another serious issue is the competition for natural resources such as water and minerals in the Horn of Africa. This phenomenon increases pastoralist conflicts in areas populated by different cultural and ethnic groups. It also increases food insecurity and human insecurity in general, which contributes to the conflict and the migration.

There are also serious regional interdependencies. Let me mention some of them. There are the border conflicts, as mentioned before: the disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sudan and Ethiopia and Djibouti and Eritrea, which might be considered as sources of instability in the region. I would also stress that improved regional cooperation would contribute to lowering tensions around national boundaries.

Food security is another interdependency. This is of course a major concern in the region. Recurring droughts, as well as floods, have a devastating effect on the population. Once again, regional cooperation could mitigate the effects of these natural events.

As you know, some argue that this problem is at the origin of the conflicts in Darfur, Somalia and many other areas of the Horn of Africa. I am not sure that gives a full explanation, but I do believe that this question must be resolved in each of the countries and within the regional context in a fair and transparent manner.

Piracy was initially localised to a small part of the Somali coast. The pretext of the pirates was to levy a fishing tax on a ship in Somali waters. As you are certainly well aware, this activity has expanded significantly and now threatens the delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia and maritime safety in the Gulf of Aden and well beyond, including ships travelling off the coast of Kenya and Tanzania.

There are also several other interdependencies which have a serious impact on Europe and on the countries of the Horn of Africa, such as terrorism and migration.

So what are the actions which the European Union undertakes? What is our engagement or involvement? The main political instrument at the disposal of the Council - which I have the honour to represent here today - is a political dialogue, not only with the individual countries but also with other regional stakeholders, such as the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the League of Arab States, and the United States and China as important countries.

Political dialogue is a mutual commitment in the Cotonou Agreement between the EU and each of the countries in that particular region. This dialogue is principally pursued through the heads of the EU missions in the countries concerned. It is a very important instrument to the Council, as it gives us a direct contact with the authorities of those countries. It provides an opportunity to hear their point of view, but also to clearly explain our perceptions and raise concerns that we have on certain issues. This particularly concerns matters of governance and human rights. Those are the main issues.

On top of this, the Council disposes of the instruments of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Since September 2008, the Council has deployed this instrument to fight piracy off the Somali coast, first through the coordination cell EU NAVCO, based in Brussels and then since December 2008 through the maritime operation called EU NAVFOR Atalanta.

Finally, the EU acts through the financial instruments of the European Commission such as the African Peace Facility and Instrument of Stability. I will let Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner elaborate further on that because that is the Commission's responsibility.

Of course the Council is always looking, together with the European Commission, for ways to enhance the effectiveness and the visibility of EU action. I look forward to hearing your proposals and recommendations on this particular issue.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission has over recent years already called for greater attention to be given by the European Union to the situation in the Horn of Africa. Today in this debate I am replacing my colleague Louis Michel, who unfortunately cannot be here; I take this matter on with great interest, both in its own right and also because it affects Europe directly - the need, for instance, to mobilise our navies to combat piracy, and this is only one recent example.

We therefore very strongly welcome the initiative of the parliamentary delegation which visited the region and their subsequent report and draft resolution, which we also support in principle.

The internal situation in each of the countries of the Horn cannot be understood in isolation from the regional dynamics. We have to continue to encourage a global approach resting on economic development, governance and security if we want to advance regional stability, respect for the essential and fundamental elements of Cotonou and the fight against poverty.

Let me comment on the situation by country before concluding with remarks on the regional strategy for the Horn.

Firstly, let me say a word on Ethiopia/Eritrea. Ethiopia occupies a strategic economic and political place in the region. The Commission continues to support Ethiopia with its poverty alleviation efforts, where important progress has been registered.

Weak regional security and inter-community tensions affect the internal situation of the country, especially in the Ogaden, where access to the population still remains constrained. The Commission will also continue to monitor the human rights situation and the democratisation process. Considering the circumstances of the 2005 general elections, the Commission will closely monitor the preparation and proceeding of the 2010 elections, especially in the context of the recently approved NGO legislation and the re-arrest of the opposition leader, Ms Birtukan Medeksa.

The internal situation in Eritrea is partly determined by the impasse in the border conflict with Ethiopia. The Commission remains seriously concerned about human rights violations and the precarious social and economic situation. In our view, there is a strong argument for the continuance of a cooperation programme which aims at the improvement of the living conditions of the population. The political dialogue initiated in 2008 provides a good platform for sustained engagement with the Eritrean authorities. Let us be clear: we expect some positive and tangible steps in Eritrea as a result of this process.

As indicated in your draft resolution, the virtual demarcation of the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea - as decided by the Boundary Commission - will not lead to a full resolution of the problem if it is not accompanied by dialogue aiming at the normalisation of relations between the two countries.

The recent dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti is to be seen in a larger regional context and for which a global solution needs to be sought through local and regional actors. We will continue to support such processes.

Now that Ethiopian troops are withdrawing from Somalia, the cooperation of both Ethiopia and Eritrea in the Somali peace process will be essential for it to be successful.

On the situation in Sudan, I fully share Parliament's analysis. Indeed, 2009 is a decisive year for the future of this country. The persistence of violence in Darfur and the difficulties in completing the implementation of the North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) have the potential to destabilise the country and affect the whole region. We should therefore maintain a strong dialogue with, and a strong pressure on, the Khartoum authorities to obtain their full cooperation, both on the CPA and also on Darfur and their processes. These authorities, as well as the other Sudanese stakeholders, know only too well where their responsibilities lie and what they need to deliver.

In Darfur, military operations and violence must be ended and the political process fully resumed. The deployment of the UNAMID must take place within the foreseen time. The Sudanese authorities must respect their obligations as regards the facilitation of humanitarian aid and human rights activities. On the CPA, it is crucial that the Government of Khartoum and of South Sudan settle their differences over critical issues such as sharing of oil revenues, boundary delimitation, and legislation in security and political matters. Failing to do so could turn the planned elections of 2009 into a scenario of renewed violence and conflict.

In Somalia, the peace process is in a crucial phase. The resignation of President Yusuf and the withdrawal of the Ethiopian army present a new period of uncertainty and risk. But they also provide an opportunity to launch an inclusive political process. On the political side, the European Union continues its activities in support of the Djibouti process, which should lead to more inclusiveness through the election of a new president and the formation of a government of national unity with an expanded parliament. There is no plan B for the Djibouti process. Without international and regional support that advances the emergence of favourable conditions for its implementation, the agreement will have little chance of success.

As regards security, the Commission remains committed to supporting the establishment of a system for the sound governance of the security sector. Whatever the nature of the international force (UN authorised stabilisation force, UN peacekeeping mission or only a strengthened AMISOM), its mandate will need to focus on the support for the implementation of the Djibouti Agreement. The Commission has given a positive response to the demand for further financial support to the reinforcement of AMISOM.

Finally, on the Horn of Africa in general, I very much appreciate Parliament's support for the Commission's Horn of Africa initiative. This initiative is based on the 2006 Horn strategy, which was adopted in the conviction that the conundrums in the region can only be dealt with globally. In this spirit, the Commission supports your proposal to nominate a special representative for the Horn.

We have been establishing good working relations with IGAD, which supports the Horn of Africa initiative and which plays a key role in its implementation. A second joint experts' meeting on water, energy and transport, where concrete projects could be developed that might be presented to a possible donor conference, is foreseen for the near future.

The participation of Eritrea, which plays a key role in the regional dynamics, is essential for the success of the Horn of Africa strategy. Commissioner Michel's contacts with the heads of state and government of the region, including President Isaias, have allowed an opening in this regard and the new IGAD Executive Secretary is in the process of engaging with the Eritrean authorities, including on the reform and revitalisation process of IGAD.

Mr President, I was a little long but with so many countries, if you want to say something, you have to say at least a few words.

The introduction is covered by a special rule and there are no limits.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, thank you very much for the opinion of the Council and the Commission on the Horn of Africa. The importance of this region transcends purely geographical bounds. The conflicts and structural problems there are compounded by the negative phenomena in other regions of Africa. I was part of the European Parliament delegation on its recent visit, and I could see for myself how complex, comprehensive and interlinked the problems there are, and why our answer needs to be comprehensive.

In the draft resolution we have concentrated on three fundamental, but also fairly broad issues: regional security, food security and, in our notes on human rights, democracy and good governance. Since my visit I am in no doubt that the fundamental condition for improving the situation is goodwill and dialogue between regional leaders.

The European Union's policy of supporting regional institutions in the Horn of Africa is correct, but without active involvement of the key players, the policy will remain ineffective. Some countries of the region use poor tactics, for example, you cannot appeal for dialogue with one neighbour and at the same time refuse dialogue with another. This practice is illogical, and makes diplomatic success practically impossible. Political leaders there need to accept the fact that exercising power is tied in with responsibility.

What we expect from the leaders in the Horn of Africa is not linked to some specifically local, European values. What we expect is a minimum acceptance of universal values. We are also convinced that fundamental rights and freedoms belong to everybody. No developing country can work properly in the modern world if it rejects fundamental, universal values. Accepting them is therefore not just a gesture towards the European Union, but an action that will further their own interests. Concepts of development may vary, but values do not change, and we would like these values - common and universal - to become the daily bread in the Horn of Africa.

The Council and the Commission must draw their conclusions from the fact that, in this Parliament's view, the governments of the countries of the Horn of Africa are not acting in accordance with their obligations under the terms of Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement. Human rights, democracy and good governance are empty words. That is perfectly obvious to anyone who does not keep their eyes closed.

In Ethiopia, for example, which is the headquarters of the African Union, the people are oppressed under the cover of rhetoric that sounds good to donors, but which is no less crude and shameless.

I will describe two recent episodes ...

On 29 August, Ms Birtukan Midekssa, the leader of a party with a parliamentary seat, was again arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment for refusing to publicly state that she had requested the pardon that the Meles Zenawi Government used to release her in 2007, along with many other political leaders of the opposition held since the elections of 2005.

Second: the approval by the Ethiopian Parliament of the so-called NGO Act, which, in practice, criminalises all the work of independent NGOs.

There is no transition to democracy in Ethiopia, Commissioner, and I would be grateful if you would tell this to your colleague Louis Michel.

In Eritrea, the wrath of the government against anyone who tries to exercise the most basic human rights is even more shameless.

As for Somalia, which is currently the most serious situation in the whole Horn of Africa, the international community, including the European Union, has a criminal lack of interest in the fate of the people in a country where there has been no law and order for decades and where Ethiopian troops were able to occupy the land and commit crimes with impunity and where pirates and terrorist groups thrive.

The EU naval mission will not resolve anything if the European Union, the United States, the UN and the African Union continue to ignore the causes of the piracy, which are rooted and must be fought on land and not at sea.

The region will not have stability or progress without resolution of the tragic conflicts that continue to devastate Sudan, especially in the South and in Darfur, and where the rhetoric of the international community, the European Union included, needs to be translated into decisive action to protect the civilian populations who are being attacked and to end the impunity of the criminals.

In this regard, the possible confirmation of the prosecution of President Omar Bashir by the International Criminal Court will be a test of the credibility and effectiveness of both the European Union and the African Union.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the Horn of Africa is a dreadful region where internal and regional conflicts continue to undermine peace and security. They create humanitarian disasters and paralyse the development of this strategically significant region.

Each war, each conflict accentuates the fragility of the states. At the heart of most of these conflicts is the lack of leadership and democratic governments rightly put forward in the report of the EP delegation.

What this region needs is home-grown democratisation, respect for national and international rule of law and above all national reconciliation. About Somalia, I would like to emphasise that the resignation of former president Yusuf and the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces creates a huge window of opportunity. The time has come to pick up the pieces and bring about intra-Somali peace.

The Somali Parliament is a crucial factor for confidence-building and can make the peace process all-inclusive. Furthermore, it is imperative that the EU supports the renewal and strengthening of an African Union Peace Force. This force needs a decent UN mandate. If not, Ugandan and Burundian forces will pull away from Mogadishu leaving a security gap behind.

I entirely agree with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner. There is a momentum for change now in Somalia that should be taken advantage of. The power as well as the security vacuum must be filled. If not, the stateless chaos known as Somalia will remain.

Mr President, the Horn of Africa is currently a real powder keg, not only due to the situation of total instability in Somalia and Sudan, but also in the three countries that Mr Kaczmarek, Mr Hutchinson and I had the pleasure of visiting.

The three countries to which the delegation's visit was confined - Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia - have in common poverty and therefore a very low standard of human rights. As regards poverty, according to the figures given to our delegation, the Government of Ethiopia has acknowledged that six and a half million people are already affected by famine. The United Nations puts this figure at over twelve million. We are therefore facing a humanitarian crisis that is not being reported in the media, due to other current international crises, even though it is truly shocking.

The human rights situation also deserves our attention, given the existence of political prisoners - and that is the word for them: political prisoners - in all three countries.

The border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia is totally absurd, as also is the involvement of more than 200 000 soldiers in this dispute. I cannot end my speech without congratulating Commissioner Michel on his actions in the area and for starting a political dialogue. This dialogue must continue but it must also be made clear that we will be very firm: firm in defending human rights and firm towards the outrages being committed through the adoption of laws in relation to NGOs. It must be borne in mind that, thanks to this political dialogue, we are proving that the European Union enjoys high prestige at international level.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, the Horn of Africa has recently moved back into focus in the EU. After all, the EU's combat mission Atalanta has been stationed there since Christmas. In sending this mission, the EU has made the mistake of NATO, the United States, Russia and others there of superficially combating problems by military means, by means of warships. Indeed, Mr Kouchner actually welcomed the opportunity for action, 10 years after Saint-Malo, with a maritime combat operation off Somalia. The real causes of the problem are the unfair distribution of resources, for example owing to exploitation of fish stocks, including by fishing trawlers from the European Union. Somalia is one of the countries whose virtually non-existent government the West is supporting by all means possible.

The Ethiopian occupying forces have now left Somalia, but more than 16 000 people have lost their lives since the invasion of these forces. Dealings with the countries of the Horn of Africa are illustrated by the example of Djibouti, which has an authoritarian regime, yet all manner of Western countries have military bases there. Assistance must be provided to the people of the region - not by means of warships, which serve only to protect Western trading routes, but in the form of humanitarian aid, for example.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Somalia is a failed State, with all the dreadful things this entails. You have set out most excellently what needs to be done here, and my friend Mrs Gomes has also stated this very clearly.

Piracy is just one part - albeit an important one - of this problem, as piracy is very firmly established in the region. A second aspect is the protection of EU maritime routes, which is in the European Union's own interests and those of its citizens.

That is why we have the ESDP operation Atalanta, which is the first maritime operation under the ESDP. The operation's headquarters are in the United Kingdom, which is also new, and it is being led by a British naval officer, Rear Admiral Jones.

Its first task is to protect food aid and to make sure that this aid can actually reach Somalia, and its second is to combat piracy and take the appropriate action.

We had a conversation with the operation headquarters in Northwood, which made clear that they are missing several things, such as tankers and reconnaissance aircraft - manned and unmanned - and helicopters, as the surveillance needs to be carried out over a very large area. We must all have a common interest in a successful Operation Atalanta. This is necessary both to protect our maritime routes and to make a contribution - albeit possibly just a small one - to solving the problem of the failed State of Somalia.

(RO) I would first of all like to congratulate my fellow Members for this fact-finding mission to one of the most perilous regions in the world and certainly one of the most disadvantaged.

I also think that the Horn of Africa is possibly the poorest region in the world. Ethiopia has suffered a disaster as a result of the drought over the last few years. It is a country where millions of people suffer from hunger, even during years where there is a rich harvest.

Sudan and the Darfur region, in particular, are also tragic locations on the world map due to a humanitarian disaster, which has been described by many experts as outright genocide, as a result of the slaughter of more than two million people, while four million are refugees from the civil war.

Somalia, Eritrea and Djibouti are three of the poorest countries where conflict is a permanent reality, just as you have actually highlighted, Commissioner, and my fellow Members before that.

The constant instability in the region is one of the causes of the problems which the Horn of Africa is facing during the process of economic, social and political development. The success of the peace process in the region is closely linked to the involvement of regional and African structures, such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development or the African Union.

The European Union must support the consolidation of these organisations, along with an increase in their ability to prevent and resolve conflicts. Better regional integration would also facilitate a more open dialogue between the countries in the Horn of Africa on subjects of common interest, such as migration, arms trafficking, energy or natural resources, and would provide a basis for dialogues on controversial topics.

The European Union must, of course, get involved more when it comes to human rights violations. According to the Cotonou Agreement, these countries need to reach an agreement with the European Union with regard to observing the rule of law, human rights and democratic principles.

(SV) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on the morning of Sunday 23 September 2001, the Swedish citizen Dawit Isaak was taken from his home in Eritrea by the country's authorities. He was imprisoned without trial and, more than seven years later, has still not been formally charged. His crime is stated as 'having reported independent news'. In this resolution, we have the first direct reference to Dawit Isaak. This should increase the pressure on Eritrea.

It is unacceptable for an EU citizen, a Swedish journalist, to be imprisoned for years and to be harassed by a rogue regime like that in Asmara, a regime that receives aid from the EU, aid that, moreover, has increased significantly. It is now time, Commissioner, for the European Union to act and lay down conditions for this aid. The time for silent diplomacy is past. Enough is enough. The EU will not accept the trampling underfoot of fundamental human rights, the murder or imprisonment of journalists and critics of the regime, while the population is oppressed and starving.

The European Parliament is today demanding that Dawit Isaak and the other journalists imprisoned in Eritrea be released immediately. This is a powerful step in the right direction. Now the Commission and the Council must also lend force to these words. It is therefore high time that the EU entered into negotiations and introduced sanctions.

(SV) Mr President, like my fellow Member from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would like to highlight the issue of the release of Dawit Isaak. For seven years, the Swedish citizen Dawit Isaak has been imprisoned without trial in a prison cell in a terrible dictatorship. I am pleased that we have included a passage on his immediate release in the resolution on the Horn of Africa. We require the immediate release of Dawit Isaak, as well as all of the other imprisoned journalists. No trial, and what was their crime? Well, it was working for democracy and for the freedom of speech.

The EU's future aid to Eritrea must be linked to clear demands for the release of Dawit Isaak and the other journalists. Conditional aid, together with sanctions, the freezing of Eritrean assets in Europe and the reporting of this violation of international law to the International Court of Justice are what we need today. The Swedish Government has worked using silent diplomacy, it has been said, but, after seven years, still nothing has happened. Now it is time to act.

Mr President, the Horn of Africa is pretty much an unmitigated disaster. The region has been devastated by decades of war, famine, environmental degradation, corruption, mismanagement and political repression. Human rights are abused as a matter of course. Civil society is weak. Alarmingly, the situation could easily deteriorate further. Tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea over disputed territory are still likely to flare up at any moment. The failed state of Somalia remains infected by clan violence and Islamist extremism, which will worsen as Ethiopia now withdraws its troops and with the resignation of the recent President.

We have also debated the epidemic of piracy off the Somali coast. There is, of course, always a temptation by the EU to suggest military action as a panacea to the chaos in the Horn of Africa. Past experience suggests this would be a terrible mistake. President Bill Clinton sent US troops to tame Somalia, but that was a disaster too.

The one oasis of optimism, in my view, is in the region of Somaliland, which was formerly a British Protectorate. It was absorbed into the Somali Republic in 1960 after foolishly voluntarily relinquishing its brief period of independence, but split away again in the chaos following the death of Siad Barre in 1991. Ever since then, Somaliland has been the only cohesive and functional polity in Somalia. The people of Somaliland benefit from a relatively benign government and progressive institutions. They also possess symbols of statehood such as a separate currency and a flag.

Speaking personally, and not for my party or my political group, perhaps it is time for the international community, led by the African Union, to begin considering more seriously Somaliland's quest for independence. An independent Somaliland, supported by the West, could be a force for stability and progress in an otherwise hopeless and chaotic region. Certainly, the people of Somaliland would be justified in asking why we here in the EU were so reluctant to recognise their de facto country, but were so quick to recognise the independence of Kosovo.

(RO) The European Union really has every good reason to be concerned by the situation created in Somalia where a power vacuum has virtually formed which has every chance of being filled by Somali Islamic militia. Apart from withdrawing the three thousand Ethiopian troops, the missions under the auspices of the African Union could also withdraw if they do not receive additional support during the subsequent period.

I could not describe the European mission patrolling the waters in the region as anything other than a resounding success, but this task only involves treating the effects of the 'disease', and not at all the disease itself. Somalia must have a government capable of acting as a dialogue partner for the international institutions, European Union and all the other states willing to assume an active role in bringing stability to this region.

(RO) The European Union has numerous responsibilities in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. Instability, the lack of governance and security have made this region a source of concern for many reasons.

Above all, the unprecedented increase in the acts of piracy committed by groups given shelter in Somali units is affecting commercial routes in a region which is vital to European and global trade. It concerns us to see that these groups are becoming increasingly more technologically advanced and capable of attacking ships located at ever greater distances from the shore.

This state of affairs is obviously due to the desperate situation which Somalia is in, specifically, the non-existence of a central government capable of controlling its territorial waters. However, the international community equally bears responsibility with regard to these events. Piracy, no matter on which seas it takes place and the safe havens which the perpetrators enjoy, is a violation of the written and unwritten laws of any country and intervention against this is justified, regardless of where it comes from.

The chances of the European Union and the international community changing the basic reality in Somalia are slight. However, tackling one of its consequences, piracy, is much more within our grasp.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, firstly, allow me to react to two remarks made here and then draw some conclusions. Olle Schmidt and Eva-Britt Svensson asked about the journalist, Dawit Isaak: yes, we are trying to do something in Eritrea to set him free.

Anna-Maria Gomes asked about the recent arrest of the opposition activist Mrs Bertukan. The Council is certainly aware of this case, which dates back to the post-election riots in 2005 when she was arrested, together with other opposition activists, before being pardoned in 2007. She was re-arrested at the end of the year. Since then the EU has been closely following the case, and the Council is ready to take the appropriate steps if the situation requires.

Then I would like to make five short concluding remarks. First let me say that we really appreciate the input of the delegations that travelled to the region, in particular to Mr Hutchinson, Mr Kaczmarek and Mr Irujo Amezaga.

First I think I can assure you that, under the Czech presidency, there will be continuity. So we certainly are not going to completely redefine the EU strategy towards the Horn of Africa. We will rather try to pursue the policy established by our predecessor in the best possible manner.

One of the most important tasks will be the containment of piracy and, in this context, we strongly appreciate the effort of the French presidency that accomplished the difficult start of deploying the first EU naval mission. Certainly, we are not a naval power in the Czech Republic so we appreciate here strong EU engagement.

My second remark is that the short-term Operation Atalanta has already prevented several acts of piracy from taking place and apprehended a number of pirates, so within a month of deployment the effectiveness of the operation has already become apparent. Atalanta is a short-term measure to curb piracy. However, it was a necessary short-term measure.

The third point is that, in order to find a long-term solution in Somalia, the Council lends its full support to the Djibouti process within the transitional Federal Government and the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia, and there is no plan B to this process.

Ethiopia has begun its withdrawal from Somalia; this is an important step in the implementation of the Djibouti process. There are some concerns that there will be a security vacuum when Ethiopia leaves; the EU therefore continues to give substantial support to the African Union Mission to Somalia, the AMISOM. EUR 20 million have been allocated for the period of December 2008 to May 2009.

My fourth point is regarding direct contacts: we foresee resuming political dialogue with the intergovernmental authority on development at ministerial level. The authority on development proved its capacities during the engagement in Sudanese peace talks, which resulted in the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. So the authority might become a key partner of the EU in bringing peace and stability to Somalia.

Last but not least, as regards the matter of more engagement, I would like to inform you that revision of the Horn of Africa strategy of the Commission will be initiated during our presidency, which is not in contradiction of my words on continuity.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me make a few comments on this short, but important, debate. Firstly, on Somalia, I listened with great interest to all your comments and suggestions and I am encouraged to see that we agree, not only on the assessment of the situation, but also on the action to be taken. We need the support of the entire international community, including the new US administration, but also key players in the Islamic world, for a sustainable, political solution in Somalia and to finally end the unspeakable suffering of the population. Here the Commission will provide full political, but also strong financial, support to the Djibouti process.

I agree with Ana Maria Gomes that the countries of the Horn of Africa have serious human-rights and good-governance problems - many other colleagues have also said this. We are very concerned about these tremendous challenges. However, we consider that it would be difficult to make an across-the-board judgement regarding Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement. We must stand firm on human rights and good governance, fully utilising the policy instruments at our disposal, including a political dialogue with clear benchmarks.

On food aid and food security, this is one of the priorities of the European Parliament resolution. In this context, I would like to emphasise that, in addition to the envelope of the EDF, there are now funds under the so-called food facility, which will be EUR 100 million from 2009 to 2011.

Finally, we are also fully aware of the situation of the Swedish citizen, Dawit Isaak, who is still under arrest in Eritrea. My colleague Louis Michel talked to President Isaias about this case during his last visit in June 2008, and some further quiet diplomacy is going on in this particular case. I can assure you that we remain committed to working towards the improvement of the human rights situation in Eritrea so that it is very dominant in our minds.

I have received a draft resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 January 2009.

EU strategy towards Belarus (debate) 

The next item is the report of the Council and the Commission on the strategy of the European Union towards Belarus.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, the situation in Belarus and what we should do and how we can help will, I think, without doubt be at the centre of the Council's attention during the Czech presidency.

Let me start here on a positive note. We have noted with satisfaction the steps taken by Belarus in the past few weeks, including the registration of the 'For Freedom' movement, the printing and distribution of independent newspapers like Narodnaya Volya or Nasha Niva, the round table on the regulation of internet with the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the announcement of the start of expert consultations with OSCE/ODIHR on improving electoral legislation.

These steps go towards fulfilling the criteria expressed by the EU as a condition for maintaining the suspension of the visa ban beyond the initial six-month period. The EU has stressed the importance of moving on these issues in its contact with the Belarus administration.

Ahead of the sanction review - where we have to take a decision by early April - we will continue to use all political contacts, including bilateral contacts, to encourage Belarus to move forward on the problematic points which were identified in the Council conclusions of 13 October with further substantial steps. As a further sign of encouragement, our presidency intends to hold another foreign minister troika with Belarus on the margin of the January General Affairs and External Relations Council.

We will also continue to monitor the general situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, with a special emphasis on the regulatory environment of NGOs and the media. We are also closely discussing and exchanging views and information with the various opposition representatives and other persons in Belarus, people like Mr Alexander Milinkievich, Mr Kosolin and others.

Belarus, as we know, is included as one of the six Eastern Partnership countries, a move aimed at creating positive development trends in our eastern European neighbourhood. The participation of Belarus will depend on its domestic development. We plan to launch the Eastern Partnership at summit level in Prague in May and the decision of the day was also selected just when this six-month period ends and we can make an evaluation. So the issue of whether Mr Lukashenko will be invited is one where no decision has been made yet.

We firmly believe that we need to be constructive with Minsk now; let us say, that is a strategic imperative. We of course remain realistic and do not expect any dramatic changes, but we believe that Mr Lukashenko's search for balancing relations with Moscow can provide an opportunity. But also we are a community of certain shared values and we need to keep the leverage in our hands. It is in our joint interest to use this opportunity to further encourage the positive dynamics in Belarus in this respect.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to you about Belarus because positive progress has been made, which we were very happy to see. Belarus is very high on our agenda, but not solely because it is one of the countries hit hard by the current financial crisis in the region. There is also a unique opportunity for us to really begin a new chapter in our relationship with Belarus.

We are now half-way through the six-month suspension of sanctions against Belarus that was the decided at the meeting of EU foreign ministers on 13 October 2008. As this suspension will end on 13 April 2009, now is the time to make the first assessment of whether Belarus is moving in the right direction and whether we can therefore extend the suspension and take further positive action towards Belarus.

The 13 October General Affairs and External Relations Council was very clear that the positive progress which began with the release of the remaining political prisoners in August would have to continue for the suspension to be extended. The areas in which we need to see further and sustained progress are: no further political arrests or imprisonments; cooperation with the OSCE/ODIHR on reforms to electoral legislation; progress on media freedom; better operational conditions for NGOs and no harassment of civil society; and serious progress on the freedom of assembly.

We have seen some progress in the last three months. For example, the ban on two major independent newspapers has been lifted and they have now even resumed printing and distribution. Secondly, 'For Freedom', Mr Milinkievich's organisation, has been allowed registration and, thirdly, there will be consultations between Belarus and the ODIHR on 22 January on electoral reform. This progress has been in direct response to requests made by the Commission in early November and we find it encouraging.

However, we still need more progress if we are to begin a new era in our relationship and if we are also to confirm the suspension. We need to see progress on media freedom, including internet freedom and the accreditation of foreign journalists. We also need to see easier registration procedures and working conditions for NGOs and the lifting of the restrictions on the freedom of NGO activists - like, for example, Mr Barazenka - and we need to see further evidence that peaceful demonstrations can take place freely and without participants fearing arrest.

Progress is, however, a two-way street. If Belarus can make this serious progress, then I think it is also essential that we reciprocate with a significant package of measures. The Commission has been working on proposals for such a package, which could include the following: an extension of the technical dialogues which began a year ago, on energy, transport and environment to other areas; a symbolic increase in the ENPI allocation for Belarus to back these talks; helping Belarus to adjust to the new economic challenges it is currently facing and extending eligibility for EIB and EBRD loans to Belarus; intensifying contacts: on 26 January the troika will meet with Foreign Minister Martynov on the margins of the GAERC, where I intend to say clearly to Mr Martynov what exactly the EU expects from Belarus and what we have on offer; and, naturally, intensification of civil society dialogue.

At this juncture, I believe all efforts should be pooled and meetings that MEPs could have in Minsk with Belarusian parliamentarians, for example, would also be most useful.

A further issue for reflection is the potential to open negotiations on visa facilitation and a readmission agreement. On this issue, the ball is in the Council's court, and it is clear that Belarus still has further progress to make. But we, the Commission, stand ready to kick-start work and contribute to negotiations as soon as the ministers acknowledge that sufficient progress has been made.

Finally, we stand ready to develop the full range of our ENP and Eastern Partnership offer for Belarus. This would comprise the unblocking of the PCA and a significant increase in our assistance.

After 13 April, should ministers assess that sufficient progress has been made, the decision will be made as to whether to confirm the suspension of sanctions. Should Belarus's progress be great enough to warrant this, we are indeed ready to reciprocate and I hope that we could then really open up a new chapter in relations with Belarus.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, the main occasion for today's debate is the first half of the six-month suspension of sanctions against Belarus, which happens to be this week. Our half-way review of relations between that country and the European Union has been received with positive caution by this House, with appreciation for the changes that have taken place in Belarus.

Above all we would like to express our satisfaction that the 'For Freedom' movement led by Aleksander Milinkievich has been legalised, and that the independent newspapers Narodnaya Volya and Nasha Niva have been legalised and allowed into the state distribution system. At the same time, however, we still condemn the fact political prisoners freed over the past years have not had their full rights restored, and one protesting student was unlawfully arrested during his pre-trial period.

We would like to stress that essential conditions for permanently lifting and normalising European Union-Belarus relations are changes in electoral law, repeal of the restrictive media laws and changes to the criminal code to prevent its abuse against the democratic opposition and independent journalists. In this context we would encourage the authorities in Belarus to work in close cooperation with the OSCE and the Belarus Journalists' Association. We appreciate the preliminary meetings that have been held regarding both these matters, but we urge permanent cooperation with foreign experts and representatives of civil society in Belarus.

In the resolution being debated today we also intend to urge the Belarus authorities to lift restrictions on the activities of political parties, non-governmental organisations and to legalise more independent media. This, however, will not be a one-way street. We also call upon the European Commission and the Council to be quicker in reducing the price of EU entry visas and to increase investments by the European Investment Bank in energy infrastructure, particularly transit infrastructure, in Belarus. I would like to stress that the European Parliament will again urge the Commission to secure financial support for Biełsat TV, and the authorities in Belarus to recognise the Union of Poles in Belarus headed by Angelika Borys as the only lawful representative of the country's largest ethnic minority.

You seem to be a busy man, but you managed to take the floor in the last minute.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (LT) Good fences make good neighbours. That is an old English saying. Today, thinking about neighbouring countries, it would be more appropriate to say that low fences or no fences are better.

At the juncture of the 20th and 21st centuries, with increasing tendencies towards authoritarianism, Belarus became the odd sick man of Europe. The country slid into self-isolation and isolation, as the fences surrounding it grew ever higher. Due to human rights abuses there was no place in the European Council for a state at the centre of Europe.

Last year gave us hope that relations between the European Union and Belarus can change and that the fences I mentioned can be lowered. Here mention has been made of the small steps which Minsk has taken in the right direction in terms of political prisoners, the registration of parties and the registration of newspapers. We might also mention the future opening of a European Union representation. I share the cautious optimism of both the Commission Member and the Minister and feel that the skies are clearing, but that there are still many clouds. Here our colleague Mr Protasiewicz has already mentioned both media freedom and real conditions allowing the formation of political parties, and the country is generally also on the brink of great economic and social changes. Reforms should look to the future and make the lives of ordinary people easier.

I think that the European Union should also go down the road of mutual understanding. Firstly by destroying or at least lowering the financial fences of visa requirements, which prevent people from communicating so much.

Belarus has taken the decision to build a new nuclear power plant which will probably appear quite close to Lithuania's capital Vilnius. Several such power plants are planned for the region in Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. There needs to be dialogue among all these and other states and constant consultations, so that we avoid misunderstandings, damage to the environment and disregard for the interests of other countries. Brussels should watch carefully how Minsk implements the IAEA's recommendations, conventions on nuclear security, and defend the interests of European Union countries.

I do not think that Belarus will make any real progress unless the wall between official institutions and people there is torn down. The government should be interested in talking to and negotiating with the opposition, NGOs, unions and youth organisations. In a few months the European Parliament will submit recommendations as to whether we should continue tearing down that fence, or build an even higher one. If we fail to take advantage of this chance, people on both sides will be disillusioned. The ball, as they say, is in Minsk's court.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (PL) The signals coming from Belarus are not always clear-cut. Political prisoners have been freed, two independent newspapers have been allowed into the official distribution network and the 'For Freedom' movement led by the opposition presidential candidate Alexander Milinkievich has been registered. The Commissioner has mentioned this. On the other hand, however, members of the opposition are being re-arrested, and many of the released prisoners have had their rights restricted. There are dozens of newspapers waiting for authorisation like that granted to the two mentioned above, and numerous non-governmental organisations and political parties are constantly struggling to be registered or live under the threat of having their registration withdrawn. Monks and nuns are expelled, and the death penalty still exists.

We cannot turn our backs on Belarus. I do not, however, believe that the time has come to start dialogue between this parliament and that of Belarus. What we need to do is significantly reduce and simplify the procedures for issuing visas to citizens of Belarus, although this should obviously not apply to those who have good reason to be kept out of the European Union.

We also need to provide effective support, including financial support, for institutions which are important to setting up and developing civil society, such as independent non-governmental organisations, political parties and an independent press. We also need to raise the issue of worker's rights in Belarus. Today there is no permanent employment outside government structures - everybody works on one-year contracts only. This gives the employer, and therefore the state, great clout over practically the whole of society.

The Eastern Partnership Initiative also opens new opportunities for the present authorities in Belarus. However, the country's modernisation and its alignment with European political standards must proceed in the context of dialogue between the authorities and the democratic opposition in Belarus.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam Commissioner, President, recently we have been passing resolutions on Belarus every three months. It is not inflation, but evidence of proper monitoring of what is happening in this country which neighbours Poland, and therefore the European Union.

Is the progress of democratisation in Belarus satisfactory? No. Is this cause to turn our backs on Minsk again? No. We need to keep pressing for democratic freedoms and standards, freedom of expression, democratic values, while at the same time patiently giving Belarus the green light as a country and a society we would like to see draw closer and closer to the European Union. Belarusians are Europeans, and Belarus is an integral part of the old continent, the culture of Belarus is part of European culture.

Today the noblest Belarusians are fighting for human rights, for democracy, for religious freedom. But let us not push the less noble into the hands of Moscow. That would be unimaginative and stupid, it would be irresponsible, it would be worse than a crime - it would be a delusion. We have to do two things at the same time - to keep an eye on Lukashenko so that he does not persecute Catholic priests from Poland, for example, shut down newspapers or persecute members of the opposition, while at the same time supporting the Belarusian state as a state, to prevent it from being increasingly drawn into the Russian sphere of political, economic and military influence.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) I welcome the Czech presidency headed by vice-premier Alexander Vondra. By registering the democratic opposition Movement for Freedom, led by Alexander Milinkevich, and releasing political prisoners, the Belarusian Government has sent out signals that it is becoming more open. Now comes the test of whether a genuine will to change and to resume relations with the EU lies behind the readiness to engage in dialogue.

We want to see Belarus find its place in Europe; we have been waiting a long time for this and are prepared to resume relations, but only on clear conditions, chief among which is respect for human rights. This goes not only for freedom of the press and of expression, but also for the entire political, social and private life of every individual. The electoral fraud and the attacks on the opposition have not been forgotten, and we are following developments very closely.

In October, we decided to suspend the entry ban for President Lukashenko. For its part, Belarus needs to permit entry to European delegations, too, to enable debates with opposition members.

Experience has taught us that all dictatorships come to an end!

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, Belarus is the last European country with which the European Union does not have an agreement on mutual relations. This anomaly could soon end, as indicated by the proposed strategy of the Council and the Commission on Belarus. Moreover, the several months' trial period is drawing to a close. The Belarusian leadership may enable changes leading to greater democracy and freedom, and the European Union will offer cooperation and the normalisation of relations. This should be the aim. However, the art of diplomacy is to see things in a broader context and to package one's requirements accordingly. Almost every change in recent years has taken place in a global context. Today we are experiencing a fundamental change in the situation. The two decades of the experiment of US domination are coming to an end, to be replaced with a multipolar concept that may also lead to conflict. What we can see going on around us are the events accompany a shift in the distribution of power. New and resurgent centres are defining themselves in relation to their competitors and shaping their spheres of influence. Belarus, together with Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucasus, form a zone which is the subject of a hard fight between Russia on the one hand, and the United States and the European Union on the other. It would be absurd to deny this, even if the war is being waged under a banner of fine slogans such as freedom, democracy and human rights. The true values at stake are energy, money and military strategy. If the main global players, including the European Union, are willing to respect the newly emerging geopolitical...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, Belarus was going to be immune to the worldwide financial crisis. This overconfident prognosis is now costing Mr Lukashenko dearly at the beginning of 2009. His government is in critical financial trouble. Minsk has been knocking on the door of the IMF, Moscow and even Washington for billions in credit. The IMF's condition was the devaluation of the Belarusian rouble by no less than 20.5% on 2 January. Today, the Belarusian citizens are visibly filled with fear, and understandably so, if one realises that the average monthly salary has suddenly dropped from USD 400 to USD 333, the dollar being, alongside the euro, a much-desired currency in Minsk and far beyond today.

Might this decline in the Belarusian economic position put paid to the chance of a new domestic and foreign orientation of the Lukashenko Government? This is certainly not an imaginary risk, because, quite apart from the current financial problems, a cosmetic change of course on the part of Mr Lukashenko in the direction of the West is just as plausible. In that case, the powerful president would simply replace his strategy of simulated integration with Russia with simulated rapprochement to the European Union. The forthcoming gas negotiations with Russia could well give such simulation an extra boost.

The European Union should use a balanced strategy to resist an undesired political scenario of this kind in Minsk. To this end, all European institutions need to contact all Belarusian institutions, including the state authorities, the opposition forces, civil society, and even the non-working population. This is an inspiring European goal which hopes to develop, and build bridges in, contacts with all sections of Belarusian society.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that there are no longer any reasons for maintaining any kind of sanctions against Belarus. There we see a country which is undoubtedly undergoing a crisis, like all the countries of Europe, and in any case it is a country which permits the right to property, a country which until a few months ago was experiencing a growth rate of 8% and which did not prevent foreigners, including Europeans, from buying land or houses, even if this was through Belarusian companies.

Further, with regard to religious freedom, a little while ago Cardinal Bertone went to Belarus and relations of mutual respect were certainly forged between the state of Belarus and the Vatican. Political liberties, above all, are important, and there has been talk of some prisoners, but in fact this relates to three political prisoners who have been released.

We are also talking about political elections, and certainly there is not the comprehensive freedom that we experience in western elections, but it is certainly true that television time and, in some cases, even contributions have been granted by the state to all the candidates. We also know that in the next few weeks some newspapers - independent newspapers - will have the opportunity to start up and be distributed.

I think that it is strategically in Europe's interests to open up to Belarus, precisely because Belarus is a very important element between Europe and Russia. Let us remember that there is a strong Catholic minority, which brings it closer to neighbouring Poland and the rest of Europe and makes the country a strategic ally with regard to the rest of eastern Europe. It is strange that today there is talk of Turkey's entry into Europe, when Belarus has a much stronger and more significant partnership role with Europe.

(HU) Mr President, it is difficult to move forward from the stalemate in relations between the European Union and Belarus. The growing external pressures in recent times, the weakening friendship between Russia and Belarus, the fear engendered by the Russia-Georgia conflict and, not least of all, the world economic crisis are contributing in part to this situation.

The country led by Lukashenko is for the first time asking Europe for something: The release of political prisoners, the registration of a movement and the start of a dialogue with independent journalists indicates that Lukashenko is in his own way trying to open the doors to Europe. Beyond these superficial steps, Minsk needs to offer still more in the way of a true rapprochement.

It is appropriate that the EU should make use of the current, albeit meagre, opportunities. The European Union could be able for the first time to influence the political situation in Belarus and therefore the policy Brussels adopts is far from indifferent. We need to maintain the critical approach and system of conditions now in place. We need to pay close attention, because it is hard to imagine that Lukashenko and his administration could change radically.

The concrete steps taken and planned by the EU are important. Our task is to support and help unite the NGOs and the opposition fighting for change. We need to demand reforms in the area of legislation as well, and here I am thinking of the criminal code and of press and electoral legislation. In the interests of the quality of the European Union's Belarus policy and in order to safeguard the process of democratisation, the European Parliament must continue the monitoring by the Council and the Commission.

The countries of the region, including Ukraine, have also demonstrated that without clear criteria and their fulfilment no democratic development is possible, for anything else would be simply creating the illusion of democracy. The proposed EU strategy is critical and constructive, and I therefore give it my unreserved support.

(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like above all to positively underline the fact that minister Alexandr Vondra is attending this evening's debate in this House. I believe it shows the importance that the Czech Presidency attaches to European Union foreign policy.

Today we are analysing European Union strategy towards Belarus and the strategy of openness pursued over the past few months. I believe that the results of this strategy are positive, as the draft report of the European Parliament demonstrates.

As a result, a Permanent Representation of the European Commission has been set up in Minsk. We are receiving positive signals regarding increasing freedom in Belarus, such as the registration of Alexander Milinkievich's 'For Freedom' movement and the publication and registration of the two independent newspapers Narodnaya Volya and Nasha Niva. And there is the declaration by Belarusian Minister for Foreign Affairs Syarhei Martynau's declaration of the country's positive view towards the EU's Eastern Partnership initiative. I would also like to point out that the government of Belarus did not recognise the self-professed declarations of statehood by the governments of Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia. These are positive signals which without doubt are also the result of the European Union's attitude to Belarus.

That is clearly what our draft resolution is all about: we are still dealing with restrictions on human rights and personal freedoms in Belarus. It is not a liberal democracy in the European meaning of the word. I agree fully with the scenario presented today by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner that a permanent lifting of sanctions could be possible if Belarus broadens the range of freedom, of citizens' rights, and liberalises its economy. The European Union's increased presence in Belarus, in my view, guarantees greater liberalisation and democratisation there.

I would just like to point out to the honourable Member that a representative of the Council is always present at these debates, so this is not a special event, although we obviously appreciate the presence of Deputy Prime Minister Vondry.

(PL) Mr President, EU-Belarus relations depend on both sides. Good on both sides will bring dialogue, a real neighbourhood policy and an Eastern Partnership. Partnership cannot be built on prohibitions and sanctions, which is why I am pleased to note the European Commission's latest initiative aimed at improving relations with Belarus. It must be said objectively that Belarus has also done a great deal towards rapprochement. Evidence of this is the registration of the 'For Freedom' movement, allowing opposition papers to be printed and distributed, and the country's openness to the Eastern Partnership Initiative.

The European Union's expectations go further, and there are clearly grounds for this, just as there are grounds for Belarus' many expectations. For example, if the authorities in Belarus are being asked to end the practice of requiring exit visas for its citizens, in particular children and students, why does the European Union not simplify and liberalise visa procedures in relation to the citizens of Belarus? These issues are particularly important to the residents of border regions, who have cultural and family ties (...)

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(NL) Mr President, this evening, we are debating the EU's policy in respect of Belarus, a policy in which democracy and respect for human rights take centre stage.

I should like to focus on one specific area, namely the travel ban for children, without, of course, prejudicing any of the other relevant aspects that have already been mentioned this evening. You are probably aware that children, victims of the Chernobyl disaster, have been paying regular visits to the Netherlands and other EU countries for years, in order to recover from the effects of this disaster. The children involved are, of course, children who were born long after that disaster struck - they are now about the same age as I was when that disaster struck 22 years ago - but they are still experiencing the effects on a daily basis, as is evident from the statistics for thyroid gland complaints, cancer, and suchlike. Every year, some 30 000 Belarusian children are welcomed in 21 countries by host families, voluntary organisations and churches.

In October 2008, it was reported that Belarus, via a decree, would stop these children's trips and would prohibit these children to travel abroad, which would put a stop to the Christmas holidays, therefore. Partly under pressure from the European Union, the Council of Europe and a number of Foreign Affairs Ministers, including our Dutch Minister Verhagen, this decree was temporarily suspended between 20 December and 20 January, enabling a number of children to come over on holiday after all, but no provisions have been made for the time after 20 January. It is, therefore, high time we changed this temporary suspension into a structural, EU-wide solution so that Belarusian children and the European host families are no longer kept in the dark as to whether their trips can go ahead or not. Ideally, we would like to legislate on behalf of all Member States in one fell swoop rather than, as is currently the case, via bilateral negotiations, 27 times over.

In our resolution, we would therefore urge the Czech Presidency to negotiate with the Belarusian authorities about an EU-wide solution.

(ET) Ladies and gentlemen, Belarus's road to Europe must be one of dialogue and compromises.

The Belarus resolution passed last year emphasised the need for a firm and conditional, yet positive policy. The advances that have been made in the areas of energy, the environment and transport are the result of that work.

There are, however, problems to which we must not turn a blind eye. Democracy is vital. As members of the European Parliament, we must not tolerate the persecution of Belarusian opposition leaders, the limitation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech and the violation of citizens' fundamental rights. No democratic country can function without a strong civil society.

Thus we must offer comprehensive support to organisations that aim to defend human rights, promote democracy and mobilise the country's citizenry.

I commend the Belarusian authorities' decision to register Mr Milinkevich's citizens' association For Freedom. This is, however, only the beginning, as Naša Vjasna, which has a human rights agenda, and several other organisations devoted to the development of democracy also await registration.

Lastly I would like to mention visa arrangements. A visa facilitation agreement must be concluded between the European Union and Belarus. The road to Europe must be open. An expensive visa and strict regulations do not punish the regime, but the population. I have said this repeatedly, and will say it again today. Let us reach out a European hand to welcome the Belarusian people.

(PL) Mr President, the European Parliament has repeatedly addressed the issue of Belarus, the last dictatorship on the European continent. Problems are still caused for Catholic priests wishing to conduct services, and the rights of ethnic minorities are not respected. In particular, the democratically elected leadership of the Union of Poles in Belarus, headed by Angelika Borys, is not recognised. Arrests and searches of the offices of opposition activists and human rights activists continue. Independent journalists are still being persecuted.

Change is on its way, however, albeit very slowly. The 'For Freedom' movement has been registered, and two opposition newspapers have been allowed to be printed and distributed. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus responded positively to the Eastern Partnership Initiative and expressed interest in becoming involved in it. This gives us cautious hope of an improvement of the climate in mutual relations, and the fulfilment of the Commissioner's proposal.

Mr President, given that external relations is one of the key priorities of the Czech presidency, I would ask the presidency of the Council to outline what moves it would consider taking to encourage the Belarusian Government to lift its international travel ban on children travelling to EU Member States for rest and recuperation programmes. I urge the new Czech presidency to negotiate a pan-European agreement allowing Belarusian children affected by the Chernobyl disaster to travel to any Member State within the EU.

I have, with my colleagues, added paragraph 10 to the present European Parliament resolution to this effect. In August of last year, the Belarusian Government announced it was outlawing overseas visits after one child refused to return home following a trip abroad.

The Irish Government managed to secure an exemption which allowed children to travel to Ireland this Christmas, but many other children still have to secure exit visas to leave Belarus in order to participate in rest and recuperation programmes. Some 1 000 Irish families host Belarusian children in their homes every summer and at Christmas, which often includes medical assessment and in some cases treatment.

While I welcome the Belarusian authorities' decision to temporarily lift the travel ban on a number of victims of the Chernobyl disaster, I would urge the presidency to keep the pressure on so that an EU-wide agreement can be secured in the near future, giving Belarusian children the freedom to travel to anywhere within the EU.

I have also raised the international travel ban with you, Commissioner, and in your response to my letter you said that representations had been made both through the European Commission delegation in Minsk and also most recently during the visit to Minsk in early November by the RELEX deputy director-general. I would like to ask you if you have an update on EU advocacy efforts to have this oppressive ban lifted.

(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the gradual revival of relations with Belarus and our readiness for dialogue with its government are a step in the right direction. I am also positive about the Czech Presidency's announcement today of a meeting of the Council with a representative of Belarus at a diplomatic summit this month.

I am also pleased to see the attempts to include Belarus in the Eastern Partnership Initiative. Decisions taken at EU level should be felt primarily by the citizens of Belarus, even if it is at the level of visa policy. Given the present gas crisis in Europe, it must be underlined that Belarus has proved a particularly stable partner as regards the transit of gas supplies to the European Union. Constructive dialogue and improved bilateral relations, which should be clearly based on the principles of democracy and respect for the rights of people, are in the interest of both sides.

- (SK) Even though positive progress has been made in Belarus, we must maintain very close communications with representatives of the Belarusian opposition and with our friend Alexander Milinkievich.

Europe should support economic reform in Belarus. However, this support must be made conditional on specific terms and requirements. These should include a requirement for greater media freedom. The media must be free to operate within the law and publish their material in the country. Greater freedom for the running of political parties and non-governmental organisations is vital for democracy.

Our debate today also shows that we all want a democratic Belarus to return to Europe, but without Lukashenko. The EU has a great opportunity, if it becomes involved in the promotion of democratic values, to win Belarus over and to free it from the Russian embrace.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after years of complicated relations we are seeing some timid steps in the right direction, with the recognition of the movement led by Mr Milinkiewicz, the authorisation of various newspapers that are not pro-government, and the first signs of willingness to discuss the recommendations made by the OSCE/ODIHR. The road still to be travelled is, however, not just long, but extremely long.

The hope is that a new passage can be initiated in relations between the EU and Belarus; the tale of MEPs from our delegation having visas refused is quite embarrassing, and we hope that this is now just a bad memory. Like Mr Burke, I call for a commitment on one point from the Commission and the Council at the next joint meetings: a clear, joint definition of the rules relating to stays for health purposes by Belarusian children with European families. In recent years, Belarus has often, too often, dealt with this issue in a superficial or inflexible manner, literally giving a slap in the face to the host families and, unfortunately, also to the children and young people involved in the aid and solidarity projects.

(RO) I welcome the declaration from the Council and the Commission and agree that Lukashenko's authoritarian regime must be monitored closely. At the same time, I feel that we need a long-term vision which envisages a future Belarus, post-Lukashenko, which is democratic and prosperous.

The European Union must apply an intelligent strategy with regard to the Belarusian people and society and not only with regard to the temporary government in Minsk. History has proven that isolation and external sanctions help maintain dictatorships. We should do the opposite: offer Belarusians the widest possible opportunity to study in the European Union, to travel and work here for short periods and to come into contact with European values and our economic and cultural achievements. This is the only way in which we will whet the appetite of these people for our values and facilitate the transition process which the country will go through.

I would like to conclude by saying to Mr Fiore that the appearance of the candidates on television during the electoral campaign is of no significance because, as Stalin said, the only thing that matters is the person counting the votes.

(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, all of us at this plenary session would like Belarus to observe the principles of democracy, human rights and freedom of association, as well as freedom of expression, and to stop the violent persecution of its own citizens and ethnic minorities. Unfortunately our list of demands is quite long, and it seems unlikely that they will be completely fulfilled in the near future. However, we cannot stop fighting for the values on which the European Union is founded.

The policy of sanctions against Belarus started out as a fiasco. Let us hope that a change in the EU's political strategy towards Minsk will bring success. However, this will not be easy due to the fact that the parliamentary elections in Autumn 2008 were falsified by Lukashenko.

The main way to democratising Belarus society is by education, free media and contacts between citizens of the EU and Belarus. We should set up a special programme of grants for young people from Belarus to study in the European Union, which will reap great benefits in the future.

(RO) We have before us three motions for a resolution, from 21 May, 9 October and 7 January. Progress can be seen in terms of the declarations made by the European Union's members.

However, I certainly consider and support any declaration capable of introducing more democracy in any country, all the more so if we are talking about a neighbouring state like Belarus. I think that two very important things are needed, as my fellow Members have also mentioned before me, or we could do this simply to support mutual trust and transparency. Firstly, we need to demonstrate maturity and make it easier for citizens from the state of Belarus to have access and come to the European Union to have contact with the European Union's values, with what the European Union stands for, with the European Union's politics, with everything that we represent. Secondly, Belarus must become as soon as possible a state which does not have political detainees. This is definitely a very simple gesture which President Lukashenko could make.

It is time to make a summary of the discussion. I call on Deputy Prime Minister Vondra to sum up.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I will try to summarise this on behalf of the Council.

Firstly, I think we have had a really interesting debate on the substance, certainly bringing a lot of input into our common work. I would like to stress that we in the Council appreciate the interest and active engagement of the European Parliament on Belarus. I think it is particularly helpful in keeping up the pressure on human rights issues, on the one hand, and in not losing this kind of strategic approach on the other. I would particularly like to thank the Polish Members of the European Parliament - be it Jacek Protasiewicz, Janusz Onyszkiewicz or Józef Pinior - for their contributions. I think we are listening carefully.

I will now make perhaps three points in conclusion. Firstly, on visa fees, which many of you have mentioned. This is a problem of which we are particularly aware. Even when talking in our national capacities over the past year, we always had much to say about this. Let me be clear here. We see Belarus as being part of Europe and we are aware of the problems caused to the citizens of Belarus by the increase in visa fees. To avoid negative consequences in terms of people-to-people contact, the Czech presidency will continue to encourage Member States to use the flexibility available in terms of the relevant provisions of the acquis. The presidency will also encourage a more coherent application of the existing rules by the Member States. If the current positive dynamics are maintained and strengthened with further substantive steps by Belarus regarding the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, allowing for the country's participation in the ENP and the future Eastern Partnership, a visa dialogue should eventually be envisaged.

On the Chernobyl children, a matter raised by some of you, I assure you that we will keep up the pressure. We supported the moves made by the French presidency on this issue, including the démarche carried out on 3 December last year. EU efforts have finally resulted in the temporary suspension of the Presidential Decree No 555 banning these trips. This, as well as the bilateral agreements which were reached in early December between Ireland and Belarus, on future rest and recuperation for children affected by the Chernobyl disaster, were a welcome development. We are aware that the general problem is far from being resolved. The Czech presidency will follow the matter and will take any further necessary steps on behalf of the EU, if appropriate, and will continue to raise this issue in our contacts with the authorities in Minsk.

Finally, in the coming months with the sanctions review and in the context of the future Eastern Partnership, Belarus will remain high on our agenda. Just as your resolution adopted on Belarus after the 28 September elections helped us to move forward, we hope that we can continue to receive your support during our term.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have seen that a very broad majority has the same opinion that we have. That means that we have offered the possibility for Belarus to come closer to the European Union through the European Neighbourhood Policy. We have offered, in principle, a shadow action plan and also a possibility to join the Eastern Partnership at the right moment when, of course, the conditions will be right.

Having said this, let me just answer a few of those specific points that you have made. One on the financial crisis: Belarus has sustained the effects of the financial crisis and the rising gas prices in 2007 and 2008 reasonably well so far, due to its very limited integration in the global economy and also the substantial loans from Russia, China and Venezuela. Now however, as I think Mr Belder rightly said, it has had to ask the IMF for a standby loan of EUR 2.5 billion, including then devaluating its currency in order to counter the negative effects of the global crisis. Since its economy and industry remain largely unreformed and unstructured, we expect the negative tendency to continue with negative social consequences as a result. So you are right - this is an important factor.

On the nuclear power plant and the questions about security and safety, let me tell you that, in our technical dialogue on energy with Belarus, we pay special attention also to ensuring that this country respects international safety and security standards. We could say that Belarus cooperates very actively with the IAEA in Vienna and has been remarkably open to providing the Commission with information on this process.

Having said this, I just would like also to come back to the question of the visa fees. As I said in my first remark, you know that we would be ready to contribute to the negotiation as soon as the Council has also expressed the position to try to manage that, bringing all the Member States to the possibility of having a whole visa agreement as well as a re-admission agreement. Following the visit of my deputy director-general, Mr Mingarelli, to Minsk I can tell you that for the moment there is nothing new on this particular item. I just can say that visa fees and visas for children are specific to each and every country. We are not yet at the point of having one general agreement. That, again, would have to be negotiated by the Commission.

(PL) I have received five motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday 15 January 2009.

Written declarations (Rule 142)

in writing. - (PL) Mr President, we have been talking lately of a political thaw in Belarus. Alexander Milinkievich's opposition movement 'For Freedom' has finally been registered. Belarus has expressed willingness to participate in the Eastern Partnership. Even Washington has said that relations between the two countries have improved. Has the time come to warm relations and break the ice with Belarus? I wish we could, but we must remember that President Lukashenko is a sharp, hard-boiled political player.

We have already dealt with a 'political thaw' quite recently in Europe, and all I would like to point out is that these transformations have always resulted in disappointment.

What will be crucially important is how we play EU policy in the east in the coming months. Lukashenko has clearly stated that he will not bow to pressure from the West, and in negotiations with Medvedev on reducing gas prices, he declared that Belarus will not be indebted to Russia.

It is obvious that Belarus is playing on two fronts. We have to keep up cautious and considered negotiations so that we are not fooled by changes that may turn out to be temporary. We need to be firm on matters of strategic importance to the EU by conducting a targeted policy of support for the development of a civil society and an opposition in Belarus, where opposition activists are still being prosecuted and foreign clerics expelled. The EU cannot ignore the fact that the authorities in Belarus are continuing to violate citizens' and human rights.

Commemorating 11 July as a day of remembrance for the victims of the massacre in Srebrenica (debate) 

The next item is the declaration of the Council and the Commission on commemorating 11 July as a day of remembrance for the victims of the massacre in Srebrenica.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, Srebrenica, as we all know, was a horrible crime. The massacre of more than 8 000 Bosniaks in and around Srebrenica marks one of the darkest historical moments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the former Yugoslavia and also of Europe as a whole. It is without a doubt the worst atrocity in Europe since the Second World War.

Looking back, much more could have been done, and earlier. Srebrenica was a collective failure of the international community, the EU included. That is a great shame and we deeply regret this fact. It is our moral, human and political obligation that a Srebrenica never happens again.

Marking the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, the Council expressed its renewed condemnation of the crimes committed and extended it s compassion for the victims and their families.

The Council, recalling the UN Security Council resolutions 1503 and 1534, underlined that full and unrestricted cooperation with the ICTY remain an essential requirement for continuing progress towards the EU. The transfer to The Hague of the remaining fugitive indictees who continue to elude international justice would be a fitting tribute to the victims of Srebrenica as well as a major stride towards permanent peace, stability and reconciliation. Therefore, the Council remains determined that the perpetrators of crimes in Srebrenica and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in general, as well as elsewhere in the region of the Western Balkans, must be brought to justice.

At the same time, throughout history European integration has proved helpful to heal wounds and injustice of the past, so we need to concentrate on the future as well. The EU as the integrating factor brought peace, stability, trust and prosperity to Europe in the second half of the last century. Helping the Western Balkans on the path towards the EU therefore belongs to the priorities of the Czech presidency in the domain of external relations. Reconciliation is vital for integration and reconciliation is difficult if justice is not served fully.

After 13 years it is time to bring the shameful Srebrenica episode to a closure. Karadžić's arrest has proved that there is no impunity for such monstrous crimes as those against humanity. Still, Ratko Mladić needs to be brought to The Hague so that the families of the Srebrenica victims can be helped to deal with the past and embrace their future.

The EU will keep doing everything in its power to make this happen. But also a lot more needs to be done so that Srebrenica turns from a sad historical memory to a place where life does offer prospects. The international community's engagement does not take place in a vacuum: it is actively combined with the local actions on the state level, as well as by both entities. A lot of good endeavours have been carried out.

Srebrenica's future can be best secured through economic development and job creation to improve economic and social conditions of the population of the Srebrinica region. The Republika Srpska authorities, as well as the Bosnia and Herzegovina Council of Ministers and the Federation, provided funding and investment for the Srebrenica region. The allocated assets were aimed for Srebrenica recovery including construction, reconstruction, infrastructure development, business promotion, improvement of public services, projects with sustainable return and education.

All those local efforts were underpinned also with the donor conference for Srebrenica organised just over a year ago, in November 2007. This might be a good occasion for an appeal to provide more new investment for this city and its region.

It is of the utmost importance that Srebrenica is never forgotten and that a joint effort continues. We all in the EU, the international community and the local authorities pursue working constructively together to improve living conditions in the Srebrenica area. Only the prospect of a better life can help to reduce the political tension, creating a space for dialogue and consequently allowing the still grieving victims' relatives to move on. That would be the best possible tribute to the victims of Srebrenica.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, in July 1995, close to 8 000 men and boys were murdered and disappeared in Srebrenica. The highest courts of international law have called this massacre by its proper name: genocide. While continuing our pursuit of justice against the perpetrators, I think it is right that we should remember the victims and express our compassion for their families. I therefore join you today in supporting this initiative to recognise 11 July as the day of the commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide.

Srebrenica stands as a symbol of horror and inconsolable grief. Remembrance is as painful as it is necessary. It is necessary because we cannot, and we must not, forget. It is necessary to counter the selective remembrance of those who remain in denial, until this day, about what really took place. Recognition of what happened in July 1995 is fundamental to reconciliation within Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the regional process. Proclaiming 11 July as the European commemorative day for the victims of Srebrenica should therefore be a further step towards reconciliation within Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region. I think it would be an opportunity to send a message, not just of respect and memory, but also of hope for the future - a future within the European Union, built on reconciliation, allowing wounds to heal over time.

But recognition alone is not sufficient. Justice is equally essential. I think it is important that all perpetrators of those atrocities be brought to justice, be prosecuted and pay for the crimes that they have committed. It is therefore unacceptable after so many years that General Ratko Mladić remains at large. The Commission fully supports the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, the ICTY. We welcome Bosnia and Herzegovina's cooperation with the ICTY and its handling of cases transferred by the Tribunal to local jurisdiction. We, as the Commission, use every opportunity to encourage the authorities to continue their efforts and ensure that all crimes are duly prosecuted.

In addition to the justice of the courts, we can offer a second form of justice for the victims, and that is a better future for their loved ones who survived. This is at the heart of our EU's efforts in the Western Balkans. We want the countries of the region to move towards a common European future. We want to see a prosperous Bosnia and Herzegovina within a stable, regional context where borders matter less and trust among neighbours is restored. We know this will be a long journey but, if the history of the European Union and its enlargement tells us anything, then it is that this journey is worthwhile for all concerned.

We cannot travel the road to the European Union for Bosnia and Herzegovina. It will itself have to meet the conditions and overcome its internal challenges by its own means, but we can help. We will help and we want this country to succeed as the triumph of the survivors over those who had other designs.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner. War, concentration camps, genocide - never again! After the horrors of the Second World War, no one in Europe could imagine that this could ever happen again.

Yet it could: in the mid-1990s, six years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, whilst Western and Central Europe were growing together in peace, it happened again in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The mistakes of the international community - many years of looking the other way, of almost carefree dealings with the thugs there, of friendly handshakes with criminals such as Ratko Mladić - have strengthened acceptance of him and his accomplices: they got off scot-free when they followed the years of ethnic expulsions, of ethnic cleansing, with a massacre.

To this day, Ratko Mladić has not had to answer to the courts. Who is hiding him? Who is helping him and thus placing themselves and him under an even greater burden of guilt? Many of the other perpetrators are also still at large, and some are even still living in Bosnia-Herzegovina among the bereaved families of the victims. Therefore, we must insist that not only the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, but also the local war-crimes tribunals in Bosnia-Herzegovina, be able to do their jobs properly.

The commemorative day we have proclaimed is intended as a shake-up, as a signal not to forget, and as a demonstration to the bereaved families that we mourn with them. Indeed, perhaps this day can serve to arouse awareness of these terrible crimes even in those who still do not believe that it happened, as even video recordings prove, and then the foundations for the necessary reconciliation can be laid. Without recognition of the direct and indirect responsibility for this massacre, there can be no peace. We owe this at least, and the conviction of the perpetrators, to the victims and their families.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, each year in the United Kingdom when it comes to the commemoration of the wars of the 20th century, we use the words 'at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them'. These are very moving words for me and my generation, my parents who both served in the Second World War. And even for those generations that follow us, this commemoration is not simply a fitting tribute for all those who served. It is a reminder of the evils and of the human cost of war, a warning to those generations and a safeguard for peace and against conflict for future years.

That is the importance of commemoration and, as the Commissioner has said this evening, recognition is absolutely crucial for reconciliation for today's generations.

We are all aware of the carnage that occurred in Srebrenica in 1995. Eight thousand Muslim men and boys were killed while seeking refuge in a safe area declared by the United Nations Security Council in Srebrenica.

Although it happened almost 14 years ago, it is only right and correct that we should commemorate the victims and be reminded of the events and the racial hatred which led to this terrible event.

Just last month, a group boasting over a thousand members was created on the networking site Facebook which openly glorified the genocide in Srebrenica. The group which had a name which translates as 'Knife, Wire, Srebrenica' promoted the killing of the men and boys of Srebrenica purely on the basis that they were Bosnian Muslims. It also spoke about their respect for the acts of Ratko Mladić, yet another bit of proof if it was needed that the ongoing freedom of Mladić proves only to fuel hatred and give ammunition to those who seek to foster the tensions of the past.

Thanks to a public outcry, the Facebook site was quickly taken down but not before over a thousand members in a single month between December 2008 and January 2009 had signed up.

Commemorating the victims of Srebrenica sends a clear message to those individuals who glorify the acts of Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić that we will not allow this to happen again, and that they are alone and isolated in their views.

A Bosnian court heard last month from psychologists about how survivors of the Srebrenica massacre are intensely traumatised. The court heard that the problems for many survivors is that they can never have a chance to say goodbye to their relatives.

Whilst we cannot turn the clock back to allow these relatives a second chance, we can make sure that this genocide is not forgotten and that those responsible are brought to justice.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SL) Our European Union was born out of the experience of the Second World War. We have a common, documented, historical memory which has made it possible for us to build our common European future together. Srebrenica is horrific testimony to the fact that in 1995 the horrors of the Second World War repeated themselves in Europe in the most appalling way.

Srebrenica is a symbol of ethnic cleansing. Srebrenica is synonymous with the ruthless and inhumane killing of children and adults - it is synonymous with genocide. However, Srebrenica also stands for the concealment of killings and the destruction of mass graves. We have to build Srebrenica into our common historical memory and into the foundations of the European Union's enlargement into the Western Balkans. We must not tolerate discriminatory and exclusionist stereotypes about individual nations, we must battle with collective guilt. Those responsible for the genocide in Srebrenica must be brought before the Hague Tribunal, they must stand trial and be sent to prison, and we must work together to build and make possible a European future for Srebrenica, for the local population and for the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The very least we should do is try to empathise with the traumas and torment of those who have to live with a raw memory of a crime, who have to live without their loved ones. I would like to thank the Conference of Presidents for unanimously supporting the proposal that we invite young Bosniaks and Serbs from Srebrenica to the European Parliament together every year, so that, in a setting away from Srebrenica, without the pressures and stresses of their home surroundings, they can think, plan and build a common and more beautiful future for Srebrenica and for the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This resolution ...

(The President cut off the speaker.)

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, the resolution speaks of the UN, and also of the European institutions, in very clear, critical terms. The shortcomings in the decision-making mechanisms in the field of foreign and security policy were not conducive to preventing the terrible crimes in Srebrenica. The lack of a single voice remains a shortcoming in the European Neighbourhood Policy to this day, as today's discussion on the Gaza conflict has shown once more.

The massacre in Srebrenica must never be forgotten, which is why we welcome and support the initiative to proclaim 11 July the commemorative day for the victims of this genocide. At the same time, however, there must be reconciliation on both sides, which can be done only by consistently reappraising the events. It is totally unacceptable, therefore, that the guilty parties and those accused of this crime are still at large. I believe that not only Mladić but also the other guilty parties must stand trial.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, the town of Srebrenica is notorious the world over on account of the massacre of 8 000 Muslim men in 1995. The surviving women and children are right to keep reminding us of this. Following my visit to Srebrenica in March 2007, I asked the European Commission to contribute to sustainable income and employment through projects promoting tourism, as a result of which Srebrenica would have more to offer than its history and the major memorial site. Srebrenica is also a symbol for the failure of optimistic notions about humanitarian interventions and safe havens.

It should have been made clear from the start that a foreign military presence could only offer false illusions. It turned Srebrenica into an operating base against the Serbian environment, whilst it was inevitable that it would eventually be swallowed up by that self-same environment. Without a Dutch army in Srebrenica, there would not have been a situation of war and there would have been no need for revenge on the part of the Serbs. The victims are a reason not only to bring Messrs Mladic and Karadzic to justice, but also to think critically about the failure of military interventions and of all attempts to bring about state unity in an ethnically divided Bosnia.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, 'A voice from Srebrenica, big tears rolled over his cheeks. He hugged me, kissed me and said: "Please, mama, go!” They seized him; I refused to go, knelt down and pleaded with them: ”Please kill me instead! You have taken my only child. I do not want to go anywhere. Kill me, and that will be the end for us.”'

This is the moving account of a Bosnian lady who lost both her husband and her 12-year-old son during the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995. Her voice and those of her fellow-sufferers are haunting us today, partly because of the invaluable research of conscientious scientists, including the Amsterdam professor Selma Leydesdorff.

Certainly now that the European Union has offered the Western Balkans the prospect of joining the Union, the horrors of Srebrenica remain a symbol and a duty, first of all in both word and deed. In other words, actual consideration for those who are left behind. Srebrenica, July 1995. I was a foreign correspondent for a Dutch paper at the time, and closely watched the Bosnian scene of battle. I cannot begin to tell you how ashamed and disheartened I felt about the international concept of a safe haven, certainly as a Dutch citizen.

'Kom vanavond met verhalen, hoe de oorlog is verdwenen, en herhaal ze honderd malen, alle malen zal ik wenen.' [Come this evening with stories, how the war has disappeared, and repeat them a hundred times, I will cry each time.] From now on, the words of this famous poet from my country's culture of remembrance, the Second World War, will also accompany 11 July, when we commemorate the beloved victims of Srebrenica and Potocari.

(BG) Thank you, Mr President. This evening we have gathered to recall a terrible crime, appropriately called genocide, which actually represents a huge human tragedy in our most recent history. But when I read the declaration which is being tabled, along with the resolution and draft resolution, I see that it reflects only half of the tragedy and half of the genocide.

It mentions the names of those who have become world famous: Ratko Mladić, Radovan Karadžić, Krstić and others. But I do not see in it the names of the Muslims who also committed crimes in Srebrenica and during this horrendous conflict. Where is the name of Naser Orić, who commanded the 28th Muslim division? Why is there no mention in this resolution of the massacre in the village of Kravica, a Christian village, on Christmas Day 1993? Why are there no descriptions of the cases of dozens of Christian villages which were burned down in the Srebrenica region by Muslim fighters? We must all stop defending a unilateral position and applying double standards when assessing such horrifying events. Anyone who claims that only Christians killed Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that the opposite did not happen is a hypocrite. Has anyone taken the trouble to verify this? It was said that Srebrenica is overrun with mass graves, which is true. But has anyone taken the trouble to check how many of these are Christian mass graves?

Let us not forget that things happened on both sides there and we must not pretend that the Christians do not exist or do not have human rights, as if they are some kind of animals.

(SV) Mr President, what is there time to say in two minutes when we are to talk about and describe what happened in Srebrenica, when we need to learn how to remember this, so that it never happens again? What have we yet to see and what is there still to say about Srebrenica? What can I, as the only Member of this Parliament who was born in Bosnia and who is a refugee from the war there, convey today from this rostrum, that I, as a Swedish Member, would not be able to convey if I had not had this experience of the war? Mine, Mr Stoyanov, is a real story from that time.

Perhaps the main thing that I can convey is the feeling of hope when I still believed that if only someone out there in Europe would see what was happening, the world would react, or the hopelessness when I realised that I had been left to my own misfortune and that no help was going to come. I remember blood stains on the asphalt, the cries of hungry children, the empty expression of a ten-year old girl when she told of how she and her brothers and sisters first had to bury their dead parents and then move their bodies to another grave when the soldiers tried to eliminate the evidence of mass murder in a village near my town. I remember my father's face when we found out that my uncle and cousin were in a concentration camp. I remember my own desperation when, one morning, I did not even have a single decilitre of milk to give to my one-year old son.

What I remember most clearly and will never forget, however, is the indescribable feeling of loneliness when you finally realise that your own misfortune, desperation and agony has been played out on an open stage, that the world had seen how we were suffering, but that no one had prevented it. It is this feeling that I share with people from Srebrenica, Mr Stoyanov. It is this feeling that I convey, along with all of the other victims of the war in the Balkans.

The fact that the European Parliament will, tomorrow, vote on a day of remembrance for the victims of Srebrenica is something that brings me a little peace. This day of remembrance will not give the people of Srebrenica back their murdered family members, but, for all of us who have been victims of war, it will signify an acknowledgement that Europe has seen our suffering, that we are not alone and that Europe will remember so that it does not happen again.

I, personally, hope, and will work to ensure, that Srebrenica, together with Bosnia and all of the other Balkan States, will become members of the European family as quickly as possible. This is the least we can expect after Europe's shameful inability to prevent this genocide and the fact that Ratko Mladić is still at large.

(Applause)

Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her comments tonight in support of this initiative. Last July, I had the privilege, the obligation and the humbling experience to attend, on behalf of the President of our Parliament, the memorial ceremony at Srebrenica. It has marked me. It is something I will never, ever forget. Thousands of people gathered in the hot July sunshine: dignified, sad, a ceremony of memorial, of remembrance and, of course, of grief.

But we must remember because we, all of us as Europeans, have a sense of déjà vu about Potočari, a sense of complicity. We all saw on our TV screens the scenes before the massacre, before the flight to Tulsa. We have that helplessness and hopelessness that we perhaps shared. We can never say 'never again', but we can say that we will remember, we will learn and we will help people to move forward. That is what this European Day of Memorial should be about. I will never forget what I experienced. I will never forget the mothers, the daughters, the families that I met over that period. I hope that we can deliver something lasting and positive to them for the future.

- (SK) I support the recognition of 11 July as the commemoration day for the Srebrenica genocide, when the international community failed to intervene in the conflict and protect the civilian population. I think this is the best way to show our respect for the victims of the massacre. In the course of several days of carnage following the fall of Srebrenica, more than 8 000 men and boys lost their lives. Thousands of women, children and elderly people were deported and a large number of women were raped.

We must never forget the victims of brutalities committed during the war in the former Yugoslavia. I believe that all countries of the Western Balkans will support the recognition of this day.

We must send a clear message to future generations so that they never again allow another Srebrenica to happen. I firmly believe that further effort will be made to bring the remaining fugitives to justice so that the many families can have final confirmation of the fate of their fathers, sons, husbands and brothers.

- (FR) Mr President, overcoming the tensions of the past and making every possible effort to stabilise the Western Balkans can in fact depend only on the latter's overcoming its own history. This supremely symbolic act of proposing this European day of remembrance, on 11 July, is part of this process and pursues several objectives. Firstly, it pursues the objective of paying tribute to all the victims of the atrocities committed in Srebrenica and to their families, and secondly, it pursues the objective of reminding all of the citizens and peoples of the need to be vigilant and of the fact that the powerlessness of States to act inevitably leads to such atrocities. It also pursues the objective of pointing out that the European Union should provide itself with a true common defence and security policy, so that it can intervene in the name of the principles and of the values that unite us and that guide us. Lastly, it pursues the objective of repeating to the countries of the Western Balkans that it is their natural destiny to join us soon, but that this implies their cooperating openly, at all times, with the International Criminal Tribunal, in order to bring war criminals to justice. This is our message, this is Parliament's message to the current and future generations, so that time does not behave like rust, eating into memories, but, rather, so that it brings memories back to life.

(SL) I would like to resume my speech, because the victims' relatives have asked me to express their gratitude to you today for the understanding and support which you have shown in passing this resolution.

Thanks to all of you who responded to the invitation to participate in today's debate. I would also like to take the same opportunity to end my speech by making two points. This resolution is not focused on the past, although it does also concern the dead. It is focused on the living and on a better future for them.

(RO) The massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995, along with all the atrocities committed during the war which accompanied the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, are a black page in Europe's history.

There is a tragic lesson from history which allows us to understand once again the need to develop the ability to take effective action in the European Union, in its external security and defence policy and especially in its European Neighbourhood Policy. Why? Precisely so that we can combat issues such as the violation of human rights and the principles of international law, regional conflicts, nationalist extremism and ethnic separatism, which have all made possible the atrocities in Bosnia.

Europe needs a stronger, more expansive European Union, with a policy of prevention which will not allow such atrocities to ever happen again.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, let me conclude today's debate on Srebrenica.

First of all, I want to assure you that the Council remains determined that the perpetrators of crimes in Srebrenica, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as elsewhere in the region of the Western Balkans, must be brought to justice.

Our ESDP mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to provide support and assistance to the ICTY and relevant authorities.

Srebrenica is, and will remain, a sensitive and important factor in the political life of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also of the EU and wider international community.

Let me use this opportunity to call upon the political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to refrain from abusing this painful and unspeakable historical experience for their political purposes. They should, rather, engage proactively to lead their country towards a better future. There is a need to continue joint efforts, not just in Srebrenica but in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. If Srebrenica happened because there was not enough European spirit, then we should do our utmost to help this country embark on the right path. This means towards the EU.

The first big step towards Europe was already achieved with signing the SAA agreement as the beginning of a long accession process, but much more is needed, more courage and confidence, to strive for wholehearted reconciliation underpinned by tangible prospects of integration.

We all have the obligation to the dead not to make victims out of the living. This is our obligation for generations to come.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, Mrs Ibrisagic, I was one of those people watching on television when these terrible things happened. We all thought that safe havens would be safe havens. So I was, like many others, terribly shocked when we heard what had happened - or slowly experienced the reality.

In the European Union, I think we have only learned by hard lessons what we have to do, and we then slowly started the Common foreign and security policy. This was the first item, so to speak, and we have then gone on because we saw that this terrible massacre happened because we were not united.

Once again, I can only pay tribute to you for being here today and speaking so openly for reconciliation. For those who live with that memory, it must be very difficult, but at the same time I think that the possibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina becoming a member of the European Union in the future is perhaps something that can aid reconciliation with all these terrible atrocities.

I have received six motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote on the resolution will take place tomorrow (Thursday 15 January 2009).

Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 11.35 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

Animal transport (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Mr Parish, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on animal transport - B6-0496/2008).

author. - Mr President, I rise here today to ask this oral question on behalf not only of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development but also of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, because I believe that we have a very strong agriculture in the European Union. However, in order to have a strong agriculture, we must also have a strong welfare policy, because I believe the future of European agriculture is very much of a high-quality product and one that has very good welfare standards. We can use this to promote our products in a positive way, and this is why transport of animals is not only a motive but it is essential to have the right legislation in place.

In many ways, I want to concentrate this morning on the fact that we have legislation in place. We can argue whether this is sufficient or not, but the main thing at the moment is to check this legislation and be absolutely sure that Member States are complying with it, because we know, for instance, that there are problems in some Member States between national governments putting the legislation in place and the regional governments having to implement it. Then there are problems. At the end of the day, it is the animals that suffer.

I could highlight many things, but one particular thing we have problems with in Europe is horse transport. A lot of horses at the end of their careers land up in salami in Italy and they do not travel under the best conditions in any respect. We have had many of these vehicles followed through our own Member States of the European Union where the rules have not been complied with, the lorries have not stopped at the right times, the vehicles have not been of the right type and they have not had proper air conditioning or proper water, and these things cannot be allowed to go on.

I often stand up and tell the Commission not to add costs, but in many ways, when animals are going to slaughter, if the cost of transport is greater because they have to do a good job, they have to have the right vehicles and they must not overcrowd those vehicles, then I say, well, so be it! Because many times, instead of the animals for slaughter travelling long distances, they should be killed in the Member State and travel as chilled meat. Therefore, we have much to do on this.

I also would say to you that Mr Kyprianou, the previous Commissioner for DG SANCO, also gave us the reassurance when he was Commissioner that not only would he implement the present legislation properly but also he would revisit the situation at the end of the term. We are moving very fast now towards the end of this parliamentary session and the end of this present Commission and I would call on Ms Vassiliou, who has been a very good replacement for Mr Kyprianou, to honour that commitment, because animal transport is one of those things that we have to take incredibly seriously.

We have made these points many times before, but we are a civilised society and in many ways a civilised society is judged very much in the way it treats not only its people but also its animals. Therefore, I cannot, as I have said, emphasise this enough.

My final points are on the oral question itself and that the Animal Transport Regulation has been in force since 2007. The Commission should, therefore, have received the first annual reports from the Member States on the enforcement of the regulation. Can the Commission give an account of which Member States have forwarded their reports? Has the Commission already carried out a preliminary analysis of the reports which would allow some statements to be made on the shortcomings and difficulties, but also on the major achievements, in the enforcement of legislation? Will the Commission consequently prepare a report on enforcement processes of the regulation in the Member States? Such an analysis would be essential in the context of planning a revision of the Animal Transport Regulation. Therefore, Commissioner, I would like answers to these questions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I quite agree with the opinion of Mr Parish that the way we treat animals, including livestock, is a question which undoubtedly involves both ethics and civilisation. The Commission is aware that the transportation of animals for commercial purposes may cause serious suffering to animals. Such suffering is inflicted particularly on so-called low-value animals such as animals for slaughter. The enforcement of laws on long distance transport is not satisfactory. In recent months the Commission has obtained reports on cases of cruelty to animals. The Commission continues to support the best available options for improving the situation. The ultimate aim is a better enforcement of EU laws and thus, healthier animals and decent living conditions for the relevant animals. A study carried out by the joint research centre concluded that new and more effective control systems, such as monitoring transport with the help of satellite positioning systems, would help to improve the situation and enable a more transparent implementation of the rules. The use of these new technologies would also help to reduce the administrative burden on intra-state authorities and organisations.

Before this mandate expires, the Commission is also considering proposing new standards based on the results of scientific research relating to transportation times, numbers of loaded animals and numbers of loaded animals in vehicles. The Commission is assessing the implementation of EU law based on reports provided by the Member States under existing EU regulations. The information contained in these reports is combined with the results of on-the-spot checks performed by veterinary experts in the Member States. The results of these checks performed by Commission experts are published on the Commission's website. An assessment is also under way in respect of data from reports published by international non-governmental organisations active in this area.

Most Member States have already submitted reports on animal transportation in 2007 to the Commission. At the end of 2008, reports were still outstanding from Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Bulgaria and Luxembourg. They were reminded by the Commission of their obligation and the situation will be monitored closely. However, Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 does not require the Commission to produce a report on progress with enforcing the regulation in the Member States. The Commission agrees that enforceability is a key aspect of any proposed law. The Commission is consequently paying close attention to an analysis of the Member State reports and a possible future amendment of the Community's regulations in this area.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, let us first of all look at the background to this. The eight-hour mandatory time limit for animals in transport was agreed in December 2004 and entered into force in January 2007 across all 27 Member States, with special derogations applying to longer journeys where it could be demonstrated that vehicle standards had been upgraded, providing animals with access to water, temperature control, adequate ventilation, and where frequent rest periods were incorporated into the journey time.

Special derogations were also permitted for remote rural areas and islands, like Orkney and Shetland in my own constituency, for instance, where longer journey times are unavoidable. In these cases, however, special bedded units with access to water have been designed so that the animals can be transported in relative comfort. In addition, a complete transport ban was introduced on certain animals such as calves under 10 days old and lambs less than one week old.

I report with some satisfaction that these transport rules have been strictly observed, particularly in countries like Scotland, where we continue to maintain some of the highest levels of best practice in the whole of the EU. But I am concerned at reports that, as Neil Parish has told us, these rules are not being similarly observed in other parts of the EU, particularly in some of the southern Mediterranean Member States and in some of the new East European accession states and particularly, again as Neil Parish stressed, where the transport of horses for slaughter is concerned.

Animal welfare NGOs are still producing evidence of horrific abuse, with horses and sometimes other livestock being transported over vast distances in searing heat, with no access to water or proper ventilation, with no rest periods, packed into overcrowded trucks. As their journeys progress, these animals become increasingly exhausted and dehydrated, some succumb to heat stress and can be seen desperately panting and gasping for air and, in the worst cases, many die. This practice has to be stopped and strict adherence to the regulation must be observed in all Member States.

I support the terms of Neil Parish's oral question today, which seeks to check on the level of compliance with these measures. I hope that the Commission can now provide us with this information and reassure us that steps are being taken to ensure the rigorous implementation of the eight-hour transportation limit for animals, with the appropriate derogations that I mentioned, and to stop the cruel breach of the existing EU regulations that still goes on.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for some European countries, depending on their geographical location - as Mr Stevenson indicated - as well as their land area and the size of their trade flows, the transport of animals is a subject of particular importance.

Commissioner, I would like to refer to two specific issues. Firstly, it still seems clear to me that the Commission encounters difficulties in conducting an analysis of the situation throughout Community territory. Although, by virtue of the current regulation, Member States should - as we have seen - produce a report each year of the inspections conducted in the previous year, the regulation does not lay down a minimum number of inspections and neither does there appear to be uniformity in relation to the statistical basis. This prevents a comparison of the data reported by the various countries. Commissioner, I think that for the benefit of all concerned, this situation should be rectified as soon as possible.

However, a second matter also concerns me. In your speech, you described animals being transported for slaughter as of low value. Commissioner, I absolutely disagree with you. Personally, I consider them to be of high economic value and I am sure that the industry agrees with me. As this is the case, and this meat has a high economic value, correct transport conditions are essential whatever the final destination - even if it is the slaughterhouse - and whatever the distance travelled. In other words, it is a significant - in fact the major - concern that these animals are transported under favourable conditions.

I would ask you, therefore, to take these considerations into account in the proposed changes to the regulation upon which the Commission is working. We know that, as well as new technologies, the reform will address changes in respect of the maximum transport time - as has been said here - and the maximum and minimum temperatures for transporting animals.

I ask you again Commissioner, and I ask the Commission, that, before amending such fundamental features, a solid scientific basis for the changes proposed should be sought and found. Furthermore, I would ask you that, as long as we do not have this solid scientific basis, which is currently lacking for some of the issues, we should refrain from surreptitiously introducing the proposed amendments to the prevailing regulations in reports that have nothing to do with transport - I am talking about the protection of animals at the time of slaughter, a report upon which we are now working. I think that in matters of such importance and significance, we should all - Commission and Parliament - put our cards on the table.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to say that I am a little disappointed that after four years, we still have not seen a proposal from the Commission as to how we can tighten up the legislation on animal transport. There have been good intentions and constructive cooperation between Mr Kyprianou, and now also Mrs Vassiliou, and Parliament. However, when will we have a proposal? This is something I would very much like to know. It is also important that we achieve proper enforcement of the legislation. It is important to ensure that we actually restrict the transport time for slaughter animals to eight hours. However, we should go further still. We should not simply talk about a time limit. Research has shown that one hour can be too much if the animal is not strong enough to be transported, and longer journeys can be fine if the animal is strong and healthy and is transported under good conditions. We will probably continue to transport breeding animals over long distances and, in this connection, Parliament has, of course, proposed a pilot project for rest stations, where the animals have to rest after 24 hours. I would like to know how this rest station project is progressing. The intention is, of course, to bring together operators of control stations, veterinary authorities, researchers and animal welfare organisations to allow them jointly to define good practice in this area. It is difficult to get such a project off the ground but it is worth the attempt because it is important for our knowledge and research on animal welfare during transport to also be reflected in legislation and in practice.

Mr President, Mr Parish rightly reminded us of something to which we have referred many times in this chamber, namely the fact that the way in which we treat animals reflects on us - on how 'cultured' and civilised we are. There is a lot of cruelty to animals during transport. Certain improvements have been made, by introducing higher standards for transporting animals, but these measures still fall short of the mark.

In my opinion, the appropriate solution, and one which was first proposed a long time ago, would be to limit to the travel time for animals to eight hours, and the total time that animals spend in transit and at the slaughterhouse to twelve hours. We aim to put forward this proposal within the framework of the current work on the Regulation on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter.

Honourable ladies and gentlemen! Arguing for humane measures is one thing, but there is also another argument, namely a financial one (which is more appealing to certain people). The point is that these long-distance transports increase costs which are, ultimately, passed on to the consumer. We should estimate these costs and use them as an argument to finally, after years of debate, place restrictions on animal transports and alleviate the suffering of animals.

Mr President, a civilisation's level of development can be judged by how it treats the most defenceless living creatures found in that civilisation. Judging by how we treat our animals, we are still barbarians.

I remember when Sweden joined the EU what is soon to be fifteen years ago. Many of the discussions before we joined were about animal transport. This was an area in which we were to improve the situation. Then came the first directive in 2005. Yet the conditions for the animals did not improve and we were instead told, at that point, that the monitoring would work from now on, that GPS systems would be introduced from now on, that the drivers would be trained from now on and that the lorries would work better from now on. Five countries have not even bothered to submit a report. I demand that the Commission fines these countries immediately. As regards the other 22 countries, how many checks have they carried out? How have they complied with the rules? Is it working? The answer in many cases is unfortunately not.

Then Mr Kyprianou promised us that he would come back here before the end of his mandate if it was necessary - it is necessary - and if there is public opinion - and there is public opinion! Many of the new Member States are, in fact, small and there is perhaps no need for a 24-hour journey followed by another 24-hour journey. We will have a new slaughter directive which allows mobile slaughterhouses and which will reduce the need for travelling.

We need to revisit the conditions for animals during transport. How many of us would appreciate having four cows or ten sheep in their double bed for 24 hours? That is how densely packed the animals are at present. Or imagine, the chickens on the top level in the lorry are not, in fact, totally prohibited from letting their faeces drop down onto those below. Who would want to be transported under such conditions? I invite all of the EU's agricultural ministers to come with me on a journey from Stockholm to Brussels under the same conditions as the animals. I wonder how many will accept that invitation. Perhaps they would rather amend the legislation.

We talk about costs. The highest cost in this regard is the cost to the environment as a result of the long journeys. There is also a cost in terms of the animals' suffering in connection with the long journeys. However, these long journeys also result in poorer quality meat. They result in a very real reduction in value. An animal that is stressed will produce a much poorer quality meat, and the suffering thus works its way right down the whole chain. Think of the farmer who has put a lot of effort and money into producing a good animal that is then spoilt in the last part of its life.

No, we need a new proposal before the elections. I do not understand how we are to be able to conduct an election campaign if we do not at least have a proposal from the Commission that demonstrates that we will now - finally - improve conditions for animals.

Mr President, the starting point for this discussion is, of course, the fact that animals are sentient beings. Animals have the ability to feel pain, stress and suffering in precisely the same way as we do. We must take account of this when we lay down legislation. This is not currently being done.

More and more animals are being transported within the EU. This is a direct consequence of the internal market. The internal market leads to specialisation. Animals are reared in one place, they are slaughtered in another place and the meat is transported to a third place. Member States are not even permitted to prohibit animal transport for the sake of animal welfare. That really is unacceptable. A Swedish study established just how many animals in total were transported across the borders within the EU. For the EU-15, it was determined that 22 million quadrupedal animals, such as pigs, horses and cows, as well as 500 billion poultry, were transported each year in all directions between the Member States of the EU. This was when the EU comprised 15 Member States. You can only imagine what the figures will be with 27 Member States. They will, of course, be very much higher.

I would like to ask the Commission when we will have the new Animal Transport Directive. Mr Kyprianou did, of course, promise that we would have a new directive during this parliamentary term. Is the Commission able to give us the promise that we in the European Parliament are after, namely a maximum limit of eight hours for animal transport? I would also like to ask Mr Špidla a couple of questions. You say that five Member States have not submitted reports, a state of affairs which is, of course, quite shocking. What do you in the Commission do with these reports from the Member States? Do you analyse them in any way? We in Parliament would like an analysis, a report from the Commission, in which you summarise everything and clearly indicate measures that will enable the conditions under which animals are transported to be changed. So, when will we have the new directive with an eight-hour limit, and can we have an analysis of the reports from the Member States?

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, it is fascinating as always. No sense of irony again in this Chamber. One of the biggest problems that we have, particularly in the United Kingdom, is the monstrously stupid avalanche of rules and regulations that came to slaughterhouses 10 years ago which managed to close over 1 000 abattoirs in the United Kingdom and gave rise to much longer journey times for animals.

My brother-in-law is a butcher. He owns an abattoir in Yorkshire and at one stage - and this got into the Private Eye magazine - there was a visiting vet supervising a vet supervising a meat inspector supervising two slaughtermen! That is the sort of nonsense that you get when you are dealing with this organisation's rules and regulations. The problem is journey times. Now from Bridlington in my constituency, pigs, sheep and cattle are being transported right the way across England to Manchester because of all these closures of slaughterhouses. That is what we need to address.

I am also talking about the transportation of horses. My colleague, Nigel Farage, tells me that there are countries in the European Union which actually regard horses as food! As an Englishman, I find it absolutely incredible that people would eat their horses. An Englishman would no more eat his horse than he would his dog or his children, but then I suppose that just shows the enormous cultural divide that there is between us and the other countries of this Union.

(Laughter)

Mr President, following that may not be easy! Let me say that I have no difficulty whatsoever with efficient and proper rules governing animal welfare, but I am becoming concerned that we are getting ourselves onto a treadmill, where we are going to so tighten the noose around our agricultural industry that its practical functioning will be rendered impossible. I do see signs of such a development emerging from the Commission consultation on reviewing the maximum travelling times and stock densities in transporting animals.

The Commission, let us recall, failed to get its way in the 2005 Regulation. However, less than two years after it came into effect, it is trying again with an attempt to remove the repeatability of the eight-hour limit. I must say that, for my constituency of Northern Ireland, it would be ruinous, because to export animals - which we do - we are required to undertake a sea journey and if only one period of eight hours is allowed, that would be utterly inadequate and utterly unacceptable.

I would remind the House that such onerous conditions would not compare at all with the huge distances that animals are transported in South America, from whence we happily import! So, yet again, we would be in the business of punishing our own farmers, while caring nothing about what affects the imports we receive.

I have to say that we have to get to a point of getting rid of this obsession of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is another subject on which the discussion very quickly reveals that strong emotions are involved, on the one hand, but also stark realities on the other. I should like to express my particular thanks to the Chairman of our Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Parish, for this question. It is an important one - not in order to convey emotions, but to ask the Commission the following quite specific questions. What has happened? How can these developments be verified? Do you have any proof, and if so, what? What figures do you have?

You mentioned a couple of figures, Commissioner, but I firmly believe that discrepancies exist between Member States that go way beyond the fact that some Member States have submitted reports and others have not. What is the situation with regard to implementation? How are the long journeys monitored? How are they monitored in the individual Member States?

Another major problem area requiring urgent discussion is the problems that have arisen as a result of our defining agriculture as merely an economic field and equating things we should possibly be regarding as different. For example, what additional professional training in transport matters should trained farmers be undergoing? How should this be organised, and who would provide such training? Where must farmers show this in order to obtain their qualifications?

To reiterate: farmers are trained to deal with animals, whereas hauliers employ drivers who have possibly never dealt with animals in their whole lives. These are two things that cannot be equated, but to an extent we have been doing so.

The second circumstance that causes major problems is the following. When farmers transport their own calves, they can do so for up to 50 km. Permit me to say at this point that we must indeed give further consideration, as a matter of urgency, to how we can help smaller abattoirs operate economically and thus reduce the need for further journeys.

So, then, farmers are permitted to transport their own animals for 50 km but face problems if they take a neighbour's animal along. That, too, requires some thought. Is the limit set correctly at 50 km, or should we perhaps be seeking the cause of these developments in the abattoirs, too? If farmers transport a horse for leisure purposes, there is no problem, and this Regulation does not apply, but if they transport it to market, the Regulation does apply, and they must meet the requirements. These questions should be discussed and answered in further debates.

(PT) The question of animal transport and welfare is one that, as Mr Parish and others have stated very well, has to be seen essentially from a perspective of civilisation. Limiting animal suffering as far as possible is an ethical imperative that forms part of our cultural heritage, in spite of the apparent paradox that we are seeking to protect their welfare at a time that, for many, will be their last journey.

On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the price to pay for the implementation of the demanding and financially costly rules in force are problems that distort competition and have a strong impact on the rural development of some regions of the European Union.

Regions and Member States that do not have the capacity to supply certain species from their own markets and are more distant from the centres of production, as is the case with my own country, now have greater difficulties of competitiveness in their industries linked to slaughter and processing, whereas regions and Member States with surpluses are experiencing increased advantages because it has become easier for them to sell products that are already processed, with the inherent advantages in terms of employment and added value.

Once this legislation has been in force for two years, it is fully justifiable that the Commission should supply an assessment that is as extensive as possible, not only on the specific issues of the strict implementation of the regulations concerning transport, but also on the economic and social consequences for the regions and Member States with a low production capacity for some animal species that are important for human consumption.

I think, therefore, that the Commission should respond to these questions as quickly, objectively and fully as possible.

(SL) A large amount of live animal transport passes through Slovenia, mainly originating in Eastern Europe and destined for Italy. In the experience of our veterinary authorities, the applicable European legislation is fairly comprehensive, but somewhat unwieldy and complicated to implement.

The biggest problem in Slovenia concerns inspections, because, now that internal European borders have been abolished, it is difficult to check whether or not lorry drivers are actually stopping at the pre-determined staging posts. I should point out that, because of the size of its territory, Slovenia is not required to have its own staging posts and that it has put arrangements in place with Hungary and Italy instead. We urgently need a uniform solution and one which is uniformly implemented.

Bearing in mind the disastrous situation as regards the transportation of animals over long distances on European roads, the review of the 2005 Regulation should be used as an opportunity to raise standards in animal welfare. Transport is closely linked to the treatment of animals before slaughter, and I agree with those of my fellow members who have taken the view that there are no grounds for permitting transports of a duration in excess of eight hours.

I am, therefore, arguing in favour of the determination of a strict upper transportation limit, but I also support the proposal for the introduction of mobile abattoirs.

(PL) Mr President, the Regulation on the protection of animals during transport is extremely important, and this kind of information is vital. At this juncture, it should be stressed that a large proportion of the imported meat consumed by the citizens of the European Union is not covered by similar regulations. This Regulation is one of the more reasonable regulations on the breeding and slaughter of animals.

I realise that large food corporations often fail to respect labour rights, let alone treat animals in an appropriate way. It is precisely in large companies that the worst kinds of animal abuse take place. This problem rarely affects small or medium-sized businesses. The only solution is to ensure stricter police control, as well as border controls, and to release the names of companies which violate animal rights to the public, so that consumers might avoid them.

Mr President, it is very important that animals are transported to ensure safety and to prevent avoidable suffering. I use this term because animals, as a rule, find any motorised transport frightening. It is important to minimise that where possible.

When regulating for this safety and prevention of suffering, we tend to look at time and distance. This is natural, but it is simplistic in the case of Ireland, which, I remind you, is an island and also a major animal exporter. Time limits and distance when crossing the waters that separate us from the continent and from our markets cannot be the absolute. We heard a recommendation of eight hours, but it takes more than eight hours to get an animal boarded and across water. There is no possibility of taking an animal out to graze in the middle of the Channel.

So I would recommend to you that we look at the conditions under which the animals are transported, particularly in the case of Ireland, rather than just time and distance.

(FR) Mr President, although the Animal Transport Regulation has been in force since January 2007, Member States do not appear to be systematically complying with this regulation, since they are failing to submit the annual reports requested. A comprehensive analysis is therefore problematic since a large amount of the necessary information with regard to the resources allocated for the undertaking of inspections is missing. As a member of animal welfare associations and the Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, I am particularly interested in this issue.

Associations fought relentlessly for decades up until 2007 when directives were finally established in this area in which Member States can now be seen to be displaying a certain degree of laxity. I would even go so far as to say unwillingness because in short, as we know, carrying out checks and inspections is not all that difficult. We know where the abattoirs are, we know where the animals are reared, and we know the routes along which the animals are transported, so where is the problem?

I think that it is important, in this day and age when the public are quite rightly taking a growing interest in animal welfare on the farm, at the slaughterhouse and during transport, that Member States respect these views.

Since I have been given the opportunity to speak, I should like to add that, with regard to transport, irrespective of the length of journeys made, it is essential that local climate conditions are taken into consideration. A journey lasting several hours made in the Netherlands in spring is very different from a journey of the same length made in the middle of summer in a country such as Greece. Should we not make night-time transport obligatory in the latter case?

I should be grateful if you would consider this proposal in the future.

Mr President, in terms of legislation, we are looking at a relatively new regulation on the protection of animals during transport, because it only came into operation in January 2007. While I think we would all hope that everybody was compliant from day one with the many demands of this regulation, it would be quite miraculous were that the case, because it is very detailed and makes huge demands - and rightly so - on Member States and operators.

I welcome today's oral question by Neil Parish, Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, because we want to see whether this regulation works. However, we need, first of all, to know that it is being implemented, because we care about how animals are moved around the European Union.

For countries like Ireland with a huge livestock sector, there has been an enormous amount of work done to implement this from day one, both within the sector itself and on the part of those who monitor - the Department of Agriculture and other authorities. Licensed operators have invested large amounts of money to upgrade their transporters and to meet the training and competence requirements of this regulation. In fact, I note that, just this month in Ireland, a number of training courses are under way for drivers of vehicles transporting cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses and poultry - a point raised by Ms Jeggle - and perhaps other Member States need to do the same.

It is interesting that the regulation applies only to the transport of animals undertaken in connection with an economic activity. I have a concern that we ignore the welfare of domestic pets, because I have seen examples of people who think that they know how to look after animals doing very badly on that front and yet, very often, these are the same people who insist on particular rules for farming and for economic activity. That is an area we need to look at.

I believe that, in general, established transporters of animals are licensed and authorised and comply with best welfare standards - because it is in their vital interests to do so: they need to transport animals to arrive in good condition so that they meet the needs of those who are purchasing. The problem is with the unregulated sector, where some people are untouched by these rules, and that is what we need to focus on. Who are the people who are outside the box, and how can we catch them and put them out of business?

Let me say in relation to time limits and the eight-hour rule that the reason why Europe had a real problem in getting this regulation into place was because many Member States, including Ireland, know that we need to transport our animals for longer durations, but we also know how to look after them in so doing. So I would disagree with those who want to reduce the time duration, but I agree that we need to make sure that welfare is a priority.

On horses, I often say to myself that I wish I were a thoroughbred, because they travel first class. Obviously, people look after animals with a high economic value, and in the economic downturn we are going through, I worry about the welfare of horses, full stop. I would say: no more rules. We have perhaps too many already that are choking the sector that is complying with them. But let us apply the rules to everybody, and let us get those who are not meeting the rules out of the system.

Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Parish on bringing this forward. Despite our political differences, and notwithstanding his very obvious deficiencies as a human being, I think he is actually very sound on this and I support him. We need this regulation to be a success and we need it to be universally in force, but I have a number of reservations and I disagree with some colleagues who spoke this morning.

Mr Stevenson said that longer journeys were unavoidable - I say: not so. Mrs Jensen spoke of 24-hours transport - not necessarily. Mr Allister, the agricultural industry has to ask questions itself. As a civilised society, we need to look at the whole question, the whole purpose, the whole idea of transporting animals long distances and then killing them. If I were a meat eater, I would be asking how can the suffering en route which we know about, the dehydration, the stress and - to our Irish colleagues North and South - the sea journeys, possibly improve the quality of the product at the end?

To my mind, it makes no economic sense. It does not make humanitarian sense. This is why I favour a complete ban on the transport of animals, which, I believe, would support rural economies. It would encourage local producers, yes, small- and medium-sized enterprises as someone spoke of, and it would enable consumption of food as near the point of production as possible.

In the absence of that, and I know it is not going to happen in the near future, I think we need proper realistic enforcement of what we have at the moment, the regulation, and I urge the Commission to use all the agencies across Europe - police forces on motorways if necessary - to stop and check lorries to see whether they are carrying out the full requirements of this legislation.

Mr President, has the Commission considered the human health implications of poor implementation of animal welfare regulations? Transport, especially transport over long distances with a lack of space, produces stress, and stress means more susceptibility to disease. This is particularly true for horses, where scientific studies show that transport makes horses become shedders. That means they excrete a lot more than they would normally, which greatly increases the likelihood of the spread of disease. Many transported animals are going to slaughter - 320 million of them in the EU each year - so that means there is a greatly increased risk of diseases like salmonella entering the food chain.

Given the very poor level of implementation of current rules and the stress involved in long journeys, even with proper rest stops, especially for horses, does the Commission plan to come forward, where necessary and on the basis of scientific evidence, with a finite absolute journey time limit? That would be in the interests of animal welfare and of human health.

(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the problem of animal transports is very important and it is a good thing that Parliament is addressing the issue again. However, what is less positive is the fact we are failing to implement the regulation effectively.

I welcome the fact that, during the course of our debates today, we are continuing to focus on the transport of horses. This is welcome news not only because I breed horses, but also because standards are definitely not being upheld in this area. I would like to take this opportunity to say that horses can understand humans. However, although horses always understand us, we cannot always understand them. Horses, like people, feel apprehension, fear, and are able to trust humans. I remember an incident where a seriously ill horse in a clinic would not let the vets do anything to him in my daughter's absence. As soon as my daughter arrived, they were able do what they wanted to him. He quite simply trusted her. Just as we human beings do not always trust doctors, that horse did not trust the vets, but he did trust a familiar person. I therefore think that humans also fail to understand horses when they are scared, or when they try to defend themselves. Instead, people treat this behaviour as disobedience. The owner beats the horse. The horse, for his part, knows why his owner is upset and knows how to yield to him. That is why I am obliged to all the MEPs who are also able to approach this problem from the point of view of what is good, to view it as an issue involving a living creature, and to view it with a certain amount of humanity.

(NL) Mr President, we are once again discussing the transport of animals in this House, and we will once again reach a two-fold conclusion. Firstly, current legislation is lagging far behind Parliament's ambitions as set out in the report of my predecessor Albert Jan Maat, who, to my mind, was right to draw a distinction between animals intended for slaughter and other cattle. Indeed, steps have been taken in the area of training drivers, better transport conditions and the use of GPS, but these are certainly not enough.

Secondly, monitoring remains the Achilles' heel of this legislation. Monitoring by Europe leaves something to be desired and is still very much organised at national level. There is an urgent need, therefore, for agreements on handling complaints and gathering evidence across borders. I should also like to see the Food and Veterinary Office step up its monitoring efforts. My amendment to make more funds available for this in the budgetary procedure has been rejected by, inter alia, the European Commission. Even now, the European Commission refers to national reports which it will be assessing on paper. Would the European Commission prefer to wash its hands of this matter than to guarantee actual European-wide monitoring, ad hoc inspections by European inspectors and European supervision?

Other improvements that need to be made to current legislation are: more and better-equipped resting places within the European Union and beyond, more specific climate conditions for the different animal species and, finally, we have to start working on the compulsory use of satellite systems, with access by authorised personnel to a central database.

Despite an incomplete European overview of the actual implementation of this legislation, we do, of course, pick up certain rumours, from Austria for example, where a local inspector reportedly sees many empty lorries drive in the direction of Poland and the Czech Republic, for example, but he does not see the full vehicles returning, heading towards southern Europe. Does this mean that, once these lorries are full, they decide to make a detour around Austria, perhaps to avoid the stricter monitoring rules that are in place there in comparison with the surrounding countries? For me, that is an indication that the legislation is being applied very differently by the Member States.

Another problem is the role of the vets who need to sign for transport. Commissioner, in some cases, these vets have become nothing but stamp machines. Surely nobody in their right mind could sign off a transport schedule for horses from Romania to southern Italy that was due to last 24 hours? The last 500 km of this transport would, according to the transport schedule, take 2.5 hours. This makes you wonder whether these animals were to be transported in a Ferrari.

Finally, young animals, particularly puppies, for example, are now being ferried across the whole of Europe without there being any legislation in place. I would therefore like to urge the European Commission to look into this.

We have done our homework in this House; we are now looking forward to the Commission proposals that we expect before the forthcoming elections for this House.

Mr President, like some other colleagues, I am going to concentrate on the transport of horses. There is now overwhelming evidence showing that EU rules meant to protect the welfare of horses during long-distance transport are being flouted, resulting in inhumane conditions and needless suffering. In some cases, horses are packed like sardines into steel lorries, where temperatures can be over 40 °C. In some cases, those horses are transported for thousands of miles without food or water, causing injury or even death.

Does the Commission have any information as to how many transgressions of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 have been taken to court by Member States since it came into effect on 5 January 2007 and whether the EU regulations on harmonised GPS monitoring of vehicles will be enforced? Is there any way individuals can get access to data extracted from traces on movement of animals within Member States? I know the Commission can access that, but individuals cannot. I would like answers to those three specific questions please.

Mr President, it gives me pleasure to speak on this most important debate this morning and I would emphasise how very important to the North West of England the transportation of live animals is. As the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture said, we would much rather have these animals slaughtered and then transported after they have died for processing away from the base if the movement of the meat is needed; but in the North West, we have a lot of horses, a lot of sheep and a lot of cattle - lots of movements of animals.

I was a national Member of Parliament for 18 years. This was a continuous problem, raised time and again with me by my constituents. I submit that things have not really improved over the last 10 or 20 years.

I am delighted that this question has been tabled. The first year was 2007 and reports had to be in by June 2008, but I submit that we are behind programme. I have listened to what the Commissioner has said - that he will have a look at the advantage of satellite monitoring. That is a good idea. But I put it to the Commissioner that there are many detailed checks engrained in the Regulation, quite rightly - things like the fitness for transport of the animals, transport practices, means of transport, sea containers, integral journey times, resting periods, space allowances - which are all matters that cannot be viewed by satellite. They need detailed inspections, and lessons need to be learned.

I would have hoped that in his final remarks, there would be a date by which he hopes to wind up and submit his proposals and conclusions at this early time in the implementation of the Regulation because, the sooner something is done to improve the situation, the better.

It is appalling that these long journey times have to be faced by animals in their last few days of life. Consumers want to see, as they want to with free-range hens and eggs, that we are being humane in our treatment, and they will pay an added price for the meat because they want to see us caring for these animals that are so precious and necessary for our food needs.

(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, my thanks go to Mr Parish for this debate.

Guaranteeing the welfare of animals is something that is very important. The Commission needs to ensure that the Animal Transport Regulation is implemented and monitored consistently throughout the EU.

EU legislation on the transport of animals is strict. Recurrent serious problems with animal transport are due to gross breaches of the law. The current regulations on the time limit for animals in transport and their derogations are adequate if they are properly monitored and if, at the same time, top quality transport fleets are maintained. These need to have proper ventilation, temperature control, a drinking water system and a satellite navigation system. In addition, drivers have to be trained, and there need to be guidelines drawn up on the proper conditions for animal transport, as is now being done in many Member States.

I think it is important that the present Animal Transport Regulation is properly implemented everywhere in the EU and that the experiences gained from it are taken account of prior to any drafting of new regulations.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a community can work together constructively only if everyone abides by the laws and rules. Farmers, in particular, attach the highest priority to ensuring that animals are transported in such a way that, after slaughter, the meat that reaches consumers is of the best quality and affected as little as possible by stress. Black sheep must be named and shamed, as these violations are unacceptable and bring the whole industry into disrepute.

We have to successfully reduce the transport of live animals for slaughter. I hope that we can arrive at a comprehensible state of affairs in this regard at long last, and also that there is a scientific basis. Commissioner, I wish to reiterate my call for third-country imports failing to comply with the rules to be treated and punished in exactly the same way as animal shipments within the EU.

Mr President, this debate has shown that there are, at the very least, huge doubts as to whether the current legislation is working, whether it is properly enforced across all Member States, and even whether it can be properly enforced. Is it possible to enforce this legislation when there is international transport of animals?

We will have to examine whether we have to go back to the idea of a strict eight-hour limit with no derogations and without exceptions - except perhaps for sea transport from islands but, otherwise, no derogations at all.

Colleagues may be interested to know that there is a new website campaigning precisely for this, with a petition being gathered. It is: www.8hours.eu. Many Members and others listening to this debate may be interested in visiting this website.

(PL) Mr President, much has been said today on the subject of humane treatment, and to what extent we are a civilised society. I agree that, in general, our debates and the points we are making are a step in the right direction. This debate is very necessary.

I would just like to point out that, although the direction we have taken is quite justified and correct, we should not place any artificial or unnecessary burdens on farmers and businesses, something which I am certain we can avoid. I simply appeal to the Commission and to us all, at the European Parliament, to ensure that we do not lead this good project into certain unnecessary difficulties. Since, today, we are firmly stressing these entirely justified solutions, I would also appeal to you to avoid adopting a selective approach later on. All of us, namely all the countries in the Community, in the European Union, need to treat them equally. Today, for example, I am concerned about the....

(The President cut off the speaker)

(RO) Animal experiments represent an important stage in biological and medical research. As part of this activity, however, particular attention must be focused on the care given to the animals used for scientific or other experimental purposes. Indeed, the European Union must give an example on how to house and care for these animals.

European Commission Directive 86/609 is more than 20 years old and regulates these aspects only in a vague, open-minded fashion. According to the statistics, approximately 235 million animals have been used in experiments throughout the whole of Europe during this period, with more than 12 million being killed every year in the laboratories of the European Union.

Providing care involves a whole set of material and other conditions which must be guaranteed for the animals being used. Every aspect, from the trade in animals, transportation and surgery to killing and destroying the life of an animal, must be carried out in strict compliance with international and national provisions relating to the species, the category of animal and circumstances in order to prevent them, as far as possible, experiencing any physical and mental suffering.

This care requires ....

(The President cut off the speaker)

(RO) The new Member States, and I will specifically refer to my country, Romania, need, as has already been expressed here, support in reinforcing the powers of the authorities responsible for verifying the application of the Regulation we are debating today concerning animal transport.

From this point of view, it is still very difficult for the veterinary authorities in Romania to inspect animal transport without calling on the police, which is the only authority competent to stop means of transport in transit.

The second issue specific to Romania is the continuation, obviously on a much smaller scale, of transhumance, a practice which should be treated, in my view, as a separate issue in itself and preserved as far as possible.

The third and last issue I want to talk about is the concern we should have about the powers associated with the inspections and reports which we are discussing.

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, I am strongly of the opinion that the quality of the vehicle and skills of the driver are as important as, if not more important than, the length of journeys. Two hours in a banger or clapped-out vehicle driven at excessive speed, especially when cornering, have far more serious welfare implications than eight or ten hours in a comfortable, properly equipped modern lorry, driven with care and consideration for the animal occupants.

The welfare of horses for slaughter continues to be a serious concern, and there is on-going evidence of some Member States ignoring - perhaps choosing to ignore - the legislation in this area. Commissioner, have you received last June's annual report from Ireland? Which countries have failed to file the report? Will these reports be available on the internet? And do you have details of the number of proceedings being brought in each Member State? Please give me answers to those four questions.

(PL) Mr President, the European Union places great value on the proper treatment of animals during the entire period of breeding, from birth to the slaughterhouse. As we know, the quality of the meat depends on the way the animals are treated during breeding and during transport.

Animal protection standards during transport need to be established for specific animal species, on the basis of scientific evidence. We therefore need to review this Regulation. Due to trade needs, animals are transported over specified distances which are often too long, and which require a significant amount of time to cover. It is therefore important to respect prescribed principles and standards. That is why the question regarding how, and whether, EU legislation on the transport of animals is implemented, was entirely justified. We should assess the situation in specific Member States. We should remember that this all has an impact on costs and on productive competitiveness. The citizens of the European Union are very sensitive....

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, I shall be very brief because I am the author of this question. Could I just say to the Commissioner before he sums up, that of the three questions here, he has answered the first one inasmuch as he mentioned the Member States that have not yet produced a report. What I really want to know is: has the Commission already carried out a preliminary analysis of the reports and what is happening? Also, is the Commission going to bring forward a report on the Regulation in the future? That is what we need urgently.

We also need to have best practice because Slovenia, for instance, follows the vehicles through their country. Many countries are doing good work and others are doing bad work, to put it bluntly. Is the Commission going to do a proper analysis of all this, and when is it going to come forward with it?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Roman law defines an animal as an object. I recall a military regulation which stipulated that a single wagon could carry 8 horses or 48 men. This indicates that during the course of civilisation, it has begun to be understood that there is a greater affinity between human beings and animals than between human beings and objects. In my opinion, the development of civilisation has led us to understand that animals are not objects, that they are living beings which have intrinsic rights and we have expressed this view in our laws. I think it can be said that European regulations have now been formulated and that they undoubtedly represent progress for civilisation. On the other hand, the debate has clearly shown that they are not applied consistently and that reasons could be found for further improvements in their structure.

The Commission agrees with these general statements and in its activities will also seek to improve the system for implementing checks and monitoring the situation. We are thus now in the process of drawing up new regulations that will try to take into account the latest scientific findings from a broad range of areas because, as this debate has also shown clearly, this is a complex problem. It is not a simple matter, it is not enough to say 'good, let us take one or two measures, and the matter will be resolved'. In my opinion, the debate also showed clearly that the idea of protecting livestock and animals generally constitutes an idea which is not based just on practical considerations relating to consumer protection. We are inclined to take certain protective measures even though they have no real significance for consumers and bring no real benefit, simply because this is a very significant ethical matter.

I would like to try and answer some specific questions. A whole series of questions have been asked and we are, of course, ready to respond to individual MEPs in more detail over the questions I do not touch on now. One of the questions concerned the countries which have not submitted reports and I have mentioned these in my introductory speech. As this is such an important matter, however, I will mention that these countries were Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Bulgaria and Luxembourg. This question therefore did not apply to Ireland, which has fulfilled its obligations. Other questions related to access to information. I would like to mention that it is theoretically possible to publish the various national reports but the regulation allows Member States to refuse on the grounds of confidentiality. However, no Member State has done so. In the event of a request to publish a report, the Commission will then ask the Member States whether they wish to apply the confidentiality rule. As I do not expect this to happen, the report can then be published in full and, in my opinion, this would stimulate further debate. The annual reports are studied by the Commission's own experts and, at the same time, they are supplemented with the findings obtained by Commission officials on the ground, thus creating a basis for further comments on compliance with the terms of the regulation and for further ideas on the development of the EU's legal and organisational system in this area.

Concerning the question of a further draft directive for the amendment of the legal system, I have already stated that the Commission is working on such drafts and is attempting to apply the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. A question was put forward as to how many infraction proceedings are currently under way. Currently, there are two infraction proceedings under way and two or three claims have been made against Andalusia or rather Spain. A total of six Member States were inspected in detail in 2008. These are some more specific facts relating to the questions that have been raised. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like once more to thank you for a debate which has been comprehensive and which has shown clearly that the positions of the Commission and of the Parliament are very close. In my opinion, this is a promising sign for further progress in this exceptionally sensitive area.

The debate is closed.

Written statement (Rule 142)

in writing. - Mr President, once again it seems the laws we pass here are not being implemented across all Member States. The Animal Transport Regulation has been in force for 2 years now, yet there are still massive breaches of animal rights, particularly in the transportation and slaughter of horses. I would ask the Commission what they are doing to ensure that horses are slaughtered in their countries of origin, without having to undergo long and distressing journeys to consuming countries.

A major concern for me and the people I represent is that these animals travel in inhumane, crowded, filthy conditions, with limited food and water. This is unnecessary. While we cannot stop the meat being consumed, if animals are to be slaughtered, they must be slaughtered in their countries of origin and transported to other countries as carcasses. Furthermore, consumers must be told if the meat they are eating is not local but comes from hundreds of miles away.

Mr President, for the welfare of these horses, all the efforts we have made here in this Parliament for the rights of transported animals must not continue to be ignored.

Mediterranean diet (debate) 

The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Mr Parish, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the Mediterranean diet, a diet which, incidentally, the President of this plenary sitting adheres to in a reasonably strict manner with more than acceptable results.

author. - Mr President, I am delighted that you follow the Mediterranean diet and see it is very successful for you!

What this morning has shown me here, as the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, is that we have a very varied range of subjects to talk about. One minute we are talking about animal transport - a very important subject - and now we are talking about another very important subject: the Mediterranean diet.

One of the jobs that has come to me, as Chair of the Committee on Agriculture, and which we are particularly trying to get to grips with, is that, on the occasion of the Council of Ministers held in Brussels on 16 July 2007, the Commission reiterated its full support for the nomination of the Mediterranean diet as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO. This nomination will be examined in 2009 - in fact, it now has been - by the responsible UNESCO committee. Is the Commission planning to set up a specific and coordinated strategy to support this nomination, because we are moving on very fast now?

I represent, as I said, the Committee on Agriculture here, but I probably represent all Members when we talk about diet, because one of the great things about Europe is its diversity and culture and part of that diversity and culture is, of course, our food.

The Mediterranean diet is a very good one. What is the Mediterranean diet? I am sure we could talk a great deal about that this morning, but it is generally a diet rich in oily fish, olive oils, fruit and vegetables. It is without doubt a very tasty diet, and you can see by the size of me that I am a very big fan of it. It is also a healthy diet: it is a rich source of essential fatty acids and antioxidants, a combination that can help improve cholesterol levels and protect heart health. Recent medical research has also suggested it may help cut the risk of conditions such as dementia.

When you go to Mediterranean countries, you can see that people enjoy it, and not only those who live there but also many of us who travel to Mediterranean countries, especially when we want some sunshine and also some very good food.

It is something that we need to take seriously in a world where everything seems to be uniform. We see the new generations being bombarded by the fast-food chains - I will not name them all here today - which are spreading throughout the European Union. We should remember that, yes, there is a role for a fast-food chain, but it would be a terrible thing if, in years to come, all we found when we travelled through Europe was fast food. Travelling through parts of America - especially on the west coast - there seems to be nothing but fast-food chains, and that is the last thing we want here in the European Union.

As I said, we need to support Mediterranean food, and it is a very good idea for culture and diversity. I think that in the future, we will have to look at other forms of diet across the European Union, because what I want to say to you quite clearly this morning is that while I am a great supporter of the Mediterranean diet, I do not come here as the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture just to support the Mediterranean diet, because there are other diets across Europe that are equally as good but have different qualities and different food.

So this is the start of many things to come and, as I said, I really want to know from the Commission how it intends to actively support this bid throughout this year, because we are looking forward to an award for the Mediterranean diet and we are also looking forward to having some very good Mediterranean food in the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by emphasising the importance of a healthy diet for the prevention of disease. As MEPs, you will know that the White Paper entitled 'A Strategy for Europe on nutrition, overweight and obesity-related health issues', which was adopted by the European Commission on 30 May 2007, brings together all of the Community policies that can contribute towards improving eating habits and preventing obesity. It mainly involves measures in the areas of public health, catering, transport, regional policy, sport, education and statistics, as well as agricultural policy.

One of the best examples is the Commission initiative comprising a pan-European programme to supply fruit and vegetables to schools. The aim of the programme is to help make it easier for our children to get a healthy start in life. It will be launched at the start of the 2009/2010 school year with an annual budget of EUR 90 million for purchasing and supplying fresh fruit and vegetables to schools.

As concerns the specific question raised by one MEP on the request to have the Mediterranean diet included on the world cultural heritage list of UNESCO, the Commissioner's predecessor, Markos Kyprianou, raised this topic at a Council agriculture meeting in July 2007. The Commission welcomes this initiative, as it can help to encourage healthy eating habits throughout the EU.

The European Commission, of course, has no formal powers to support such a request within the framework of UNESCO, since it is not a member of UNESCO and it cannot therefore participate in the decision-making process. I hope, nevertheless, that the participating states succeed in their application to UNESCO and that they will receive proper support for this from the other EU Member States.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Commission for its repeated express support with regard to the nomination of the Mediterranean diet as Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO.

Having heard the Commissioner's response, it is important to remember that the diet is a cultural asset and that the concept of diet is much broader than just the type of food one eats. Of course, as Mr Parish said, the Mediterranean diet, as a type of food, has a very important role in a healthy lifestyle including in the prevention of illnesses related to incorrect diet or the lack of physical exercise.

However, the concept of the Mediterranean diet goes further than that, and in this respect my comments complement his. It encompasses a specific way of life, a way of sharing food and enjoying it in company that is linked to a certain type of landscape and territory as well as to societies that, over the centuries, have developed culture, art, traditions and festivals around the concept of the Mediterranean diet.

Having clarified what the Mediterranean diet means to me and the majority of the people involved in this field and the reason behind the nomination, and with the confirmation of the Commission's willingness to cooperate, let us consider, Commissioner, that, although the Commission is not a member of UNESCO - as we already know - nor does it participate in its decision-making processes - as we are also aware - the Commission can support the nomination with indirect actions which would doubtless have a positive effect on the perceptions of those involved in the voting procedure.

Among the options, I would suggest a formal statement of support by the European Commission for the nomination, as other international organisations such as the FAO, the World Health Organisation and the scientific and academic communities are making such statements of support.

With regard to the future management plan, of course we think that the Commission should become involved, by supporting or joining in with specific transnational actions that may be proposed. This has been the year of intercultural dialogue and one of the states contributing to the nomination is a Mediterranean neighbour of ours, the Kingdom of Morocco. All this is particularly important considering, as you said, the Commission's interest in promoting healthy diets and lifestyles for Europeans.

The Commission could also help in seeking support and collaboration and could undertake diplomatic efforts, given the respect afforded the Commission, especially in Mediterranean countries outside the EU, as well as outside the Mediterranean area and the European Union. Of course, Commissioner, the Commission could show itself to be available to organise or collaborate on potential activities that may come about in these months in some fields of work.

Mr President, many thanks to Mr Parish for his question, and thank you also to the Commissioner for his answer. Europe has many things that are envied around the world: our fashion, our lifestyle, our social-security systems - and, increasingly, our diet. We in Europe would do well to draw attention to the healthiest diet, namely the Mediterranean diet.

To clarify the definition: the Mediterranean diet has its origins in the dietary patterns typical of large parts of Greece, including the island of Crete, and of southern Italy - hence its name. Its main component - as the Commissioner has already said - is olive oil. This is yet another reason - and I address this not only to Commissioner Špidla but also to the whole of the Commission - to accord this original European product even greater protection.

The Mediterranean diet still consists of high-fibre bread, large amounts of fruit and vegetables - which is why we welcome the Commission's School Fruit Scheme - fish, dairy products in moderation, and wine too. It has been scientifically proven - this conclusion was reached in a September 2008 edition of the British Medical Journal - that the Mediterranean diet helps to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, of type 2 diabetes - the contemporary European epidemic - and of cancer, and to decrease the effects of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. This is illustrated by a visit to graveyards in Crete, the island my father hails from: seeing the age people live to there really brings this home to you.

Therefore, we must do our utmost to increase the number of devotees of the Mediterranean diet in Europe and beyond, and its inclusion on the World Heritage List is an important step in this regard. I wish to thank the Commission for its efforts.

However, we must also realise that, if China and India adopt the American diet, as they are increasingly doing, the adverse effects will be threefold. Firstly, the health of the world's population will decline. Secondly, there will be an increase in intensive livestock farming, with all its adverse effects on the environment, and the third effect concerns methane production, as most of the meat will be beef. Cattle produce methane, and that is bad for the global climate. This is why it is so important to take this particular step. Thank you again, Mr Parish.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the decision by the European Union to support the recognition of the Mediterranean diet as Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO reminds us, above all, of the right to protection of the identities of peoples in their close relationship with their lands. However, the institutional commitment displayed by Italy, Spain, Greece and Morocco cannot be limited solely to achieving this prestigious recognition.

I think that we must reconstruct the link, nowadays increasingly weak and fragile, between agricultural produce and food for everyday consumption; that is to say, we must encourage consumers to be knowledgeable about the principles of a healthy diet and the seasonality of produce. Produce must return to being natural and free from additives and chemical preservatives. The international scientific community assures us that the consumption of such produce significantly reduces mortality rates. I am thinking, for example, of extra-virgin olive oil, wine and fruit and, in particular, Sicilian blood oranges, unique in the world for their pigment that is rich in antioxidants.

In conclusion, I hope this objective can be shared with other Mediterranean countries and, as a specific strategy is required, only the Commission can take a lead role and act as interpreter in this.

Initiatives that seek to promote and safeguard the cultures of people, particularly in relation to food, are to be welcomed. An example is the nomination of the Mediterranean diet as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, which is to be examined by the responsible committee within UNESCO in 2009.

The realisation of such an objective may contribute to preserving, raising awareness of, and promoting a diet that predominates in the Mediterranean countries and which has been shown to be healthy by various nutritionists and other specialists. This diet is based, as has been mentioned here already, on traditional products of the Mediterranean region, such as fruit and vegetables, olive oil, fish, cereals, nuts, aromatic herbs, dairy products, sheep and goat meat and wine.

However, the number of people who maintain these healthy dietary habits has been falling.

Thus, among other consequential and necessary political initiatives, we consider that effective measures must be taken to support traditional Mediterranean production, particularly within the framework of common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy. Such measures should be directed at small-scale agriculture and family agriculture, as well as the fishermen of these regions, to guarantee their production. The measures should give added value to traditional and artisanal products and encourage the development of local markets.

Essentially, measures are needed to counter the growing decline of agricultural activity and the reduction in the population who, with their knowledge, carry on and safeguard the production of these traditional quality products.

All of these issues and measures come within the remit of the European Commission.

(PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is not common for a single topic to combine, at the same time and in a positive way, the three very important issues of health, culture and economics. The Mediterranean diet achieves this in full.

From the health perspective, it appears there are no remaining scientific doubts about the advantages to human health of a diet based on fresh and natural food. As already mentioned here, this includes cereals, rice, legumes, nuts, fruit and vegetables, frequent consumption of fish, olive oil as the main dietary fat and moderate consumption of wine.

From a cultural point of view, the systems of production and the processing and consumption of these products are associated with ancestral techniques and traditions that go back further than Greco-Roman culture and that, in many respects, are still present in the practices, customs and techniques of the communities of the Mediterranean basin.

From the perspective of the economy, the activities connected, in particular, to the agriculture, fishing and rural tourism sectors, which are so important in preventing depopulation and maintaining the vitality of the rural and coastal zones, continue to have a very considerable socio-economic impact. At the same time, and curiously in the case of agriculture, they represent the most competitive forms of production in the European Union, and have always benefited from the least financial support under the common agricultural policy.

For all of these reasons, the initiative of the Spanish authorities to have the Mediterranean diet recognised by UNESCO as Cultural Heritage of Humanity deserves to be warmly welcomed, and I think it is the duty and obligation of the European Union to do what it can to influence this decision, because it is not in the specific interests of one country or group of countries; it is in the interests of the whole Union.

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, obesity is becoming a serious and, I would say, major problem throughout Europe, particularly among the young. According to the experts, if we want to look after the health of our children, the best way to achieve this is to return to the traditions of Mediterranean cuisine on a daily basis, the only life insurance that financial crises can never affect.

The approach of Alfonso Iaccarino, a well-known Italian chef and member of the expert committee on the recognition of the Mediterranean diet as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, is to return to natural, simple foods and to tradition, diversity and quality in cooking. The Mediterranean diet is not just a lot of bread and pasta, it also involves movement, physical activity and lifestyle. The Mediterranean diet, based on extra-virgin olive oil and good wine, has an excellent effect on health: olive oil reduces blood cholesterol levels and wine, in moderation, has an antioxidant effect.

The Mediterranean diet has helped Italians break the record for longevity in Europe and Italy leads the ranking for best body mass index, which is the relationship between height and weight. In conclusion: the Italian Senate recently unanimously approved a paper in favour of the recognition of the Mediterranean diet as heritage of humanity. I hope that the European Parliament is of the same opinion and that the Commission acts accordingly.

(The President cut off the speaker)

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to express my thanks to the Chairman of Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Parish, for having sponsored this question after the valuable expert hearing held by the Committee.

It is undeniable that Mediterranean food is part of the historical and cultural heritage of our continent. The healthy basis of the diet is also undeniable. The Commission's White Paper on obesity identified the Mediterranean diet as an excellent natural medicine.

The health benefits have been scientifically demonstrated and have an excellent reputation abroad, in particular, in the United States. This has meant that the concept has been broadened to the point of distorting its original nature. Recognition by UNESCO would encourage a definition to protect this particular diet. I would say to Mr Parish that, in relation to specific diets in European gastronomic culture, we are currently talking about Mediterranean food, but this is certainly not the only specific diet in the very rich European gastronomy.

Commissioner, you have maintained your predecessor's commitment to recognising the importance of this initiative, and I thank you for that. You have stressed that you do not have decision-making powers with respect to the UNESCO procedure. However, I think that you could issue a statement and undertake diplomatic efforts ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are well aware of the concept that the Mediterranean diet, as confirmed by many studies, can help in the battle against obesity and cardiovascular disease and, in general, is very positive for human health in many different ways.

However, the point here is not to try to impose the Mediterranean diet throughout the EU or attempt to favour it over other diets that are better adapted to non-Mediterranean climates and regions. We do, however, have the task of protecting it and defining its content and characteristics in order to defend it from external imitation and contamination that could damage its image and value.

Thus, the diet should be valued in the same way as all the other expressions of European culture that deserve to be protected and promoted globally. Attempts have been made around the world to imitate the model and, for this reason, it is important to define the particular nature of the diet and protect it to avoid a wholly European heritage being lost in the sea of globalisation.

(PL) The Mediterranean diet also deserves to be protected and promoted for other reasons. Today, in a world that is dominated by supermarket food and fast food, Mediterranean cuisine is a commendable exception, as it is popular and healthy. It was not invented by nutritionists, but is the product of many centuries of tradition, passed down through generations.

Over half of the population of the European Union are overweight. As many as 15% are obese. I am also affected by this problem. These statistics are alarming. We should take action to combat this negative trend. One of the ways of addressing the problem is through promoting healthy eating habits, and the Mediterranean diet certainly falls into this category. Scientific research has shown that it contributes to lowering the risk of cardio-vascular disease, especially ischaemic heart disease and various cancers, and also has a positive impact on the average lifespan.

Mr President, diet is known to be an important contributor to good health. There is now indisputable scientific evidence that the Mediterranean diet - based on the traditional dietary intake of citizens of the southern parts of Europe, such as Crete and Cyprus - leads to a longer and healthier life, whereas the American-influenced junk food diet - such as industrially processed hamburgers, chips and sweets - leaders to a shorter life and one more affected by disease. Good diet is especially important in children. So, will the Commission do more - far more - in order to make sure that Member States effectively promote the Mediterranean diet in schools and even ban the use of diets proven to cause damage to children's health in such institutions?

By the way, Mr Commissioner, I did not quite understand why the EU is not a member of UNESCO? Should it not be?

(The President cut off the speaker)

(PL) Mr President, it is better to eat a healthy diet and avoid illness, than to undergo even the most effective modern medical treatment. Medical treatment, including complicated surgery required by patients with excessively high cholesterol levels, is also more expensive than simple, traditional foods. This approach is sensible, as it is based on good, tried and tested traditions. The Mediterranean diet brings us health and the joy of living, and also prevents excessive weight gain. I welcome the fact that UNESCO has placed the Mediterranean diet on its world heritage list.

(FR) Mr President, I am pleased that it is a Briton, Mr Parish, who has tabled this text. It just goes to show you that two thousand years ago, those Roman soldiers did the right thing in going to Great Britain with their amphora of olive oil and wine. Well then, two consequences inevitably flow from this. That it is rather odd from a symbolic point of view to establish the Food Authority in Helsinki, and that it is unreasonable for the European Commission not to revisit the following issues: firstly, to re-establish aid for almond trees, then to stop the attacks on olive trees, particularly in Andalusia and throughout Europe; to stop the attacks on blue fin tuna fishermen in the Mediterranean and the attacks on the European vineyards where vines are being torn up. I, myself, would like to suggest to the Commissioner and Mr Barroso that they organise a huge banquet in Portugal and serve lamb's milk cheese and Samos wine.

(The President cut off the speaker)

Ladies and gentlemen, based on the strategy set out in the White Paper, the Commission supports all proposals and all processes which encourage healthy eating habits. The Commission actively backs these initiatives. However, it cannot support just a narrowly defined set of eating habits as there are significant differences between individual Member States and between individual regions, as well as differences between, for example, individual Mediterranean countries. Of course, this does not, in any way, invalidate what I have said in my introduction about the Commission supporting the proposal to recognise the Mediterranean diet as part of Cultural Heritage of Humanity. We are making progress in this direction and it is of course clear that even though we are not a member of UNESCO, there are surely ways of supporting this proposal.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to respond to one speech in particular with which I profoundly disagree. I see no reason why we should reconsider the location of the agency in Finland. I have no doubt that people grouped around the agency there are fully able to defend and fulfil the mandate given to the agency. In my opinion, the location was decided correctly and reasonably.

I do not know if there are great differences between Member States or groups, but what is certain is that, in the debate we have had here, no difference could be noted; from Germany to Poland, from the United Kingdom to Portugal, Spain or Cyprus, I believe there has been considerable unanimity in support for the initiative.

Thank you very much everyone. We will suspend the session for a few minutes. We have managed to finish the debate on time and, above all, in the calm atmosphere required so that we can all listen to each other. This is a good start to the year in our plenary sittings. The sitting will resume at 12 noon for the votes.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon)

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I unfortunately have to inform you that we have just learned that the headquarters of the United Nations agency responsible for assisting refugees in Gaza has just been hit by shells fired from Israeli tanks. Three people have been injured and the UN has decided to shut down all its operations.

Bearing in mind the vote that is going to take place shortly, I think it important that each of you be aware of this fact.

(Applause)

Many thanks for that information, Mr Wurtz. If it is true, it makes the vote that we are about to hold all the more pressing.

Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

Restoring NTDTV Television broadcasts to China via Eutelsat (written declaration) 

- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you on behalf of those who supported this initiative. I would like to thank the more than 440 members who added their signatures. This Parliament requests Eutelsat to restore NTDTV broadcasts in China: the freedom to obtain information and knowledge is a basic human right. This Parliament is demonstrating, as it has done over the Sakharov Prize, Hu Jia and the invitation to the Dalai Lama, that when we criticise China or the EU over human rights, we do this to promote the freedom of the Chinese people.

1. Budgetary control of EU funds in Afghanistan (

2. Equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (

3. Situation in the Middle East/Gaza Strip (vote) 

- Before the vote:

(DE) Mr President, I am obliged to you for giving me the floor. With your permission and that of my fellow Members, I should like to make two comments, the first on the resolution being put to the vote, and the second a personal statement regarding a Member of this House.

On the subject of the resolution, my group discussed this again yesterday evening. The discussion was very in-depth and very passionate, but also very thoughtful. I believe that, this morning, as we prepare to vote, we are all shaken by what Mr Wurtz has just told us. When armed hostilities escalate such that international institutions are no longer secure, the situation is extremely serious. An appeal must be made to Israel in particular, in this case, to respect the bodies of the international community, as failure to do so puts the humanitarian infrastructure at risk, which is certainly not consistent with international law.

We have decided to support this resolution, however, as - following yesterday's lengthy discussion - we believe that it is right and vital to adopt it now, and that it is necessary for us, for the European Parliament as an institution, to send out such signals. One thing is quite certain, however, and that is that when violence escalates such that it does not even spare schools and kindergartens, it is a matter not for regret, but for condemnation in the strongest terms. Although this is not contained in the resolution,

(Loud applause)

we do want to emphasise it here, as we believe that this reflects the feelings of many of our fellow Members, including those from other groups.

Allow me to say a few words today about a colleague who, throughout his political career, has made a particular contribution to peace in the world and in the European Union. This is the last plenary sitting my colleague Mr Rocard will be attending. For us in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, but I believe for us all ...

(Standing ovation)

Many thanks, Mr Schulz. Since I was unable to take part in yesterday's reception owing to the visit by the President of the Council, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek, I wish to say the following to Mr Rocard. Mr Rocard, I should like to express my friendship and my deep respect for you, and to wish you happiness and success in all your future plans. I hope that we shall continue to see each other frequently, and I wish to thank you for the great contribution you have made to European integration. You have my sincere thanks, Mr Rocard!

(Loud applause)

- Before the vote - concerns paragraph 3:

(DE) Mr President, in agreement with my group and also the other groups, I wish to propose the following amendment:

To replace 'a special responsibility' with 'an important role', so that it would read: 'which implies an important role for Egypt'.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to inform you that, in my capacity as President of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA), I shall now attempt to bring about a similar resolution in the EMPA Bureau, as this House has just decided.

(Applause)

4. Situation in the Horn of Africa (vote) 

- Before the vote:

(PT) I would like to propose a new paragraph before paragraph 1 that states as follows:

'Notes that the current situation in the countries of the Horn of Africa is not in conformity with the essential elements of cooperation stated in Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement;'.

This is a sentence that was already in the report that our three colleagues, who visited the region, recently gave to us.

5. EU strategy towards Belarus (vote) 

Before the vote - concerns paragraph 9:

We propose to delete the last sentence of paragraph 9, which reads: 'calls on the Belarusian authorities to end their practice of issuing exit visas to their citizens, in particular, children and students'. We want to delete this because the authorities have already abolished this system of exit visas, so it is obsolete.

6. Commemorating 11 July as a day of remembrance for the victims of the massacre in Srebrenica (vote) 

Before the vote - concerns paragraph 3:

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, everyone has agreed to an addition to paragraph 3. We should like to add the following phrase to this paragraph, which concerns the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague:

'reiterates in that regard that increased attention needs to be paid to war crime trials at domestic level;'.

Voting time

The next item is voting time.

(For results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Mr President, the field of equal pay and gender equality has been perhaps the supreme example in the European Union of judicial activism, of the Treaty saying one thing and then the European Court interpreting that in an expansive and creative way.

The Treaty of Rome has one sentence on the subject which you would have thought is very easily understood: 'Men and women shall be given equal pay for equal work'. But in a series of contentious judgments - Defrenne v. Sabena, Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange, and others - the definition has been progressively widened, first so as to include holiday entitlements and pensions and so on, and then so as to include work of equivalent value.

It is not at all clear how an employer is supposed to assess work of equivalent value, whether he is required, for example, to factor in the availability of suitably qualified applicants. My point is not really to do with gender equality, it is to do with the fairness of Member States thinking that they have signed one Treaty, and then finding that it is interpreted in the courts by judges who give it a meaning that it could not possibly have been intended to have.

Before we open the door to massive new extensions through the Treaty of Lisbon, we should put it to a referendum. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!

(NL) Mr President, I cannot identify with Mrs Riera Madurell's report, and not because I am opposed to the principle of gender equality. Quite the contrary, of course, but the problem with this report, and all similar reports, in fact, in this politically correct House, is its patronising tone. How could one possibly applaud the reversal of the burden of proof, for example, even though it is a key principle of the rule of law that people should be proven guilty instead of innocent?

Why are businesses saddled with the annual obligation to submit a business plan for gender equality? This is very patronising, burdening businesses, as it does, with bureaucratic nonsense simply to hammer home a number of principles that are universally accepted but are not always easy to implement in practice. How can we force a business to recruit equal numbers of men and women instead of simply looking at who is most suited for the job?

(LT) I voted for the resolution on the situation in the Gaza Strip, as many of the things which are important to the residents of Lithuania who delegated me to this Parliament are included in this resolution.

Most importantly, an immediate and permanent cease-fire. The statistics broadcasted yesterday by the world's news agencies are appalling - more than 1 000 dead, hundreds of injured, maimed, crying children. This cannot continue.

As a member of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights, human rights violations and the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip are particularly important to me. There should be no obstacles to humanitarian aid. Aid must be given to those who have been allocated it and who need it most - civilians.

I welcome this European Parliament resolution. It was greatly needed. The European Parliament is never silent and must not be silent when people are dying.

Mr President, it seems rather futile to welcome this motion for a resolution on Gaza which, of course, I do, because thus far, words have not been heard above the noise and din of rocket fire, bullets and the cries of men, women and children who have been wounded and who have died in the region. But it may be that today, there will be further movements towards a cease-fire in the region, which would be most welcome.

In that respect, we support the efforts of Egypt to broker a cease-fire. While Egypt and the Arab leaders may bring influence to bear on Hamas, when it comes to Israel, I think it is the US which carries that influence, although I hope that this motion for a resolution, which was resoundingly supported in Parliament today, will add further to the pressure for immediate and effective humanitarian aid, for a cease-fire and for a lasting peace in the region.

Mr President, firstly I was delighted to see that no action was taken against Members who decided to demonstrate during this vote with their 'Stop the war' placards and their Palestinian flags. I hope we have now set the precedent that, unlike those who demonstrated for a referendum, we accept the right to make a peaceful point in a suitable manner as part of the democratic process.

Like everybody else in this Chamber, I am, of course, horrified by what has been happening in the Middle East. The losers are not one side or the other but people of good will throughout the region. There are Gazan families peaceably trying to bring up their children, who are horrified at the hell unleashed on them by the rocket launches. There are Israelis who understand that one day an independent Palestine will be their neighbour and that actions of this kind are unlikely to make it a benign neighbour. In the current circumstances, however, nobody wants to listen to such voices.

I would just say that I am puzzled by the resolution's insistence on proportionality. I am not sure what proportionality means. Would critics of the Israeli Government be happier if it had rained an equivalent number of rockets randomly on Gazan villages? I see your gavel raised so I will simply say that I hope that the cease-fire is quickly negotiated and that we can get back to talking and to finding a peaceful resolution.

(DE) Mr President, I should like to thank the President-in Office of the Council, Czech Minister for Foreign Affairs, Karel Schwarzenberg, and the External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, for participating in our debate yesterday, and also my fellow Members for today's vote, which was almost unanimous.

The EU is indeed much more united than people say. If we remain so, we can achieve something in the Middle East, and so we must continue in this direction.

The components are clear: 'yes' to the right of Israel to exist, 'no' to war and bloodshed, 'no' to Hamas' rocket fire, 'no' to Hamas' terrorism and, crucially, 'yes' to negotiations on the bones of contention, including the problem of the settlers, as this, alongside the unacceptable terrorism on the part of Hamas, is at the heart of the matter.

The fundamental components are on the table, therefore, and so the task of the EU is to drive things forward with energy and determination instead of degenerating into a disunited talking shop, which - unfortunately - we have been in recent years in the matter of Middle East policy.

(FI) Mr President, I believe that all of us in the European Union and the European Parliament want peace for that region - peace and a cease-fire. Moreover, for a cease-fire to come about, we need to make a tremendous effort to ensure that the terrorist organisation, Hamas, is completely disarmed.

In my opinion, more could have been made in this motion for a resolution of the nature of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but I know that when a compromise like this is being put together between the various parties, it can be difficult to bring off. In any case, we as Europeans need to remain impartial and objective and, above all, we must always uphold the principles of democracy, human rights and freedom of speech and oppose terror in all circumstances. That is most important of all. We must also remember that all of this began with a terror attack, and now we have to root out the terror element.

Mr President, I am pleased that our Parliament was able to adopt this resolution by such an impressive vote, with no votes against. We, and I personally, supported this resolution because the European Parliament has to have a clear position and to find common ground, even if the resolution adopted today does not correspond fully to the position of the Socialist Group.

Let me reiterate that the Socialist Group expresses its deepest outrage at the violence in the Gaza Strip, the consequences of the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Army and the military escalation that is causing many hundreds of victims - most of them civilians, including many children - and that we strongly regret that civilian and UN targets have been hit.

We stress again that any upgrading of political relations between the EU and Israel must be strongly conditioned on respect for international humanitarian law, on real commitment to a comprehensive peace settlement, on an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territory and on respect for full implementation of the EC-PLO Interim Association Agreement.

(FR) Mr President, I should quite simply like to make a clarification, since in an oral explanation of vote, one of my fellow Members said several things and claimed that the resolution contains things which it does not contain. There is no obligation on employers to produce plans. We have removed all these obligations, all these requests from the report as it had been adopted by the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. We tabled a common resolution and I hope that my fellow Member is not opposed to the highlighting of the need to encourage social dialogue between social partners, in order for the principle of equality to be applied, or to Member States being invited to encourage employers to regularly provide their employees and their representatives with information relating to compliance with the principle of equality. Everything that was criticised therefore no longer appears in the resolution adopted and I wanted to make this clear.

(LT) I voted for our resolution on the European Union's strategy towards Belarus. I believe that the document reflects perfectly the changes which have taken place in this country over the past six months which need to be assessed.

Of course, the first cuckoo does not necessarily indicate the arrival of spring, but Belarus is a great and important state, a neighbour of the European Union, and undoubtedly we are delighted by any positive changes. The release of political prisoners, the repeal of certain restrictions on press freedom and dialogue with the European Union on energy, environmental and other matters are positive changes.

Today I would like to express my conviction that the time has come for a European Parliament delegation to visit Belarus, and this resolution speaks clearly on this important matter. I hope that the time is nearing when Belarus will be able to take advantage of the positive opportunities offered by the European Neighbourhood Policy. Only let us not stop half-way: this applies both to Belarus and the European Union.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against the resolution even though it contained balanced and acceptable elements. I think there are no longer sufficient reasons to retain the system of sanctions in dealings with Belarus. In terms of economic, political and religious freedom, it is a country that has almost entirely complied with the tenets of liberty in which we believe.

I think it is necessary, instead, to initiate genuine, proper relations with Belarus in order to integrate this country into Europe, above all, in an era in which we find ourselves needing to open relations with Russia. Belarus could be an excellent bridge between Europe and Russia and I think that, rather than threatening sanctions, a genuine, profitable relationship should be initiated with this country.

Written explanations of vote

in writing. (LT) I voted for the report on financial control of EU budget funds allocated to Afghanistan and European Parliament resolutions on this matter prepared by my colleague, Véronique Mathieu.

It is an exhaustive, well prepared document, in which no less than three European Parliament Committees gave their opinions, including the Committee on Budgets, whose opinion I prepared.

Once again, I would like to draw attention to the most important things upon which the results of our aid to Afghanistan depend. These include, above all, the coordination of financial support, not just between EU Member States and the European Commission, but among the Member States themselves, as well as coordination with other donors.

Secondly, I would like to stress the importance of priorities. I am convinced that the development of infrastructure, support for alternative sources of livelihood, which would help reduce poverty and replace opium production with other alternative activities, and finally health and educational bodies, should be on the EU's list of priorities.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues are fully supportive of EU and international efforts to promote peace, democracy and prosperity for the people of Afghanistan. The future stability of Afghanistan is of crucial concern to the security of EU Member States and wider afield.

We support funding for development and the promotion of good governance in Afghanistan, but equally believe this funding must be effectively monitored. Transparency in the use of taxpayers' money is of great concern and any evidence of misappropriation or misuse must be dealt with properly.

We wish to make clear that our support for this report in no way implies recognition of the Treaty of Lisbon, which is mentioned in Recital 11 of the report. We oppose the Treaty of Lisbon in principle.

I voted in favour of the report presented by Véronique Mathieu on the budgetary control of EU funds in Afghanistan. It is a well-considered report of great significance because the success of the financial, political, civil and military efforts to stabilise Afghanistan is especially important to the EU and the whole democratic world.

Romania is contributing to these international efforts in Afghanistan with 721 soldiers as part of the ISAF mission (under the auspices of NATO) and 57 soldiers involved in the Enduring Freedom operation (coalition type mission). During these missions, several Romanian soldiers have been killed or injured, causing grief to their families and Romanian society. We do not want their sacrifice to be in vain. What we want is for Romania's financial, military and human contribution to the European and international effort to result in long-term stability in Afghanistan and the elimination of terrorist hot spots.

I voted in favour of the report as the Commission needs to increase the resources allocated to the fight against drug trafficking.

The aid granted by the EU during the 2004-2007 period is made up of direct and indirect aid. Between 2002 and 2007, direct Community aid accounted for 70% (EUR 970 million) of the total Community aid, while indirect Community aid, managed by international organisations, accounted for 30% of Community aid (EUR 422 million).

However, the lack of coordination at international level between the donor countries needs to be recognised. This situation also exists between different European Union Member States and the Commission at a time when they could play a unifying role. As a direct consequence of this, the cost/efficiency ratio is much lower than it should be and there is the conviction that the Afghan population could have benefited to a much greater extent from the international and Community funds allocated to this country.

in writing. - (NL) The EU is one of the largest donors of development and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Between 2002 and 2007, the European Commission assigned a total of EUR 1 400 000 000 in aid to that country.

This is an excellent report, because it is based on correct propositions and makes a number of sound recommendations. For example, controls of EU funds must be extended and more drastic efforts must be made to address the rampant corruption in that country. (In fact, does this not apply to all developing countries that receive our aid?)

The European Parliament also argues in favour of more development support and an extension of the Commission's delegation in Kabul to carry out the necessary verifications, audits and inspections.

As Afghanistan will make or break the fight against international terrorism, additional budgetary efforts are more than welcome.

The content of the report on budgetary control of EU funds in Afghanistan once again shows that interventionism by the West in these regions has changed nothing. Our presence only prolongs the war and the resulting suffering, rather than eliminating them.

To talk of democracy and the equality of the sexes in a country where customs sometimes border on barbarism, is typical of the blissful ignorance of ultra-Europeans who still prefer to get involved in international issues rather than dealing with Europe's problems.

The ethnic groups in Afghanistan, where wars have raged for centuries, will never accept any foreign occupation, no matter how 'humanitarian'. It only strengthens the positions of the Taliban and other extremist factions, rather than enabling a strong and capable legitimate power to emerge and stabilise the country.

Europeans must withdraw as quickly as possible from the Afghan wasps' nest.

Mr President, I am voting in favour of adopting the report on the Implementation of Community Funds in Afghanistan.

Mrs Mathieu is quite right to point out that Afghanistan's social indicators are dramatically low. There is continuing conflict or war, as well as tribal and international clashes, drug trading and corruption. As a result, Afghanistan needs international aid.

I would like to express my support for aid to Afghanistan. I welcome the long-term commitment to action aimed at providing support to this country and I think that the priorities described in the Commission's Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 satisfy the requirements of Afghan society.

The European Union is one of the main donors in Afghanistan, contributing to stabilising and improving security in the area, with tangible effects such as the rise in life expectancy.

The EU needs to continue the support being given to Afghanistan. However, it cannot ignore the wasteful expenditure of the money allocated from the Community budget, which ultimately comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. This is why I consider that this report is welcome as an instrument for streamlining the allocation of EU assistance in Afghanistan and for maximising the funds' financial impact. In this sense, coordinating and controlling the development assistance funds granted to Afghanistan are three elements which are instrumental in helping to achieve the purposes this money is intended for.

The report being proposed summarises a number of problems involved with granting EU funds to Afghanistan and suggests a number of viable recommendations. I would like to express my support for this report and I hope that it will be followed by the implementation of a series of specific measures aimed at increasing the impact from the use of EU funds and ensuring tighter control on spending them. While also bearing in mind the current economic situation in most of our countries, I believe that it is the EP's duty, as an entity with budgetary functions in the European Union, to guarantee maximum efficiency in using public money.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Mathieu on budgetary control of EU funds in Afghanistan.

The report presents very clear conclusions on the results achieved by Community aid from the time of signing of the agreement until the present: although they could have been more far-reaching, these results have been positive and noteworthy. I refer, in particular, to the reduction in the rate of infant mortality, the improvement in access to basic healthcare and the significant increase in the number of children attending school. I also join the rapporteur in considering that there should be increased efforts to improve coordination between Community and international donors in order to avoid duplication and possible sources of corruption in the country.

Furthermore, more than ever, it is essential that, where financial assistance is offered to a country severely affected by social and political problems, the system of control is effective; otherwise, the risk is that, rather than improving the situation, it will be made worse. For this reason, I hope that the system of control, in particular ex-ante, is improved and more fully enforced than it has been up to now.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues are fully supportive of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in all aspects of life, including access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

However, we believe these matters are primarily ones for Member States to pursue and not for the European Union. We have therefore decided to abstain on this report.

in writing. - UKIP fully supports equality for men and women. However, the UK already has equality legislation and can change and improve it as and when required to by our Parliament and people. Further legislation and bureaucracy imposed by the EU is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, the EU is undemocratic and not a safe guardian of anyone's rights, including those of women.

in writing. - (NL) I voted against this politically correct report - the umpteenth one - that is being put to us in this Parliament for approval. First of all, I should like to point out that as gender equality in the EU has been in place for many years, this report is totally unnecessary. Moreover, I object to the reversal of the burden of proof, applauded in this report (paragraph 20), which does not befit any country under the rule of law, while total omnipotence is granted to organisations that are asked to carry out this directive (paragraph 19).

The fact that Member States will be obliged to require businesses to develop annual business plans for gender equality and to guarantee a balanced gender distribution on corporate boards of management is diametrically opposed to the freedom of running a business. For businesses facing difficulties caused by the international financial crisis, the additional paperwork that this requirement entails could well prove devastating. In a free market of healthy businesses, quality, be this male or female, will always prevail, as we have seen many times before.

During this current economic crisis, women are among those most affected by unemployment or salary cuts. At European level, we need Member States to implement the provisions of Directive 2002/73/EC and the European Commission to monitor these actions and update the European Parliament on a regular basis.

As Mrs Madurell's report also indicates, one of the biggest problems in combating gender discrimination on the labour market is also the lack of information about the rights which the victims of discrimination have. The responsibility for this is shared equally among the Member States, European institutions, such as the European Institute for Gender Equality, and employers. Civil society organisations also have an important role to play in this. They can use information campaigns and monitoring reports to make up for the lack of activity at national or European level.

The Commission is obliged to monitor that Member States take measures aimed at establishing a work-life balance, reducing the pay gap between women and men, as well as providing women with access to management posts. In Romania, it was the regulations adopted at European level which helped us to put in place an institutional system guaranteeing that 'rights for men also mean rights for women'.

in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Riera Madurell report on transposition and application of Directive 2002/73/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as I consider it important to apply the principle of equal treatment for men and women in the matters covered by this directive.

Among the various faults in the transposition of the directive, I would emphasise the fact that the legislation of various Member States does not make specific reference to gender discrimination. As the rapporteur mentions, the wage gap remains high, with women earning wages that, on average, are 15% lower than men's. This gap narrowed by just 1% between 2000 and 2006. In the context of the Lisbon Strategy, it is essential that this status quo should change, and therefore I agree with the rapporteur on the importance of recommending that the European Commission actively monitor the transposition of the Directive and the compliance of the national legislations with it.

I voted in favour of Mrs Madurell's report on equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion. Equal treatment, irrespective of gender, race, religion, etc. is a fundamental human right. Of course, we cannot forget the natural biological differences which exist between men and women.

In my opinion, the automatic application of a 50/50 gender balance policy across the board is not really a sign that we are concerned about gender equality. In the case of difficult physical jobs such as mining, work in a steelworks, etc., this approach merely leads to ridiculous situations, just as it does in the case of nurses or teachers. Equally, we cannot force girls to take up technical studies. In order to maintain a fifty-fifty balance. Fundamental issues include access to education at all levels, filling managerial roles (including those in political institutions), implementing the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', adequate access to social security and benefits, as well as medical treatment (taking into account maternity leave). Trade unions should play an important role in this field. It is an important issue at local, regional and national level, as well as at the level of the European Union institutions.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to court rulings which discriminate against men by nearly always automatically granting women custody of the children in divorce cases.

in writing. - (DE) I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Riera Madurell on the transposition of the Directive on equal treatment.

In my opinion, it is high time that women were treated as equal to men in all, not just some, respects.

It cannot be said - not by a long chalk - that equal opportunities exist in access to careers or day-to-day working life. As regards the income gap between the sexes, in some Member States, this is closing extremely hesitantly, whereas in others it is even widening again.

The implementation of this directive is particularly important to me because of these obvious injustices and particularly because, as a family person, I value and respect women greatly.

The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality is concerned about enforcement of the Directive on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions

In the absence of a report from the European Commission, our committee conducted its own survey amongst national parliaments and equality organisations. Letters of formal notice have been sent to 22 Member States. Some definitions have been incorrectly transposed in 15 Member States. As of 5 October 2008, nine Member States had yet to notify the Commission of measures taken to transpose the directive.

Our own-initiative report is an alarm bell and a warning to Member States. Unfortunately, exaggerated declarations and claims were passed in committee. I had therefore tabled an alternative resolution.

We have managed to agree on a common resolution, which I voted for, while awaiting the implementation report, which we will receive in the first half of 2009. This will enable a thorough analysis to be conducted, so that the consequent actions necessary to ensure compliance with the Treaty and legislation in the area of equal treatment and opportunities for men and women can be determined.

in writing. - (SV) Discrimination and harassment have no place in a liberal society. This report reminds us of the horrifying fact that many Member States still have a long way to go to make men and women equal in life and work. However, the responsibility for fighting injustices on the labour market, for example, does not rest with the EU institutions but is, and should remain, a matter for responsible citizens and their political and union representatives in the Member States. I am absolutely opposed to those wordings that seek to use these injustices as arguments for increasing supranationalism at the expense of the self-determination of the Member States. Increasing the distance between those who govern and those who are governed is not the way to a liberal society founded on the principle of the equality of all people.

The primary aim of the report is, however, to illustrate how discrimination and harassment can still destroy people's chances in life and prospects of empowerment. This is so important that I have chosen, despite everything, to vote in favour of the alternative proposal for a resolution.

I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

Although gender equality is a fundamental right in the European Union, official statistics show, however, that differences still exist in terms of employment rate, especially in those countries which have recently joined the European Union.

Bearing in mind that equal treatment for women and men is still a structural problem, the Lisbon European Council of March 2000 assigned the European Union the target of raising the employment rate of women to over 60% by 2010, which needs to be monitored closely in the new Member States.

I believe that it is vital for us to implement the European directive to ensure that discrimination against women on the labour market is eliminated, at a time when additional efforts are required to change the attitude towards this issue, especially in rural areas.

I voted in favour of this report as I believe that the request the report is making to the Commission to closely monitor the transposition of Directive 2002/73/EC and compliance with the legislation adopted after the implementation process is legitimate and necessary.

In adopting this report, the European Parliament has provided Member States with a useful instrument for consolidating Member States' national legislation concerning equal treatment for men and women on the labour market.

However, based on the statistics supplied, there is still a 28.4% difference in employment rates between men and women, highlighting that gender inequality on the labour market is still a problem that needs to be dealt with.

This is why I believe that Member States must make every effort necessary to implement the strategies intended to promote gender equality.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I declare my vote in favour of the report by Mrs Riera Madurell on equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

I agree with my fellow Member in considering that the principle of equality in the employment market is still far from being enforced in practice, despite the efforts of the European Union to increase the percentage of women at work under the Lisbon objectives. I concur with the rapporteur's opinions with regard to the transposition of Directive 2002/73/EC by Member States and on the need for all of them to implement the instruments that this Directive provides in order to reinforce national legislation on the equal treatment of men and women in the employment market: gender equality in employment is not only a worthy principle in ethical terms but is, and will be, the foundation for the sustainable, durable, economic development of the European Union as a whole.

in writing. - Equality between men and women is a fundamental principle of the European Union. There is still much to be done to achieve this principle and I hope that we will make this a political priority in all areas of our work in the European Parliament. It should not be just the Committee on Women's Rights which raises these issues.

In spite of the fact that gender equality is a fundamental right, gender inequality on the labour market, in terms of salaries, employment rates and quality of employment, remains a serious structural problem. Unfortunately, we see that a higher level of education does not always lead to smaller differences between the salaries of male and female workers.

Mrs Madurell's report reveals the Member States' shortcomings in terms of the transposition and implementation of Directive 2002/73/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

Above all, the rapporteur stresses that many Member States have not correctly transposed the definition of discrimination into their legal systems. In many countries, the only binding definition is a general one, which does not mention gender discrimination. In other countries, no reference is made to sexual harassment, or it is only included in a general definition of harassment (in Poland, sexual harassment is defined in Section 6, Article 183a of the Labour Code), which makes it much more difficult for injured parties to pursue their rights.

Grassroots initiatives, which aim to raise awareness in society, as well as those which aim to help victims of discrimination, are extremely important in the fight against discrimination.

In order to distinguish the position of the Partito Radicale from those who express reasons opposed to ours in this Chamber, we drew lots for those of us who would abstain and those who, instead, would not participate in the vote. The solution that the EU is promoting for a long-term, structural peace in the Near East, reiterated today here in Strasbourg by President Pöttering, is for two sovereign, independent states.

The founders of Europe had an opposite belief: in order to achieve peace, absolute national sovereignty has to be renounced. This is what the Ventotene Manifesto said.

Today, we must listen to the vast majority of Israeli citizens who seek the accession of Israel to the EU and are disregarded by the Israeli, and also European, ruling classes.

The 'inclusive' Europe of the post-war period, open to accessions and a point of reference for neighbouring states, has been a factor for peace, even if in an inadequate manner. The 'exclusive' Europe of nation states, which aspires to having European 'borders' and 'Judaeo-Christian roots', is a Europe that leads to wars, in the Near East as well as in the Balkans and Caucasus, and that produces tensions, as in the Urals, Turkey and the Maghreb.

As the Non-violent Radical Party, we consider that the structural solution for peace is called European federalism, a United States of Europe that opens the doors to Turkey, to Israel and, prospectively, to democratic states that renounce their own absolute sovereignty.

in writing. - I unconditionally condemn the indiscriminate and brutal killing of civilians in Gaza, as I do the callous and indefensible killing of Israeli civilians by Hamas rockets.

I voted for the European Parliament Resolution on Gaza because it explicitly supports the UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire. It also draws attention to the decision by Parliament in December to defer the upgrading of EU relations with Israel. While the language of the resolution is weaker than I would have wished, nevertheless a resolution carried by an overwhelming vote of the parliament is more likely to influence the decisions of Israel and Hamas than individual Political Group resolutions.

I oppose the upgrading of EU relations with Israel and believe the trade agreement with Israel should be suspended until it complies with Human Rights norms and engages in constructive and substantive negotiations with its neighbours to implement the Two-State solution to the conflict. All Member States should now agree to cancel their earlier decision to upgrade relations with Israel as a means of bringing them to the table with realistic proposals.

I opted to abstain on the motion for a resolution on the situation in the Middle East/Gaza, for the sole reason that I do not consider a resolution of the European Parliament to be justifiable at the moment.

I think that discussion of the matter, without a vote, would be a more effective way of involving the European Parliament in this issue.

in writing. - (NL) Une fois n'est pas coutume, this is a very even-handed resolution that deserves all our support because it clearly asks both parties in the conflict not to resort to violence. Nevertheless, we should not harbour any illusions about the impact Europe, and a fortiori, the European Parliament, can have on how the situation in the Middle East develops. Before we can look for a solution, Hamas must stop its rocket attacks on Israel. At the same time, Israel must scale down its disproportionate levels of violence, to which innocent children and citizens fall victim. Despite my support for this resolution, I would remind this House that the terrorist organisation Hamas remains the main cause of the escalation.

in writing. - I voted for the joint resolution even although it was less rigorous in its condemnation of Israel's action in Gaza than I would have liked.

Hamas random rocket attacks cannot be supported, yet it was not entirely the responsibility of Hamas that the cease-fire ended. The Israeli action is entirely disproportionate and its targeting of innocent civilians - men, women and children - is a form of collective punishment that is in contravention of international humanitarian law.

The attacks on UN offices and its aid provision seem deliberately aimed at cutting off aid to the needy and removing independent observers of Israel's barbaric actions.

in writing. - (DE) I think it is right and proper that the European Parliament is speaking with one voice. We must direct our endeavours towards making clear to both Israel and Hamas that we oppose any form of violent hostilities and demand absolute respect for peacekeeping forces and aid agencies.

in writing. - (PT) In spite of calling for a cease-fire, which is an urgent issue, with which we are in agreement, the resolution approved by Parliament on the extremely serious situation in the Gaza Strip is highly inadequate, containing even negative aspects, particularly when compared with the resolution of the Human Rights Council of the UN (UNHRC) of 12 January. In Parliament's resolution:

Despite the brutal aggression, crimes and violations of the most basic human rights, there is not one word of condemnation of Israel.

It reaffirms its ambiguity, concealing the fact that in Palestine there is a coloniser and a colonised, an aggressor and a victim, an oppressor and an oppressed, an exploiter and an exploited, and covering up Israel's responsibilities.

It whitewashes the responsibilities of the EU, which is complicit in the impunity of Israel. Consider the recent decision to strengthen bilateral relations with this country or the shameful abstention by the countries of the EU on the resolution adopted by the UNHRC.

Furthermore, in a situation that is as serious as the current one, it does not criticise Israel's violation of the UN resolutions, the end of the occupation, the illegal settlements, the segregation wall, the murders, the detentions, the innumerable humiliations inflicted on the Palestinian people, or even its inalienable right to a state, with the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem.

in writing. - (SV) We welcome the fact that the resolution demands an immediate stop to Israel's killing of the inhabitants of Gaza. However, we regret the fact that the resolution does not demand the suspension of the Association Agreement with Israel and an end to the upgrading of relations with Israel. These are obvious demands that should be made of a country that so blatantly violates the undertakings it has made, namely to respect human rights and international law.

We also question the claim that Israel's assault was initiated as a response to rocket fire from Hamas. Israel has constantly broken the cease-fire, including on 4 November last year when Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip and killed six Palestinians, as well as the collective punishment of the Palestinian people by means of embargoes, shutting off the electricity, extending settlements, building walls, kidnapping leading Palestinian politicians, and so on.

In spite of this, we welcome the joint resolution and the demand for Israel to cease its killing immediately.

President Pöttering has been hasty in asserting that there were no votes against. I voted against this resolution. Although I admit it contains very positive elements, especially use of the term 'the collective punishment' of the people of Gaza, I consider it to be insufficient. The only practical thing that this Parliament can do is to seek the freezing of the association agreement with Israel; anything else is just talk - positive and attractive - but just talk. In politics, fine words do not count for anything: action is needed and NOTHING will change in Gaza after this resolution. If we had been talking about any other state than Israel, the resolution would have been much more forceful. I believe that Israel has the right to exist in peace, but it is not the case that anything goes, and Israel has to know that. Moreover, the only thing that this offensive will achieve is to intensify the conflict. This is not a good day for this Parliament because it has chosen talk instead of action.

The text tabled by all the groups in this assembly, which is intended to represent the interests of European peoples, does indeed contain some excellent recommendations, such as a call for the fighting to stop, but it does not make any reference to the importing of this conflict into Europe. As well as their concomitant violence, two images from the demonstrations against the Israeli intervention were particularly shocking.

One was of the demonstrators, the majority of whom were immigrants, brandishing Palestinian, Algerian, Hamas and Hezbollah flags, and banners with inscriptions in Arabic.

The other was of the French extreme-left leaders, Besancenot from the Revolutionary Communist League, and Buffet from the Communist Party, marching with the imams.

These images illustrate two worrying developments: the gradual takeover of the immigrant masses from the Muslim world by Islamist associations and the collusion between Islamist movements and the extreme communist left, two revolutionary movements who seek to destroy our civilisation. Now more than ever, the safeguarding of the identity and freedom of the European people demands that such demonstrations be banned and a policy implemented to reverse migratory flows.

In view of the seriousness of the situation in Gaza, the European Parliament could not remain silent. I have therefore given my support to this resolution which calls for an immediate and permanent cease-fire, including the ending of military action on the part of Israel in the Gaza Strip and an end to the firing of rockets by Hamas on Israel.

However, I am sorry that no firm and unreserved condemnation has been included of the attacks by the Israeli army, which have already left more than 1 000 people dead, mainly civilians. Although I agree with what Martin Schulz, Chairman of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, said before the vote when he reiterated that these attacks are inadmissible, I would have preferred this indignation to have been expressed in writing.

Similarly, although the motion asks the Israeli authorities to guarantee uninterrupted delivery of humanitarian aid and free access by the international press to Gaza, it does not, as I would have wished, go as far as to make the upgrading of EU relations with Israel conditional on compliance by the State of Israel with humanitarian law.

Europe has a major role to play in the resolution of this conflict, but an agreement for lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians can only be achieved, in my opinion, with the creation of a viable Palestinian State, recognising and recognised by Israel.

The common resolution on Gaza does have positive aspects, such as the request for an immediate cease-fire, recognition of the 1 000 deaths caused by the Israeli army, including women and children, as well as recognition that the embargo on Gaza by Israel represents a breach of international humanitarian law.

Despite this, I was not able to vote in favour because the resolution affords Hamas the same degree of responsibility as Israel. It does not recognise that it was the Israeli army that broke the truce of 4 November with its land incursion and various aerial attacks, but rather lays the blame on Hamas for the breakdown of the cease-fire. The resolution is clearly insufficient by not asking the Commission and Council for vigorous measures. The EU should freeze the current EU-Israel Association Agreement for violation of its Article 2, which states that respect for human rights is a conditioning factor of the Agreement. Furthermore, the common resolution does not demand an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza nor does it demand that the 27 EU Member States cancel all arms exports to Israel.

This resolution has managed to bring the main political groups in the European Parliament together to make a declaration which is absolutely necessary, given the current humanitarian and security situation in the Middle East.

Regardless of the developments which led to the outbreak of this conflict, it is already having adverse effects of significant proportions on the civilians in the area and on the United Nations' presence in Gaza. I, too, along with my other fellow Members, believe that we are at the point where sustainable results can only be achieved through dialogue, which is only possible with a cease-fire agreement.

Furthermore, Romania's consistent positions on this subject feature to an influential extent in this document. I am pleased to have the opportunity to vote in favour of a document which expresses both the point of view of the European political family I belong to and that of my country.

I welcome the adoption of the resolution on the situation in the Gaza Strip. It is imperative that the European Parliament express its views on the crisis. It is the duty of Parliament to condemn this humanitarian disaster, laying claim as it does to moral leadership on respect for human rights. It is precisely because of this that Parliament can no longer remain silent. That is why I voted in favour of this resolution. Nevertheless, Parliament could have sent out a stronger signal; the resolution remains too weak on some points. It is important that we call for a lasting cease-fire and condemn the suffering of the civilian population. It is also our duty to suggest practical solutions for ending the war and to call on the EU to commit itself to these in its role within the Quartet. As the United States is currently in a state of paralysis on account of its change of president, the EU must further increase its sense of duty. A pause in the negotiations on enhancing relations with Israel is called for in view of such excessive military action. Unfortunately, there is no mention of this in the resolution. If Israel does not want to negotiate directly with Hamas, it is up to the EU to work to ensure that others talk to Hamas. The continuation of the military offensive is costing too many lives. Lip service is insufficient in the face of such a severe humanitarian crisis.

The joint resolution turns a blind eye to the causes of Israel's aggressive and barbaric war, considering it to be a response to the rocket attacks by Hamas. Everyone knows that the war was pre-planned and the causes lie in the Israeli occupation and Israel's refusal to apply the UN Resolutions on an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. It is the result of Israel's aggressive policy, supported by the USA and the EU, of illegal settlements and its refusal to return to the 1967 borders.

Although it talks of stopping the war, the resolution sits on the fence, calls for no measures by the EU, not even that the new preferential relations should be frozen in order to exert pressure on Israel. It does not condemn Israel's aggressive policy; on the contrary, it intervenes in the Palestinians' internal problems.

The forces which have signed it are calling for and agree to a stronger role for the EU, which has to do with its imperialist ambitions in the region. They are strengthening the US/NATO plan for the 'broader Middle East' with which the EU has agreed and the aim of which is for the imperialists to subjugate the entire region.

It is for these reasons that the Communist Party of Greece did not vote for the joint resolution by the political groups and calls for the anti-imperialist fight to be reinforced, noting that there is no such thing as good and bad imperialism.

I refused to vote for the joint resolution by the European Parliament on the situation in the Gaza Strip because, although it has positive points, it does not roundly condemn the military over-reaction leading to humanitarian disaster. The shock and regret expressed by the European Parliament on the attacks on civilians and impeded access to humanitarian assistance do not suffice. Europe must stand up to its responsibilities and demand a definitive end to Israeli aggression and start making an effort to find a viable long-term solution. Unfortunately, this strong political will is missing from the compromise resolution adopted by the European Parliament.

The right of Israel to exist in peace and security is inalienable. The right of the Palestinians to live in a free territory, administered by itself, in peace, democracy and respect for human rights is also inalienable. Any solution for the region has to guarantee that the threats to these rights are set aside.

The confrontation in Gaza reveals, through the opposite situation on the West Bank, that the relationship between the parties, although tense and conflictive, is possible, if both are willing to accept the existence of the other. That is not the case with Hamas, which uses the territory that it took control of to pursue its declared objective: to prevent the existence of Israel.

These circumstances, however, do not make the deaths in Gaza any less tragic. Hamas, we know, without any consideration for the life of the Palestinians, uses the population as human shields against the attacks by Israel and their deaths as weapons of propaganda. Israel, determined to legitimately guarantee its security, continues with the fighting in spite of this tragic result. The process is inevitable if the international community, including Arab countries, does not promote the viability of one side and the security of the other as the objective of the peace process in the Middle East.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I declare myself in favour of the motion for a resolution on the tragic situation in the Gaza Strip.

I fully share the concerns that the conflict is not yet nearing a conclusion in spite of the desire for a cessation of hostilities expressed by the entire international community. I join my colleagues in expressing my profound regret for the suffering of the civilian population in Gaza and I believe that the only possible solution, not only in this territory, but throughout the Holy Land, is dialogue, negotiation and diplomacy, and never war, which can only exacerbate hatred.

The European Union can and must play a prominent role in this process, both in achieving a cease-fire as well as in opening channels for humanitarian purposes. For this reason, I am voting in favour of the motion for a resolution and I hope that the efforts for reconciliation result in concrete progress towards peace as soon as possible.

The conflict between Israel and Gaza has simply gone on too long.

When deaths are now being counted in their thousands, it is our overriding duty to ensure the fighting stops immediately.

The policy of isolation of Gaza has failed, radicalising the population who have been its first victim.

No military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible.

The only possible settlement is a lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the parties. That is why we are asking for an international conference, instigated by the Quartet and with the participation of all the stakeholders in the region, to be organised as soon as possible, on the basis of the Arab League Initiative, the previous agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Meanwhile, we think that any upgrading of political relations between the EU and Israel must be strictly conditional upon respect for international humanitarian law. We therefore remained opposed to the vote in support of Israel's increased participation in Community programmes.

I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the situation in the Gaza Strip for an immediate cease-fire in this area.

I believe that, regardless of the positions held by the conflicting parties, dialogue is the only way to resolve any problems for the common good.

in writing. - (SV) The resolution that the European Parliament voted through today concerning the situation in Gaza contained no condemnation of the terrorist organisation Hamas, which broke the cease-fire in December and uses civilians as human shields. Despite the fact that this was absent from the resolution, I considered it important to vote in favour of a call for a cease-fire in the region, which was why I voted in favour of the resolution.

in writing. - The situation in the Gaza Strip is deplorable. Hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed and thousands presently face death on a daily basis. Yes, I accept Israel should be allowed to live in peace. Yes, rocket attacks across the border are unacceptable and should stop.

But the response by Israel is totally disproportionate and cannot be supported.

The Israelis have failed to respect the international community. They have shelled the UN compound, they have attacked schools and children. This is totally unacceptable and must stop. We must have a cease-fire immediately.

I will vote in favour of this resolution because the European Parliament needs to have its voice heard so that innocent Palestinians trapped in Gaza will not be forgotten.

Israel: you have the right to live in peace. You do not have the right to practise wanton destruction and to be the delivery body of death and destruction on innocent civilians. Your actions mean that you have become the aggressor, not the victim.

I have approved the compromise that is before us, even though it lacks the punch and boldness that I would have liked to have seen. I am dismayed and angry about the large-scale, disproportionate offensive by the Israeli air force and ground troops in a densely populated area.

I feel solidarity with and concern for the fate and safety of the 1.5 million Palestinians held in Gaza, for whom it is impossible to leave the Gaza strip, and for the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians on the West Bank who, despite cooperation from the Palestinian National Authority, see no improvement in their living conditions.

It is unfortunate that the compromise does not mention the problematic upgrade of relations between the EU and Israel. I would urge the Council to freeze the upgrade of relations with Israel until a complete and permanent cease-fire has been agreed by all sides and Israel grants unrestricted access for humanitarian aid.

Relations between the EU and Israel can only be upgraded if human rights and international humanitarian law are respected, the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and the occupied Palestinian territories are brought to an end and an all-out effort is made for a comprehensive peace deal and for the complete implementation of the EC-PLO interim association agreement.

in writing. - I support the resolution on Gaza and support calls for an immediate cease-fire.

Thank you, Mr President. I vote in favour. The situation in the Horn of Africa continues to be extremely concerning. The interweaving of problems and conflicts is such that the EU must pay constant attention in order to avoid a dramatic deterioration of the situation. I believe, as does my group, that the situation in the Horn of Africa requires an urgent, comprehensive approach.

As has been said, the main difficulties arise from the numerous conflicts between the various countries of the region. For this reason, it is absolutely essential to work on security and its many interrelationships, such as how changes of government should be monitored; those governments should be urged to make a proactive commitment to improve human rights.

The Horn of Africa is currently suffering from cumulative scourges:

war, both civil and regional,

the absence of democracy and freedom,

famine and the food crisis.

The acts of piracy, reminiscent of another age, are only the latest product of this chaos.

Faced with these tragedies that are tearing apart the region and spreading bloodshed, we do not have to remain silent or claim impotence.

It is now, more than ever, when the international community is showing signs of being fatigued by a seemingly never-ending crisis, that the EU must take a leading role.

By launching Operation 'Atalante' to protect vulnerable ships and the delivery of food aid to Somali refugees, the Union has demonstrated that it can find real and effective solutions when confronted with an emergency.

However, it also has to find responses to the general political crisis in the region.

It must construct the 'EU regional political partnership for peace, security and development in the Horn of Africa' which the Committee on Development launched when it adopted its report in April 2007.

Let us not allow the Horn of Africa to become an area of lawlessness where no development takes place.

in writing. - (SV) Since it is my firm belief that the European Parliament should not involve itself in foreign policy, I have voted against the resolution in its entirety. This does not mean, per se, that I consider everything in the resolution to be wrong or undesirable. On the contrary, the report also includes positive elements that I would have wholeheartedly supported if it had been a statement by the Swedish Government, for example. Such an example is provided by the case of the Swedish-Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak, who has been imprisoned without trial since 2001.

The chances of the EU and the international community changing the basic reality in Somalia are slight. However, tackling one of its consequences, piracy, is much more within our grasp. We must not forget that piracy is primarily a means of generating an income for the groups living in the south and middle of Somalia. This income is used in turn to fuel the conflicts being waged within the country and region.

A stronger naval presence in the region may have a positive influence on the security environment in Somalia and, consequently, in the region as a whole. The EU must therefore support the moderate elements in the Somali leadership, who are firmly committed to stability and peace in the region. Combating piracy is an option available to the European Union, which has the necessary military capability and can contribute not only to restoring the safety of a vital transit route, but also to establishing stability and peace in the region.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the motion for a resolution on the situation in the Horn of Africa.

The delicate situation in this African region means that European institutions must take a decisive stance. For this reason, I approve of calling on the Council to appoint a special EU representative or envoy for the Horn of Africa region. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti must co-operate if they want to overcome the current stalemate.

That is why the Eritrean Government must reconsider its current withdrawal from participating in IGAD. That is why Djibouti must do its best to ensure the better legal protection of trade union rights. That is why Ethiopia must rescind the proclamation on the registration and regularisation of civil organisations and charitable institutions. That is why Somalia needs to put an end to one of the worst humanitarian and security crises in the world.

It appears that finally, although still in a tentative manner, the Lukashenko regime is sending out signals that it is opening up to the international community. Let us take note of this and quickly work towards a shared process to improve relations with this country, which is so close to our borders. However, we cannot give an inch on our demands with regard to respect for human rights and guarantees of freedom of expression and information. The images of the repression of several attempted peaceful democratic demonstrations by the opposition are still vivid.

I would furthermore ask for a greater effort in agreeing common rules on the sensitive subject of visits by Belarusian children to host families in the EU during the summer months. Every year, the Belarusian Government changes its strategy on this matter, often leading to very difficult situations that have a negative effect, in particular, on the children themselves, who are already disadvantaged in other ways. The current progress is welcome, but the road to be followed is still very long: we hope that Mr Lukashenko, after many false starts, wants to move down this road, at least in part, together.

in writing. - Belarus remains largely ostracised by the European Union due to President Lukashenko's authoritarian rule. In the past five years, the European Parliament has twice awarded the Sakharov Prize to Belarusian dissidents, and others have been shortlisted. This represents an explicit recognition that human rights and political freedoms are suppressed in Belarus.

Nevertheless, there are signs that Mr Lukashenko is slowly warming to the West. Naturally, the situation in Belarus still remains serious, but we need to recognise that one way of coaxing Belarus towards the European Union is to recognise and respond to Mr Lukashenko's overtures. In short, it is a carrot-and-stick situation.

As someone with a deep interest in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, I see parallels between that region and Belarus. This resolution does not hold back on criticism of Mr Lukashenko, but it sets out a kind of road map for him to normalise relations with the EU.

We should not be under any illusions about Belarus and we should not hesitate to break off dialogue if the situation deteriorates. But this resolution offers some hope that relations can improve over time, and for that reason I voted to support it.

in writing. - (NL) I have voted in favour of this resolution. The European Parliament welcomes the fact that the restrictions on the freedom of the press have been relaxed somewhat in Belarus and that a few political prisoners have been released. It has also been pointed out, though, that other dissidents are still behind bars. In order to improve relations, this resolution argues that Belarus should become a country without political prisoners, that the government should guarantee the free expression of opinion, and so on. Legislation should also be changed and Belarusians should be given freedom of movement.

Even though everyone is in favour of this, I should like to put the following to you. Should the European Parliament not open these resolutions up to countries with which Europe does maintain cordial relations? China springs to mind, where the human rights situation is at least as dramatic as in Belarus. Or is it perhaps commercial considerations that stop us from doing this?

The resolution continues an on-going and productive dialogue with the government in Minsk and is indicative of the concerns of the European Parliament and the citizens it represents about the situation on human rights and about developments in Belarus in general.

The Belarusian authorities have made some progress, which is commendable, but we hope that they will initiate a process of democratisation and not simply make some temporary cosmetic gesture. This resolution is sufficiently firm, but also finely nuanced so that it expresses our satisfaction on the first issue as well as our concern about the second.

Current events in the region highlight once again the importance of transparency in the business of government and of the democratic responsibility of governments to the citizens they represent. The democratic values which have been adopted are linked to stability and development for both societies and markets, including the energy markets. This resolution is a step forward in reaffirming these values.

Relations between the European Union and Belarus depend on both parties. If there is common good will, then dialogue will be possible, as will a suitable neighbourhood policy and an Eastern Partnership. Partnerships cannot be built on prohibitions and orders, which is why I welcome the European Commission's recent initiative to improve relations with Belarus. Objectively speaking, we must admit that Belarus has also done a lot to foster understanding. Examples of this include registration of the 'For Freedom' movement, permission for the publication and distribution of opposition newspapers, and openness to the Eastern Partnership initiative. The European Union has greater expectations. There are, of course, good reasons for this. However, there are also good reasons for many of Belarus' expectations.

There is a need for symmetry and understanding between the partners in many fields. For example, since we are calling on the Belarusian authorities to stop issuing exit visas to their citizens, especially children and students, why does the European Union not take steps to simplify and liberalise visa procedures for the citizens of Belarus? These problems are particularly important to those of us who live in border regions, which are linked by both cultural and family ties.

In addition to cultural matters and the issue of nationality, the economy and trans-border cooperation are also important. Here, too, the Commission and the Council could, and should, do more.

The current context and the future of relations with Belarus present a challenge to the foreign policy of the European Union. Some gestures from Minsk justify a resumption of some relations. However, it is clear that the energy factor, in the current context, plays a significant role in driving this process. This is understandable. Realism is an integral part of foreign policy. However, realism cannot, need not and should not be divorced from values and strategy. The promotion of democracy in Belarus is a question both of values and of strategy. This perception of the medium- and long-term European interest must be central in this new phase of the relationship. Otherwise, we will produce a future dependency in which values come second to short-term strategies, with reduced success.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to communicate my vote in favour of the motion for a resolution concerning the attitude of the European Union in dealings with Belarus.

I am pleased that the Belarusian Foreign Minister has confirmed that his country intends to participate in the Eastern Partnership with other Eastern European countries. It is, however, necessary for Belarus to closely observe international safety standards and requirements in constructing a new nuclear power station and to conform to the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

Finally, I am saddened by the fact that Belarus remains the only country in Europe to retain the death penalty. If the future enlargement of the Union is to be considered, this barbaric punishment must be abolished.

I voted in favour of the EU resolution on Belarus as I feel that any move capable of introducing more democracy in any country in the world is a positive step.

The process of democratisation in Belarus will promote respect for the rights and freedoms of this country's citizens.

This resolution is welcome because I hope that, through this measure, an ever-growing number of Belarusian citizens will have easier access to visas for European Union states so that they can learn from us about our values and tradition. I also hope that very soon, Belarus will no longer have political detainees or people held under house arrest.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues fully support the need for the democratic opposition in Belarus to be involved in the process of gradual re-engagement between the EU and Belarus. Currently President Lukashenko, who is the local strongman running an authoritarian regime, is making overtures to the EU and distancing himself from Moscow, a process which we should encourage by improving our political relations with Minsk.

We also support the calls for the Government of Belarus to uphold and respect human rights, which is an important part of the process of improving relations between the EU and Belarus.

For these reasons, and to stress the importance we place on a democratic future for Belarus, we have decided to support this joint resolution. We also wish to make clear that, with regard to paragraph 16 of this joint resolution, the death penalty issue is a matter of conscience for British Conservative MEPs.

I voted in favour.

Srebrenica is a wound that has left a deep scar on the history of Europe. Those who survived still recount how, between April 1992 and April 1993, thousands of refugees, in an attempt to save themselves from Bosnian Serb incursions, hid in cellars, garages and even houses abandoned by the Serbs; how they only had roots to eat; how they were infested with fleas; how, frozen during the long winter of 1992, they warmed themselves by burning tyres and plastic bottles; and how the bodies of those who died of starvation and exposure were eaten by dogs. Seventeen years after the massacre, hundreds of bodies have yet to be identified.

Thus, I believe that establishing a day of commemoration would ensure that we do not forget, would express solidarity with the family members of the victims of this nonsensical massacre and would revive, in a more decisive manner, our policies for a Europe of peace, social justice and freedom, in the certainty that a respect for equality can only be achieved through the acknowledgment of differences.

in writing. - This resolution tragically reminds us that 'Man's inhumanity to man' is not something that ended after the Holocaust of World War II. It continued in Europe with Srebrenica and it continues today in Gaza!

I endorse the annual day of commemoration for the genocide in Srebrenica, precisely because the intervention of the EU and its Member States had created a false sense of security, as a result of which the residents were unable to flee in time. Those in favour of military interventions will not enjoy hearing this criticism. During last night's speech, I was silenced in mid-flow by the President, perhaps on account of the irritation felt about the content of my speech. The last bit, that was hardly audible because the President was hammering away with his gavel, fits in with this report.

Srebrenica is also a symbol for the failure of optimistic notions about humanitarian interventions and safe havens. It should have been made clear from the start that a foreign military presence could only offer false illusions. It turned Srebrenica into an operating base against the Serbian environment, whilst it was inevitable that it would eventually be swallowed up by that self-same environment.

Without a Dutch army in Srebrenica, there would not have been a situation of war and there would not have been a need for revenge on the part of the Serbs. The victims are not only the reason for bringing Mladić and Karadžić to justice, but also for thinking about the failure of military interventions and of all attempts to bring unity to an ethnically divided Bosnia.

The joint resolution by the European Parliament on Srebrenica is an attempt to distort history and to conceal or shift responsibility for the crimes by the American and European imperialists, the dismemberment of the country and the barbaric war unleashed against it by NATO, with the EU's help, to the victims in former Yugoslavia.

At the same time, it attempts to increase the standing of the despised American-inspired Special Court in The Hague, before which the imperialists want to try their victims and which has already been used to physically eliminate the Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Calling the events in Srebrenica the biggest post-war crime and the proposal to recognise a day to commemorate it in the Member States of the EU, while there are still serious questions as to what actually happened there, is a gross misrepresentation of history, because in fact, the biggest post-war crime to date in Europe has been the slaughter of the people of Yugoslavia by the American and European imperialists.

The Communist Party of Greece refuses to support the adoption of such unacceptable resolutions, especially at a time when we are all witness to the daily killing of hundreds of children and civilians in Palestine by Israel, with the support of the same imperialist forces now turning a blind eye, and the people of Yugoslavia were not party to the resolution in question.

The black history of Europe, the human capacity to reveal the worst of itself, has not ended. Srebrenica and its terrible tragedy are not only the most recent instance of human horror. They are a reminder, if such were needed, that destruction is always possible, that the human condition is a permanent struggle for peace, and that nothing we acquire is permanent. However, the memory of this massacre, the commemoration of this tragedy, is also the tribute that evil pays to good.

For us Portuguese, who are geographically and culturally distant from the places of the main European horrors of the 20th century, and who have another history, it is even more important to remember them. Geography and culture offer us different histories, but they do not distinguish our human condition. The memory of what we could have witnessed should be an integral part of our heritage.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the motion for a resolution that would establish 11 July as a day of commemoration for the victims of the Srebrenica massacre.

The tragic month of July 1995, when Serb troops led by Ratko Mladić massacred over 8 000 Bosniaks, still lives in all our hearts. The best way to honour the victims of the atrocities of the war in the former Yugoslavia is to announce a day of commemoration so what happened can be remembered.

Further efforts and sacrifices are also required to ensure that those guilty of the genocide are brought to justice (the most important of whom is General Ratko Mladić) in deference to the fathers, mothers, children, brothers and sisters of the innocent victims who died in those years, and also in deference to the Europe that wants to live in freedom.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

1. Iran: the Shirin Ebadi case

The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on Iran.

author. - Mr President, the persecution of Nobel Prize Laureate Mrs Shirin Ebadi is only one example of many that are taking place in Iran currently, and such persecution should come as no surprise to us considering the blinkered vision of the anachronistically theocratic rulers of that country.

Nor should we be surprised by the fact that the regime in Iran will take no notice whatsoever of this resolution. They will laugh at it and throw it in the bin in exactly the same manner that they have dealt with all previous resolutions of this Parliament. And who can blame them? They know that our resolutions are just words, not deeds, and in their estimation they are not worth the paper they are written on.

If we really want to help bring change in Iran then we must match our words with action. For example, we can remove the PMOI from our terrorist list, or we can stop lucrative contracts between EU Member States and applicant countries and Iran. If we take such action, then we can be sure that the authorities in Tehran will take us seriously and will think twice about continuing with the persecution of their democracy-seeking citizens.

So, it seems to me that we should have had a second motion for a resolution in addition to this one, calling on the governments of some EU Member States, such as the UK and France, and applicant countries, such as Turkey, to stop their hypocritical stance on Iran and start taking real action against it immediately and effectively.

author. - Mr President, the story of Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize-winning lawyer, the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to receive the prize, may be well known to most of us here today. She was the first female judge in her country but was forced to resign due to the Iranian revolution.

She defended the rights of Iranian women and children, fighting to change divorce and inheritance laws in Iran. She stood up to defend religious minorities and their rights, and most recently she has defended seven members of the Bahá'í faith who have been collectively arrested and who face persecution like many others of faith in Iran. But it is her work on human rights and her courage and determination which has gained her the respect of all of us in the Chamber.

She, along with other human rights activists, bravely founded the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights in Tehran. Its purpose was to report human rights violations in Iran, to provide representation of political prisoners and to help their families. However, right from the start, the authorities have tried to close the office down. Those who work there have been threatened, imprisoned and intimidated. Shirin Ebadi has personally faced numerous death threats, and the international community has, for some time, expressed its concern for her safety. Then, just before Christmas, as those at the centre were about to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Iranian security officials closed the centre down.

The centre must be reopened immediately. We must put pressure on the Commission, the High Representative, the Czech Presidency and our own Member States to take this case up and see the centre reopened.

It is hard for us sitting here in this Chamber to truly comprehend the bravery, the courage and strength required by human rights activists like Shirin Ebadi to function in Iran and stand up to the dictatorship. However, the work of human rights lawyers and activists is needed to shine a light on what is happening in Iran, to give hope to those like the Alaei brothers. Arash and Kamiar Alaei are both doctors helping those with HIV and AIDS who have been charged with cooperating with an enemy, when all they have been doing is trying to help the sick.

I hope that we will see the re-opening of the human rights centre and that this Parliament will do all it can to help Shirin Ebadi. After all, as fellow human beings, her struggle is also our struggle.

author. - Mr President, I think it is important for us to support human rights defenders, whether we think that governments are going to be listening to us or not. People have often told us they take great courage from external voices recognising the threat that they are under.

As has been said, this is a serious case, because an attack on such an internationally renowned defender of human rights signals that people questioning the state or exercising their fundamental rights, such as those to the freedom of belief, will not be safe, so they have to conform to the state or face the consequences.

Shirin Ebadi herself has faced death threats on many occasions, not least because she has defended the seven-member leadership of the Bahá'í faith in Iran, who themselves face significant persecution. We have seen further arrests in the last 24 hours of people who have worked with her and indeed other members of the Bahá'í faith.

When we look at what we do here, we also need to realise that we are actually seeing a shift in the recognition of human rights by certain governments throughout the world, and that this has an impact on countries with which the European Union has dealings. They now feel that they do not have to pay so much attention to human rights because they can trade and work with countries that really do not care. I think, therefore, that makes it even more important for us to make sure that we try to uphold those standards and that, as has been said, we do not look to increase trade with countries whose human rights records are abysmal, but make every effort to support those working for human rights and those democrats opposing the undemocratic forces.

author. - Mr President, the situation of Iranian citizens who live under the oppressive dictatorship of Tehran's mullahs is alarming and has been deteriorating in all areas since 2005. Therefore, I urge the Commission to continue to monitor the human rights situation there and to present a comprehensive report on the situation during the first half of this year.

Today, we protest against the harassment of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ms Shirin Ebadi, and her Centre for the Defence of Human Rights. It has often been asked what is the result of these protests. This question should also be addressed to the Council and the Commission.

The Iranian regime is potentially the biggest threat to world peace and the rule of law. In all likelihood, in the nearest future, Tehran will have nuclear warheads - it already has the missiles to deliver them. Iran, too, is a big exporter of terrorism - to Iraq for example, it is a supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas.

At the same time, the EU is still hoping to convince this dictatorship through compromises and has, until recently, been helping the terrorist regime in Tehran to tie the hands of the main democratic opposition, ironically labelling it as a terrorist organisation.

So we need a clear and forceful stand on human rights and also to have the human rights situation in Iran as a priority in dealing with Tehran.

Mr President, Mr Matsakis is right. Shirin Ebadi's persecution is not an isolated incident. Under the regime's critics, she enjoyed a privileged position for years. The existence of its human rights centre created the impression that things were not that bad in Iran.

The majority of the victims of the theocratic regime in Iran are unknown. Holding a different political opinion, protests on the part of discriminated-against ethnic minorities and religious minorities, homosexuality and fighting against the disadvantaged position of women, are all reasons for being locked up or murdered. Many things that we take for granted in Europe can get you killed in Iran. Some victims are hung from tall hoisting cranes as an example in the presence of large crowds.

Despite this, the outside world, including Europe, is not terribly interested in this appalling situation and the way in which this can be brought to an end. International attention tends to focus on other things. Whilst it would like to see Iran's military power restricted and stop the application of nuclear energy, the international community mainly attaches importance to the continued delivery of petroleum and the maintenance and/or extension of good trade relations.

As a result, Iran has been under a constant threat of war, while criticism of the lack of human rights is not expressed. It even leads to a situation where cooperation with the Iranian regime is bought by constantly placing the main exiled opposition groups on the list of terrorists. We must put a stop to the bizarre situation in which, every time there is a judicial ruling declaring this placement on the list of terrorists to be illegal, a new, identical decision is taken by the Council on behalf of the European Union.

Unlike most other victims of persecution in Iran, Shirin Ebadi is not anonymous but internationally known and respected. So far, the status of the Nobel Prize-winner has, at times, secured her a limited degree of freedom. The fact that this status is now coming to an end indicates the need for international support for those forces that seek change.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, my office in Munich is situated on a street that is home to many Christian Armenians from Iran. They are members of one of the most ancient Christian communities in the world and are, at the same time, patriotic Persians. This shows that Iran/Persia has an ancient tradition of tolerance, not only towards different religions but also towards the many peoples comprising its large empire.

It runs entirely counter to the Iranian/Persian spirit to rule as intolerantly as this mullah regime is doing. It runs counter to the best, most noble traditions of one of the most ancient countries on earth. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Iranian people and its future that we be clearer in our denunciation of these abuses.

Ms Shirin Ebadi, who has denounced these abuses at great personal risk, and who won the Nobel Peace Prize as a result, continues to do so on behalf of all ethnic groups and all religious communities. We cannot tolerate such dreadful, abominable persecution of Ms Ebadi. She needs our solidarity. Therefore, I appeal to the Czech Council Presidency to apply its sound human rights policy in this matter, too.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to draw your attention to the absence of the representative of the Czech Presidency during the course of this debate. I very much regret this fact, as the Czech Republic is heir to the democratic tradition of the struggle for human rights in the whole of Central and Eastern Europe. I repeat: it is deeply regrettable that there is no representative of the Czech Presidency attending this debate, although other Council presidencies, such as the German Presidency, have always sent a representative.

Today, we are discussing human rights in Iran, which is an important country in the Middle East and one which will have a decisive impact on the political situation in that region. The Iranian Government should therefore be even more strongly bound to absolutely respect human rights and international standards in the field of humanitarian law.

We defend the Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi and oppose the recent actions of the authorities and the government campaign, intended to turn public opinion against Shirin Ebadi. I would also like to draw your attention to further arrests of university students in Shiraz. This week, while the European Parliament has been in session in Strasbourg (on 12 January to be precise), a further six people were arrested. We must defend the independence of the student movement in Iran. I would also like to draw your attention to the repression and harassment of doctors involved in AIDS research.

Commissioner, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: the human rights situation in Iran must be further monitored by the European Commission and the whole European Union.

Mr President, in Iran, where the principles of fundamentalism are supported by a large section of society, the activities of all democratic institutions which are based on different cultural precepts encounter a great deal of opposition and intolerance. This is the sort of example that Iran provides.

Although the politicians in power in Iran, in order to improve their image, may sign up to commitments resulting from international agreements, everyday reality is very different. The case of Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Director of the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights, may serve as an example. The fact that her activities are persecuted is due to the weakness of the ruling class which, fearful for its status, cannot discipline the fundamentalists involved in anti-democratic activities. We support the Resolution. I think that more radical action needs to be taken in this field.

(RO) Iran provides perhaps the least documented cases of human rights violations within the international community. At the moment, there is no sign of the situation improving. In this respect, the persecution of Mrs Shirin Ebadi is a very serious matter, and I can also say the same about the situation of the six students which was mentioned earlier.

It is encouraging that several resolutions have been proposed on this subject, initiated by several political groups. I do believe, however, that the resolution put forward by the European People's Party fulfils our obligation to defend human rights much better. As a citizen of a country which has recently experienced both a totalitarian regime and the freedom of speech guaranteed by a democratic regime, I cannot help but sympathise with the cause of this woman fighting for human rights, and I am sure that this matter will be taken into consideration.

This constructive criticism can only help relations between the European Union and Iran.

(PT) I would not only like to support this resolution but, in particular, to support the position of all the friends of a free Iran who, like Mr Matsakis and others, have made a point of emphasising that the main problem is the policy of appeasement towards the Iranian regime. It is a policy under which oil and commercial contracts are more important than principles.

Placing the People's Mujahedin of Iran on the list of terrorist organisations was a scandal from the outset. It turned what was an extraordinarily important real problem into a policy that is the contrary, which is to do favours for those who, in fact, pursue terrorist policies.

For this reason, I would once again urge the Council to immediately bring an end to this situation and remove the People's Mujahedin of Iran from the list of terrorist organisations.

(PL) Mr President, Zbigniew Brzeziński describes the arch of instability which stretches from Egypt to Pakistan as the main threat to global stability and future prospects for global development. According to him, the main country in this arch, a sort of linchpin, is Iran. If we do not resolve the problem of Iran, if we do not ensure that it becomes a predictable and democratic country, it will be very difficult to think about eradicating the danger of which Mr Brzeziński speaks.

However, we cannot introduce democracy or stability to Iran. The Iranians themselves must perform this task. By Iranians, I mean those living in Iran itself, such as Mrs Ebadi, as well as émigré Iranians, such as Miriam Rajavi. That is why it is important to support precisely these democratic movements and to finally acknowledge that the Mujahedin is not a terrorist organisation.

(PL) Mr President, ironically enough, the situation in Iran is similar to the situation in Gaza when Hamas was elected, namely that the government has been elected by the people.

This is a problem for us, as there is little we can do. Something needs to change in Iran. We can only speak out before the whole world and send our message to Iran, namely that we condemn the violations of human rights and the lack of democracy, whether they like it or not. Perhaps in this case, words will serve as our weapons and, at the same time, offer aid to the people in Iran who are fighting for real freedom, which I hope they will achieve.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission is closely monitoring developments in the situation faced by Mrs Shirin Ebadi and it regards as unacceptable the threats made to her and her colleagues following the search carried out at their office in Tehran on 29 December. The search of the office is the latest in a series of acts of intimidation aimed at Mrs Ebadi which have included, for example, the closure in December of the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights, an organisation which she led.

The European Commission therefore fully supports the French Presidency of the Council of the Union in presenting two declarations regarding Mrs Ebadi's case on 31 and 22 December last year. The Commission especially emphasises the fact that the Iranian authorities must comply with their international obligations in the human rights area and in particular the right of peaceful assembly set out in the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights. Iran has signed and ratified this Pact and hence it must allow the offices of the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights to be reopened and it must provide them with the legal status they have been requesting for many years.

In 2009, just as in the past, the Commission will not forego any opportunity to apply pressure on the Iranian authorities to provide protection for Mrs Ebadi and other human rights defenders (individuals or organisations) and to allow them to continue operating in the country without interfering in their legitimate activities.

As you all know, the issues of nuclear power and human rights greatly limit the scope of our activities in Iran. Despite this, the Commission will continue in 2009 with cooperation in areas of common interest, especially in the fight against the drugs trade. We have also managed to maintain some programmes supporting human rights and the proper administration of public affairs, for example a project to support children's rights in cooperation with UNICEF and projects in support of judicial reform.

We are also pursuing initiatives aimed at strengthening cooperation and exchanges in the area of education and culture - exchanges within the framework of the Erasmus Mundus programme, the recent visit of several Iranian journalists to Brussels, or the broadcasting of television programmes in Persian which the Commission wants to launch before the end of this year. Despite this, it is clear that our relations will not be able to develop in a normal way unless the human rights situation in Iran improves dramatically.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debates.

2. Guinea

The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the situation in Guinea.

author. - Mr President, Guinea has had a very troubled past history, with European countries being involved in one way or another in its tragic past. It was taken over by the Portuguese in the 15th century and its citizens were subjected to the European slave trade in the 16th century and beyond. In 1890, it was colonised by France. After independence in 1958, firm ties were formed with the Soviet Union. Its post-colonial period was largely dominated by presidential totalitarianism, with its rulers being backed by its admittedly rather primitive army.

Guinea, although blessed with very rich mineral deposits, including iron, aluminium, gold, diamonds and uranium, is nevertheless one of the poorest countries in the world. These minerals are being exploited by companies from Russia, Ukraine, France, Britain, Australia and Canada.

Heavy corruption of officials is well known to occur, and the governments of the countries to which such companies belong seem to care very little about the welfare of Guinea's citizens, and only start complaining about the appalling human rights situation in the country when their financial interests are disrupted or threatened.

Be that as it may, presently there is yet another dictator in power in Guinea, a young junior army officer called Captain Camara. He heads a junta that has pledged to rid the country of corruption and to improve living standards for its 10 million citizens. To this end, a 32-member National Council for Democracy and Development was set up to govern the country.

I have no idea whether Captain Camara is genuine in his endeavours, or whether he will succeed in improving matters in Guinea. One thing is certain, however: things cannot get worse than they have been for the last few decades, during which Europe and the rest of the world were happy just to sit back, watch and enjoy the benefits of the mineral exploitation of Guinea. So, although I oppose military dictatorships a priori, I can only hope that, after a short period of time, a transition to democracy might occur.

Mr President, Mr Špidla, ladies and gentlemen, on 22 December 2008, the President of the Republic of Guinea, Lanzana Conté, died at the age of 74. Over the course of that night of 22 and 23 December, his close relatives were busy making arrangements for the interim period amidst rumours of a coup d'état.

At that very moment, were they sincere, those men running a country deemed by Transparency International to be one of the most corrupt in the world and relying on a rule of law and a democracy that have never actually existed? At that very moment, were they recalling how, 24 years ago, General Lanzana Conté seized power when the father of independence in 1958, the Marxist President Sékou Touré, died in 1984? At that very moment, were they thinking that a simple officer in charge of fuel procurement for the army would be able to seize power? At that very moment, were they regretting not having worked hard enough to establish true rule of law and real democracy that would have enabled those precious elections to have been organised within 60 days, as laid down by the constitution?

If they did indeed have these regrets, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara's feelings and those of his friends were to change to remorse within a few hours. On Wednesday 24 December, the unknown captain declared himself the President of the Republic, he was cheered by thousands of Guineans and, on 25 December, he made a display of the allegiance offered by the civil government, who agreed to his ultimatum. He promised to fight corruption and to organise elections before 2010. He appointed a decent man as Prime Minister, an Egypt-based international civil servant. He happily reported that nobody in Guinea was condemning him; the opposition political parties, civil society, accepted this situation.

Should the coup d'état be condemned in these circumstances? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have to condemn it! The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, on behalf of whom I am honoured to speak, condemns this coup d'état although we are not naïve; we know that political solutions are never simple when a country is emerging from a dictatorship. We call on you to vote in favour of the joint resolution of the six political groups.

Mr President, on 15 February 2007, we discussed the state violence of dictator Lansana Conté in Guinea as a matter of urgency. This dictator came to power following a coup d'état in 1984 and has been in power ever since. He considered that country his own private property that was of particular significance on account of its natural deposits of gold, iron and bauxite. Most parties did not take part in the elections that were organised under his control, and the official opposition that was temporarily represented in the parliament was later forced to leave.

Consequently, the trade union confederations CNTG and USTG became the main force in the fight for democracy. The presidential security force, led by the dictator's son, responded to their protest rally on 22 January 2007 by killing 59 people and wounding 150 others.

This appalling regime came unexpectedly to an end when the dictator died in December last year. The junta put a banker forward as its next Prime Minister. The question now is what exactly the military junta that subsequently took over power has made room for. Is this a step towards democracy and equality for all residents, or will this new coup d'état clear the way for a new dictator who is, once again, mainly interested in the country's natural resources and in the prospect of lining his own pockets?

The reaction from the outside world is one of confusion. The West-African cooperative bloc, ECOWAS, has condemned the latest coup d'état. The Nigerian President praises the late dictator but, fortunately, he does demand a swift transfer of power to a democratically elected government. France and Senegal, too, are applying pressure for elections to be held within a year.

My group has, over the years, always supported the demands of Guinea's democratic opposition, which still appears to be out of the game. We do not condemn the changeover of power, but we do condemn the possible continuation of a lack of democracy in the near future. There is, as yet, no reason to penalise or isolate Guinea, but we should remind the new leaders that their moment in the limelight can only be very short-lived. That country does not need another dictator, but the restoration of democracy.

Mr President, Commissioner, the time has fortunately passed when the only known way to topple a government in West Africa was by means of a military coup. While in countries which share a border with Guinea, namely Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Senegal or Liberia, a political thaw is taking place, military regimes have collapsed and a young democracy is emerging, Guinea remains stuck in the past. The late President Conté himself seized power in a military coup, and now there is a sense of déjà vu. Twenty-four hours after the President's death was announced, the military seized power in Guinea and suspended the constitution.

The only good news is that the coup has been condemned by other African states and by the African Union. Further European Union aid for Guinea must undoubtedly be linked to re-establishing constitutional order and calling presidential elections as soon as possible. Independent international organisations should observe the election process and monitor the fairness of these elections. If Captain Camara wants, even in the slightest, to be a Guinean Obama, then corruption and poverty in that country would have to be radically reduced.

Mr President, the day after the death of President Lansana Conté, on 23 December 2008, a military junta, led by Captain Camara, took power in Guinea, suspending the constitution and the right to political activity and dissolving the government. The junta has declared war on corruption and intends to hold presidential elections by December 2010, although previous legislation had, until that point, stipulated that elections must be held 60 days after the end of a term.

However, one cannot fail to notice that the population of Guinea supports the new government. On 29 December, the African Union suspended Guinea's membership, giving the country six months to re-establish constitutional order. The European Parliament should call on the Guinean government to re-establish civil law and to hold democratic presidential elections as soon as possible. I hope that the European Commission will provide humanitarian aid to the civilian population and begin a process of dialogue with the government of Guinea.

Mr President, President Lansana Conté was the archetypal African strong man, a corrupt dictator who ruled the people of Guinea with an iron fist. In fact, Guinea has never enjoyed true democracy in its half-century of independence.

The death of Mr Conté offered an opportunity for Guinea to turn the page but any hopes of transition to genuine democracy were extinguished by the military coup. Predictably, the African Union's response to the coup has been lamentably lacklustre. The AU cannot expect to be taken seriously internationally while it continues to prevaricate and procrastinate. Why should we in the West go to such lengths to address this issue when African governments appear so indifferent?

The EU should consider invoking the provisions of the Cotonou Agreement relating to sanctions. Captain Camara and the coup leaders need to understand that the EU expects certain basic standards of governance in return for a trade-and-aid relationship. Guinea's only path to prosperity is through democratic, civilian government.

(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, we have before us another case where a group of officers has seized power. Military juntas behave in a similar way: first there are arrests, then the constitution is suspended, and later there is an announcement that democratic elections will be called. In this case, the elections are to be held in two years' time. However, in practice, the officers start to exercise power and find that they like it. This then leads to social oppression and revolts, as well as violations of human rights and democratic principles. We have reason to suspect that the same might happen in Guinea, although we all hope that things will be different this time, that events will take a turn for the better and that the outcome will be more positive.

I think that the announcement made by the Economic Community of West African States and the African Union that they were suspending Guinea's participation in their work exerts a certain pressure and appeals to common sense. I think that, in view of the social situation, i.e. the constantly falling per capita income, the European Union, and therefore the European Commission, will also take appropriate and considered, but also courageous, action to ensure that normality returns to this country as soon as possible, for the good of its people, and in order to prevent genocide and human rights violations.

(LT) Today we are discussing the coup d'etat in Guinea, one of the most corrupt countries in Africa. In addition, the social and economic situation in Guinea is unenviable, people's living conditions are extremely harsh, there is a lack of basic foodstuffs, human rights are blatantly violated and all this creates an environment favouring a seizure of power by illegal means.

On the other hand, we know very well that seizures of power by means of a military coup have become a tradition in Guinea. Parliamentary elections were not called when the term of the National Assembly ended two years ago. All this undoubtedly is of concern to the international community. In any country, such a situation sooner or later leads to rioting, instability and often also the spilling of blood.

Therefore, I agree entirely with the resolution we are debating, which urges the organisation of parliamentary and presidential elections, the observance of international standards and help from the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States. In addition, freedom of the press, speech and assembly must be guaranteed before the elections, otherwise the elections will become an electoral farce.

(PL) Mr President, the coup d'etat in Guinea has followed the same pattern as the majority of similar coups in Africa and on other continents. It took place immediately after the death of President Conté, who came to power following a coup 24 years earlier. The economic and political situation in this extremely poor country incites the people to protest. These protests are then pacified by the armed forces, which consolidate a corrupt government and the division of the country into those who prosper and those who are dying of hunger.

The fact that the African Union and the African Economic Community has suspended relations with the junta is a positive step in this case. External pressure might force the junta to call democratic elections. The lesson to be learned from this situation is that, in order to support democracy in Africa, the African Union needs an action plan, which would prevent coups that result in enormous losses for the citizens of this poor region of the world. I support this Resolution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the news of the death of Guinean President, Lansana Conté, which arrived on the morning of 23 November 2008, was followed several hours later by a military coup led by a junta which established a National Council for Democracy and Development and which declared the suspension of the constitution and the dissolution of government institutions.

The European Commission wholeheartedly supports the declaration of the EU Presidency condemning this violent takeover of power and calling on the authorities in Guinea to return to civilian, constitutional and democratic government as quickly as possible. The positive reception accorded to the military regime by the Guinean public, especially by political parties and trade unions, clearly shows that the standard of living for the Guinean people has deteriorated so much that even a military coup is viewed as a change for the better and as an event creating optimism for the future. It also shows that the former regime had lost the trust of the Guinean people to such an extent that they preferred the government to be taken over by military units rather than official successors.

In this confused situation, it is important to welcome the rapid and effective initiatives undertaken by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and its chairman, Mr Chambas, as well as the determination and decisiveness of the Community and the African Union, which have suspended Guinea's membership in their organisations and have condemned the violent takeover of power. The Commission is determined to support the efforts of ECOWAS and the African Union and to support their efforts to enable the quickest possible return to a civilian, constitutional and democratic government through free and transparent elections.

The challenge facing the international community in the following months is to support Guinea in its transition to democracy and in the arrangement of free and democratic elections for a law-making assembly and a president.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, in March 2004, following elections which did not respect democratic principles and which violated fundamental elements of the Cotonou Agreement, we decided to begin consultations between Guinea and the European Union under Article 96 of the Agreement. Progress was achieved in the following areas: general elections to follow in 2006, media liberalisation, election system changes to be carried out jointly by the government and the opposition and improvements to the macroeconomic framework.

We are not losing hope. We firmly believe that the election process which was started in October last year can be successfully resumed. Currently, a joint mission of the Presidency and the Commission is leaving for Guinea this Wednesday. The mission includes groups from ECOWAS and the African Union and its aim will be to assess the situation in the country and to propose appropriate measures for supporting Guinea in its transition to democracy.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debates.

3. Press freedom in Kenya

The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on press freedom in Kenya.

author. - Mr President, freedom of the press is synonymous with freedom of expression and democracy. This does not, of course, apply in an ideal fashion in our society, in which media barons as well as government and political party media interference are not unheard of, but is rather prominent in some western countries, not excluding the USA and some EU Member States. However, at least as far as legislation is concerned, the media in our societies are given the theoretical protection of the law they need to function as near properly as possible.

This is where we beg to differ with the Kenyan Government, which is introducing legislative measures that can be used for possible repression and persecution of the press by the state. We therefore call on the Kenyan authorities to reconsider their stance on the matter and give their mass media the legislative freedom they need in order to try, at least, to function as democratically as possible. The Kenyan Government must understand and accept that the protection of the press is essential for their country's road to betterment of living standards for its citizens. We hope and trust that the plea we have made through this resolution will not be seen as interference but as friendly advice to the Government of Kenya, that it will be taken seriously into consideration and that there will be wiser reconsideration of what they have been doing so far.

Mr President, Kenya has been in the throes of a serious political crisis for a long time. The current President, Mr Kibaki, is implementing measures which are clearly intended to restrict the freedom of speech and of the press. On 2 January 2009, he violated the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter of Human Rights by sanctioning amendments to what is known as the Kenya Communications Bill of 1998, giving the national authorities new rights, including the right to dismantle broadcasting and communications equipment, as well as to control and alter the content of mass media publications. The international community unanimously declared this to be a further step towards media censorship in Kenya.

Moreover, in spite of earlier commitments arising from agreements signed to establish Kenya's grand coalition government, the President failed to consult the Prime Minister in office regarding either this decision or any further decisions. This exacerbated the crisis in Kenya, which had already lasted for over a year and which had claimed around 1 000 victims and left 350 000 people homeless. The European Union cannot stand by while fundamental freedoms are being blatantly violated.

We should welcome the Kenyan President's assurances that the amendments will be revised and that all political powers will be consulted on this matter, in order to give these amendments a new, democratic quality and ensure the broad support of Kenyan society. The European Union must support these measures and monitor them in detail, fostering pluralism during the process of building a civil society. At the same time, the Kenyan authorities should take stronger action to introduce a state of normality in the country, including the creation of a special committee, consisting of local and international experts, to punish those guilty of violence and of causing the crisis last year. There is a chance that these measures will stabilise the internal situation and prevent a humanitarian disaster, which inevitably threatens this Eastern African country with a population of ten million.

author. - Mr President, I regret the signing of the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill by President Kibaki. This act disregards the rights to freedom of expression and press freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and echoed by other international conventions, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

This act would give considerable powers to the Kenyan Information Minister to raid media houses deemed to be a threat to national security and to dismantle broadcasting equipment. The act will also give the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by electronic and print media respectively. I welcome, however, President Kibaki's recent move to revise this media law and his gesture to consider amendments to legislation proposed by members of the media.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I call on the Kenyan Government to initiate a stakeholder consultation in order to build consensus on how to better regulate the communications industry without interfering with press freedom and without infringing rights contained within the Universal Declaration.

Finally, I would like to underline the need to adjust the culture of impunity in Kenya in order to bring those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago to justice. I call for the setting-up of an independent commission consisting of local and international legal experts who would carry out investigations and prosecutions into the violent events following the flawed elections in December 2007.

Mr President, Kenya has a violent past. After the Second World War, when Europe slowly came to accept that the independence of African countries was eventually inevitable, Kenya was emphatically excluded, as was the country we now know as Zimbabwe. According to colonial rulers, there were too many foreign colonists and too many foreign economic interests in those countries to be able to leave them in the hands of the predominantly black populations.

Unlike other West African countries, independence in Kenya did not come about peacefully, but only following a protracted and violent struggle by the independence movement Mau Mau. This need for a violent struggle has laid the foundations for continued violence and intimidation. The victors mainly belong to one major tribe, the Kikuyu. Other population groups have always been kept in opposition, where necessary on the strength of rigged election results. The latest presidential elections proved once again that a non-Kikuyu cannot become President, not even if the majority of voters vote for him.

Thanks to a compromise, the opposition candidate is now Prime Minister and domestic peace seems to be restored. While, out of the two African countries with rigged presidential elections, Zimbabwe is considered the country with the bad compromise, Kenya has been praised as the country with the good compromise. For years, Western Europe and America considered Kenya to be a major success story. It was a country with relative prosperity, freedom for international businesses, friendship with the West and attention for tourists. Kenya has now lost that success-story image. A food shortage and a new press law have made for renewed tension. This food shortage is partly attributable to the fact that the President, in exchange for the construction of the port, has leased out 40 000 hectares of farm land to the oil state Qatar for food supplies.

The press law appears to be a lever which the President uses to restrict the power of the coalition government and to eliminate critical opponents. This is all the more shocking, given that this law came about without the Prime Minister even being consulted. The coalition compromise between the President and the Prime Minister is in jeopardy if the President is given the capability of bypassing the Prime Minister, restricting the role of the government and protecting his own role against the critical press.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, until last year's violence, Kenya had a reputation as one of Africa's politically more stable countries and had a tradition of a relatively free and robust press.

President Kibaki needs to realise that political stability and a free press are mutually reinforcing. This restriction of freedom of speech, as proposed, is unbecoming for a country led by a man who came to power promising a new era of openness and transparency. Unfortunately, it seems that many senior politicians in Kenya have still not developed a sufficiently thick skin to handle the inevitable barbs of a free press and a democracy. I hope that President Kibaki will take our advice and change his mind. That would reassure us of Kenya's purported commitment to a free society under a power-sharing coalition government. It would also strengthen Kenya's case for moral authority and leadership in an unstable region.

I welcome the President's pledge now to consider amendments to this bill and to consult more widely with the media. Given that Prime Minister Raila Odinga and the ODM, his party, are vigorously opposed to this legislation, it is also vital for the stability of the Government that it does not become even more of an inflammatory and divisive political issue.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this joint motion for a resolution on press freedom in Kenya. A year ago, like many others, I was dismayed and disappointed that, after flawed presidential elections in Kenya, street demonstrations led to riots and ethnic clashes that spread across the country, killing more than a thousand people and leaving another 350 000 people homeless. Those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago must be brought to justice and a period of reconciliation and tolerance is now essential for Kenya.

In this context, it is very bad news that, on Friday 2 January 2009, President Kibaki signed the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008, which amends the Kenya Communications Act of 1998. This bill flies in the face of press freedom and disregards international conventions signed up to by the Kenyan Government. Two sections effectively introduce direct media censorship by the Government. Section 88 gives the Information Minister considerable powers to raid and dismantle broadcasting equipment from a media house that is deemed to be a threat to national security. Section 46 gives the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by both electronic and print media. Within Kenya, the bill has been opposed by journalists, by Prime Minister Odinga and by the ODM, and its passing highlights a serious lack of consultation within the current grand coalition. I regret the passing of this bill and urge that any revision of the media law takes account of the many, many reservations expressed.

Mr President, as a member of Solidarność, and someone who has experienced martial law in Poland, I know that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The Kenyan Government signed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. These conventions include the right to freedom of speech.

Today, the Eastern Africa Journalists Association informs us that the government intends to introduce censorship in Kenya. I hope that President Kibaki will refrain from any amendments to legislation concerning the media, which could infringe the freedom of speech. I call on the Kenyan authorities to relinquish their plans to introduce censorship, to build consensus in order to foster the freedom of the press and the public communications sector. I hope that the rights of religious and ethnic minorities will be respected in Kenya. A year ago, over a thousand people died during protests linked to the elections and 350 000 people fled their homes. I hope that those responsible for these incidents will be justly punished.

(PL) Mr President, even if it is true that some of the private media in Kenya helped to instigate riots following the emotional election campaign, this is no justification for restricting the freedom of speech.

The attack on the freedom of the press in Kenya also involved the violation of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. It is worth stressing that the new legislation was adopted by 25 out of the 220 members of parliament. This is an utterly inconceivable situation. What is worse is that, until that point, Kenya had boasted one of the most developed and pluralistic press networks in the whole of Africa. This will change after the new legislation is implemented, which will allow special services to interfere in the activities of the media, close down editorial sections and control the printed or spoken word. Restricting the freedom of the media sector in the name of national security can only have the opposite effect to the one intended.

(LT) Why are we concerned with freedom of the press in Kenya? Why is the European Parliament debating this issue as a case of human rights violation as a matter of urgency?

Firstly because freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, as laid down in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Kenya is a signatory. Therefore, it, like other signatory countries, must not only observe its spirit, but follow it to the letter.

The demonstrations which took place almost a year ago after the Presidential elections in Kenya and grew into riots and ethnic conflict, in which more than 1 000 people were killed and tens of thousands were left homeless, is the strongest argument for not allowing similar events to be repeated. Therefore, the Kenyan Government and President should act together and honour their own obligations to respect freedom of the press, speech and assembly. In addition - and this is particularly important - they should fight impunity and call to account those who are responsible for the riots which took place a year ago.

Mr President, while we are debating humanitarian issues and freedom of the press in third countries, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, according to media reports from Gaza, the offices of the UN which were bombarded earlier on today by the Israeli forces are completely ablaze and all the UN humanitarian aid which was stored there, much of it sent by the EU, has been completely destroyed. The same fate has befallen the offices of Reuters and of other international journalists in Gaza. I wish to record that I share the view of the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, currently in Israel, who is reportedly completely outraged at the Israeli authorities.

Mr Matsakis, thank you for this declaration, but I am not supposed, in theory, to accept it because the rules require that when you ask to speak by catching my eye, it must be on the subject under discussion, which is, I would remind you, the freedom of the press in Kenya, even though the events to which you have referred are indeed dramatic, as everybody agrees.

(PL) Mr President, the European Parliament's Resolution on press freedom in Kenya highlights an important issue. Dictatorships begin with restrictions on the freedom of the press and information, as well as civil rights. I hope that this process will be halted by international and internal action. I think that President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga will take appropriate action. The Resolution, which I support, will certainly help the process of democratisation in Kenya.

(PL) Mr President, during the Communist period, both in Poland and in other countries, one of the provisions of the criminal code stipulated that any person disseminating information that could lead to civil disorder would be punished. This kind of provision was exceptionally useful as a stick for beating not only individuals but also, and above all, the press. Today, we see similar intentions behind the legislative endeavours in Kenya. One cannot state, as an argument or a threat, that the press must be muzzled as it might cause trouble in the country. That is no justification or explanation for this kind of censorship. The press is there to provide people with information, which is a real cornerstone of democracy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by emphasising that freedom of expression, including television and radio, is one of the pillars on which the EU rests. This freedom is among the key European values and it cannot be called into question.

The 'Communication Act' of 2008 which became law in Kenya on 2 January 2009, includes some points which, in our opinion, might encroach upon media freedom. We therefore noticed with satisfaction the recent decision of President Kibaki on 7 January to revise some disputed sections of this Act. We are delighted that Mr Kibaki authorised the Minister for Information and Communications and the Attorney General to meet with media representatives in order to propose changes to this law that would eliminate these fears.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press form part of public affairs administration in the broadest sense of the term and this, in itself, is at the centre of EU development strategy. I frankly take the view that a free and responsible press is an essential precondition for democracy and the legal state, which are integral components for sustainable development. Only on the basis of dialogue will the media and the Kenyan Government be able to develop a common understanding and build mutual respect. Thus, the European Commission looks forward with interest to the results of the various meetings which will take place in Kenya between the parties involved and it hopes that relevant parties will reach agreement on appropriate recommendations for proposals to amend the media law.

As far as the post-election violence is concerned, the Commission welcomes the report of the investigative commission on the violence (the Waki Report). It appreciates the undertaking of the Kenyan Government to implement the report recommendations, including the establishment of a special tribunal to ensure that the people responsible for the violence will have to answer for their acts.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place immediately.

Written statements (Rule 142)

At the start of 2009, democracy in Kenya suffered in the form of a blow against the freedom of the press. President Mwai Kibaki has signed a law, although he has subsequently had a change of heart, which grants the Kenyan authorities the right to carry out raids on editorial offices, tap journalists' telephone calls and check the content of broadcasts on the grounds of 'national security'. As if these abuses were not enough, the law also stipulates huge fines and terms of imprisonment for reporters found guilty of 'anti-government' practices. Although President Kibaki has ordered these provisions to be amended a week later, we are not aware as to what these 'amendments' envisage.

This law, in its initial form, is a reminder of the dark days of dictatorship, when the Kenyan press was brought to its knees. Kenya is currently a democracy and I firmly believe that no one, President Kibaki included, wants to return to those times. An attack against press freedom is an attack against democracy. The international community must continue to put pressure on the Kenyan authorities to treat civil liberties responsibly, especially press freedom.

Ladies and gentlemen, Kenya is acting in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Such fundamental pillars of democracy as freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not respected. The free press is in serious danger.

State control and censorship were sections of a draft amendment to a communications bill. Through the ill-considered action of President Kibaki, these have now become law.

It is unheard of that the government should possess the right to organise raids on the editorial offices of newspapers and broadcasters and check what is broadcast and in what form. That is far from a democratic society.

It is essential that the existing legal provisions should be amended. It is possible to regulate the press without endangering freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. This must be done as soon as possible.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law(debate) 

1. Iran: the Shirin Ebadi case (vote) 

2. Guinea (vote) 

3. Press freedom in Kenya (vote) 

Voting time

Documents received: see Minutes

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

Written declarations included in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes

Adjournment of the session

I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 4.10 p.m.)

Resumption of the session

I declare resumed the session adjourned on Thursday, 15 January 2009.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

Verification of credentials: see Minutes

Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes

Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure: see Minutes

Documents received: see Minutes

Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

Petitions: see Minutes

Order of business

The final version of the draft agenda for this part-session as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday, 29 January 2009, pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:

Monday: Mrs Roure has withdrawn her request for a brief presentation of her report on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees in the Member States. The report will therefore be put to the vote on Thursday.

Thursday: The Union for Europe of the Nations Group has requested that the item on the situation in the Philippines be replaced with an item entitled 'Refusal of the extradition from Brazil of Cesare Battisti'.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, having consulted many of my fellow Members, I would ask you for an amendment to the agenda just as you have said. Specifically, I would ask if the Battisti affair can be included as an urgent matter.

As a matter of fact, a few days ago, the Brazilian Government decided to refuse to extradite the terrorist Cesare Battisti, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for committing four murders, and granted this killer the status of political refugee. This decision, as well as being an affront to the institutions and to Italian justice, is an insult to the memory of the victims and to their families, and has outraged public opinion.

That is the reason for this request that, among other things, I believe should be heard, and because the request initially came from the highest public officials in Italy, starting with the President of the Republic, Mr Napolitano. That is therefore the reason for the request.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

The next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

(HU) In the Intergroup for Regional and Minority Languages we have drawn up a report for the purpose of protecting traditional national minorities. Why is this important? Many of the new Member States, among them Romania, for instance, have no legislation for minorities. Last year we witnessed uniformed policemen beating up civilians in Slovakia. Ever since the new government took office in Romania, we have noticed that the symbols of minorities are being removed, that it is seen as a problem if someone speaks more than one language, and that several hundred children were accidentally left out of school enrolment. This is why we think it important for the European Parliament to produce a report, a resolution, guaranteeing the protection of minorities, the protection of traditional ethnic minorities. Thank you very much, Mr President.

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the natural gas supply cut in January resulted in heavy losses for a few European countries, especially Bulgaria.

The direct losses for the Bulgarian economy for just a few days amounted to more than EUR 230 million, which is equal to the amount needed to start the Nabucco project. This has left our economy in a precarious state and has forced us to seek cooperation in order to reopen the blocks at the Kozloduy nuclear power station.

The dialogue on this must be reasonable and calm, and based on good analysis. The solutions are difficult, however, let us not prejudge them and dismiss them outright, as the Commission has unfortunately signalled.

I consider that Bulgaria and some of the worst affected countries must have the opportunity to gain additional funding from the European Development Plan, and not just a minimal share of the EUR 20 million which has already been allocated for gas projects. It is inexplicable that the worst affected country should receive the least amount at a stage when almost EUR 3.5 million will be allocated for energy projects.

We will shortly start the discussion on energy strategy. I call upon all Members to show that we have a vision for energy independence, that on the verge of elections we can overcome our political differences, and that we can protect the solidarity and mutual assistance that has joined us together.

(ET) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Czech Presidency began one month ago, but it has already managed to spit in our faces and insult us with its gift: Estonia is covered with a hammer and sickle, there is a drunken man on the floor of a Finnish sauna, Germany has a swastika, Italy has football players holding balls near their genitals, Bulgaria is covered with toilets, etc. etc. This is how the artist who made the Czech Republic's gift to the European Union portrayed the nations and countries of the European Union in his work.

Art can and often must shock, but is the mocking of another country and people the most fitting way to do so? The Czech Government speaks of the artist's freedom of expression: true, but here that freedom has definitely been used in the wrong context. The government is apparently not permitted to interfere with the artist's creative freedom: this is also true but, in giving this gift, the Czech Government has accepted the message that this gift conveys, and, as the gift-giver, it, and not the artist, must now bear responsibility for the consequences. It is difficult to understand how the leadership of the Czech Republic can consider itself entitled to insult other Member States.

As a representative elected from Estonia, I expect an answer and an apology from the country that holds the presidency, so that I may relay it to the Estonian people. Unfortunately, none of the representatives of the presidency are here, but I believe that my request will reach them.

(PL) Mr President, five thousand juggernauts drive through the town of Augustów every day. Every day children go to school, walking along the side of the road itself, because there is no footpath. Almost every day one of them dies under the wheels of a juggernaut. Eco-terrorists have blocked construction of a bypass, in the name of protecting birds from noise. For every week that this development is held up, one of the children of Augustów has to pay with his or her life. Neither the eco-terrorists nor the judges of the European Court of Justice send their own children under the wheels of juggernauts. The lives of the children of Augustów are, however, being accorded less importance than the well-being of birds.

I am a supporter of care for the environment and of action to protect nature. However, when human life is involved, we must not squander it so heartlessly. I will direct a question to the European Commission: how many Polish children have to pay with their lives due to construction of the bypass being blocked? In making the decision, were their lives considered at all?

- (FR) Mr President, I should like to draw the European Parliament's attention to the deterioration - if such a thing were still possible - of the human rights situation in Tunisia.

Since 11 December, Sihem Bensedrine, a well-known human rights defender and editor-in-chief of Kalima, has been the subject of press harassment and slanderous remarks that are absolutely intolerable and incompatible with the rule of law.

On 23 January, Mr Amin, who is the coordinator of the Maghreb Coordination of Human Rights Organisations, was refused entry into Tunisia.

On 28 January, Radio Kalima, which has been broadcast via satellite since that date, was completely surrounded. Its journalists were imprisoned, and those who came to their aid were manhandled in the street. This radio station is still being surrounded by the Tunisian police, with the result that freedom of information and expression are being undermined.

Tomorrow there will be the appeal hearing of the Gafsa workers, who are fighting against corruption and against their exploitation in this Tunisian coal mining area, with a denial of justice that we saw during the first hearing.

The heads of mission in Tunis are concerned about the situation; they have discussed it, and are perhaps discussing it at this very moment. They were meeting today.

I call on you, Mr President, to take a major political initiative in order to put a stop to these systematic human rights violations in Tunisia.

Our new and former colleague Martin Kastler has now arrived too. He tells me he was caught in a traffic jam. There are two ways to avoid being late: either by setting off earlier or by improving the trans-European networks.

Mr President, the murder of prisoners of war and of civilians captured during wartime constitutes one of the most severe violations of international law. The third and fourth Geneva Conventions state clearly that such acts fall far below the standards of international law and render the perpetrator liable in the eyes of the international community. It is in this same spirit that Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights declares the taking of life a flagrant violation.

The recent confession by the Turkish actor Attila Olgaç to the murder of 10 Greek Cypriot captives during the Turkish invasion in Cyprus in the summer of 1974 has brought to light once more the crimes committed by Turkey and entails an inescapable responsibility for Turkey to open its archives for the investigation of the fate of all missing persons. The international community, in which the European Union is a significant player, must put all possible pressure on Turkey to comply with international law, the related decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and all relevant UN resolutions.

(SK) The motto of the Czech Presidency 'Europe without barriers' should not be just a slogan, but must be a clear response to current challenges. The Presidency should deal with the issues that worry European citizens for whom the existing barriers make it impossible to exercise their rights on EU territory.

The European Union has fifty million Europeans with various health problems who in everyday life come up against various difficulties. Many of them have turned to me with requests regarding the need for mutual recognition of ID cards for severely disabled people. Handicapped citizens cannot use these cards in all EU Member States. As an example, this makes it difficult for them to park their cars in designated parking spaces. I have submitted a question to the Council and to the Commission and I hope that measures to harmonise these cards will be adopted as soon as possible.

'Europe without barriers' must mean the removal of all barriers, including physical, social and architectural barriers, and the prevention of any discrimination against handicapped people.

(RO) The documents from the meeting on 5 February in Prague mention a debate on the topic of the Barcelona objectives concerning public childcare services, with the emphasis on home childcare. I wonder whether the Czech Presidency is aware of the European Commission report from October 2008, which indicates that more than six million women aged between 25 and 49 state that they are obliged not to work or can only work part-time because of family responsibilities.

Home childcare must not be detrimental to public childcare services. As a social-democrat, I believe that investing in public childcare services is beneficial to society as a whole. I urge the Czech Presidency to consider what assistance can be provided to Member States enabling them to improve their public childcare services from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, especially during the current crisis.

(BG) This week a referendum will be held in Switzerland on the free movement of people. The Swiss people will decide whether the agreement between their country and the European Union will be extended both in terms of time and scope, and whether it will include the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania.

With this decision Switzerland will facilitate and define not only how things will develop in the future, in terms of whether we will apply visas and borders, but will also decide whether certain responsible decisions linked to economic development from the last 30 years will continue to be applied in the future as well. The policy of freedom of movement of citizens is a contributor to economic development, both in Switzerland and in the European Union, and also to the improvement of our general standard of living.

I openly hope that the result of this week's referendum in Switzerland will be a positive one, because an opposite, negative result would once again lead this beautiful partnership and cooperation to the barriers which we once had, to restrictions and to all the inconveniences resulting from a lack of agreements.

It is for this reason that I hope that our Swiss friends will support our common future and I invite both Member States of the European Union and the Commission to continue our mutual cooperation with Switzerland in good harmony and with good results for all citizens of the European Union.

(PL) Mr President, at the meeting in Davos German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for the building of a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany on the Baltic seabed.

Mrs Merkel has once again proven her understanding of European solidarity. Yet the countries of Scandinavia, as well as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, have expressed reservations and opposition to the gas pipeline project. Mrs Merkel has shown what importance she attaches to the voices of ecologists, who are warning of the threat to the Baltic. For Mrs Merkel there is no significance in the fact that the construction costs will be several times higher than the costs of building an underground pipeline.

I have a question: could it be that, following the example of her predecessor Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Mrs Merkel was looking for a job with Gazprom? Are the leaders of the German left and the German right aware that by showing this attitude they are undermining the authority, dignity and cohesion of the European Union?

(HU) Mr President, according to the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right of self-determination. This also applies to the 1.5-2 million Hungarians in Transylvania. Two years ago the Székely National Council organised an informal referendum on regional autonomy for Székely Land. In this referendum carried out using mobile ballot boxes, in spite of an artificially instigated anti-Hungarian propaganda campaign, 99% of the 210 000 voters asked voted in the affirmative. Recently, a significant number of local governments in Székely Land launched a new initiative for a comprehensive official referendum. The state bodies and their local representatives, the so-called prefects, are making every effort to hinder Székely Land's Hungarians in the peaceful, lawful and democratic expression of their will. I ask Parliament and President Hans-Gert Pöttering to keep a close eye on further developments concerning the referendum in Romania, and to extend protection to the local governments that are under threat from the authorities. Thank you.

- (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the economic partnership agreement between the Cariforum and the European Union is inaugurating something bad for the outermost regions (ORs) of the French West Indies and Guyana.

Worse still, the agreement on which I will have to give my opinion does not respect the mandate that was set by the European Council, or the European Union's strategy for the Caribbean, or its strategy for the ORs, all three of which explicitly mention the need for the regional integration of the ORs within the Cariforum and for the creation of an interregional market between these two parties, aimed at the overall development of the region.

I am concerned. For 10 days now a terrible strike has been taking place in Guadeloupe, bringing everything to a standstill, oil included. This strike is lasting so long because the people of the French West Indies and Guyana are suffering from the cost of living, which is one and a half times higher than in metropolitan Europe. Although this has so far been a purely French problem, it has now in fact become a European one, and the Commission's refusal to negotiate a specific OR-Cariforum agreement for us is in my view a disgrace.

(EL) Mr President, recently we have heard about, we have read about and we have seen civilians being bombed and children being exterminated. Recently we saw a gentleman from Turkey who admitted in public that, during the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey in 1974, he murdered 10 handcuffed Greek Cypriot soldiers. What we have not seen, Mr President, is a willingness on the part of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, a willingness which was so evident when it came to those involved in events in Yugoslavia; the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is still chasing them. Consequently, I think that it is a legitimate demand for us to ask Parliament to tell us if there is a list of countries which come within the jurisdiction of The Hague Court or if there are countries which are indifferent to and dismissive of this Court. I think that our demand to know which countries and citizens are being brought before the Court in The Hague as defendants and which are not is a legitimate demand.

(HU) Thank you for the floor, Mr President. I asked to speak because of a tragic accident that occurred three days ago in Croatia. An 18-year-old man stepped on a landmine and became one of the already numerous victims, among them Italian, Dutch and other European fellow citizens. Croatia is not party to the comprehensive mine clearance programme being financed by the Commission from 2008 to 2013, and yet the number of such mines that have been deployed is unknown. Though Croatia has never produced any mines of this sort, there are life-threatening antipersonnel mines along some 1 000 kilometres of its territory. I respectfully ask the Commission and you, Mr President, to intervene so that Croatia may also benefit from European aid - just like Bosnia, Ukraine, Kosovo and Cyprus - since this is an extremely costly and highly dangerous operation. I have been speaking in my capacity as Chairman - on the EU side - of the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee. Thank you very much for the floor.

(EL) Mr President, demonstrations by farmers in Greece, together with other demonstrations in Europe, are sending out important messages of change in current perceptions about farming and the food issue, by demanding the reform of European and national policies. When, at European level, economies are collapsing, all confidence has been lost in the financial system, small and medium-sized enterprises are gradually disappearing and employment is shrinking, we cannot turn a blind eye to the problems accumulating in the countryside, in farming, in the rural economy and in regional employment. It would be a good idea for the Commission and Parliament to start a dialogue and to present proposals in a bid to deal with the problems, not only so that small and medium-sized farms survive, but also to get them out of the crisis over coming years, to activate the intervention mechanism and to strengthen the crisis management mechanism - so that even loss of income can be covered - and national policies, which could be made more flexible without this necessarily meaning cofinancing of the common agricultural policy.

(LT) European leaders recently expressed the view that they were disappointed with the leaders of Ukraine and Georgia. They are beginning to doubt whether they can democratise those states and lead them into NATO and the European Union. Such views and talk can only support Russia's policies and its special forces. Right before our very eyes we can see Russian provocations whose goal is to weaken President Yushchenko, President Saakashvili and the West-oriented policies they are implementing. There are invisible provocations as well. The best way to see how they are organised would be to examine the KGB archives. Only naive politicians in contemporary Europe can believe that Russia no longer carries out such blackmail and provocations, even though it is led by KGB officer Putin. The latest information provocation is that Georgia kidnapped a Russian soldier. It was fed to Europe all week. Later Russia admitted that the soldier himself had in fact deserted, but the black propaganda had already done its damage. One gets the impression that Russia is playing games with tanks, gas pipelines, information and misinformation brilliantly. However, it is above all the naivety of European politicians which allows Russia to play such games.

(PL) Mr President, taking advantage of the fact that the attention of world public opinion is now focused on questions related to the economic crisis, the Chinese authorities have used their extensive apparatus of oppression to increase pressure on the Tibetans. The campaign, which is to last 40 days, is directed mainly against the participants in last year's protests.

Summonses to police stations are increasing, as are disappearances, incidents of intimidation and unexplained deaths. We cannot exclude the possibility that one consequence of the repression will be expressions of unrest from the Tibetans, who will be driven to take extreme measures. The Chinese security services and army will respond by brutally pacifying these protests, and it may turn out that we are dealing with deliberate provocation from the Chinese authorities, who will be counting on the fact that even democratic governments will restrict themselves only to tentative protests during the common struggle with the economic crisis. The European Parliament should express itself clearly and decidedly on this question, and therefore today I will permit myself to submit a draft of an appeal to the Prime Minister of China. Let us together send a signal to the communist regime that we do not consent to the violation of basic rights of the people of Tibet.

(RO) The European Commission has declared 2009 as the European Year of Creativity and Innovation. Creative thinking is the key to success in a global economy, a fact recognised by the European Union a long time ago. Indeed, innovation is an integral part of both the Commission's climate change package and the plan for revitalising the European economy. For its part, the European Parliament must become more actively involved in promoting creativity as a driving force for innovation. Last year the energy and climate change package was adopted and the written declaration on fibromyalgia was approved for which I would like to thank you once again. These documents pave the way for innovation and creativity in areas of paramount importance such as health, by identifying new treatments for fibromyalgia, and energy, by making the new alternative energy sources more efficient.

(HU) Mr President, Hungary, too, entered the Schengen area on 21 December 2007, and yet there are certain issues that have still not been settled on the Austro-Hungarian border. The Burgenland authorities are not really speaking to us. Therefore, in June 2008, my Hungarian compatriots submitted a petition to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions, which we immediately forwarded to Commissioner Jacques Barrot. Mr Barrot eventually responded, four months later, saying that he did not have sufficient information regarding the petition and that they would try to contact the person who submitted it. Two months after this reply, I myself contacted the person who submitted the petition and asked how things stood. I was told that to date no one from the Commission had been in touch; this does indeed make it difficult for the Commission to obtain information. When I went back to the Commission staff, I was told that they would examine the matter 'within the best delay'. I would like to ask the Commission what the expression 'within the best delay' means, and I would like to express my hope that the campaign for the elections due to be held four months from now will not likewise be conducted by Mr Barroso and Mr Jacques Barrot 'within the best delay'. Thank you very much.

(HU) Thank you, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, here is a one-minute rapid snapshot of the still rampant European racism. In Hungary, a few days ago, a police chief constable who had made a racist statement was acquitted and then reinstated after reference was made to a supposed internal investigation. The investigation did not address the question of whether or not the racist statement had in fact been made. In Romania, in the municipality of Tărlungeni, near Braşov, a wall has been erected between the Roma and non-Roma families. In response to a question from a local child asking why they are being separated, the father may perhaps reply: because those living on this side of the wall are bad people, while those on the other side are good people. Ten days ago we voted to adopt the report of the delegation to Italy; since then, a week ago, Italy deployed armed forces against the Roma after two crimes committed by persons unknown. The police forces are sweeping through Roma families with helicopters, dogs and armed police officers. Thank you very much.

(PT) The number of workers affected by unemployment in Portugal is growing exponentially. Every day, companies announce cutbacks in production, layoffs of workers or even complete closure.

Amongst the most serious cases is the threat hanging over around 2 000 workers at Qimonda, in Vila do Conde, following the declaration of bankruptcy of the parent company in Germany. On Wednesday, a delegation of workers from both countries will be here in Parliament, expecting solidarity and also our support in their fight to defend their jobs.

However, the scandal of delays in payment of wages and other remuneration owed to workers is also increasing, as is happening in cork companies, some textile companies, and the ceramics and metallurgy sectors, amongst others. This situation is creating serious social problems, increasing poverty and even causing tragic situations in cases of members of the same family working in the company. I was able to ascertain this only days ago at Subercor, a company based in Santa Maria da Feira (part of the Suberus group, in the footwear sector), where workers are struggling because they are not receiving their wages and there are couples who are going hungry and already have no food for their children. These are terrible situations caused by the crisis which is devastating us, the consequences of which can be seen in human faces and people's lives. I therefore appeal not only for solidarity but for these serious problems to be solved.

(HU) Mr President, popular opinion in Hungary has been following with great interest the developments in the water cannon case in Hungary, and would like to have a clear view of the issue as soon as possible. We request the Commission's assistance in this matter. This issue concerns the fact that the Hungarian Government continued throughout 2006-2007-2008 to hold to the view that it had purchased new water cannons at the expense of the Schengen Fund, and that these were used in Budapest on 22 October 2007 to disperse the crowds. At the end of 2008, the Minister for Justice and Law Enforcement stated that this purchase was not paid out of the Schengen Fund, which is an EU resource. The competent European Commissioner confirmed that the cannons had not been purchased out of the Schengen Fund. A day later, a secretary of state at the same Ministry stated that the Hungarian Government had covered the purchase of the water cannons from the domestic sources of the Schengen Fund, contradicting the European Commission. My question is: has the Commission looked into whether the Schengen Fund was used in this case as intended, and has it sought to ascertain the truth with regard to the water cannon purchase? After these events, the credibility and transparency of the actions not only of the Hungarian Government, but also of the European Commission, are at stake. Thank you very much.

Mr President, last Monday the British Government announced feasibility studies into five tidal-power schemes in the Severn Estuary: three would be barrages and two would be lagoons.

The EU has rightly set ambitious targets for renewable energy, but the idea that achieving these targets will be pain-free is a delusion. The Severn barrage could supply up to 5% of the UK's energy needs, yet this would challenge interpretations of the Habitats Directive.

The result of legal arguments - or public opinion - blocking the scheme would be to prove the truth of Nietzsche's dictum that madness is rare in individuals, but common in parties, groups and organisations. The EU and the British Government should ponder Jeremy Bentham's philosophy that we should look for the greatest good for the greatest number.

(EL) Mr President, it has taken a long time to release the Balkans from unproductive nationalism which is out of step with European standards of behaviour and values. It would appear, however, that some people need to hear this message again. In October 2008, the government of the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia filed an application for Community financing for Corridor 10, which crosses its territory. Just two months later, in a scandalous decision which was even published in that country's official gazette, they decided to name this route 'Alexander the Great of Macedon', thereby blatantly insulting the interim agreement with Greece, which makes express provision for the avoidance of government propaganda and the use of symbols which incite hostility, hatred and violence. I call on the European Commission to link the application for Community financing with the repeal of this scandalous decision, which reminds us that there are still nationalists in the Balkans. We are building a Europe in which there is no room for nationalism.

(BG) Last Wednesday the European Commission announced its proposal regarding the programme for reconstruction in the field of energy security.

In line with this proposal Bulgaria is to receive only a share of the EUR 20 million earmarked for the project linking Bulgaria with Greece. Only a share of EUR 20 million earmarked from billions for projects! In my country in these instances we have a saying: 'The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse'. All this after a big gas crisis!

As you know, Bulgaria was most seriously affected and is the only country completely reliant on Russian gas. It is officially said that ready-to-go projects are being financed, but suspicions have arisen. The crucial project that Bulgaria has proposed for the expansion of the Chiren gas storage facility can be finalised within only a few months. If it lacks support, Bulgaria will take on this project independently, but where does that leave European solidarity and justice?

Again last week an influential European journal wrote that, as a result of this crisis, support in Bulgaria for Eurosceptics will rise to 20%. I hope that this is not an accurate calculation. However, if the Commission continues with such behaviour towards Bulgaria, it will make a decisive contribution towards this.

Mr President, two and a half years ago, I found out that the European Commission had initiated proceedings against Denmark in the European Court of Justice because Denmark had introduced a 2% threshold for hydrogenated fats in food. The Commission did this even though there was scientific evidence to the contrary, which showed in fact that hydrogenated acids are extremely difficult from the point of view of coronary disease etc. Two years ago, therefore, I decided - in conjunction with two of our colleagues, Dan Jørgensen and Linda McAvan - to draft a written declaration. We were supported by 254 Members of Parliament from 25 different Member States, which was huge support.

Recently, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety published a report which gave the maximum level as 2%, which is exactly what Denmark was doing. Therefore, on the basis of the medical and scientific evidence, I call on the Commission now to adopt fully the 2% threshold, which Denmark's system introduced and which is recommended in this report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

(SL) I once again note with regret that, whereas the status of the Italian and Hungarian minorities in Slovenia has been regulated in an exemplary manner and each minority has its own representative in the Slovenian Parliament, Slovenian minorities do not enjoy the same kind of support in the countries in which they live.

Despite the treaty signed in Budapest, there is no political will in Hungary to allow the Slovenian minority to have its own representative in parliament. Moreover, the latest reports indicate that the only Slovenian museum in Hungary is to be closed down because of funding cuts. Yet this museum is the Slovenian minority's only centre of cultural life in Hungary and has received only EUR 16 000 in funding.

While Slovenia earmarks EUR 14.5 million a year for its Hungarian minority, Hungary earmarks a mere EUR 400 000 a year for its Slovenian minority. For this reason, we justifiably expect the Hungarian Government to improve its financial and political support for the Slovenian minority. The financial crisis cannot be used as an excuse to cut funding allocated to minorities, whether in Hungary, Italy or anywhere else.

Mr President, in spite of the agreement between the Greek authorities and farmers, the farmers are still blocking the cross-border traffic road between Bulgaria and Greece at the Kulata-Promachonas crossing. The continuing 14-day blockade of border crossing points between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Hellenic Republic of Greece has caused considerable financial losses to the Bulgarian hauliers.

I and 14 other Bulgarian Members of the European Parliament have sent a written question to the Commission on the measures taken under Regulation (EC) No 2679/98. We acknowledge the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens. However, we are convinced that this Regulation should be significantly improved so as to avoid another case of continuous blockade of transport between Member States in total breach of the fundamental principles of the internal market, such as free movement of goods and persons.

- (FR) Madam President, nine days ago the regions of Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées and Languedoc-Roussillon were hit hard by Storm Klaus.

The damage is extensive, and I call for these regions to receive emergency European aid. I have in mind, in particular, the European Union's Solidarity Fund, but also the Structural Funds and the Rural Development Fund, and I am also thinking about the authorisation of state aid.

I should like to draw your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to the fact that, in May 2005, the European Parliament adopted the report by Mr Berend on the reform of the Solidarity Fund, in order to extend its scope. The matter is currently at a standstill within the Council of Ministers. It is imperative that there be a positive outcome to it soon.

European citizens expect the European Union to protect them and to offer them practical assistance. Allowing these French regions to receive emergency aid, but also seeing through the reform of the Solidarity Fund, would represent, in the eyes of Europeans, cast-iron guarantees that the European Union's duty and purpose is to be at their side in difficult situations.

(EL) Madam President, farmers with small and medium-sized holdings have been on the streets for a fortnight in a fight which has shaken the entire country. The common agricultural policy, which is jointly formulated and implemented by Greek governments, and agreements within the framework of the World Trade Organization have resulted in a reduction in agricultural output, in a drastic cut in the income of farmers with small and medium-sized holdings and in their speedier eradication. Greece's agricultural balance of trade has gone from being in the black to being in the red to the tune of approximately EUR 3 billion for 2008 alone. Instead of meeting the basic demands of small and medium-sized farms, the New Democracy government is trying to mislead them with meaningless announcements and, at the same time, is mobilising the special forces in order to suppress their fight. The Communist Party of Greece and the workers support the fight of small and medium-sized farms against the common agricultural policy and the entire anti-grassroots policy of the European Union and bourgeois governments. They also support their demand for guaranteed minimum prices for agricultural and livestock products, which will cover the production costs and improve the income of small and medium-sized farms.

Madam President, as the economic crisis deepens, major issues leading to industrial action are emerging in the United Kingdom, flowing from the compulsion for unrestricted free movement of labour within the EU and the procurement requirements in regard to major public contracts, whereby contracts won by foreign companies are resulting in a significant influx of foreign workers, putting local workers and local unemployed at a disadvantage and depriving them of opportunities.

In this, I believe, many will come to see the price being paid by the United Kingdom for EU membership. We are being compelled to subject ourselves to labour market laws and to the supremacy of EU law and the rulings of the European Court of Justice. Procurement policy, which prohibits preferment for local contractors and workers, is stoking up more and more resentment of the EU and its inflexible regime.

(EL) Madam President, two years ago Parliament adopted a resolution almost unanimously. In this resolution, it called for the fate of the missing persons in Cyprus to be ascertained. Two years have passed and no progress has been made. The Turkish army was asked to give the competent committee all the information in its possession, but nothing has been done in this direction. On the contrary, today we have a public confession by a Turk who was a soldier at the time and who, for reasons of conscience, because he cannot take it anymore, has confessed that he killed 10 Greek Cypriots. The Turkish army knows about both these crimes and about others and, without doubt, there is not a civilised person today, of Turkish or any other nationality, who does not condemn these war crimes. What, however, must we do? We must step up our efforts to persuade the Turkish army to supply information to the competent committee in order to put an end to the suffering of the missing persons' relatives.

Madam President, as you know, there have been widespread protests in my country about an Italian company which has won a contract in an oil refinery in my constituency, and has only used Italian labour for the contract.

The outcry is understandable if indeed the company in question has reserved the right to its own nationals and not allowed British nationals to work. That would be a violation of European Union law (discrimination on grounds of nationality), as it would be if the company were undermining British legal requirements, which it must observe under the Posted Workers Directive.

If, however, the protesters are saying that only British companies should have had the right to tender for that work and only employ British labour, then, of course, the protesters would be making an argument that would not be correct. They should bear in mind that there are over two million British citizens who work in other EU countries, and only a million non-British EU citizens who work in Britain.

The slogan 'British workers for British jobs' must mean enabling British workers to compete in a well-trained way and without suffering discrimination. It cannot mean reserving things solely to the nationality of the country concerned, either in Britain or in any other Member State of the European Union.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in two days' time, I am delighted to say, we will welcome here the President of the Palestinian Authority, in a formal sitting. On that occasion, the President of the Authority is coming to the Chamber of the Europe of homelands that is destroying the European homeland, whereby the Mediterranean is only fit as a tomb for the poor and for those who are condemned to starvation and extermination.

We here represent - look, it is time for nationalist protests, and everyone from all sides should take part - the scourge of the Europe of homelands that is destroying the European homeland and we have a duty to tell Brussels this. In two days' time, a Palestinian will speak. The fact that 80% of Israeli citizens are in favour of Europe, unlike the Jerusalem Government, as the Adenauer Foundation has shown, also shows that even the people of Palestine, Lebanon, the southern Mediterranean and Tunisia are not entitled to move themselves to revolution ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(RO) Given the current climate in Europe, guaranteeing energy security is becoming a priority. Diversification of energy transit routes can be guaranteed by interconnecting Europe's gas networks, which also supports solidarity between Member States, one of the European Union's fundamental principles. In addition to the financial contributions made by Romania and Hungary themselves, the European Commission proposed last week the allocation of EUR 30 million for the completion of the Arad-Szeged gas pipeline project, the financing for which has been suspended for more than five years.

This project is of paramount importance. The gas pipeline will not only link Romania and Hungary, but will also provide a connection to the European Union's gas network. Once the pipeline is completed, Romania will be able to both export and import gas on the European market, not only in normal conditions but also in situations where there is a European energy crisis. With this in mind, I am calling on your support so that the Commission's proposal is implemented as quickly as possible.

(DE) Madam President, the meat scandal in Ireland has made waves throughout Europe, including Austria where, as a bizarre consequence of the scandal, Irish meat was sold as Tyrolean bacon. In my view the only solution to this EU-wide problem is a compulsory declaration for fresh meat and meat products, which would contain the following information: place of origin; duration of the animal's journey to the abattoir and from there to the point of sale of the meat; if the meat comes from outside the EU, the country of origin should be specified precisely. In addition, it is high time the European Union had these things checked by inspectors. So that this can indeed be done, I call on the Council, the Commission and you, ladies and gentlemen, to take steps to ensure that European consumers can no longer be misled in this way.

(SL) We have seen and heard reports that the long-standing civil war in Sri Lanka is coming to an end. However, it was military predominance, not political achievement or any lasting solution, that drove the Tamil Tigers out of their last major stronghold. This military solution is fraught with problems. We see winners and losers, the losers being the tens of thousands of local civilians who are withdrawing or fleeing in fear of government units.

Experience from the Western Balkans teaches us that military victories and formal cessations of military hostilities are often followed by the killing of the losers or their supposed sympathisers by the winners. Victories can leave a trail of individual, uncontrolled acts of retribution, but frequently also organised killings, which the perpetrators usually seek to conceal.

I am not trying to accuse anyone ahead of time. I am just trying to point out that the European Union must also take immediate action to ensure an international presence and international supervision during this most critical post-conflict period, a period which leaves the civilian population, who are fleeing in fear, in the greatest peril.

Madam President, many will be aware of the recent dioxin scare in the Republic of Ireland. Beef farmers in Northern Ireland were also caught up in this problem because they imported the compound feed which caused the problem in their animals. The Northern Ireland Executive has now offered the farmers 25% compensation, which will mean ruin for them. The Executive is having problems finding the matching funds, and will not be able to draw the 37.5% that is available from the European Union. I understand that the Government of the Republic of Ireland has made it clear that it will not be accepting any responsibility, even though the feed mill was licensed by it and under its control. There is also a substantial amount of infected pigmeat at one plant. This is a very serious and dangerous problem and must be resolved as soon as possible.

(RO) The European Union is busily preparing to negotiate a post-Kyoto agreement in order to continue reducing the causes of climate change. Member States must gradually reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. European companies must urgently invest in modernising their production installations in energy-intensive industries, to be able to maintain the current level of production, save jobs and protect the environment.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that during the current economic crisis European enterprises are failing to obtain the credits which they very much need to be able to modernise. It is not a case of European enterprises having to produce less, but simply in a more intelligent and environmentally friendly manner. I call on the European Commission, the European Investment Bank and Member States to make the EU's sustainable economic development a priority and to guarantee, through the European economic recovery plan, the conditions required so that European enterprises can modernise and remain competitive in an increasingly tough market.

(HU) Thank you very much, Madam President. The European Union faces the challenges of guaranteeing stability and security, improving the prosperity of its citizens and building a common European future. The historical, national and ethnic minorities are of enduring value to a diverse Europe. Respect for the rights of these minorities has not yet been satisfactorily ensured. The existence of documents such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, as well as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, inspires confidence. It is clear that until each Member State of the European Union has ratified these documents, further efforts are needed. Parliament should make it a goal to create a binding framework agreement that will guarantee the protection of national minority communities, recognising that various forms of autonomy and self-determination, based on the principle of subsidiarity, represent reassuring solutions to the situation of minority communities. Thank you very much.

- (FR) Madam President, allow me to express my full support for the citizens and families affected by Storm Klaus, which hit southern Europe, and particularly south-west France, more than a week ago.

The consequences of the storm are tragic. It caused 11 deaths, more than one and a half million homes have been left without electricity, and 300 000 hectares of forest have been hit, that is to say 40% of the forest in the Landes region. Around 30 to 40 million m3 of trees have been brought down.

Since 2002 the European Union has been endowed with a Solidarity Fund that enables emergency financial assistance to be given to European regions hit by such natural disasters. The Council of Ministers must - and I shall echo the conclusions of Mrs Laperrouze here - release this Solidarity Fund, and I hope that Parliament will make sure that this happens very soon.

(PL) Madam President, we are about to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the Round Table Talks in Poland. It was then that rulers and opposition sat down to talks, and to reflect together on the solution to Poland's problems, both problems of an economic and social nature, and also the most important problems of our political system.

The opposition was represented primarily by Solidarity, which was founded in 1980, headed by Lech Wałęsa and the organisation's advisors. On the government side the negotiators were the authorities of the crumbling socialist economic system, the creators of the state of martial law in Poland.

As a result of the Round Table Talks and settlements, elections were held in June 1989, which led to the establishment of the first government led by a non-communist: Tadeusz Mazowiecki. It was that government which showed us that the right direction for Poland to take was not only freedom and democracy, but also integration with the European Union. The changes which took place in my country then triggered the march of many countries of Central and Eastern Europe towards freedom, democracy and integration with the EU.

That concludes the item.

Impact assessment of the compromises reached in the Doha negotiations on NAMA and services at the end of July 2008 (debate) 

The next item is the Commission statement on the impact assessment of the compromises reached in the Doha negotiations on NAMA and services at the end of July 2008.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, we are facing the greatest economic challenge for a generation, and in that challenge both developed and developing countries face difficult and very important decisions.

We need a positive effect from globalisation to respond to the negative effects of globalisation. It is my strong belief that, wherever we begin to look at what we need to do, we will end in the conclusion that completing the multilateral trade round - the Doha Round - is of vital importance to us.

I probably do not need to remind honourable Members of what history teaches us about protectionism, the importance of keeping our markets open and the possibility for our businesses to be able to trade across the world. I probably do not need to tell all honourable Members that, simply within the rules of the World Trade Organisation, if countries moved from applying their tariffs the way that they do at the present time to applying them in the way they are allowed to do under the rules, then the cost to trade would be something of the order of EUR 260 billion. I am sure I do not need to remind honourable Members that, as the developing nations consider the future, they are deeply concerned about what will happen to some of the aid that has been available to them so far.

So, in terms of where we are: we know the value of a deal that is now 80% complete and that in July 2008 80% of what needed to be done was done. Within that agreement, the value is of the following order: the gains in the developing countries would be of the order of EUR 12-14 billion annually; there would be new access to emerging markets in emerging countries, such as China; we would have the opportunity in the European Union for new exports, diversified in new ways - for example, in chemicals and textiles - and in services there is a potential for EUR 14 billion of trade. Another fact at the present time is that the non-tariff barriers - the non-tax barriers - in China alone in 2007 cost European Union companies EUR 20 billion. This is a hugely important round.

I have just returned from Davos, where discussions between trade ministers reinforced the need to get back to the negotiating table and, of course, the technical discussions are continuing in Geneva.

We all wait for the new American Administration to review its trade policies, as it currently plans to do, and to reach the same conclusion that we have reached. We look forward to the G20 on 2 April 2009 and the opportunity it affords world leaders in terms of looking to resolve the financial and economic crisis and having the opportunity to discuss again the need to complete the round. Then there are the Indian elections in April or May, which of themselves will be the moment for an existing or a new government to return to this subject.

Of the outstanding issues that were left on the table, there is the special support mechanism, which, in the end, was the issue that prevented the talks from continuing between India and the United States. There are new proposals being considered. A decision is still to be taken on cotton, but again there are proposals on the table. For the United States there are real issues about particular sectors.

There is no doubt there is still much to do, but it is my strong belief that, with political will, all these issues can be resolved, and the alternative is not an option. For us, issues around services are very important and will follow on.

In conclusion, we are at the moment at a particular point where the need to complete this round is very obvious and very clear, and I look forward, on your behalf - as well as that of the Commission - to continuing my efforts to ensure that we do.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the trade in industrial goods and services is indeed of strategic importance to the European economy. The European Union is, as we all know, the biggest exporter in the world and the main source of direct foreign investment. The European Union is one of the most open markets, while eminent partners of ours maintain high trade barriers. We are seeking a substantial reduction in the tariffs applied and for unjustified, non-tariff barriers to be addressed. In addition to industrially advanced third countries, there are also emerging economies which need to make concessions in proportion to their degree of development and their sectoral competitiveness. However, Commissioner, the problem is not only one of removing barriers: differences in regulatory systems are generating additional costs for exports, putting European products at a competitive disadvantage compared with imports from countries with more flexible standards and, in many cases, are raising the question of the safety and protection of European consumers. The prolonged failure to reach agreement is exacerbating the climate of economic uncertainty and is damaging the credibility of the multilateral trade system. Bilateral and interregional agreements can only be supplementary in nature. Furthermore, the economic crisis may trigger the erection of unilateral, restrictive or distorting trade barriers. There are already examples of this, of limited scope at present, as the relevant report by the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Mr Lamy, testifies. The protection clause for US products adopted by the House of Representatives is a step in the same worrying direction. I would say that to return to unilateral approaches is not a solution. Today more than ever we need to manage the challenges jointly, with more positive integration and by establishing or strengthening international regulatory systems with systemic convergence. We need a new international economic architecture. We need more transparent and balanced global trade governance and, on this point, Commissioner, we await an integrated proposal for 'globalisation with a European face' which will take account of the changes already made and of the link between the commercial and economic dimension for a transparent, democratic and efficient Europe in the world at this time of crisis.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, we in the Party of European Socialists are committed to a successful outcome of the Doha Development Round, yet the ticking of the political clock has created a situation where, if you like, progress is on hold. Commissioner Ashton made the point that in the United States we have a new, and from my point of view, very welcome, administration in that of President Obama, but we are waiting for a review of trade policy, which may take some time.

In April or May there will be elections in India. The one place Commissioner Ashton did not mention was the European Union itself, where we have our own European Parliament elections in June, and following that a new incoming Commission, in which I hope Commissioner Ashton will continue to serve as Trade Commissioner. Yet that does not mean that there is nothing to do in the interim. Europe must continue to emphasise its commitment to development and free trade within the context of ensuring an end to exploitation and meeting the need for sustainable development.

I agree with Mr Papastamkos: free trade on this basis can be a win-win situation for all participants. The current financial and economic crisis is a reason to move forward and not to retreat.

Commissioner Ashton and the Commission can try to prepare the ground for a compromise between the United States and India. It was obstinacy on both sides, in my view, that acted to scupper a successful conclusion at the last time of asking. Matters may be 80% agreed, but we need the other 20%. We have one new administration in the United States. The outcome of the Indian election may give us another.

In the mean time, we have no choice but to continue to pursue bilateral agreements. I welcome the progress made in last week's negotiations on the free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea, where I understand we are close to reaching an agreement which, again, will benefit both sides.

I am the rapporteur on the free trade agreement with ASEAN, and have to say that the negotiating basis is creating an institutional road block. We need to consider the possibility of looking at a coalition of the willing and able among ASEAN who can, if you like, sign off on an agreement. As with India, there is in my view currently no governmental will to achieve an outcome. After the election, Delhi's incoming administration, whether new or old, must put up, or we the EU must move on to those who want not just to talk, but to arrive at a conclusion.

Finally, I welcome Mr Pannella, the next speaker, who is the new ALDE spokesman on trade. Maybe a visit to the Committee on International Trade would prove appropriate. We would welcome him.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that to some extent we could start - given that these terms have been rather widely circulated over the last few days - what we have to do, Commissioner, with a strange kind of comparison between the man of Doha, or ex-Doha - as we hoped - and the man of Davos. I do not feel that this is an adequate distinction, clearly, but it is interesting.

We now find ourselves, as you told us Commissioner, somewhat dependent on events that are not happening in Europe: events in the United States, events in India, and Mr Ford also just reminded us of important areas such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or South Korea. The real problem, however, is to what extent we, today, the Commission and the European Union, are capable of withstanding that outbreak of nationalism, which was mentioned a moment ago, and of autarchic ideas and new protectionist illusions, which is liable to make your work, Commissioner, and the work of our European Union too, very difficult.

I believe that, in this electoral campaign, it will be extremely important to understand how far the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe can manage, together with other participants, to find a way to develop our proposal, the proposal for which you were made spokesman, Commissioner, and to what extent we can really manage to make it a European proposal and not just a proposal, or I should say, our centre of Brussels against a series of capitals that are each already doing their own thing, as unfortunately happened many times in the last century.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FR) Madam President, there is no point in denying it: during the July negotiations, the Bush Administration and the European Union were caught in their own trap by India and China. What is more, contrary to the hypocritical assertions of liberal economists, for whom the failure of Doha would have been a disaster for poor countries, it was no such thing.

On the contrary, for these countries in difficulty it represented an historic opportunity, in a context marked by significant fluctuations in the prices of raw materials. Even the experts admit, the gains that the poorest countries could have hoped for were well below the tax losses caused by the demise of customs duties in these same countries, duties that would have reached the sum of USD 60 billion.

During these negotiations, the Commission, tangled up as it is in its liberal dogmas, displayed a total lack of responsibility towards the people of Europe, going so far as to propose damaging, even sacrificing, car manufacturing on EU territory in order to succeed in reaching an agreement.

As far as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Commission are concerned, there are only consumers and never wealth creators. It is this take on matters that is at the root of the current crisis since, by making competition the be-all and end-all of everything, it is pushing us in the direction of yet more salary deflation, and hence the absolute impoverishment of workers and the methodical destruction of all social protection.

Were the Doha Round to be concluded, it would be a disaster for all nations. Moreover, what is particularly painful in the current context is the fact that, in spite of the considerable damage recorded having been taken on board, there is a desire to continue in the wrong direction, no matter what the cost. There is an urgent need to revolutionise the WTO so that democracy may be established there.

(NL) The Doha negotiations have been ongoing for some considerable time now and it is to be applauded that Europe has made real progress towards drawing our positions closer together. Europe has put forward a far-reaching proposal on agriculture but, unfortunately, our efforts have not been reciprocated by other countries. This is another reason why it is so important to look at the package as a whole, which means including NAMA (Non-Agricultural Market Access) and services.

You can be assured of my whole-hearted support in your efforts to reach a rapid agreement. As Europeans, we need to guard against protectionist practices, which are increasingly rearing their heads, mainly due to the poor situation with the world economy, but also under the banner of protecting food safety. As Europeans, we need to reiterate our unwavering commitment to the concept of reciprocity. If we are open, then they need to be open too.

What should we be expecting in this respect from the new US President and the package of measures he has just announced? What can we expect from China? It is, in fact, primarily in this regard that we look to you to act, since, in these times of economic and financial crisis with mass redundancies and shrinking economies, it is precisely this market opening that has the potential to further our interests.

Madam President, our questions have been framed with the intention of highlighting the benefits our citizens can expect from such a package of measures and what we are able to offer in such a package. I fully understand that you cannot respond to these questions in the short time available here, but I want to challenge you, in the coming weeks and months, to be transparent when communicating with citizens about the issues on the table and what these mean for them. This is of particular importance as the European elections approach, and I hope we can count on you to keep this matter high on the agenda.

(PT) In the context of this very serious financial and economic crisis, it is absolutely essential to make progress in concluding the Doha negotiations.

At a time of crisis, there is always a tendency to give way to the temptation of protectionism. Protectionism is actually a kind of neurosis which tends to affect societies and states at times when they are faced with serious crises, such as the one we are experiencing. We must therefore clearly fight against the possible emergence of this protectionist temptation, because we know from history where that leads us. It leads to the general impoverishment of the world community and in no way contributes to solving the grave problems that confront us. One thing, however, is protectionism, which is to be criticised absolutely and should be resisted, and another, quite different thing is the need to guarantee the protection of legitimate interests in the various areas of the world into which we are divided. That is where the European Union also has an obligation to uphold the interests of Europeans, and not just the interests of Europeans as consumers, but also the interests of Europeans as producers.

That is why it is important to proceed with the multilateral Doha negotiations. Whilst we know that protectionism is in fact a mistake, we also know that uncontrolled liberalisation of international trade inevitably leads to very serious disasters from an economic and social point of view. The only way to avoid such uncontrolled liberalisation is by possibly establishing an agreement in the appropriate forum, that is, the World Trade Organization, a multilateral agreement that establishes rules to safeguard the legitimate interests of all the parties concerned. The role of the European Commission and of the European Union, in this case too, is precisely to restore Europeans' confidence.

There is also a crisis of confidence in Europe today in terms of the capacity for defence and political regulation of those who represent it, whether the Member States, the European Commission or the European Union as a whole. Therefore, the challenge we face is precisely that of helping to put an end to this crisis of representation and confidence by ensuring that we are advancing along the right path. The right path, in this case, is to guarantee a multilateral agreement which safeguards all our legitimate interests.

(EL) Madam President, a strategic choice of the European Union and of the bourgeois governments, in the middle of the deep capitalist crisis - a crisis in the accumulation of capital and overproduction which is also infesting the Member States of the European Union - is to use the World Trade Organization as an important prop with an active role in imposing the full liberalisation of trade and commerce, privatisations and takeovers and the penetration of the European monopolies into new markets. The aim of the Doha Round talks is to coordinate an all-out attack by capital, so that the multinational companies can plunder the raw materials of third countries and increase the exploitation of the workers throughout the capitalist world. The anti-grassroots common agricultural policy is the consideration for promoting the objectives of the European Union to liberalise the markets in non-agricultural goods and services in order to safeguard jobs in the imperialist pyramid. Obviously, we are interested in international trade and its development on the basis of mutual benefit. However, it is impossible, under capitalist conditions, for global trade to be equal and based on mutual benefit. That is why the fight by the workers in an anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly direction urgently needs to be stepped up, in order to bring about radical change both at international level and in each individual country.

Madam President, the Doha Round broke down last year. This is an extremely serious state of affairs. Progress towards global free trade over the last few decades has lifted an incredible number of people out of poverty on a scale that has actually changed the world. Now, however, the world's economy is in a very deep crisis. This is not a result of free trade and this form of globalisation, but a result of a global financial crisis. In this way, the situation is similar to the one we experienced at the end of the 1920s.

This sort of financial crisis results in a global depression. The last time, it brought Hitler to power. It led to the horrors of the Second World War and to 50 years of communist slavery throughout half of Europe and half of Asia. These are important issues that we are talking about here. The most important cause of the global depression at that time was a resurgence of protectionism. Country after country introduced duties, quantitative restrictions, 'buy domestic' rules and competing devaluations.

There is actually a high risk of this state of affairs being repeated this time round. There are many worrying signs. President Obama actually won the election from a protectionist platform. We are seeing the first signs. There is now a large package on the table which does, in fact, include a 'buy American' clause relating to steel for the construction industry. This may be the beginning.

If the door has been opened, other countries will discover that they can do something similar, given how bad things look. Those countries that are currently badly affected around the world and within the EU will be tempted to promise their workers and their undertakings protection against foreign competition. The trends are clear to see. If this process starts it will not be possible to stop it. This really will be disastrous.

The EU is the largest trading bloc in the world and therefore has considerable responsibility. In the area of commercial policy, the EU speaks with one voice, and, for once, that is a good thing, but what will that voice actually say now? There are grounds for pessimism.

The key to success lies in the agricultural sector. However, the campaigning by France and Germany to get the EU to buy in milk powder and butter and to start subsidising the export of dairy products does not bode well. This is the politics of small-minded self-interest instead of statesmanship.

Therefore, the Council and Parliament should immediately issue clear statements to the effect that the EU will defend free trade throughout the world and open up the way for progress in the trade in agricultural products. Nothing can be more important than that. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

(SV) I would like to begin by agreeing with the previous speaker that the Doha Round is extremely important, but I would like to add that it has probably never been more important than it is right now. I believe that, precisely in the midst of this financial crisis, we have a greater need than ever before to show that the global trade system actually works.

To put the Doha Round behind us and say that we cannot achieve global agreements on trade would, I believe, be a disaster that could undermine the whole of the global trade system. The failure of the Doha Round will probably never be more costly than it is right now.

The fact that the Doha Round is more important now than ever before is precisely due to the financial crisis. As I see it, the greatest risk that we face with this financial crisis is not the lack of capital for the lending market; the greatest risk is that it triggers protectionist trends. We have seen this throughout history. It happened during the 1930s and literally resulted in disaster for the world's economy, and it also happened in the 1970s.

I believe we can already see signs that the world thinks it can solve these fundamental problems by means of greater protectionism, despite the fact that there is a risk of the protectionism spreading and creating an even greater crisis in the world economy. This is happening in the area of services, financial services and the trade in services, in particular. In the financial services sector we are seeing protectionism increase very rapidly.

Returning to the Doha Round as it looks today, the main criticism that I had during the entire period that we were negotiating in the Doha Round is probably that it began to be about agriculture, agriculture and more agriculture. I think that this is an extremely narrow agenda, and I actually think that world trade deserves a very much broader approach, particularly in light of the fact that agriculture is a relatively small part of world trade if we compare it with industrial goods and services combined, for example. I also believe that it accounts for a relatively small part of the growth potential, particularly, perhaps, here in Europe. New opportunities for access to markets and new market openings globally, in particular for the trade in services, but also for industrial goods, are, I believe, most important for setting the wheels in motion and reviving global growth.

I would therefore like to ask the Commission a question. What does the Commission intend to do and what initiatives does it have underway to enable the broadening of the Doha Round in order to get us away from this tiresome situation in which we are all sitting around and reproaching everyone over agricultural trade, agricultural trade and only agricultural trade, when we know that what the world economy needs is a very much broader trading agenda that also includes trade in services and industrial trade. Thank you very much.

Madam President, I should like to welcome the Commissioner. Her predecessor, Mr Mandelson, was well known in Ireland, for reasons with which I am sure she is very familiar.

The issue of the Doha Round is not being talked about amongst the people of Europe. It is being discussed in places like this, but when I meet people who have lost a job, for example, they do not say, 'Let's do Doha'. So I think there is no connection between Doha and economic development, despite all of the theory that is advanced here.

On the globalisation of financial markets, I could suggest that this is a case where globalisation has failed us - although perhaps it would be fairer to say that it is the regulation of financial markets, or the lack thereof, that has failed us. I am interested in Commissioner McCreevy's recent comments to the effect that some of the problems in this area have been caused by Member States' regulators building empires. That is perhaps for another debate, but it exemplifies how, though we talk of globalisation as being a great thing, that has not been true in the financial sector.

On agriculture - which was addressed by the other speakers just prior to me - I gathered that agriculture was not the sticking point at Doha. But it is a very serious issue and one that I have huge concerns about. Maybe it is because I am older than the last speaker - who is in my political group - that I regard agriculture as rather important, because it produces food and is therefore higher up the scale than he placed it. I think we should remember that. We voted in this House on a report that I produced about global food security. We are concerned about it, as we should be. It should be an issue that is discussed at the Doha level.

Another issue is how European producers - farmers - can be competitive when in the European Union we have different, higher, standards of animal welfare in relation to the environment, which are not addressed at the WTO. You will only bring our citizens with you on this journey if those issues are addressed at the WTO. Quite frankly, I think there was never an occasion when we needed direct discussion of these things in this Chamber, and in Geneva, more than we do now.

I would ask you if, in your concluding comments, you could address some of those very real issues, so that people realise that they are being discussed. I do not see the Doha Round developing at the speed that you are suggesting. Perhaps I am wrong.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the context of the Doha Round, it would interest me to know how the Directorate-General for Trade intends to safeguard the tariff quota that underpins the competitiveness of the European fermentation industry. The tariff quota serves a very important function, because the fermentation industry must remain internationally competitive.

Secondly, how will you respond to the steel clause that the US Congress has just adopted, which would prohibit the use of EU steel in the United States?

(PL) Madam President, the objective of the Doha Round was to help the poorest countries with their development, to lift them out of poverty. On one hand therefore, we must do everything to help, but on the other hand we must not forget our own businesses or farmers.

I would therefore like to ask a question: how can we protect our small and medium-sized enterprises from bankruptcy, and how can we protect our small farms from competition from China, India or Brazil? Let us say loudly and clearly that, in order to import any kind of product to the EU, irrespective of whether this is shoes or beef, specific standards must be met. Then we will be able to speak of equal competition.

Completing the negotiations in the coming months will be extremely difficult, because there is a lack of political will on the part of the leaders who really count in the negotiations. There is a danger that protectionism will increase because of the current world economic crisis.

(PL) I would like to say that, while listening to the last debate in Doha in Qatar, I had the impression that the developing countries have a grievance against us, the developed countries. Perhaps it is a kind of echo of former colonialism, or that they are accustomed to receiving direct aid, and so to receiving a kind of charity. It seems to me that wealthy countries can help through good trade, good standards, and training. Nothing is more essential than to make local enterprise independent, and build horizontal relations between the countries of Africa, Asia and also Latin America. I also think that it is precisely providing services that teaches management, cooperation and good standards. In connection with this, the accent on opening the market to services is very important for both sides.

Madam President, thank you for providing me with another minute, because it is important for my comments about agriculture. There is an impression that European farmers are the only ones with concerns. However, the truth is that at Doha the Indian negotiators are concerned about their small farmers and the dire consequences that a move to free trade would have not only for individual farmers but also for social stability in their country. So the issue of agriculture is across all of the negotiating partners and we need a little bit of honesty about that. Commissioner, perhaps, again, in your concluding comments you might address that.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I shall try to address briefly the concerns that Members have raised.

Mr Papastamkos, I agree with you on the legal and regulatory burdens. It is very important that these are addressed properly. It is important to resolve them, and I also agree on the importance of safety in that context.

A number of Members, notably Mr Lundgren and Mr Rübig, as well as Mr Papastamkos, talked about the 'Buy American' provision that is currently going through Congress. Members will know that this is based on the 1979 Trade Act. We already have that provision, but through the Government Procurement Agreement we have reciprocal arrangements whereby nations which sign up to it can bid for those projects. What we are hoping - and we have been talking to the Americans about this - is that we end up where we were before. I have read the legislation. I too am very concerned about it.

I am going to America at the end of February to meet the new United States Trade Representative, who, we hope, will have been through his confirmation by then, and Members can rest assured that these are very important issues to be raised.

Mr Ford raised some of the issues about bilateral relations. Korea is progressing, and on ASEAN I am looking for the flexibility which Mr Ford and I have discussed before, in order to try and move forward on that, but I agree too that there is no substitute in terms of value and importance for the multilateral arrangements.

On what we said about India, Prime Minister Singh has made it clear he is very committed. I agree with Mrs McGuinness that the question of agriculture for India, which I shall also return to, is very important. I was with Kamal Nath in London last week, debating Doha, and he as Trade Minister for India raised exactly same the point as Mrs McGuinness about the incredible importance of low-level subsistence farmers. I fully agree with her comments and indeed with what the Minister was saying.

Mr Pannella, I do not think that we are quite at the mercy of events. I think we as Europe have to push forward, use our influence and make it absolutely clear that we agree with what you said about the critical importance of battling against protectionism. It is a big challenge and one of the challenges contained within it is communication, making sure people understand.

Mr Hénin has not stayed for my response, unfortunately, but it is not a matter of sacrificing industry for consumers. This is about industrial growth and development. It is about protecting workers' jobs, because we know the importance of trade and export to doing precisely that. As for institutional change at the WTO, we could spend our time on that, but I want to spend my time on finding practical ways through this difficult economic period.

Mrs Wortmann-Kool talked about services. I agree this is very important. It is very important too to be transparent. I could not agree more with that.

Mr Assis, protecting our interests, not protectionism, is absolutely right. There is a fundamental difference that we have to be clear about, and we have to make sure of protecting the work force in all of this.

On agriculture, as I said, it is critically important to make sure that we are able to develop our industries. This is about food production, and it is very important in the Doha round. My colleague Mariann Fischer Boel has worked very hard to make sure that the European position on agriculture is secure. It forms a fundamental basis for all the work that I do in our bilateral, regional and multilateral talks to make sure that the best opportunities are provided to protect all of our agriculture in the future.

As for the fermentation industry, Mr Rübig, I understand these issues are currently being discussed, but I will be more than happy to come back to you with specifics.

Finally, on small and medium-sized enterprises, Mr Siekierski, it is very important that we are protecting our small businesses. I am working closely with Günter Verheugen to get enterprise and trade collaborating effectively to make sure that we provide opportunities for small businesses to tell us where they need markets to open, to support them in helping those markets to open, and to support them in trade.

The debate is closed.

Production and employment in the textile and clothing sector in various EU Member States (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on production and employment in the textile and clothing sector in various EU Member States.

author suppleant. - Madam President, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, I would like to set out what is at stake here.

It is about production and employment in the textile and clothing sector in various European Member States. The European Union and China have agreed to a joint surveillance system relating to exports of certain categories of textile and clothing products from China to European Member States, but this system expired on 31 December 2008.

During the last two years, 350 000 jobs have been lost, and the number of companies was reduced by 5% during the same period. In the light of the growing number of enterprises that are ceasing to operate, or relocating production, leading to an increase of unemployment in several regions, I would like to put the following questions on behalf of the International Trade Committee:

Has the Commission or any Member State proposed or requested the extension of the dual surveillance mechanism beyond 31 December 2008 or any other measures in that framework?

What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to protect production and employment in the textile and clothing sector?

Will the Commission continue to monitor real-time market developments, import statistics and customs monitoring and keep the sector informed of the latest developments?

What is the current situation regarding the proposed regulation on 'made in' labels?

What measures have been taken by the Commission to address the proposals adopted by Parliament in its resolution of 13 December 2007?

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, it is understandable in this climate that there is concern about the success of manufacturing in the face of competition, and of course textiles are very important. Employment has continued to drop and production has fallen again - and that is after a couple of years of relative stability. Of course the sector is at the cutting edge of globalisation. Small and medium-sized enterprises play a huge part in this.

Following the end of the Memorandum of Understanding in 2005, we did have the agreement on the joint surveillance system - to which Mrs Wortmann-Kool drew our attention - and it has given us early information about trade flows. We are therefore better able to react in the event of being faced with a sudden surge in our industry. It is also a further step in the transition to open markets designed and developed - as I am sure Members know - with the economic players concerned and in discussion with Member States and with Parliament. By promoting a process of gradual change, we have helped the sector adapt. That has been supported by the social partners. They did not ask for an extension of the voluntary growth levels under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) when it ended in 2008, nor have they been asking for a continuation of the surveillance system into 2009 - though I appreciate that some Member States would have preferred us to do so. Imports from China have increased overall, but within reasonable limits. Significant increases in some categories - such as for example dresses, trousers and pullovers - have been balanced by drops in textile imports from suppliers in other countries. So, overall in 2008, only a slight overall increase was realised and markets have absorbed that reasonably well.

The right political responses are not to close our markets or monitoring of the imports. We need to ensure that all businesses can change, adapt, trade and innovate out of current conditions. It is precisely to help businesses like this that the economic recovery plan was endorsed. That, of course, represents a huge boost of 1.5% of EU GDP, which should help the textile and clothing sector. The challenges for the sector predate the current slowdown. Eight of the fifteen applications under the Globalisation Adjustment Fund have been to support textile workers.

The Commission is ready to support initiatives to set up partnerships in the textile and clothing sector designed to anticipate restructuring with the aim of protecting employment and, overall, the sector benefits from the fact that there is a long-standing framework for social dialogue. We welcome Parliament's resolution on the future of the textile sector. We move forward in market access, in funds from the Lead Market Initiative, and in every free trade agreement, as causes dedicated to environmental and social standards. Of course currency devaluation remains on our agenda.

Madam President, textiles and clothing are a globalised sector of the economy par excellence, a sector which is characterised by continual change in terms of the place of production and constant restructurings and adjustments to new situations, such as the liberalisation of international trade. For many Member States of the European Union, including Greece, this sector is an important source of exports and employment. However, the considerable number of production units relocating and the constant reduction in employment have taken on worrying dimensions. In addition to structural problems, the acute discrepancy between the import tariffs of the European Union, on the one hand, and of its most important competitors, on the other hand, is playing a negative role. Commissioner, we are talking about a sector which represents an extremely high percentage of overall seizures of pirated products on the borders of the European Union, a percentage which is constantly rising. In this instance, I consider the proposal to set up a European observatory on pirated products to be a good idea, so that we can achieve better coordination between the competent authorities, Member States and Commission services and also conditions of effective cooperation with the private sector. I think we need to adopt regulations on the 'made in' label, which will help to safeguard conditions of fair competition and consumer protection. The establishment of more effective rules of origin is important in terms of the application of tariff quotas within the framework of the generalised tariff preferences and regional agreements. We are being called upon to shape a new framework of cooperative relations between the agencies that implement industrial and regional policy and commitments and to effectively support European undertakings, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, so that they can maintain and further improve their competitive specialisation. I refer to the production of high added value products in terms of quality and design, innovation and the use of new technologies.

We would like to thank you for your replies to the oral questions. I would like to stress that, as is well-known, the textile sector makes a particularly important contribution to the GDP of all the Member States, including Romania. We are well aware that this sector creates new jobs, especially for the female workforce. I agree with and support the measures which you are proposing because, being aware of how important trade is in the current economic crisis, we need to realise how important the measures are which we need to take to protect jobs.

Bearing in mind that the joint surveillance system for textile imports from China was stopped at the end of last year, which I understand was an important tool for monitoring the market, I would like to suggest to the Commission that it attaches greater importance not only to the textile sector but also to other vulnerable industrial sectors such as steel, chemicals and machines. I would also like to suggest that the European Commission presents on a regular basis impact studies, statistical data or other elements and relevant instruments for these sectors. I would like to congratulate you once again on the measures you have proposed for access, free trade, funds and the environment.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that we are facing an extremely serious industrial crisis, and the European textile industry cannot escape this crisis, which is also a product of the financial crisis.

It is clear that delayed consumer spending is affecting European high-end products, including those from my country, Italy, in a sector that has seen, as the Chairman of the Committee on International Trade pointed out, the loss of 350 000 jobs and 5% of businesses.

At this point, however, I believe that more than financial support, this sector, like other industrial sectors, requires rules, and requires, as has already been pointed out, genuine reciprocity. While we can understand that, with regard to emerging countries, there are leanings towards really opening up the market to promote the development of those countries and thus new markets, much less understandable is a lack of reciprocity in terms of legislative barriers and tariff barriers with regard to the most developed countries: the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan.

It is for that reason that certain fundamental issues - on which commitment has, I believe, existed more on paper than in practice - such as the issue of origin marking, must once again become the main focus of attention within the Commission and the Council. Europe needs new rules, but it also needs reciprocity and increased efforts to fight counterfeiting and piracy, to take real action on anti-dumping measures and, specifically, to approve the regulation on origin marking.

You see, Commissioner, if we take part in a boxing match with one hand tied behind our back, we cannot win. I would also like to reiterate that it is a problem that concerns the United States together with us, and does not just concern China or India. They have rules on traceability, which they impose on our products as well, but which we do not have. This, then, is a fundamental issue, with regard to which I believe the Commission's initiative needs to be stepped up much more than in the past, because we have seen that when it wants to, it can manage even to convince those who would argue, as was the case on the issue of the environment.

To conclude, I feel that there are some measures that are costly and others that are less costly, but the costly ones are part of a package to tackle the crisis, which is about to be launched. They include the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, more credit made available to promote investments and strengthen the capitalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises, more funds for research for the textile technology platform, and more support for exports by small and medium-sized enterprises. The less costly measures are specifically the regulation on origin marking, the protection of intellectual property, anti-dumping and the fight against counterfeiting. If we can put forward all these costly and non-costly measures, I believe that we will help Europe's economy without changing the rules on competition and without falling into neoprotectionism.

In the wake of other initiatives, we proposed to the Committee on International Trade of the European Parliament that an oral question should be raised with a debate in plenary on production and employment in the textile and clothing sector in different Member States of the European Union, because we consider this urgent and indispensable.

We also proposed that this debate should include the participation of the Council and be concluded with a resolution by this Parliament; however, these proposals did not have the support of other parliamentary groups.

More than a year has passed since the debate held in this Parliament on 12 December 2007. We raised the alarm at the time that, if measures were not taken in defence of production and employment in the textile and clothing sector, we would continue to be faced with the slow agony and destruction of a large part of this strategic sector. Since then, and as had happened previously, thousands of jobs have been lost and innumerable companies closed, with 350 000 jobs and 5% of companies having vanished in the last two years alone.

Is that what the European Commission claims to be competing through restructuring, we would ask. Since then, and as was the case previously, workers have continued to be faced with unemployment - all too often without payment of the compensation or back pay due to them - with intensified exploitation, with more insecurity, with late payment of wages and with deregulated working hours.

Certain causes and people are responsible for this situation, such as those who promote the liberalisation of the textile and clothing trade and the relocation of production with a view to maximum profits, thus pitting a large part of the sector against competition based on double standards defined from the start.

Faced with this situation, the European Union has either turned a deaf ear or taken mitigated measures which far from provide an answer to the problems and needs of the sector. The European Commission does not consider the textile and clothing industry to be special, as it claims to, unlike other sectors. Together with urgent measures which need to be implemented by each Member State, the European Union also has a duty to provide a response to the grave problems with which the sector is contending.

Commissioner, when will binding rules on attaching labels of origin be applied, with the adoption, for example, of the 'made in' regulation? When will the same consumer safety and protection requirements be applied to imported products as are demanded for products made in the European Union? How will the European Union continue to monitor in real time import trends and customs inspection and control, keeping the sector fully informed and invoking safeguard clauses wherever necessary? How will it use the 2007-2013 financial framework, including the so-called Globalisation Adjustment Fund, to uphold production and employment in the textile and clothing sector, in particular in the small and medium-sized enterprises affected by liberalisation? When will there be a monetary and foreign exchange policy that does not penalise the exports of certain Member States? When will the Community programme, proposed by this Parliament, be created, and the financial resources to modernise and promote the sector and the diversification of industrial activity be unblocked, particularly those directed at the least favoured regions which are dependent on it?

- (FR) Madam President, the European textile and clothing sector is a sector that has been hard hit over the last few years by the damaging effects of globalisation.

Today, in spite of some still painful wounds in certain European regions, this sector has been able to change direction, not least through the development of technical and innovative textiles.

However, let us not undermine this industry's capacity for recovery by being lax and negligent. Indeed the European Union must maintain the political will to create a consistent competitive framework for its businesses, by remaining vigilant and by taking practical and effective action when this proves necessary.

For the Union to do this, Commissioner, you must continue to monitor the customs statistics of imports arriving from China and you must keep this sector informed of the most recent developments. We must keep a close eye on matters and we must be responsive. The European Union has the means to do this: the trade protection instruments are a perfect example of such means. Therefore, I will continue to hammer home the point that a Europe that protects is not a protectionist Europe.

However, my concern today, Commissioner, is based on the unprecedented increase in seizures of counterfeit textile and leather articles, articles that are impregnated with azo dyes or nickel, which put the security and the health of European consumers increasingly at risk. This is a phenomenon that, as you can well imagine, is not about to go away with the economic crisis that we are going through.

That is why I call on you to work with the Member States to implement as quickly as possible the four-year action plan on combating counterfeiting and piracy, with the creation of a European counterfeiting observatory and the strengthening of the European customs system.

Making it mandatory to indicate the origin of goods sourced from third countries, harmonising the customs control procedures, and punishing violations of intellectual property rights by criminal prosecution are the battles that we have to fight on behalf of our businesses, our jobs and the citizens of Europe.

(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, this case is a very concrete one in which the distinction we made a short time ago, in the previous debate, between protection and protectionism, applies very well.

We must say 'No' to protectionism which impoverishes, but protection to safeguard fundamental rights of Europeans is absolutely necessary. This is a very important sector in various European regions and countries, as is the case of the region that I come from, the region of Northern Portugal. It is of crucial importance to the regional economy. It is a sector that has been particularly exposed to the globalisation process. In a serious financial crisis like the one we are undergoing, this sector is experiencing absolutely tragic times.

The European Union and the Member States should pay more attention to the textile industry, opting for defensive measures and offensive measures. The defensive measures entail the use of all the mechanisms and instruments of commercial defence that are at our disposal. It also involves maintaining a political dialogue with our main partners to combat situations of real monetary protectionism and situations that threaten the legitimate interests of European producers. To defend European producers, employers and workers is to defend European citizens and also to defend European consumers. That is what we must be aware of, once and for all.

At the same time we have to use these defensive measures in compliance with principles as simple as those that have already been set out here: the principle of reciprocity and the principle of the permanent fight against unfair competition. We are not asking for any special treatment for the European Union or for the most affected regions of the European Union. We are simply demanding that there be rules and that those rules be based on fundamental principles of reciprocity. However, while the European Union and its Member States must not hesitate to fight for the instruments of commercial defence which prove most appropriate at any time to be applied, we must also develop offensive policies and measures. This, in fact, has already been happening, in terms of modernising the sector and also in the areas of human resources development, investment in vocational training, technological modernisation and development of the regions.

There are regions, and I know one of them well, which, as I have just said, is the region of Northern Portugal, that are faced with truly tragic situations and it is necessary to confront them head-on.

(LT) This year up to 50% of the jobs in Lithuania's textile and clothing sector may be lost. Almost 20 000 workers may become unemployed. This would not simply be a consequence of the economic and financial crisis. The textile industry has to withstand unequal competition conditions and apply higher manufacturing, work, hygiene and ecological standards. It is very difficult to compete with China's subsidised production due to the imbalanced exchange rate, bank lending policies, absence of depreciation deductions and tax policy. Moreover, China and other countries are constantly increasing market access barriers affecting EU products. What does the Commission think of a situation in which the price of a Chinese product is less than the raw materials used to manufacture it? What actions does the Commission plan to take to restore equal competition conditions, the so-called level playing field? Moreover, I would like to ask for concrete facts to be produced showing how the Helpdesk department, established by the Commission to aid small and medium-sized businesses, is helping the textile industry to initiate investigations into the application of market protection measures in obvious cases of unfair competition? For your information, linen textile manufacturers have now been trying for two years to initiate an anti-dumping case against linen fabrics of Chinese origin, but so far have been unable to do so because the Commission does not provide any assistance. What does the Commission suggest textile manufacturers do?

(NL) Commissioner, you said a moment ago that, in overall terms, the situation with textile imports from China in 2008 turned out better than expected. I feel duty bound to vigorously contradict your statement, as the figures paint a completely different picture.

In fact, last year textile imports from China went through the roof. There is no doubt that if we look at T-shirts, trousers, dresses and pullovers, in other words the vulnerable product categories, there has been a near doubling of imports in the space of just one year, and that is clearly a cause for great concern. It means that the surveillance system we have had in place all this time is not working. As we all know, the double-checking system is no longer in operation. This situation, Lady Ashton, is untenable because there are no real sanctions we can apply; we have no clout.

As the previous speaker said, the figures also show that there is something fundamentally wrong with the prices of these massive imports of Chinese textiles. Prices have dropped by nearly a third and this drop cannot be attributed to exchange rate differences alone. Moreover, Commissioner, the production costs in China have risen sharply again over the past year, which suggests that these prices are practically dumping prices. We are counting on you not to let this simply pass unchallenged. As stated by Mrs Wortmann-Kool earlier, 350 000 jobs have been lost over the past two years. To a large extent, this is the result of unfair competition and we need to formulate a response to this situation.

That is not the only matter of concern, Commissioner. As you know, credit insurance is much harder to obtain in the current climate, and this is having a direct, pernicious effect on exports. The French Government has already developed a system of additional credit insurance for the clothing and textile sector. It would be worth considering whether we could recommend this system and streamline it further at European level. I am not suggesting harmonisation, but that we attempt to put initiatives in place at European level to promote the French system to some degree. Can you give us a commitment that, using the powers at your disposal, you will implement initiatives in this respect? These initiatives do not have to cost anything. It is simply a matter of political will and coordination.

(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, as we have recently witnessed, the textile sector is suffering a major crisis that has led to many closures, relocations and redundancies, particularly in regions that specialise in this industry.

In view of the current economic crisis, the European Commission should act as quickly as possible in conjunction with the Member States to alleviate the socioeconomic effects of this restructuring. These changes have been particularly dramatic for the regions and families affected.

I think that workers in the textile and clothing sector should be given assistance and that social measures should be drawn up in the form of plans to help companies that are undergoing restructuring and currently find themselves in very difficult circumstances. It would be desirable to direct a substantial part of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to restructuring and retraining in the textile sector, in particular for the small and medium-sized enterprises that make up the majority of the sector in the European Union. The SMEs have suffered significantly from the effects of the liberalisation of the market.

Furthermore, the import control system should be re-established, in particular with reference to Chinese imports, due to their volume. This is not at all a matter of promoting trade barriers. It is more a matter of compensating for the negative effects of this significant change. We should not forget that the European Union is the second-largest exporter in the world of textile products and clothing, which makes it necessary to guarantee optimum access to the markets of third countries. This is essential to the future of the textile and clothing industry in the European Union and in particular for SMEs.

All of this, of course, must be carried out while guaranteeing fair competition on the basis of the promotion of social and environmental standards in these countries. In this regard, the provision of accurate information for consumers, for example the regulation imposing 'made in' labelling, which we know has not been implemented, would be of great use given that it would mean that imported products would be subject to the same consumer safety and protection requirements as those manufactured within the European Union.

(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, I am going to try to put the questions very succinctly. My first point is the question of the European Union's special monitoring mechanism for textiles, which ended, as mentioned, on 31 December 2008. What is lacking, Commissioner, is the punctual and routine publication of statistical data on imports, exports and prices, as happens in the United States. Without these data, the European Union is prevented from reacting to any unfair practices and the Commission itself is incapable of defining its strategy. I would ask you to attend to this, as other Members have already done.

Secondly, producing within the European Union increasingly entails complying with safety regulations, social regulations and environmental standards. REACH, for example, is a recent initiative that creates even more requirements for us.

It is important that the Commission has a clear strategy that can be seen and monitored for imported products to be subject to the same requirements. In what way, in the current free trade agreements, are these aspects being duly safeguarded? As for 'made in' labelling, can it really help to solve this problem?

Thirdly, the European Union has launched an economic recovery plan to combat the current crisis. What role will commercial policy play in this context? What is the Commission preparing to do at this time, when a series of other countries, such as China, are starting to launch an increasing number of non-tariff barriers so that our European imports cannot access Chinese markets? What proposal does it have with regard to updating or adapting the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, as well as the aid available within the framework of the Structural Funds to improve the immediate situation of the European textile industry?

Lastly, could it be that the crisis we are going through will finally make the Commission aware of the devastating impact of an over-valued euro on the European economy? How can the Commissioner raise awareness - I am about to finish - among her fellow Commissioners and the entities which deal with European monetary policy in terms of rebalancing ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what would you do, Commissioner, to speed up the opening of the Chinese and Indian markets? The main thing, of course, is that we should be able to export our products to those countries. Very many European companies have invested in China, building or acquiring factories there. That is why a more open market is really the top priority. What scope is there for you - in cooperation with Commissioner Kovács, where appropriate - to provide the textile industry with tax incentives, such as shorter depreciation periods, with a view to enhancing companies' creditworthiness? That would naturally help to safeguard jobs as well. When the Basel II Accord is implemented in the future, there will therefore be a need to have structures in place that serve to make firms more creditworthy.

(PL) Commissioner, I do of course want to express strong support for the views of our fellow Members who say that our small enterprises should be protected from the marketing of low-quality goods and counterfeit and pirated goods. I remember that the representatives of the Association of Producers of Tuscany asked us during their visit for recognition of the fact that they do not need protection, but clear confirmation that the 'Made in Italy' mark will be visible only on their Italian products.

Now I want to add something and inform the Commissioner that in fact she has the rather difficult task of resolving a certain dilemma. On one hand consumers of course want to buy cheaper products, in other words at a low price, irrespective of whether the goods come from China or from some other country, and on the other hand they must know that the cost of this may be that their own fellow citizens lose their jobs. Perhaps a campaign informing people of this will help you, as someone who supports finding a resolution to this dilemma, by asking questions and making proposals which will meet with the support of society. For this is about the consumer, and not only about the Commission.

(CS) Thank you, Madam President, I have just one brief remark on the whole complex subject of the textile industry and the impact of globalisation on it. I believe that it is probably wrong just to apply protective measures. The most important aspect is to raise the level of technology and the quality of production in Europe and to move the European textile industry forward by switching its structure into the field of speciality products and towards a level of quality which cannot be achieved by the Asian competition. This is a feasible option and some companies in Europe are already going down this route and creating new market segments, where they feel comfortable on the whole. I believe that such efforts should be Europe-wide in nature and require a well-considered concept.

- Commissioner, may I say first of all that I am pleased to see you here again in this Chamber.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, let me respond to a few of the points that have been made. A number of honourable Members - Mr Papastamkos, Mr Susta, Ms Ferreira, Mr Grau i Segú and Mr Zaleski - talked about the 'made in' proposition. I think the proposal the Commission has put forward is sound and should be adopted and that it is in the interests of business. However, as honourable Members know, I do not yet have a majority in the Council, and any support that honourable Members can give in getting that majority would be most welcome.

A number of Members - Mr Susta, Ms Saïfi, Mr Assis in particular - and Ms Budreikaittalked about the Trade Defence Instruments and the importance of making sure that we operate the mechanisms we have effectively. I committed in my hearing to ensure that I would do that, and I am continuing to do so.

Concerning intellectual property, it is important that we have an action plan, and I intend to deal with that. I also want to address the particular point about the helpdesk and small businesses. It is specifically designed to help small businesses address issues of defence. I am very grateful. If honourable Members would like more information or are concerned about that, they are very welcome to contact me.

'Protect not protectionism' is a very big theme of the discussions. I would just like to say - perhaps particularly to Ms Plumb and Mr Ransdorf - that these are important differences. It is very important to fight protectionism; it is important to make sure we are supporting our industries to be able to compete and trade in the future.

A number of interesting ideas were raised, such as impact assessments for industry, and I will feed those to my colleague Günter Verheugen. He well understands the importance of collecting data and statistics, but I will make sure that he hears of the concerns you have raised. We must look at all the initiatives on the table and how we deal with access to markets, as has been said. I would say to Mr Guerreiro that I accept absolutely the strategic importance of textiles and clothing and its value to the discussion we have had about accelerating markets.

My final comment is addressed to Mr Rübig: I cannot tell you in one second about how we need to accelerate the opening of markets in India and China, but I am more than happy to discuss that at your convenience.

- The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

The import of cheap textiles from China to Europe is a problem which has grown recently as a result of the gradual liberalisation in world trade. The Chinese textile industry, which has a cheap labour force of many millions at its disposal, has an obvious advantage over European producers, which specialise mainly in branded products. In relation to the progressive displacement of domestic production by more competitively priced imports from China, we can see negative social effects, which especially concern those regions that have for centuries specialised in the manufacture of clothes. As we are currently struggling with one of the most serious economic crises in history, the threat of impoverishment of large areas of the Community is even greater.

The uncontrolled influx of cheap clothing from Asia also means the problem of counterfeit branded products, which further weakens the position of European producers and exposes consumers to serious risks associated with the low quality of imported products.

There can be no doubt that, as a result of the expiry of the agreement on bilateral monitoring at the end of 2008, immediate action is necessary to extend this system. It is also advisable to establish a high-level group within the EU, whose function would be to monitor the influx of Chinese textiles and inspect their quality. Bearing in mind that in the face of economic recession the protection of jobs should receive special attention from the governments of the Member States and the Commission, I appeal for the matter of the protection of the European textile market to be given priority status.

Consequences of the recent gas crisis - Second Strategic Energy Review - Challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies (debate) 

- The next item is the joint debate on:

the Commission statement on the consequences of the recent gas crisis;

the report by Mrs Laperrouze, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the Second Strategic Energy Review;

the oral question to the Commission (B6-0003/2009) by Mr Remek, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to start by congratulating the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the rapporteur Mrs Laperrouze. They worked very hard to prepare this report on security of supply as early as this February plenary in 2009. When she started work, no one could have expected that we would have full gas supply from Russia via Ukraine, and this definitely draws more attention to the issues of security of supply.

Concerning the gas crisis, what is the current state of play? All the volumes nominated are reaching their destinations, so this means that most of the consumers have full supply of gas. There is still one stream missing in Poland; we are working on it. It is exceptional in that it was supplied by RosUkrEnergo, which is now out of the deal, but we are also working towards full restoration of gas supplies to all parts of the European Union that have been affected by the crisis.

As the supply agreement is for 10 years, we can expect this agreement to provide a good basis so that we do not see this type of situation in the future. I would also emphasise, though, that all the EU monitors are still in place following the flows of gas and we expect that there will be no need for them in the future. I have written to my colleagues in Russia and Ukraine asking how we should proceed with monitoring in the future, because in my opinion, if we trust the deal and if it is stable, then no monitoring is needed now; however, the monitors are currently there.

I believe that we should not remain idle on this transit issue. We should continue to work with both sides - with the supply side, Russia, and with Ukraine as a transit country - and we should really ensure that there is separation between the gas supply to Ukraine and transit flows going to the European Union, and that these transit flows are financially beneficial for Ukraine too, bringing profit to the country and giving it much-needed economic benefits. We will continue to work on this issue, but basically we can say that the gas crisis is over.

What are the lessons to be learnt? I mentioned this the previous time, but the lessons are that the EU is more robust than we expected. It is true that in this difficult situation EU countries worked with one voice through the Presidency and support from the Commission. We have seen much evidence of solidarity when member countries helped other member countries. We also have the strong realisation that the internal market worked where it could work. I was also very pleased about the strong and coordinated response from the European gas industry, first of all demonstrating a common position vis-à-vis Gazprom, but secondly also in creating a common proposal that could be useful in case there is no permanent agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

What were the weaknesses we discovered? The first was the lack of infrastructure. That was quite obvious, and that was also partly why the market could not work. The gas price and the spot market have not increased particularly but this is just because in some parts of the European Union where the gas supply was needed most there was no additional possibility to deliver gas.'

There were some cases where solidarity could have been greater. We have also seen other cases where there was not sufficient transparency, and we definitely need a stronger coordination mechanism to address the crisis.

The Strategic Energy Review that was proposed by the Commission back in November addressed five areas where Mrs Laperrouze and the ITRE Committee go into more detail and streamline these. They are: energy efficiency; use of local resources (and I would like to mention that, for 2008, 43% of installed capacity comes from wind energy; it is the biggest capacity installed, and wind is a local energy); external relations, i.e. that we are working with our colleagues; crisis mechanisms; and infrastructure.

I believe that one important point where the Commission will make a lot of further effort is on the call in this report for the consolidation of activities in different areas, because we have really developed a lot of activities on the energy and climate change package implementation, on the technology, on external relations, on the internal market. But it is very important to see how to consolidate these, and what additional steps if necessary we should take.

I shall end with one particular proposal that the Commission elaborated, very much related to this issue, but also to the general economic crisis that we face. It is the part of the recovery package related to energy.

There are three issues on which we are proposing that the funding be used. EUR 3.5 billion is for infrastructure - it is not to support each and every project but to increase the diversification of gas flow from south, west, and east, and to try to get a balanced and sustainable gas supply mix.

On electricity, looking at the weakest points, these are the isolation of Baltic countries and the Iberian Peninsula.

Then there are two issues that are sometimes seen as a luxury, but in my opinion they are extremely important issues: offshore wind - it is crucial that we have public support for the projects that are ongoing - and carbon capture and storage. These are absolutely necessary in achieving our climate change objectives globally, but will also give a much-needed boost for European industry to develop the technology that could be used in the future.

So we are looking at combined security of supply, technology objectives and also European recovery objectives. I believe this is the right proposal. The volume of funds is not huge, but I believe they are going in the right direction and the public should be involved to strengthen security of supply in the European Union.

rapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our debates on this Second Strategic Energy Review have of course been marked by this new gas-supply crisis between Russia and Ukraine. This crisis has brought to light shortcomings, the fragility of the interconnections and the European Union's difficulty in reacting and in speaking with one voice.

It has revealed, for the third time, the need for a common energy policy. However, I must say - and our Commissioner has just pointed this out - that we are now seeing progress and more cooperation and solidarity among Member States, and thus hopes of a solution with which to manage these crises.

I should like to thank the Members who have done a great deal to enrich this report, which we drafted quickly, since we were informed of the communication in November. I am not going to explain in detail everything that we set out in this resolution, but I shall perhaps instead point out what messages the Committee on Industry, Research and Industry wished to put across with it.

The context is as follows: the climate constraint is going to get tougher, the European Union's security of supply is being threatened by ever more serious and frequent crises, and its competitiveness may be harmed. This implies the need to think differently about energy consumption and use within the European Union, to think differently about our energy resources, and to allow ourselves to exploit this considerable source of jobs that exists in the energy sector, jobs that are so crucial in the context of the economic crisis that we are going through.

What are we proposing? There is the short term: promoting the 3x20 by 2020 vision of the energy and climate change package so as to turn it into European energy policy. This is a joint action at several levels - global, European, national and local - which means that the main priorities that we have indicated are of course energy saving, energy efficiency and the development of renewable energies, since the European Union's potential in this area is great. In particular, the objective of 20% energy efficiency will have to be made binding.

Secondly, the European Union's security of supply will have to be improved through investment in the networks and, in particular, in the interconnections. Solidarity among the Member States means that the networks must supply regions that are isolated and highly dependent on a single supplier. This also means that the Directive on the security of the gas supply will have to be revised in order to make it a European crisis management tool. Improving the security of supply also means strengthening and structuring the dialogue with transit countries and producer countries. These energy interdependence relations need to be developed, particularly those with Russia and the Mediterranean area.

Thirdly, having an internal market is a crucial factor in terms of the security of supply. How, though, can a Member State be supplied via another Member State if the interconnections are weak or non-existent?

Fourthly, we need to identify the best practices at international level. In this regard, let us strengthen our exchanges of information with Japan and the United States - California, in particular - but let us not delude ourselves: our relations with these energy-consuming countries are founded on both cooperation and competition, especially in terms of energy technologies.

Then there is the long term, which is very important. The task is to predict the future of the European Union's energy supply. We should be able by, say, 2010-2020, to write road maps on a scenario basis for the European Union's supply in 2050. To do this, ambitious objectives must be set with regard to the fight against climate change. Our committee is proposing a reduction of 60-80%, but perhaps in future of at least 80%, in CO2 emissions, a 35% increase in energy efficiency and a 60% share of renewable energies, to be achieved by 2050.

Our Parliament is calling for this road map to envisage developing the share of the different energy sources so that investments can be planned in means of production, interconnections, and research and development.

In the energy mix for 2050 the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has confirmed the share of nuclear energy alongside the other energy sources, such as renewable energies, as well as the desire to develop means of energy storage and to use solar energy, which is an infinite resource.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you already have the text of the question put to the Commission on the solution of energy efficiency problems through the use of information and communication technologies (ICT), so please allow me to add a couple of remarks. I should like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and other members for their efforts, which have contributed a whole range of ideas to the final version of the resolution embodying the question put to the Commission. A compromise solution was eventually found for almost 90 proposed amendments and the document was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.

We are just at the very beginning in our efforts to improve energy efficiency using ICT. Perhaps it seemed to us in the autumn of last year that we were in fact preparing a review and a strategy for the future. The events of recent weeks have confronted us with a new set of realities. Both the financial crisis and the interruption in the supply of gas to some EU Member States, as already mentioned, have established the need to take all available steps in order to meet the energy challenges as quickly as possible. The same applies to the need for a pronounced improvement in energy efficiency (the efficient use of energy) with the broadest possible application of ICT. It is more than obvious that, without the sensible and, I should like to emphasise, considered and most wide-ranging application of these technologies, we shall succeed neither in reducing energy consumption nor in limiting the adverse effects of climate change.

With the help of specialised centres, research institutes, representatives of important industrial sectors and state authorities in Member States of the Union, we have attempted to chart the situation regarding the use of ICT for enhanced energy assessment. Any attempt to reduce energy demand should not be allowed to run counter to the ambitions of the EU to maintain competitiveness and sustainable economic development. We can definitely not go down the extreme path of 'making savings, whatever the cost'.

It is true that reducing energy demand is one of the most effective means of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. However, we are also involved in concepts such as intelligent grids, intelligent buildings and more efficient measurement of energy consumption. We are talking about the application of ICT in transportation and construction, limiting the movement of goods, more efficient lighting systems and solutions such as nanotechnology etc. In short, it is hard to find a sector in which energy efficiency cannot be improved with the aid of ICT developments. In preparing the document, we simply confirmed that all our attempts to deal with energy demands in the EU are closely interlinked and interdependent. As a result, the support we, as the EP, have given to the Galileo Project will be reflected in efficient transportation, movement of goods and people and so on.

I am pleased to mention here that in the EU we already have more than one example of the successful application of ICT in the more efficient use of energy. It is good that there is talk of the need to publicise these examples as a positive motivator for the public at large. We basically know what must be done. It is just a matter of translating words into action. Otherwise citizens in the Member States will lose confidence. For many, unfortunately, we are more a bureaucratic debating club than an institution which is able to help them overcome obstacles and improve their lives.

Without exception these words also apply to the overall energy policy, as dealt with in her report by our fellow Member Mrs Laperrouze. I was the shadow rapporteur for the document on the second strategic review of this policy and I should like to thank Mrs Laperrouze for her excellent work in eventually achieving a compromise solution for her report. The result is more realistic and persuasive than the original text. As was to be expected, the approaching EP elections have seen the onset of a certain degree of populism directed towards the voters. Great ambitions have appeared and people like to hear them. However, their fulfilment lies often beyond the borders of reality. Yes, we should all like to meet energy demands exclusively by means of renewable sources. That would be ideal. However, I personally would urge realism. The same applies to the attempt to force into the document a staggering 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 rather than a more realistic 50-80%.

Opponents of nuclear energy are again attempting to exclude this emission-free source, which is vitally important for Europe, from the overall energy mix. It must be perfectly clear to anyone who does not simply wish to follow the fashionable line and exploit the fear of nuclear energy that we simply cannot manage without it. We shall have to invest in a new generation of nuclear power plants, safe storage and reuse of fuel and nuclear fusion. I consider it sensible that the report in essence supports the inclusion of nuclear power in the mix. Finally, it is important, in my view, to attempt a better integration of energy grids, for example with the Baltic States. These states were left in the lurch for years by simply making promises. I also appreciate that we have here again an idea of better coordination in the use of transmission networks, using perhaps, if we so wish, some kind of central control system.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, let me first thank Mr Remek and the ITRE Committee for having worked so much on a topic which is of utmost importance, because it is true that through ICT we can make a major contribution towards combating climate issues and achieving a 20% reduction in both consumption and carbon emissions.

It is a huge challenge, we know, but it is not insurmountable and can only be achieved if we know how to use ICT. That is why the Commission is not talking but acting in the following way.

Firstly, we have been working on a communication on a comprehensive strategy for ICT to address our energy and climate problems. This strategy will be accompanied by a recommendation in which we set the tasks, the targets and the timeline for actions in the ICT sector, actions by stakeholders and by Member States. These actions aim to accelerate the adoption of ICT as an enabler so that we can master the energy demands of our homes, of our businesses, and of our society at large.

Now, at what level? Firstly, of course, at the level of ICT products themselves. Their carbon footprint is of absolute importance and I know that the industry is working on this. We hope this work will be achieved by investing in research.

The second level is ICT as an enabler across the board and in all sectors of economic activity. We need incentives here in order to change behaviour - as the rapporteur said, 'penser autrement' - but this will only happen in governments, in administrations, in businesses, and for citizens, if they understand what potential there is for making savings. That means we have to measure what we have now and what we do better. If we do not measure, we will not have results, and that is why we need a baseline against which improvements can be measured.

The challenge of measurement and of quantification will be at the heart of our proposal.

Also at the heart of this proposal is how we proceed from research results to innovation and practical achievements. Of course, we started with research. The Commission's R&TD funding programmes aim to exploit this potential in the systems and infrastructures for services too.

The most significant results are expected in areas such as electricity distribution, buildings, transport logistics and lighting. The rapporteur is right: you need to have cross-sectoral participation in those projects. That is also why we established cross-sectoral research projects and worked very closely together with the industry to reduce the time between research and development and innovation. That is also the reason why, in our innovation programmes, we supported the demonstration and validation of new solutions and technologies in real world settings in order to maximise their set-up.

Reducing the footprint of ICT products also forms part of this research. As regards funding, we have so far invested more than EUR 4 000 million in this initiative. In the recovery plan proposed by the Commission, public/private partnerships for R&D are high on the agenda, with one of the three initiatives we propose being energy efficient buildings, a domain where ICT will of course play a predominant role.

One of the pilot projects being put into action now is the intelligent transport system. We have already invested a lot in in-car intelligent systems and we are now moving to the next step, which is the relationship between the car and the road and traffic signs. I agree with the rapporteur here that it will be very important to have our own satellite programme to become more efficient in that respect.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate Mrs Laperrouze and to thank her for the cooperation which we enjoyed over this entire period. On behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I shall give you the headlines of some of the basic proposals which we put to Mrs Laperrouze.

Firstly, there should be a common European foreign policy on energy, with the emphasis on security of energy sources and energy routes. At a time when battles are centred on energy sources, we all understand the importance of this proposal.

Secondly, we must deepen our relations with other countries, primarily with countries which produce energy, but also with countries via which energy routes run, in other words transit countries.

Thirdly, we need a new generation of binding energy interdependence clauses. These clauses are extremely important, especially in the negotiations which we conduct with other countries and in particular, for example, as this is a topical issue, in the negotiations which we are conducting with Russia on a new agreement to replace the 1997 agreement.

We referred to the fight over energy sources, an important issue which led us to differentiate between energy sources and the routes via which energy reaches us. There are many important projects at the moment. I should like to mention the South Stream pipeline, the TGI (Turkey-Greece-Italy) pipeline, the Nabucco pipeline and I must, of course, mention the Caspian region, as we debate it on many occasions. I have here a map of the Caspian Sea and I believe that, when we look at the Caspian Sea, we must look at all sides, including the Azerbaijani side and the Turkmenistan side; we shall be debating this issue in the European Parliament tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, but I would remind you of the importance of Turkmenistan and, lastly of course, Iran.

Energy is one of life's basic necessities. However, mankind ceased some time ago to be satisfied with merely basic living conditions; we have also been striving to attain the kind of social development which makes our lives easier. This is why energy follows the economic trends of any given society.

However, we have only recently started looking at the prosperity of the individual from a more holistic perspective and we no longer measure it solely in terms of his or her purchasing power. Hence, as far as energy is concerned, we need to strike the right balance between the safety and reliability of supplies, environmental protection and action on climate change, and competitiveness. Our political group promotes all three of these objectives as the cornerstone of the common European energy policy and, in that respect, we welcome the Laperrouze report.

Climate change and the problems we experienced in January with the transmission of Russian gas to Europe testify to the importance of diversity when it comes to the common energy policy. The European Union must introduce projects that will strengthen our energy infrastructure as soon as possible, in order to facilitate the importation of supplies along different routes. In this regard, we need to ensure that we are able to import gas both from different transit countries and from different energy exporting countries. The implementation of the Nabucco project is exceptionally important in this regard.

In addition, we need to enrich our energy mix. Essentially, it needs to include a higher proportion of energy sources that do not result in greenhouse gas emissions, hence both renewable energy sources and nuclear energy. We cannot totally turn our backs on coal, either, but we have to ensure that we use the best possible technologies, such as those enabling carbon capture and storage.

I would like to stress that efficient energy use is our priority task. However, numerous studies have shown that we need to invest our financial, intellectual and creative powers in generation and transmission capacities. Even with all the measures I have mentioned, we will not be able to reduce import dependency to zero for some time yet. In order to minimise the problems involved in energy importation, we need to formulate an effective foreign energy policy. For this reason, I would like the Lisbon Treaty to be adopted, so that any institutional obstacles preventing the formulation of foreign policies can be removed.

I allude here to Ireland, and we expect the Irish people to solve this problem. However, our expectations of a common foreign energy policy will be more realistic if we take concrete action in the fields that we have already defined as part of the common energy policy. I am of the opinion that we should adopt the third gas and electricity liberalisation package as soon as this parliamentary term, together with uniform market rules for the entire Union.

In conclusion, let me present my opinion on the amendments tabled. I think that this Laperrouze report is of sufficient quality as to eliminate the need for any substantial amendments. The long-term objectives, which we will fulfil through the 20-20-20 package and which have been supported by both the European Council and the European Parliament, should remain unchanged. Our political group will not support any amendments which seek to reduce the diversification of energy sources. However, we will support those amendments which seek to increase the number of supply routes and improve energy safety in the Union.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report and thank her for her cooperation.

Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, may I express my thanks to the rapporteur, Anne Laperrouze, for the truly cooperative manner in which our deliberations were conducted? Let me also extend my thanks to the staff of the secretariats for their invaluable contribution.

Against the backdrop of the latest gas crisis, the Second Strategic Energy Review is extremely well-timed. Security of supply and solidarity among the Member States must be at the heart of the European energy policy. I firmly believe that it would make a distinct improvement if the call contained in this report for greater diversification of the gas corridors were answered. Moreover, before the end of this year the Commission must also present a proposal for the revision of the Gas Directive of 2004 in order to incorporate a requirement for binding and effective national and EU emergency plans.

However, as members of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, we attach fundamental importance to the duty of EU Member States to keep a special eye, even in normal times, on the most vulnerable consumers in society, namely those who are victims of fuel poverty. There is still a lack of national strategies for tackling this problem. That is why my group has tabled an additional amendment calling on Member States to make real efforts to address this problem.

The report emphasises the particular importance of energy saving and energy efficiency. The most efficient and cost-effective ways to improve security of supply are quite clearly to increase energy efficiency and to make energy savings. At the same time we must have ambitious and realistic aims for Europe's future energy supply. I am pleased to see that we are moving in this direction, for example by calling for the target of a 60% share of renewables in our energy mix by 2050. The report also emphasises the special significance attaching to local initiatives in the quest for a successful climate and energy policy. The Covenant of Mayors has a key role to play in this respect, but it is also important to support other, similar approaches, like the idea of a Covenant of Islands. The bottom line, however, is that our objectives will be difficult to achieve without investments in the infrastructure of energy networks and further liberalisation of the internal market. We need a functioning single energy market with fair competition and with guaranteed free network access and equal distribution rights for all producers. The coming weeks will be crucial in this respect. What we need are the creation and development of a smart electricity network comprising ICT-based combined power stations and decentralised energy production. That is the only way in which energy resources can be efficiently channelled into the areas where they are really needed. We need a European 'supergrid' that taps into and links the enormous potentials in the North Sea, the Baltic and the Mediterranean region.

Where the report is untenable, however, is in its call to the Commission to draw up a specific road map for nuclear investments. For this reason my group has tabled an amendment that clearly underlines our common interest in nuclear safety while emphasising that whether Member States invest in nuclear energy must remain their own sovereign decision. My own personal opinion is that we do not need nuclear energy.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, last year's energy review was a timely update, and I congratulate Anne Laperrouze for her rigorous report on it.

The issues raised are highly complex, but we can boil them down to this: Europe needs an energy policy that gives us sustainable, affordable and secure resources of energy. Sustainable by breaking our umbilical dependence on the fossil fuels that are choking our planet; affordable by guaranteeing a stable and realistic cost to consumers; and secure by freeing European citizens from dependence on unreliable or monopolistic suppliers.

This Friday, a group of Commissioners will meet Prime Minister Putin and his team of ministers. Energy is on the agenda, and our side should make clear that we cannot tolerate a dispute between Russia and Georgia evolving into a European gas crisis in the depths of winter. Assurances should be sought, but notice should also be served. This has happened before, and it must not happen again.

The time has come fundamentally to reassess Europe's energy supplies. This view is shared by members of all groups in this House, who should unite in leading the charge to make it happen. That is why this week a small group of us, including Mr Hammerstein, who will speak later, will launch a cross-party pamphlet, Making the Green Energy Switch at a Time of Crisis.

I am grateful to all Members who contributed their ideas, and I am startled by the degree of consensus that exists. There is an appetite in this Chamber to work fast, to work together, in search of a lasting solution to Europe's energy crisis, and we must harness that.

Of all the potential plans to open up a new energy era, one stands out: it is called the supergrid, or DESERTEC. The French Presidency cited it as a possible operation project for our new European Union for the Mediterranean. A number of Members, including Ms Harms, recently visited southern Spain to see the technology in action: solar thermal power from North Africa and sun-rich land in southern Europe harvesting energy from the sun, generating the equivalent of one and a half million barrels of oil per square kilometre per year. Transported through energy-efficient, high-voltage direct current cables, that power could be fed into a European supergrid, taking renewable energy from across the EU - tidal power from coastal regions, wind and wave power from windswept north-western Europe, and biomass and geothermal power from wherever they flourish.

Upfront, there are costs. The German Aerospace Centre estimates it would cost EUR 45 billion to build, but it also says that it would save consumers many times that amount in reduced energy bills over the next 35 years, and the investment would create thousands of jobs.

This is a bold project for an energy future that is sustainable, affordable and secure. That is the energy future that Europe must champion.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Mrs Laperrouze for her work, with which I agree to a large extent. I am, however, confused with regard to certain aspects, perhaps due to excessive reliance on the Commission's assessments.

Firstly, I feel that the predicted trend in gas demand is restrictive. If that is the case, I fear it will have a negative impact on sources of financing for projects. With regard to infrastructure, the relevant projects are at different stages of development. Rather than redefining their order of priority in an abstract way, while seriously overlooking the Mediterranean area, it would be advisable, instead, to reassess them in terms of development times, financial structure, available supplies and the link between public support and private commitment.

Mrs Laperrouze next recommended diversifying the sources and routes of supply. One example is the Southern Corridor. With regard to these issues, I feel a programmed approach is required, divided into phases. Indeed, in the case of the Caspian, only gas from Azerbaijan will be available in the first phase. Access to other countries will occur in the second phase, therefore making the market more complicated in political, regulatory and infrastructure terms. The Commission's proposal for a Caspian Development Cooperation can overcome these problems, if it will be tasked with, among other things, facilitating the development of missing infrastructure.

The penultimate aspect is that solidarity mechanisms are undoubtedly fundamental for the Union's energy policies, as well as in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon. It would be advisable, however, for the feasibility of these measures to avoid, in addition to potential distortions, excessively cumbersome procedures.

Finally, I would like to turn to external relations. Apart from the role of the Energy Charter, enlarging the Energy Committee, particularly to include transit countries as well as the field of renewable energy, is an important objective

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in spite of the good atmosphere in which we worked on the Second Strategic Energy Review, I regret to say that we did not manage to obtain the corrections to the Commission's proposal that I believed necessary.

To my mind, the title 'Strategic Energy Review' has strong connotations of building for the future. If we take a look at this review, however, we have to conclude that it is all very much rooted in the past. At the heart of this strategic energy plan - and I am afraid the Laperrouze report does not put this right either - is the old energy mix of coal and nuclear power, and indeed there is an extremely sharp focus on the nuclear pillar once again.

I do wonder, Commissioner Piebalgs, what has happened to the proposals you presented to us at the start of this legislative term, when you told us that the great risks associated with nuclear energy had to be brought under control, that the problem of nuclear waste, the funding of decommissioning and all these issues had to be resolved before the Commission made any positive moves towards the development of nuclear energy. Not one of these issues has been resolved, and yet the Commission is now launching this pro-nuclear offensive. The fact that one of the greatest debacles in the history of the Western European nuclear industry is taking place right now in Finland, that the amount in dispute between the Finnish electricity company and Areva has now reached EUR 2.4 billion, because so many extra costs have arisen at the Olkiluoto site, does not seem to worry you in the least. What, I wonder, is the sense of this new investment drive in a sector which, despite receiving decades of public investment - far exceeding the volume staked in all the other sectors - is once again producing this kind of mess. I would very much like to know whether you actually mean all of this seriously or whether other hands are pulling the strings.

In my view, this mix of coal and nuclear power is precisely the strategy that has driven the energy policy of the European Union up a blind alley. I have said enough about nuclear power, but the wasteful use of fossil fuels - something else that the review does not really address at all - has also contributed to the present climate disaster, and the essential adjustments to this outdated strategy of yesteryear are not being made in this review.

In the deliberations on Mrs Laperrouze's report, my group established clear priorities. It goes without saying that nuclear power was not one of them, but we tried to bring about real changes in other areas too. We wanted the target of a 20% reduction in the consumption of primary energy to be made binding at long last. That did not happen. We expect a realistic proposal for the development of the 'supergrid', in other words a network that must be able to incorporate really large capacities for the generation of energy from renewable sources by the North Sea, in other coastal areas or in southern desert regions. There was no real sign of any of these things at all in either the report or the Commission's proposal.

We also believe that it was a big mistake to leave the whole realm of transport out of this strategic planning process on energy, because we - like you - want to get away from dependence on oil. You have decided that transport matters should be discussed separately, but in our opinion this issue should be one of the key focal points of strategic energy planning.

Diversifying gas supplies is all very well, and it is certainly something we should do, but at the same time every effort should be made to ensure once and for all that gas is used efficiently, otherwise diversification will get us nowhere at the end of the day.

I was appalled last week to learn that the European Commission's Recovery Plan is revisiting all of these strategic distortions and adopting the same backward-looking approach as this Strategic Energy Review. I must announce on behalf of my group that we shall be supporting neither the Laperrouze report nor the Strategic Energy Review and that we shall also endeavour in the context of the Recovery Plan to argue the case for sustainability and common sense.

Mr President, Commissioners, solidarity is a lovely word. It generally belongs to the vocabulary of the left. Solidarity should not just be called for in the name of anti-Gazprom and anti-Russia policy, but also to prevent general energy poverty. Energy is also needed in the form of electricity and heat for poor people.

The major problem with the European energy strategy is that it was not built from scratch, but is rooted in each country's own geography, history and energy economics. If there is a common strategy and its structures are harmonised, it will mean that there will be winners and losers. There are countries which are being forced to abandon their tried and tested structures in the name of solidarity. That cannot be solidarity.

Harmonisation of the electricity networks also means harmonising the price of electricity. In practice it will not be done with reference to the lowest prices, but some average prices. In that case there will be losers: those countries with cheap electricity. In the same way, the money used in the EU budget to finance gas pipelines will have to be found by countries that do not use them.

Mrs Laperrouze is right when she says that network investments are for the Member States or the companies in them to make, not the EU. The EU cannot be an oil, gas or electricity network operator, and large sums in EU budget funds should not be used to support investments in networks.

Furthermore, our group would like to remind everyone, as Mrs Harms has, of the problems that are known to be associated with the use of nuclear power. While, on the one hand, carbon dioxide emissions are cut, on the other, the volume of plutonium increases.

The Laperrouze report has addressed the important issues relating to energy supplies that are currently facing the European Union. The recent gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine by no means left the European Union unscathed. The report details a number of lines of policy for the European energy market that could limit the vulnerability of the European Union in the event of another conflict. I am in favour of pursuing greater diversity in the energy sources and partner countries from which the EU imports energy, in other words diversifying the energy supply. The gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine has underlined the urgency of this issue once again and I sincerely hope that the Nabucco project - to give one example - will come to fruition in the near future.

In specific terms, this aspiration means that the European Union and the Member States need to focus to a greater extent on regional integration. At present, the networks of a number of Member States are still too isolated and, consequently, they are too dependent on imports from third countries. The creation of new connections between the energy networks of the Member States will also allow the internal market to operate more effectively.

To further improve the operation of the internal market, there also needs to be complete separation of ownership of the production companies and the network companies. This is the best way to counteract asymmetric market opening.

Meanwhile, several Member States have been looking at restarting nuclear power stations closed under agreements with the European Union. This would not appear to be the best way forward. Rather, investing in a greater number of cross-border connections would more effectively reduce dependence on one or more third countries in the long term.

Other important lines of policy in the report with which I am in full agreement are increasing energy efficiency and increasing the share of sustainable energy. However, the Member States have differing opinions on the question of whether nuclear energy has a role to play in reducing CO2 emissions. This is pre-eminently a matter for the Member States to decide, rather than the EU. More clarity on this in the report would have been welcome. It is to be hoped that this will be rectified through the amendment process.

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, so far I have noticed how very putatively and abstractly what is best for Europe is decided in this Chamber, but it was the Bulgarian voters who sent me here and therefore I am more interested in what is best for my motherland Bulgaria.

For us, the patriots of 'Ataka', energy independence for Bulgaria is a number one priority. During the 'talks', which we call 'EU dictates', we were required to close down reactors 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the Kozloduy nuclear power station.

I want to remind you - and if you do not know, then you can keep this in mind - that these units had fully passed all checks and were declared to be totally safe. At the beginning of 2007 my colleague Dimitar Stoyanov posed a question to the European Commission asking whether there was such a requirement for all these units to be closed down in order for Bulgaria to be accepted into the EU. As it turned out, such a requirement from the European Commission did not exist. However, Mr Günter Verheugen lied to the Bulgarian Parliament and said that there was such a requirement.

A few days ago Bulgaria was facing an extremely serious energy crisis. Under Article 36 of our Accession Treaty we have the right to start reactivating this nuclear power station. That is our right, and because of that my colleagues in the Bulgarian Parliament introduced a bill for the reactivation of units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power station, which are currently closed.

With my colleagues in the European Parliament, Dimitar Stoyanov and Slavi Binev, I have submitted written declaration 0005/2009 asking for these reactors to be reactivated, with the aim of gaining Bulgaria's energy independence.

In conclusion, I want to say to you that Europe will be strong when every separate Member State is strong and has its own energy independence. This is the only way, if we want to work for our electors and for our citizens.

Mr President, when we are discussing the Strategic Energy Review, I think it is important to stress some of the risks we are running - not only the risk of an insecure energy supply, with all the problems that brings, but also the fact that we are exposed to political pressure from regimes which use energy supplies as a lever to influence other governments. As a result, there is also a risk of fragmentation of the European Union, with Member States divided according to their different interests, thereby undermining the common foreign and security policy.

I think it is a good thing to see that the policies we need to tackle climate change are very much the same as the policies we need in order to strengthen our energy security. Decreasing the use of fossil fuels means less dependence on unreliable suppliers. Increased supply from other energy sources means a decreasing demand for fossil fuels, lower prices for European citizens and - not least - a reduced cash flow to the oil regimes of the world.

This has huge security implications which we need to consider when we discuss the European Union's future energy strategy. I think some of the pieces will easily fall into place when we have this perspective. We need more of an internal market in the European Union because, in reality, that is the only guarantee for solidarity between the Member States. This means that we need to do more about cross-border connections and have a better grid, binding Member States together and thereby binding the market together.

We need to develop more biofuels. I do not agree with those who say that there is a risk; it is possible for us - in Europe as well as in other parts of the world - to increase the area we are using. Even small contributions from biofuels result in less dependence on fossil fuels and a change in prices.

I must also emphasise the issue of nuclear power. Sometimes I feel it is the elephant in the room, because it is one of the greatest potential contributors to the European Union's ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions today and in the future. I would like to conclude on that note. If we try to bring all these elements together, we will have the opportunity not only for a stronger energy policy, but also for a stronger security policy.

(RO) Energy policy is and will continue to be a priority for the EU. The gas crisis this winter, when extremely low temperatures were recorded, has highlighted again the dependency of the European Union and its Member States on its traditional gas suppliers. United in diversity is the motto of the European Union. I hope that this gas crisis will bring us together to devise a common energy policy.

The development of the Nabucco project and construction of an LPG terminal in Constanţa, a major Black Sea port, along with the interconnection of national electrical energy infrastructures are all measures which can help increase the security of the energy supply and enhance the EU's ability to offer solidarity to Member States affected by an energy crisis.

I call on the Commission and Member States to invest in modernising the European energy network, boosting energy efficiency and generating power from renewable sources. I also urge the Commission and Member States to provide financing for the measures aimed at cutting the pollution produced by coal-powered installations. The current crisis situation is making Member States focus greater attention on setting their priorities and strategic guidelines for development.

With regard to energy efficiency, the EU can achieve rapid results at an affordable cost in the battle against climate change. Boosting existing buildings' energy performance and promoting passive buildings, as well as using information and communication technologies to reduce energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency through the large-scale implementation of intelligent meters and automated systems are strategic guidelines for development in which Europe must invest.

I also urge the Commission and Member States to provide financing for the measures aimed at cutting the pollution produced by coal-powered installations. The current economic crisis is making Member States focus greater attention on setting their priorities and strategic guidelines for development. By 2020, the EU must increase its energy efficiency by 35% and reduce its consumption of primary energy by 20%. I call on the Commission and Member States to promote and finance research projects aimed at improving energy efficiency.

Commissioner, I urge the European Commission, the European Investment Bank and Member States to set up a European fund for energy efficiency and renewable energies to ensure that the necessary public and private capital is raised to implement the energy efficiency projects currently being worked on across the European Union. Last but not least, I want to mention the transport sector, which is the main sector that uses oil. I think that we now need to adopt at European level some highly ambitious medium- and even long-term objectives by 2020 concerning the energy efficiency of vehicles. I also encourage Member States to devise, in an intelligent manner, transport policies for goods and for the movement of persons, especially in urban areas. Last but not least, intelligent transport is one of the strategic guidelines for developing transport.

(SV) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that the European energy market has problems. We currently import almost 50% and in 10 years' time, if we do nothing, it will be 70%. The energy we produce is often generated in a way that damages our environment and creates the greenhouse effect, which will damage our health, economy and stability, not only in our part of the world, but also in many other parts of the world.

The energy that we have in Europe has to be distributed via a distribution network that is out of date and has not been renovated or well-maintained. We also have close neighbours and conflicts concerning energy issues that are extremely worrying. We have talked about our relations with Russia in this House on several occasions over the last year and it is totally unacceptable to make the energy crisis into a New Year's tradition and put ordinary people in a situation where old people freeze to death, hospitals have to be closed and industries close down. This is totally unacceptable.

Something else that is totally unacceptable is what Russia and Gazprom are trying to do with Nord Stream, namely to ride roughshod over Swedish environmental legislation and European legislation relating to the safety of the Baltic Sea, despite the fact that this inland sea already has incredibly large areas of dead bottoms. This is totally unacceptable.

We are going to need all the energy sources, all the new technologies, all the innovations, all the research and all the computer power we have to cope with all of these different problems. The regulations tabled by the Commission, including the financing package, are very good, but our citizens are still waiting for the governments to dare to take a decision on energy solidarity and on breaking up the large state monopolies. These monopolies are not only concerned with the production of energy, but also the distribution of energy, and citizens and undertakings, both small businesses and large industries, are therefore locked into an unacceptable situation.

I think that the rapporteur, Mrs Laperrouze, has produced an extremely good report. I also think that the Commission's proposal in these areas is very good and I hope that we can reach a decision on this matter as quickly as possible. Thank you.

(LT) The main lesson of the gas crisis is the great vulnerability of Europe's energy system and the very significant risk to supply delivery. This risk remains as the agreement between Ukraine and Russia is a one-time agreement and the situation will undoubtedly be repeated. Bilateral energy questions remain fundamentally unresolved, not just between Russia and Ukraine, but between Ukraine and the European Union and between the European Union and Russia, all the more so because there is no common EU-Ukraine-Russia energy operating system. There have so far been neither safeguards nor guarantees and these have yet to appear. I would like to stress that dependence on the supply of gas and on the use of gas is increasing dramatically and will grow even more once the power stations in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia have been closed. This shows that the risk remains and is perhaps increasing.

We have a very clear long-term energy strategy for the whole of the European Union. We have had very heated debates about it. There is talk of long-term measures. In my view, the weakest link is our short- to medium-term energy policy. It has not passed the reality test and this was demonstrated by the gas crisis. I would invite the Commission to investigate such a scenario which, unfortunately, was not investigated for various other legal and political reasons. What would be the cost, benefit and consequences of temporarily prolonging nuclear power operations in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania, thereby fundamentally strengthening the energy security of both these countries and the whole of Europe in this situation? In addition, faced with the conditions of a long-term and undefined economic crisis, this would allow resources to be used more efficiently and would greatly reduce the burden of the crisis on our residents and the business sector.

(DE) Mr President, on the subject of the energy security strategy and Mrs Laperrouze's report, one thing that I believe the Commission's proposal and the Laperrouze report have in common is that they do not set any priorities. They are a hotchpotch of everything for which pressure groups all over the place have been lobbying the Commission or Parliament. As long as we do not set priorities, we shall never allocate money wisely.

In point of fact, the priority is plain for all to see. We must begin with the efficiency of buildings, vehicles, fridges and so on. There is nothing cheaper and nothing that will create more jobs. Secondly, there is renewable energy. When we say that 60% of the whole energy mix should come from renewable sources by 2050, this means at least 90% of our electricity being generated from renewables. This figure of 90% electricity generation from renewable energy sources will surely be reached long before 2050, because we have already adopted a directive that sets a target of 35% for 2020. If we can achieve 35% green electricity by 2020 from today's starting point of 15%, we shall be able to reach 60% or more as early as 2030.

Thirdly, there is gas to tide us over. How is that supposed to happen? We invest billions in gas pipelines now, and then gas consumption in Europe is meant to be reduced. That is what you write in your document, Mr Piebalgs, and it can also be read between the lines in Mrs Laperrouze's report.

So we have efficiency, renewables and gas, and then you want to invest EUR 1.3 billion in carbon capture and storage (CCS). Where is there room in all of this for blind loyalty to nuclear power?

I have to say, Commissioner, that you cannot even get your sums right. If we go for efficiency and renewables and pursue even a half-decent gas policy and, if we really have to, invest a little more in CCS, we shall have no need of nuclear energy, and we do not need to run that risk. Just look at the facts!

As far as the Economic Recovery Plan is concerned, I must say that I am really annoyed with the Commission. Not a penny for energy efficiency! Not a penny for town-twinning! On 10 February, Commissioner, representatives of 300 local authorities in Europe will be gathering in Brussels at your invitation. What are we going to tell them: that Mr Barroso's cabinet cut EUR 500 million from the town-twinning budget between Monday and Wednesday of last week? I find that so contradictory and so utterly wrong. The fact is that we need towns and cities as partners in a new energy policy. Not a penny for solar energy, and not a penny for biomass! In other words, we are devising an Economic Recovery Plan in which we give three and a half billion to the oligarchy of energy giants and not a single euro to the partners whose help we need to enlist for the change to green energy.

(CS) Thank you, I shall be brief. I should like to look at two aspects which I believe have not yet been discussed, namely the fact that we need an integrated energy system in Europe, which will interconnect the different types of energy and which will interconnect the different grids in such a way that it would be possible to make up for any outages. The recent gas crisis has shown that this is an extremely important task. The second thing is that we need to link these energy networks to similar networks in other fields, such as transport and communications networks, in order to achieve between them a certain degree of symmetry. As yet this is not the case and I think that a closer look will show that there are linkages here. I should like to say that the position of networks in the future structures of Europe is very important and that these networks are far more important for a cohesive Europe than the ever-growing bureaucracy both in Brussels and in the Member States. I believe that the European Union will in the future become a kind of necklace threaded on these networks.

(SK) The current financial crisis is being projected into an economic crisis. Furthermore, in view of the shortage of available credit, there is a threat of energy and food crises. In order to maintain at least the current level of energy production, there will be a need by 2030 for worldwide investment of about USD 26 billion in reconstruction and the development of new oil and gas fields and also in the production and distribution of all types of energy.

At the same time it will be necessary to integrate the flows of oil, gas and electricity so as to create an efficient and highly diversified system. This system must help to overcome consequences of local political disputes and also consequences of any natural disasters and to provide for a functioning energy supply in a Europe-wide context. The Slovak Republic itself has had the opportunity in recent weeks to experience the complexity of such a situation when, as a result of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, not a single cubic metre of gas reached Slovakia for several days. The experience of Slovakia and also of other European countries has shown that vigorous support is needed for the European Union's priority of interconnecting and integrating the separate energy markets in Europe.

However, I must mention that the enforced and premature decommissioning of two reactors at the Jaslovské Bohunice nuclear power plant has been found to be an imprudent mistake in the current situation. The reactors met all the criteria for safe operation. Their decommissioning was required by the European Commission in the Accession Treaty as the price for Slovakia's accession to the European Union. This decision undoubtedly weakened the energy self-sufficiency not only of Slovakia, but also of the European Union.

(EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the battle against climate change and the need for energy security and to strengthen the competitiveness of our economy are taking us down the road of the third industrial revolution, towards an era in which we wean ourselves off mineral fuels.

It is a real revolution which will bring about huge structural changes to the model of production and consumption and, ultimately, to our very way of life. I trust that, as the European Union, we shall maintain global leadership in this revolution. In order for that to happen, we shall need to make every possible effort to limit the energy intensity of the economy in all sectors. One of the tools for improving energy efficiency is to make use of the potential of information and communication technologies (ICT). Considerable incentives are needed in order for us to make use of these technologies, so that we increase the energy efficiency of the European Union by 20% by 2020, within the framework of the 20-20-20 target.

The motion which we are being called on to adopt in a couple of days' time and which relates to the strengthening of energy efficiency through ICT places particular emphasis on research and development of pioneering technologies, such as nano-technologies and photonic technology, which have high potential to improve energy efficiency, and on designing policies to strengthen the take-up of these technologies.

Similarly, it also gives considerable impetus to more green innovation and entrepreneurship, with a series of measures and actions. I would refer in particular to green public procurements, which will allow public sector agencies to play a leading role in saving energy by making use of the new technological applications of ICT.

Finally, the motion provides for incentives for smart and integrated energy management systems in our cities and for smart traffic management systems with more rational road behaviour and transport systems.

It is clear from what I have said that, although it is not legislative, this motion which we shall vote on in a couple of days' time is highly important, because it essentially makes ICT one of the main indicators of sustainable development in the European Union. I therefore call on you to support it in the vote in a couple of days' time.

(DE) Mr President, we are, I hope, all clear on what the priorities are here: energy efficiency, energy saving and renewable energy. Nevertheless, we cannot get round the fact that we will need to worry about our gas supplies for many more years yet. So, what lessons can we learn from the dispute between Ukraine and Russia, and from the crisis that arose from that dispute? In my view - and I am sorry to have to say this, Commissioner - it seems to me that we will be no better, or at least not much better, prepared the next time this happens. Neither can it be said that the crisis is over, and I have seen little sign that a strategy is really being developed, or that any conclusions have been drawn from this dispute between Ukraine and Russia.

Certain Members of this House believe that we should conclude bilateral agreements with Ukraine, but it should be pointed out that Ukraine has to bear at least some of the blame for the situation that arose recently, and I would really rather not make myself dependent on arguments between Mr Yushchenko and Mrs Tymoshenko, or Mr Yanukovych, or whoever. Ukraine would, quite naturally, clearly much rather buy the gas from Russia and then sell it on to us, naturally for an additional charge, as would Turkey in relation to Nabucco, but I will return to that later. If, then, we want our gas to be just as insecure, but more expensive, we should make a bilateral agreement but, if we want to find a real solution, we need to make a trilateral agreement encompassing Russia as the supplier, Ukraine as the transit country and ourselves, and come to an agreement in this connection, particularly with regard to transit and infrastructure. I have heard nothing from the Commission on this or on what alternative suggestions it has.

With regard to investments in infrastructure, if we look to the east, there are basically three pipelines up for discussion: Nord Stream, South Stream and Nabucco. Nord Stream is a supply pipeline in the north; it solves the transit problem, but will not reduce our dependency on Russia. South Stream may also solve a transit problem, but again will not reduce our dependency on Russia. On top of that, if one looks at the costs involved, South Stream is actually somewhat more expensive than Nabucco, at least according to a number of studies, which suggests that we need to invest massively in Nabucco. When I consider - and I have mentioned this on a few previous occasions as well, Commissioner - how quickly the United States constructed the PTCP oil pipeline and how long we are taking over the Nabucco gas pipeline, I really do think it is scandalous how little Europe has achieved: it is a sign of our weakness.

We need to act quickly, not just with regard to Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan - which we will be discussing shortly - but also in relation to Iraq. The fact that gas there is simply being released into the air as exhaust, with no consideration being given to how it could be transported to the Nabucco pipeline, really is a big mistake. I would ask you, Commissioner, to negotiate quickly and clearly with Turkey, in order to ensure that we also get their agreement to this. We will, of course, also need to convince Cyprus to stop blocking the energy chapter: their insistence that we cannot even negotiate on this chapter shows a lack of solidarity, because it quite naturally causes difficulties with Turkey. You are nodding, Commissioner; I see that we are in full agreement here.

Turning finally to nuclear energy, there are some very different opinions on this subject in this House. Unfortunately, I too cannot vote in favour of the Laperrouze report, for example because it is too one-sided in this respect.

The thing that disturbs me about this whole debate is that we now have a new development in France, namely a reduction in atomic waste, but, when you look more closely, you find that this atomic waste is more radioactive. That is not the way to solve the problem, particularly with regard to waste. We will need to apply a lot more energy and brainpower to solving the problem of waste and disposal.

(PL) Mr President, the energy crisis has revealed a weakness in the European Union. We are still having problems correctly reading the political challenges resulting from this situation. A glaring illustration of this mistake is the proposal of Angela Merkel who, after a third energy crisis, is proposing to us today still stronger ties with Russian energy resources by building the northern and southern gas pipelines. In fact the opposite is true. This crisis shows that we should stake everything on the building of an independent infrastructure which will take us to independent sources of the raw materials for energy in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. The crisis shows that we should strike the northern gas pipeline off the list of European Commission priorities in order to avoid a Russian monopoly in Europe. Solving the energy problem will be a critical moment in the entire integration process. The EU has the chance to show its effectiveness and to gain new strength. It may also show its passivity and risk marginalisation.

(ES) Mr President, I would like to talk about the need to fuse the information technology revolution of the information society with the energy revolution, which has been the subject of an excellent resolution of the House.

We need smart electricity grids; currently these are wasteful and anachronistic. We need consumption that is managed in accordance with production.

We must have smart grids and smart houses. This smart consumption can only be provided by the Internet and only by the fusion of all electrical networks with the information coming from houses, factories, buildings and so on.

In this way we could be much more autonomous, much more independent, and Europe could take a leading role in this essential global issue so that there would not have to be dozens of unnecessary power stations as is the case today. The majority of countries produce three times more energy than is consumed because production is oriented to peak consumption. This would not be the case with smart grids. Smart grids would allow us to adjust consumption to sustainable production and to existing production levels.

In this way we could also cooperate with neighbouring countries in the Mediterranean. An extensive, clean, smart grid is needed to connect to our neighbours in the south who have the potential to generate solar energy using high technology and large-scale plants. This would be an excellent opportunity for cooperation on technology transparency. We could promote a clean future for us all.

Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for her work.

Let me make a few points on the Strategic Energy Review and the last energy crisis problem, which are closely linked.

My first point: in our report, which calls on the Member States to speak with a single European voice on energy issues, we have explicitly stated what all Europeans have seen in the past weeks to be the reality, namely that damaging energy supply in the Member States afflicts the European Union as a whole. It is very important. This is the basis of European solidarity and a basis for developing emergency response measures.

My second point is that the report mentions CCS technology as having the potential to meet our environmental targets while exploiting a source of energy - coal - that is largely available in Europe. By developing CCS, Europe can become a world leader in advanced technologies, which will contribute to our global competitiveness and strengthen our economies. The same is true for coal gasification technology, which is very important as an additional source of gas supply - it means diversification of gas supply.

My third point is that this strategic document specifically underlines the need for investment in the energy supply infrastructure. Infrastructure projects that receive support at EU level should first and foremost contribute to the real diversification of sources and routes of supplies to the Member States and to the EU as a whole.

Investment in Ukraine seems to be of special importance for us. Together with our Ukrainian partners, we could, in the future, take the joint responsibility for gas deliveries on the Russian-Ukrainian border. The reason for such a step on our part is very simple. In terms of energy relations, Ukraine identifies with international standards. It has ratified the Energy Charter Treaty and, therefore, plays by transparent rules.

My fourth point is that our strategic document greatly complements our efforts towards implementing the Third Energy Package. What does it mean? It means a working internal market in energy for the European Union; it means solidarity and support on many sides. Let us finish the legislative procedure during the next three months. It is very important for us.

(FI) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we have history behind us. After all, our energy networks were built to meet the needs of the Cold War and for those political circumstances. Now they have improved and have been patched up here and there, but this has caused us a problem that we will have to return to again later on.

As the need for energy has grown dramatically while the economy has developed at a huge rate, so the price, supply and environmental problems have also changed. They have become the greatest challenge for us. As the problems are global, obviously global solutions are what are needed. It is therefore important that we involve the United States and the developing countries in a common energy process. We will show the way, but the United States has to follow Europe's example and must work alongside us.

As energy solutions are global, we need European energy diplomacy, and I understand that the Commissioner for Energy has done quite a lot of work in that regard and in connection with this latest energy crisis. We need energy diplomacy for the simple reason that these are such big issues that there have been wars over them before and there will be again in the future. This is thus a very serious issue.

It is also quite obvious that we need an energy mix comprising various energy sources that is as broadly based as possible, because that will stabilise the energy situation and as a result each nation's diversity, and Europe's too, will come into its own.

Of course, saving energy is an important solution to the problem: it is the cheapest and the most effective method. For this we need something that I regard today as the most important single thing that should be done: making energy intelligent. If we do not greatly increase the use of intelligent technology we will not achieve our targets. Luckily, smart technology has developed at just the same time. People and companies do not know about the energy they are consuming without smart technology. Consequently, information and communication technologies (ITC) are the solution that will help us reach targets and keep us in order. They are a reminder of our extravagance. They are therefore like a good teacher, but also a good hired hand because intelligence is not just needed for the network, but also for equipment, homes and cars. Everywhere there is human activity, intelligence is needed to control energy consumption. In this connection, I would stress in particular the importance of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector and the innovations that come from this, as it can be truly inventive. Then there is the social dimension: energy poverty and, simultaneously, employment are linked to what has just been said.

We find it odd that Ukraine is a transit country. Obviously, as Mr Swoboda said, the pipeline should be under alternative management, for example under tripartite management that would include the EU, and that way the problem would go away.

Madam President, in all the discussions on the energy crisis, there is one aspect which my colleague, Anne Laperrouze, does mention, but which generally receives insufficient attention. We talk about energy efficiency in the context of climate change and of fuel poverty, but energy efficiency is also of huge strategic importance. Controlling demand takes pressure off the supply side and is crucial to reaching energy independence in Europe. I want to make two specific points in the context of the oral question on the use of information and communication technologies.

First, I am concerned that the roll-out of smart meters is not going ahead with the degree of commitment required by the Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive and called for in the Morgan report. In some countries, digital displays are available to show consumers how much energy they are using - which is helpful - but a proper smart meter does much more than that. It allows two-way communication, detailed analysis of consumer demand and proper measurement and payment of electricity supplied by micro-renewables. We need smart meters now. They are crucial to the task of transforming buildings from being energy consumers into being net energy producers.

Secondly, with regard to lighting, I trust we are about to go ahead with taking the most inefficient domestic lighting off the market, and the same needs to happen for office and street lighting. We should, however, already be looking forward to the next technological steps, such as wider use of smart lighting systems using sensors, which measure movement and the degree of natural light so that lighting can be reduced - or indeed switched off when necessary. There is a lot more to energy-efficient lighting than compact fluorescents, and it is time for the public sector - and that includes the European institutions - to take the lead on using ICT for energy efficiency.

(LV) Madam President, Commissioners, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Laperrouze for her extremely comprehensive report. Crises always provide the opportunity to take important decisions that may crucially change our values and policies. I have reason to believe that the recent gas crisis has opened the eyes of politicians in relation to the vulnerability of many parts of Europe with regard to energy supply. Not only the recovery plan and the Second Strategic Energy Review prepared by the Commission but also this report all give us hope that there will be a unified European energy policy, and that includes the hope that the isolated energy islands of Europe will at last be eliminated, including that of the Baltic States. Another aspect relates to the development of liquefied natural gas terminals. These could indeed become an alternative to supplies of Russian gas in many locations, but only on condition that national governments are able to withstand the pressure, and not create them as extra capacity for the export of Russian gas, but solely as import terminals. Thank you.

(DE) Madam President, Mr Piebalgs, Mrs Reding, ladies and gentlemen, we need investment now. We are on the verge of an energy crisis and a financial crisis. We need to make an effort to invest as quickly and as well as possible, and therefore we cannot but say 'yes' to the construction not only of pipelines but also of LNG ships. We should build them as quickly as possible, as this would create jobs and thus contribute to full employment in Europe.

The pipelines should not compete with each other; rather, the construction of each new pipeline is a win-win situation, as is the construction of LNG terminals. This is an important issue for the future.

Above all, we need to invest in energy efficiency, not via state funding, but rather by means of tax breaks. If we could give every citizen an allowance of EUR 10 000 a year that they could offset against tax, we could make an immediate start on investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy; with regard to the latter, progressive depreciation, in other words the immediate inclusion of costs on the balance sheet, would be a particularly valuable tool. If we could set a three-year limit for this, it would be a great success for all of us. We could get a better handle on employment and energy. In this connection, it is up to Commissioner Kovács to launch an initiative.

One point which particularly exercises us in this programme is, quite naturally, the nuclear industry: it is vital to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power stations, and to do so to the very best of our ability. It is not possible to set the bar too high here: quite simply, we need people to trust in the European Union that the appropriate steps will be taken, that further security research will be conducted and that there will be legally binding requirements allowing dangerous nuclear power stations to be removed from the grid immediately following a ruling by a court or regulator. The people of Europe have a right to safety in this field, so that we can go forward into a future in which energy generation does not put us in danger and we can sleep soundly. The Commission can make a significant contribution to this.

Ultimately, however, it will also be up to the Council, in the group responsible for nuclear safety, to live up to their responsibilities and not to go down a path that the citizens will not appreciate, by blocking proposals from the European Parliament and the Commission.

(ES) Madam President, Commissioners, the recent situation concerning Russia and Ukraine and the gas supply has clearly shown that more than ever before we need to diversify our supply and improve connections between Member States and with producer countries.

The Commission's proposals are heading in this direction, but in the interests of greater efficacy these proposals should also include, and I was glad to hear the Commissioner mention it today, the potential in the south of our continent and in particular in my country, Spain.

Spain is the Member State with the greatest diversification of supply, both in terms of the number of countries - our gas is imported from 10 different countries - as well as in the range of formats. For this reason, my country is an excellent supply platform for the European Union. The supply is achieved both through the gas pipeline from Algeria as well as by liquefied natural gas in similar volumes to that of Nabucco, but at a lower cost and with better delivery times. However this platform cannot currently be used by the European Union due to the lack of a connection to France. Medgas, Mr Piebalgs, must be a priority for the European Union, as must the specific problems of our island territories.

If the Iberian peninsular clearly suffers from isolation in energy terms, islands such as the Balearic Islands, where I am from, suffer a double isolation. This is very unfair for the inhabitants of these islands because we, as Europeans, have equal rights.

I sincerely request, Mr Piebalgs, that you consider the particular situation of island territories when taking decisions and establishing priorities.

Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work.

(SV) Madam President, Commissioner, the EU has had to learn the hard way what it means to be far too dependent on a single energy supplier. The citizens of several Member States have been affected by Russia's capriciousness in a totally unacceptable way. We know that Russia is ruthless when dealing with its neighbours, but when freezing Slovakians and Bulgarians were taken hostage in the quarrel between Russia and Ukraine it was, hopefully, a wake-up call for all of us, including us here in this Parliament.

Ukraine needs the support of the EU, and the construction of Nabucco with gas from Azerbaijan, among others, must now get underway. The EU must now demonstrate an ability to take action, precisely as called for by Mr Swoboda.

We know that Russia is pressing for Nord Stream, the gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea. These proposals should be rejected. The Baltic Sea is one of our most sensitive inland seas. Out of consideration for the environment and the economy, this pipeline should not be laid in the Baltic Sea, added to which are the security policy aspects. A land-based alternative must be thoroughly investigated instead. The European Parliament has also expressed its doubts about this on a previous occasion.

I am pleased to see that the report maintains that nuclear energy needs to be an important part of Europe's future energy mix. If we are to meet the emissions reduction requirements of the energy package we need modern European nuclear energy. It is good that we are able to discuss this in the European Parliament over the next few days.

(PL) Madam President, Commissioners, it is time to speak plainly. Firstly, the European Union does not have an energy strategy. This fact encourages Russia, for example, which treats energy resources as a political weapon, to make attempts at pressure and blackmail, which makes the EU's situation worse.

Secondly, the EU has succumbed to collective manipulation in the form of intimidation with global climate warming due to CO2 emissions. Increasing numbers of experts and facts confirm that this is not true. With regard to those who are spreading this theory and intimidating us with global warming, it would be worth investigating in whose interests they are acting.

Thirdly, the EU requires an energy strategy based on the principle of the weakest link, in other words help in the form of financial aid and investment in those countries which are most dependent on one supplier, like the Baltic States and Poland.

Fourthly, the EU needs to apologise and restore hard coal and brown coal to favour, because it has plentiful supplies of these and they are cheap. Fifthly, the EU needs a tax and credit policy to support new technologies and savings in energy emissions, and this it does not have.

(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would very much like to thank Mrs Laperrouze and Mr Piebalgs for all the documents they have presented.

I do not agree with all of the details, but the proposals go in the right strategic direction: it is right and necessary to focus once again on the fact that security of supply is one of the central issues. We have perhaps devoted too much of our attention to other energy policy issues over the last year, and I am grateful that security of supply has now returned more to centre stage.

Secondly, I am also grateful that the proposed position is so nuanced. As has been said, one might not agree with every single point, but the report is generally correct, contrary to what Mr Turmes just suggested. Mr Turmes, it is wrong to believe that there is a simple answer, a single answer to this enormous, complicated problem.

Politicians always try to give a quick, simple answer that satisfies everybody, but that is just not possible. It is, unfortunately, damned hard, which is why the answer is so varied. We cannot make people promises and act as if we have a solution and everything is magically going to be fine; quite apart from anything else, the people would one day be bitterly disappointed when they realised that it does not work that way.

This nuance means that there is not just a single energy source, but rather that we will continue for a long time to work with several sources. It is immoral to just discard a source of energy: in my view, it is irresponsible to simply dismiss nuclear energy. It is part of the solution: not the whole solution, of course, but it should be realised that it has a contribution to make. I would also caution against staking too much on gas: we have just heard a great deal about the dependency that entails.

I also think that we need to realise that we cannot just carelessly give up on coal - an energy source that we have in our country and in many other places in Europe - and say 'coal produces CO2, so it is not an option'. That would be irresponsible. We also need a nuanced response to the issue of the various routes and paths. As Mr Rübig just said, there is not one single answer for a pipeline: it would be a mistake to just opt for one; instead, we need to open up a variety of routes and options. Nobody today can predict with certainty what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years' time.

In that respect, the path we need to take is to say 'yes' to intelligent solutions. By intelligent, I mean varied, and being open to new things and not standing still. The answer is technology. The answer is investing in research and being open to solutions that we currently cannot see at all, and not casually ruling out one option or another. It is also agreeing to investment.

It would be a fatal mistake - and it is one made in some energy policy decisions - to give those who actually have to invest the money, namely companies, too little room for manoeuvre and too little support. Does anybody really believe that we, the Member States, the State or the Community will be able to solve the problem of investment? No, it is the private sector that will have to do that.

(BG) Madam President, Commissioners, first of all I would like to highlight the constructive debate in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the report by Mrs Laperrouze, and especially point out her role in preparing an objective and all-encompassing report.

I want to especially concentrate on the proposals included in the report which have been made with the aim of reflecting the problems faced by those countries which are most deeply affected by external energy source suppliers, in particular gas.

First of all, the importance of the European Parliament actively participating in allocating projects for new energy links, in particular between Member States' gas and energy supply networks, has been noted. However, it is with regret that I point out that only EUR 20 million has been set aside for the Commission's project for the Republic of Bulgaria and its links with Greece, despite Bulgaria being one of the most seriously affected countries. The gas field in Chiren, for example, which will solve the problems of the crisis with minimum supplies, has not been mentioned at all.

Secondly, all possibilities for constructing the southern gas corridor have been included, in other words, in addition to the Nabucco project, the South Stream and TGI projects are also noted. Also noted is the long-term plan for the possibility of gas being supplied by other countries in the region such as Uzbekistan and Iran.

Thirdly, the importance of liquefied gas terminals being constructed in the European Union is emphasised, and also that they should be accessible to all Member States on the basis of the principle of solidarity. This is once again particularly important for the joint use of such terminals by Bulgaria and Greece.

Fourthly, I call upon the Commission to look into expanding the energy community in South East Europe and other neighbouring countries with the aim of forming a single market for the whole region. As rapporteur on the regulations and conditions for access to gas supply networks, I want to once again underline the significance of the Third Energy Package for the formation of a single European energy market and to urge its quickest possible implementation.

Finally, I want to point out that the report objectively expresses the role of nuclear energy too. I consider that the current framework directive for nuclear safety will become a good basis for analysing the state of all reactors in the European Union, and not just of newly-constructed ones, and will be an objective base for the evaluation of their safety.

It is clear that politically based decisions like those taken in relation to Kozloduy cannot be long-term ones in the current development of energy diversity in the European Union. I hope that Member States will be in the position, based on objective criteria, to reconsider the issue about the closed reactors.

- (FR) Madam President, Mrs Laperrouze's report on energy policy concerns a subject of huge importance for all the countries of the Union.

I greatly respect her for the work she has done, but the situation remains very serious. The excruciating and disastrous experience of our countries in the South in January, like the forecasts that threaten us with a significant energy shortage over the next two decades, all point towards the need for energy policy to be a key part of our foreign policy.

However, the future is gloomy, Commissioner, because we lack unanimity, solidarity and resources. In terms of solidarity, this does not perhaps apply to the Commission, but rather to certain large European countries. We are not speaking with one voice.

I entirely agree with Mr Swoboda that Nabucco is a big embarrassment for the European Union. For example, the Russian South Stream pipeline supported by the State and by certain EU countries is in danger of ousting Nabucco, which is twice as cheap and which, for its part, acts in accordance with the rules of the market. Its sources of supply in Azerbaijan risk being seized by its rival, which makes it a precarious and dubious investment. In this way the Union is probably going to lose the unique opportunity of diversity and greater security ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(HU) Madam President, the Second Strategic Energy Review could not be more timely. The security of supply to the eastern half of the European Union has certainly been challenged by the events of the beginning of the year. After a three-week crisis, since 20 January natural gas has once again been flowing to Europe, but the question is, for how long? In order to be able truly to guarantee security of supply, we need to learn the lessons of the gas dispute. By this I mean first of all the diversification of the energy types used, the sources of supply and delivery routes. According to calculations, Europe uses 500 billion m³ of gas per year, and this demand may grow, according to certain analyses, by as much as 30% in the next 20 years.

Ideas have already emerged regarding potential alternatives. The Nord Stream pipeline transporting Russian gas to Europe is already under construction, and the Blue Stream in Turkey is ready; agreement has been reached by the interested parties on the building of South Stream, Ukraine has undertaken the creation of White Stream, and then there is the much talked-about Nabucco, albeit with uncertain sources or financial backing. In any case, dependency on Russia will for the most part remain. Although Nabucco would transport Asian gas, so far - unlike Gazprom - Europe has not even made an offer to Baku. What can be done now? Many may say that, for the moment, we can trust that the negotiations of the European Commissioners and the Russian delegation at the Moscow summit will bring substantive results and lead to significant progress as regards the gas pipelines, and that in future it will not be the Russian gas monopoly alone that dictates prices.

This is possible, but for my part, in addition to all this - and indeed before all else - I believe that the way forward is to use less and cleaner energy. This is precisely why I maintain that there is a need for a European green 'New Deal', in other words, one that aims at sustainable growth while stimulating and utilising innovation in environmental industry. As a result of the current global financial crisis, more and more people are waking up to the fact that a new logic of economic organisation is necessary. Increasing numbers of people are recognising that, in order to emerge from the global crisis, a fresh driving force is necessary, with an engine running on new organisational principles. More and more people are recognising the need for a paradigm shift. The green 'New Deal', in other words a new logic for economic organisation based on innovations in environmental technology and supported by international capital markets, will become the cornerstone of increasing numbers of economic rescue and stimulus programmes, including among the European Union Member States. We need this stimulus because last year the number of the unemployed in Europe grew by 1.7 million. The European green 'New Deal', should it receive the green light, will have a fundamental effect on Europe's future energy policy. Thank you very much.

(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union at present imports 50% of the energy it consumes and this proportion is constantly growing. The Union's dependence on imports of conventional sources of energy and on a limited number of suppliers represents a serious threat to our security, stability and prosperity. This strategic review of the European Union's energy policy has therefore, in my opinion, come at the right time. I am of the view that the 'three times 20' objective for 2020 is correct from the security, economic and ecological standpoints. However, attainment of this objective requires a common approach throughout the entire European Union, unified both within the Union and towards the outside. The creation of a common energy policy requires the completion of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the submission of a proposal for such a common energy policy. In the internal market there is a need for a clear and stable legal framework and, above all, a need to complete the integration of our energy systems throughout the territory of the European Union.

The clause on mutual solidarity will remain just an empty phrase if we do not connect these energy systems. There is also a need to strengthen the use of all domestic energy sources, from conservation by increasing the proportion of renewable sources to greater use of safe nuclear energy. There is no need to emphasise that financial investment in our domestic energy industry will also provide a return in the form of a resumption of economic growth. As far as external relations in the field of energy are concerned, this aspect too requires far greater diversification than before. There is a need for a more intensive dialogue with producer countries, transit countries and other consumer countries. Cooperation should be increased with the countries of the Middle East, the Mediterranean region and North Africa. This should be done within the framework of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean. The dialogue should also include the candidate country Turkey and, in my view, it is also essential to look for a far more effective approach to countries like Iran. In conclusion I should like to congratulate our rapporteur Mrs Laperrouze on, I believe, a first-rate and balanced report.

(LT) Although we started talking about the need for a common energy policy as far back as 2006, each individual EU State is responsible for ensuring a secure energy supply. However, solidarity among the Member States is essential for the survival of the EU itself. The EU must immediately adopt effective legislation to help overcome energy supply crises or avoid them altogether. The Commission proposes an EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan, the most important aspects of which are the creation of infrastructure and the diversification of energy sources. I am delighted that among the infrastructure projects set to become EU energy security priorities is an interconnection plan for the countries around the Baltic Sea, which would eliminate the insecure energy islands still existing in the EU.

I would like to ask the Commission for all kinds of support in the construction of the energy link between Lithuania and Sweden and the Lithuanian-Polish energy bridge. Here, unfortunately, we also need political will. Meanwhile, returning to the European Union's fundamental principle - solidarity - and its application in the field of energy, many doubts arise as to the future of this principle. We are debating the Third Energy Package, involving the creation of an EU internal electricity and gas market with an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators. At the same time, Germany and Russia are establishing a Russian-German energy agency. How is this consistent with EU Member State solidarity, the common energy policy and energy security?

(PL) Madam President, Commissioners, in this debate I would like to draw attention to three questions.

Firstly, Russia is increasingly clearly using supplies of energy resources, and mainly gas, to exert a strong political influence. Not only did the last gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine cause huge economic losses in many EU countries, but with a kind of permission from the EU it once again pushed Ukraine into a clear economic dependence on Russia. For it is difficult to imagine that the Ukrainian economy will be able to function if the price of gas is over USD 400 per 1 000 cubic metres.

Secondly, a new partnership agreement between the EU and Russia needs to be negotiated, which will contain details of the energy question but will also contain a clear stipulation that Russia will not use the supply of energy resources to exert political influence, and that Russian suppliers will be liable for damages arising from a break in supply.

Thirdly and finally, the European Union, by using its own financial means and also the European Investment Bank, should support first and foremost gas investments which really diversify the supply of gas to the EU, and so which create a real capability to import gas from countries other than Russia, such as the Nabucco gas pipeline.

Madam President, we will never achieve either energy security or the 80% reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 if we continue to effectively ignore both the issue of energy security and the critical importance of pan-European high-voltage direct current (HVDC) interconnection. That includes an HVDC line to North Africa: smart electrical networks over Europe and North Africa.

Having had the opportunity last week to experience first hand the exciting solar thermal operations in Grenada and Seville, and having read over the weekend Harvard professor Michael McElroy's views on freeing the United States from its USD 750 billion annual bill for importing oil, winning the energy security battle in the US and at the same time saving the planet, I ask myself: what are we still debating? We know the answers.

The smart grid will allow solar, wind and hydro-generated electricity to level the security graph. If the wind is not blowing off the Irish west coast, the sun will be shining in Spain, or the wind will be blowing off the west coast of North Africa as well as the sun shining there.

In short, what the sun is to Spain, wind is to the west coast of Ireland. Our national regulators will breathe easy as their only job as of now if to keep the lights on and our homes and offices heated at peak demand.

We can no longer allow our citizens to be hostage to either energy politics or volatile oil prices. Wind energy is competitive with coal, oil and gas, and the fuel is free. Yes, our challenge is to build a new energy economy - an energy economy built on renewable electricity.

I conclude: the glib expression 'to cost the earth' which we - English-language speakers anyway - use figuratively with gay abandon now needs to be taken literally. If we do not rapidly change from our almost total dependence on fossil fuels, it will, as our peer review climate scientists repeatedly and with increasing urgency point out, do just that: cost the earth through global warming.

(BG) Madam President, as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I would like to congratulate Mrs Laperrouze on this report, which gives a wide perspective on the European Union's problems in the field of energy, including the need for a common energy policy.

The report also very clearly indicates the actions which need to be implemented so that we can face the challenges of energy security. I also welcome the fact that nuclear energy has found the place it deserves in such a report, and is presented as a necessary energy source.

In particular now, following the gas crisis, it is also clear and well pointed out that we have a need to diversify energy sources. On the other hand, for the future we need to continue working towards more alternative corridors, energy corridors, and not just one corridor at the expense of another. We all would then gain from competition.

I want to draw attention to two issues. In October last year I noticed here, in this House, that the Nabucco energy project was still 'smoke without fire'. I called upon the European Commission then to take firm action. We can now say that noticeable action is being taken by the Commission in this direction. An understanding of its importance is evident, particularly now following the gas crisis.

However it needs to be clear that, despite the actions and measures taken on the road to achieving ever greater energy security, much more effort is needed, including serious political activity, so that we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

The second issue is the capacity for energy storage. I would like to tell you that Bulgaria would have been doomed had it not had capacity for at least 20 days' reserve supplies at the gas storage facility in Chiren, which last year, as if the government knew what was coming, was expanded by one-third of its capacity.

Therefore, for the second time today, I would stress my utter lack of understanding why the Commission has completely ignored the project proposed by Bulgaria for further expansion of this storage facility. This was our only saviour and I think that we need to support similar projects in all other countries.

(PL) Madam President, the gas crisis and the financial crisis are forcing us to take rapid and pragmatic action which is above individual interests and ideas that are economically unjustified, such as the Nord Stream pipeline.

The Second Strategic Energy Review does not give the desired added value. A series of issues mentioned in the review face significant difficulties in their realisation. The citizens and the economy of the EU require rapid and specific decisions and action which will ensure relatively low and stable energy costs over the next 15 years: decisions which will lead to the most significant savings possible in industry, transport and homes; decisions which will in large measure reduce the dependence of the EU economy on the import of hydrocarbons and ensure their correct supply; decisions which will lead as quickly as possible to the development of a programme and plan of specific research-based measures and how to finance and implement them. As a result of these economic measures CO2 emissions will be reduced, and the bureaucratic trading of emissions - so good for the traders, but not for the economy - will not be necessary.

Madam President, I am touched by the words 'smart' and 'intelligent', which are very much part of this debate, because the solutions we try and use in our house to reduce energy consumption are certainly not working and they are neither smart nor very intelligent. Telling children to turn things off is just not the solution. I wish it were, as it would mean that I was in control. So we do need all of the things that others have spoken about: sensors and other technological advancements that will make everybody's life easier in terms of achieving our energy efficiency objectives.

Tonight's debate is a massive one: it is about our climate change agenda, security of supply, solidarity between Member States and also economic growth - and that is an issue for us at the moment - and how we can achieve a better use of our energy resources.

The country I come from, Ireland, relies on oil for almost 60% of our energy needs and it is all imported. So, clearly, we have a particular problem. We need to reduce that dependency, we need to develop our indigenous resources and, as I have already mentioned, improve our efficiency. Clearly, the issue of interconnection between Member States is crucial particularly for countries on the periphery.

Ireland's dependency is extremely high: 91% of our needs are imported. That is quite a staggering percentage, and while we have not experienced the gas problems that other colleagues have spoken about, or the cold and the horror that caused for other Member States, we did learn, from watching that, how critical it is that we do something about our energy mix and our energy insecurity.

So, all of the issues that are part of this report and the oral question are extremely important for us.

In particular the issue of land use needs to be addressed. The Swedish experience of forestries is interesting from the perspective of Ireland, where we have not developed our forestry sector.

But this is a key issue: getting the balance right between food production and fuel production.

(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, developing a coherent and all-encompassing Community policy in the energy field is a logical step and a necessary intervention. The Commission's proposal and Mrs Laperrouze's report point in this direction.

The European Union will give added value to the initiatives developed by the Member States. Oil is finite and the production of the European Union and Norway in 2007 contributed a mere 30% to internal demand. The European Union's dependence on oil imports indirectly increases our dependence on politically unstable countries or those which as possible energy partners generate major geostrategic tensions, as we have seen recently with Russia.

For these reasons, it is strategically important to redirect the demand for alternative energy sources to oil, but it is also geographically important to look more carefully at the South American and African markets, which are currently expanding and to which the development of the European Union-Brazil and European Union-Africa partnerships could contribute greatly. This should be done through the use of the Iberian region - Spain and Portugal, where I come from - as a fundamental platform in terms of logistics and distribution in the European area.

As for the basic need to enhance energy efficiency, it is important to guarantee appropriate synergies among sectors able to contribute to greater energy efficiency. Only through the adoption of a global and coordinated approach between Community policies and national policies, namely in the areas of cohesion, agriculture and transport, will we be able to outline a strategy that conveys a long-term vision.

The link between energy and territorial cohesion is indisputable in that it affects possible long-term solutions for all the regions of the European Union, including the most isolated and outermost regions.

(BG) Mrs Laperrouze, I would like to congratulate you in particular for the good work you have done with your topical and timely report.

We are hardly in a position yet to say how much European countries and citizens lost from the gas crisis. The direct losses to the Bulgarian economy alone, which was most severely affected by the dispute between Ukraine and Russia, amount to over EUR 230 million, without any compensation.

The ensuing emergency raised many questions. Unfortunately, the big issue of energy dependence comes to a head whenever a political crisis and political antagonism between Russia and Ukraine occur. Many people remember the situation three years ago, when the two countries again disagreed on prices. Then we had a pledge of a common European energy policy, but three years on it seems like nothing has changed.

Now we ask ourselves: are we ready for a single energy market or will individual interests prevail in bilateral agreements? Have we done enough to interconnect the European gas supply networks among Member States or are we becoming less and less inclined to set aside reserves for crisis situations? How are we working on Nord and South Stream, and on Nabucco?

I am pleased to hear that nuclear energy is being treated on the same level as other energy sources. Without compromising on safety, it is time to reconsider our attitude towards nuclear facilities in Europe, and without any further politically motivated decisions.

We need nuclear energy and it would act as a serious barrier to other crises that may arise. It is not coincidental that at the height of the crisis the Bulgarian Parliament asked its European partners to revive the debate on reactivating the closed reactors at Kozloduy, which have been proved safe by the competent authorities. We hope for your understanding.

The decisions are difficult, but let us not prejudge them or write them off prematurely. I would like to address the following words to you, Mr Commissioner. Only a few days ago, when the European Commission allocated resources from the European Development Plan, the country which was worst affected received the least amount of resources. This evening I have not heard any mention from you about Bulgaria being in the list of 100%-dependent countries in need of special assistance.

What are the criteria and mechanisms for allocating these resources? I would find them difficult to explain to Bulgarian and to European citizens. Evidently we also need to put more effort into the Third Energy Package and speed it up. As a member of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I have worked a great deal on protecting energy supplies for consumers, but please understand, it is more important to secure the energy in the first place.

(RO) I want to stress the European Union's need for an external energy policy so that the 27 Member States can speak with a single voice during negotiations with major producers. This is the only way in which the European Union can obtain affordable prices for importing gas and oil, along with guaranteeing energy security. Diversification of energy supply sources must be one of the European Union's major goals. However, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Russian gas pipeline project, South Stream, is not making any contribution at all to this diversification as the supply source remains exactly the same, Russia. Furthermore, the huge costs involved in building this gas pipeline would end up increasing the price of gas, a price which European consumers would be obliged to pay.

This is why, in my view, the European Union needs to urgently take action to include in future agreements with Russia and Ukraine some comprehensive clauses on energy interdependency, which will set out clear obligations and effective mechanisms for rapidly resolving any problems. The strategic partnership between the European Union and Russia and the new Eastern Partnership should aim to implement ...

Madam President, energy policy and foreign policy are inextricably interlinked now more than ever. We see the need for a common EU energy policy in the light of the recent developments regarding gas supplies in central and eastern Europe but, whilst it is one of the key innovations of the Lisbon Treaty, I regret to point out that this point was not highlighted sufficiently in the debates surrounding the Treaty's ratification.

In Ireland we have 12 days of gas supply at any one time. Sixty per cent of our electricity is generated from imported gas, whereas the EU average is around 40%. On 28 January last, the Commission published a proposal to accelerate work on addressing deficits in the EU energy infrastructure while contributing to economic recovery as part of a EUR 5 billion package.

The inclusion by the Commission of the electricity interconnection between Ireland and the UK as a priority area for funding under the European economic recovery package is a very welcome development in this regard. It further emphasises that when all 27 Member States work together we can bring about the change that is required to ensure security of energy supply.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

Madam President, the two important documents we are discussing today - the Commission's plan of action and the report on it - are separated in time by the recent interruption of gas due to the usual winter quarrel between Russia and Ukraine. Consequently, the report is more attuned to reality, trying to increase our internal solidarity and expedite the implementation of the plan in front of us, thus capitalising on the lessons of the last crisis.

Personally, apart from support for the diversification of transport routes for the import of gas, I consider the appeal to expedite the achievement of internal market energy in the current legislature and the necessity to revisit the entire problem of gas storage as major contributions of the report. However, the recommendation to fully open the Nabucco project to Russia is questionable since everyone knows that Nabucco was conceived as an alternative to Russian gas and that, consequently, Russia is already doing everything possible to kill it.

(SK) Ladies and gentlemen, the recent gas crisis has shown the importance of a common EU energy policy. In addition, Slovakia has found out what 100% dependence on Russian gas means. Hundreds of companies had to cease production and pay their employees just 60% of their wages.

I appreciate that solidarity plays a leading role in relations between EU Member States. If we had not received an emergency transfer of gas from Germany through the Czech Republic to Slovakia, households would also have been at risk. I am convinced that the need to ensure a constant supply of energy is a fundamental universal priority. Meeting the need predominantly from non-renewable sources of energy is beginning to outweigh environmental acceptability.

We must build safe nuclear power plants and at the same time, using structural funds, encourage rural communities to focus strategically on the link between energy, water and biotechnology, thus strengthening the diversification of the energy base.

(PL) Madam President, the last but of course not the only gas supply crisis means that we keep coming back to the matter of security of supply of this very important resource.

In Europe we are not in a bad situation as far as location is concerned. We are almost surrounded by sources of gas: North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and Russia. The problem is that Europe does not have a unified market for gas. In connection with this Europe does not have a more or less unified price. I would like to point out that in the United States they do have a unified market, and the price there for 1 000 cubic metres of gas is below USD 200. In Europe we pay around USD 400. This is a result of the fact that we do not have an infrastructure which would enable the transfer of gas from one country to another.

Finally there is the matter of the Nabucco pipeline. It is high time that we gave this the right priority and engaged our financial means so that it finally materialises.

Madam President, I have three questions to Commissioner Piebalgs.

Firstly, Nabucco may become a hostage to the Turkey's accession negotiations, as we have learned from Prime Minister Erdoğan. Are we also considering, within the southern corridor, the White Stream (Caspian-Georgia-Black Sea-Ukraine-Romania) project?

Secondly, in the revised Gas Directive, would you consider a mandatory 90 days of reserves for gas storage for all the Member States?

Thirdly, you have presented an impressive package of EUR 3.5 billion for energy infrastructure. Do you foresee any obstacles to that in the Council? Because it has still to be accepted in the Council: I have heard about four Member States objecting. And how can the European Parliament, which has also to accept it, help to pass it as quickly as possible?

(RO) The gas crisis which we recently faced was between Ukraine and Russia, but unfortunately it affected some of the European Union Member States. This crisis has highlighted once again that the European Union is dependent to a large extent on a single gas supply source. As a result, I feel that developing partnerships with Russia is beneficial to the whole of the European Union, but at the same time, I believe that the European Union must immediately initiate projects which can allow alternative solutions to be found, with the precise aim of averting the consequences of crises which could occur either in the near or more distant future.

In the same train of thought, I believe that the two projects, Nabucco and South Stream, must be taken into consideration, along with other solutions. In this case, I am referring to the fields in the North Sea and those which are supposed to be on the Black Sea continental shelf. Given that, over time, all kinds of deposits are going to run out, I believe that we need to invest in scientific projects capable of discovering alternative sources of energy, thereby also guaranteeing the development of future generations.

(RO) The recent gas crisis refocuses attention even more sharply on the importance of developing alternative routes and sources of energy by developing transport infrastructures and establishing interconnections. In the current climate, the Nabucco project needs to be speeded up as it has the potential to help achieve the European Union's objectives of diversifying not only routes, but especially supply sources from third countries. Transit routes through neighbouring countries must be encouraged by completing the projects which involve connecting the network in Romania with those in Hungary and Bulgaria.

At the same time, I feel that the South Stream project cannot be regarded as being of any benefit to Europe, precisely due to the fact that it does not use an alternative source, as requested in the report's strategic review. We do, however, also have our own energy sources. One micro-hydroelectric plant is not viable or effective, but hundreds of thousands of hydroelectric plants from the Alps right to the Carpathians or from the Balkans right to the Tatras or Pyrenees mean energy independence.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, this has been a really fascinating debate and has reflected all the diversity of views on energy and the importance that this issue deserves. But I believe that the debate definitely shows that the rapporteur has struck the right balance. It is true that each of us sees the detail differently. There are no simple solutions, no silver bullets to solve this.

Again I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for really going through the process of ensuring that all opinions are reflected in the report, while at the same time clearly supporting the Commission's second strategic energy review.

A lot of you spoke about the supergrid. Supergrid is the tool that was seen as a magical solution. Well, it is true that it has a lot of potential, but with a grid we have a challenge. Somebody needs to pay for the grid, and, as you know, we are looking for a balance between affordability, security of supply and sustainability. So, if we really want to move towards this supergrid, the recovery plan is the first small step in the right direction.

The recovery plan can lead to a vicious circle where we say: 'Well, we need this, we need that, but it should be done by industry'. Yes, we do also encourage industry with different types of incentives, but if the public funds and European funds will not follow in accordance with our political priorities, then the plan will not be successful.

Then there are other issues that I would also emphasise, echoing what Mr Paparizov said. On the third internal market package, I would just say what it does for Europe. First of all there is the agency for cooperation of European regulators. That will solve a lot of issues. Second, a European body for transmission system operators. These two issues are crucially related to security of supply, while at the same time not taking away national sovereignty over energy.

So if this package is adopted now, we will achieve a lot of momentum. If it is postponed, we will lose a lot of momentum for security of supply. So, in my opinion, the recovery plan and the third energy package is something that needs to be done.

The last questions are usually the ones I remember the best, so I will briefly respond to them, because they relate very clearly to the issues that we discussed. What is the Council discussing? I think there are basically two issues.

One is whether we should give public funds to energy at all. Well, a minority of countries still believes that it is good that the funding should come from industry, but this brings the problem that it is hard for industry to move on very costly projects where returns are uncertain.

The second issue is 'a fair return for my country'. Well, I could point out that my country is not specifically covered by this recovery plan, so it is good that there were a lot of questions on this. I explained that any interconnection with the Baltic as a whole helps my country as well. So this issue is still looked at very much from a national perspective: 'my fair return'.

I believe we are here taking the first step towards European public funds supporting this type of development. This could be the biggest difficulty, but I believe the Council will work hard really to approve of our proposal because I believe it is balanced, if not ideal for every Member State.

On Nabucco, our preferred option is definitely transit via Turkey. We are working now, we have started the intergovernmental conference with a view to concluding it in March with an intergovernmental agreement and a project support agreement. That should give enough legal and regulatory clarity for investing in the Nabucco pipeline. If it fails, we will look for alternatives. So there are alternatives, but Turkey is our priority route and I think it is beneficial for Turkey as well.

As for gas storage, we are considering this, but 90 days should not be necessary for everyone, because it very much depends on imports. If a country produces gas it does not need the same level of storage, so there should be a more fine-tuned proportion that gives enough security of supply and is realistic enough in case of crisis. So we are still looking at what the fine-tuning of the gas storage proposal could look like.

Again I would like to thank you for this debate. It was a very tough debate, but I believe that all elements are there and we just need to continue to work very vigorously to implement the ones that we have agreed on and the proposals that have been agreed in this House. Again I would like to thank Parliament for its strong support for developing a European energy policy.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we have had a very fascinating debate. I agree that much, if not the majority, of the responsibility falls to our colleague who is responsible for energy.

However, everything that you have been calling for - energy security, more efficiency, intelligent networks, decentralised networks, the supergrid, the micro grid, the virtual power plants - needs ICT to be run. So it is essential that we make every effort to get this intelligent means, in order to put into practice the policy proposed by the committee on energy efficiency. We are economically and technologically on the right path and it is also - and I must stress this - a unique business opportunity. If we get the ICT to allow energy efficiency to go in the right direction, then we are creating many industries, a lot of growth and many jobs. That is also the reason why we have to go ahead with smart building, smart lighting and smart transport. Only if we apply, in practical terms, the possibilities shown to us by research, will we not only be less dependent because we will be more efficient, but we will also build a new industrial capacity.

I will just give you one example in order to show you how this could work. As you know, we will be adopting the high-efficiency light-emitting diodes - the famous LEDs - which, already today, will cut 30% of energy consumption in lighting and up to 50% by 2025. We have already, thanks to European research, gone one step forward. In 2007, due to our European Framework Programme on Research, we delivered the OLEDs - the organic LEDs - with a supplementary efficiency of 50% on the LEDs. European research has brought about results and it is now both national and regional policy to put these results into practice.

I have heard some criticism that the euro recovery plan is not about efficiency. Well, if I am reading this plan correctly, I see that EUR 1 billion is allocated to energy efficiency in buildings. You have all pledged in this House that this is the right way to proceed. EUR 5 billion goes to clean cars, so that cars will no longer be dependent on petrol as they are today, and there is EUR 1 billion for smart manufacturing in order to use less time and less energy in our industries.

We are on the right path and I think that, with the help of Parliament and with a lot of pushing in the national Member States, we will manage not only to secure these means but also to apply them in practice. Then energy efficiency will not only be about speeches but also about facts.

rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Mrs Reding, Mr Piebalgs, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your exceptionally valuable contributions; they show how vast this energy field is and that energy really is a basic need.

In our debate and in the report, which moreover reflect the discussions that we have had among ourselves in the various political groups, I have noted a broad consensus on the need to strengthen the networks and the interconnections, to use information and communication technologies to make the networks intelligent - as Mrs Reding just explained - to strengthen relations with producer countries and transit countries - that was in particular the aim of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with our rapporteur, Mr Dimitrakopoulos - and also to reach an agreement on energy efficiency, energy savings, and the development of renewable energies.

In conclusion, improving energy efficiency, developing renewable energies, diversifying our sources and lines of supply, consolidating the dialogue with producer countries, but also ensuring that the 27 Member States speak with one voice and, above all, that we effect a change in our lives is the consensus that we have achieved. All these dimensions are vital ways to guarantee this common energy security that we all want.

The differences of course relate to the composition of the energy mix. What are the energy sources? I should like to respond to my fellow Members from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and then also to other Members who have spoken out against nuclear energy. I wish to say that we do need to be careful.

There has been a great deal of exaggeration in what has been said. I believe that we have set some very ambitious targets for 2050. Mention has been made of an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions and of a 60% share of renewable energies. It is quite clear that a large share has been allocated to all renewable energy sources. In terms of nuclear energy, it is acknowledged in this report that it is part of the energy mix.

In this regard, I should like to conclude by simply reminding you of the objectives: a CO2 concentration of 450 ppm, which has been set in order to guarantee this limit of a 2°C rise. I should like to remind you that, in these efforts that have been announced, we are talking about a 9% share of nuclear energy, 54% energy efficiency, 35% renewables and 14% geological carbon capture and storage.

All that is for 2030. Thus, nuclear energy is part of the mix, and coal too. I for my part am not a fan of coal, I am not a fan of nuclear, but we need to have the broadest possible range of energy sources. I would not like to have to choose between coal and nuclear for 2050.

- Thank you, Mrs Laperrouze. Rest assured, in any case, that your energy is precious to Parliament.

The joint debate is closed.

The vote on Mrs Laperrouze's report will take place tomorrow.

In accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received one motion for a resolution at the end of the debate on the oral question by Mr Remek. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Solidarity between the European Union's Member States in the energy sector must become a primary objective at European, regional and bilateral level. Indeed, the strategies adopted by each Member State at national level must not affect the energy interests of other Member States and must be in the European Union's general interest in terms of energy security.

In this context, the task of improving the Community legislative framework aimed at energy interdependency within the EU and drafting a new generation of regulatory acts intended to govern the European Union's relations both with energy suppliers outside the EU and the transit states must act as an effective instrument in the process of drawing up a European security policy. The new laws will have to provide for legal constraint mechanisms intended to consolidate cooperation in the energy sector and develop viable competition on the European energy markets.

It is essential to encourage the efforts aimed at increasing EU investments with regard to diversification of cross-border structures, incentives for generating alternative, non-conventional forms of energy at local level and improvements in the infrastructure's ability to facilitate connection to new energy sources. The European Union must also seriously factor in the need to stimulate the private energy sector in Member States, which is already feeling the consequences of the global economic crisis.

It could be said that the January energy crisis is slowly starting to turn into an annual ritual. The more severe the winter the greater the certainty that the Russian Federation will turn off the gas supply to European countries. It is therefore all the more surprising, in the face of another gas conflict whose victims were citizens of European Union countries, that Chancellor Angela Merkel is still pushing the proposal of building the Nord Stream gas pipeline with Community funds.

What the European Commission should be doing now is preparing a plan for diversification of energy sources. Investment should be made in building new transmission networks which would bypass unreliable exporters of energy resources such as the Russian Federation. In one of the amendments which I tabled to the Laperrouze report we stress the significance of supporting 'the Nabucco gas pipeline, which is the only existing undertaking which will diversify energy sources and transit routes for gas' without the involvement of Russia. It should also be a priority to create gas interconnectors enabling connections between systems and rapid transmission of gas reserves in the event of further crises.

However, our trade agreements should be based on the special 'energy security clause', which would be the business ethics of the sector.

For Europe and the rest of the world, which conduct business in a civilised manner, it is important that the Russian Federation ratifies the Energy Charter Treaty. I think that only the cohesive and uncompromising position of a united Europe will be able to persuade the Kremlin to make such a decision.

Energy matters are the greatest challenge of our times. The gas crisis which the EU was confronted with in January is not the first in the history of the EU. In Europe there are countries which are 100% dependent on gas from Russia and these include Lithuania, which in December 2009 will shut down its nuclear power station. The EU must take additional steps so that the crisis is not repeated. The missing energy link must be created, and we must also strengthen the Directive on the security of gas supply and establish an EU coordinating mechanism designed to react to similar crises. It is essential that there are sufficient reserves of energy supplies in those Member States which are most dependent on energy supplies.

The crisis between Russia and Ukraine is not just a crisis of mutual trust, but a geopolitical crisis too. Both countries must take responsibility for the fact that Member States did not receive gas. Europe, for its part, must diversify energy sources and improve supply security. Europe must act decisively, as the solution of this energy crisis over the supply of gas from Russia is only temporary.

I would like to thank Mrs Laperrouze for this report and say that I support the majority of its conclusions. The EU must be ambitious in the battle against climate change, which means that the role of nuclear power and renewable energy sources cannot be discounted.

The process of creating a single market for electricity and natural gas must be accelerated. This requires interconnections. I therefore welcome the European Commission's proposal to allocate EUR 1.5 billion to interconnection projects. In addition, the criteria established in Barcelona for interconnection must be met by all Member States.

It is also necessary to improve energy efficiency, especially in the new Member States. In Romania, for example, there is huge potential for making savings and I would like this opportunity to be utilised.

The Russia-Ukraine crisis has highlighted once again the need for a common EU approach. I support the report's conclusion, including the point about signing an agreement between the EU, Russia and Ukraine.

However, I do not agree with the statement about the South Stream project being a vital project for the EU's energy security to the same degree as Nabucco. South Stream is a rival project to Nabucco and does not meet at all the needs to diversify energy supply sources in order to guarantee the EU's energy security. This is why I am suggesting that in the future we need to pay more attention to the position given to this project in the various EP documents.

Ladies and gentlemen.

Today we are discussing in the European Parliament one of the most important reports being debated during this plenary session. We can see in this report key elements of the energy policy which we want to implement across the European Union, such as national emergency action plans, the energy security clause, the diversification of supply sources and keeping nuclear power in the energy mix.

All this indicates how flexible our policies and actions are and how rapidly they can be adapted to the current situations. I feel that the regulation of commercial, association, partnership and cooperation agreements signed with producer and transit countries in order to establish a code of conduct and consequences for non-compliance is one of the EU's priorities in the wake of the gas crisis at the beginning of the year.

Furthermore, diversification of energy supply sources by establishing interconnections between Member States, implementing new supply routes like Nabucco and constructing LNG terminals must become current projects financed by the Commission. Finally, I would like to congratulate Mrs Laperrouze for her report and I hope that it will be supported by the vast majority of our fellow Members. Thank you.

In the first few weeks of 2009, EU Member States were treated as hostages by Ukraine, whose leaders initiated a supply settlement dispute with Moscow over the price of gas deliveries. Kiev based its action on the hope that, as a result of the traditional anti-Russian sentiment in Western and Eastern Europe, it would be able to gain the support of most EU Member States. Obviously this was a political shot in the foot.

The EU needs to break out of its own vicious circle at last. Just one part of this is the energy phobia according to which we need to put up with the Russians, or they will turn off the gas tap. This mistaken standpoint can only lead to erroneous consequences! This issue involves more than just energy!

If the European Union's long-term goal is partnership with a Russia built on democracy, providing an enormous market which is developing and capable of further development, then it also has to anticipate that the economic and political centres of gravity could legitimately shift to Russia.

The EU must actively and credibly convey the message that it is interested in seeing a modern Russia come into existence. The EU's behaviour, consisting of encouraging words but stifling, reticent and condemnatory actions is doomed to failure.

The lack of a common energy and foreign policy, squeezing the diversification of energy use into the background and prioritising certain historical injuries and commercial advantages renders our Union vulnerable.

A united EU would give Moscow pause for thought, for it has never before seen such a thing. In the face of countries engaging in capricious politics, however, an enormous country like Russia can easily assert its will.

This is about much, much more than energy!

The Strategic Energy Review provides a good summary of all the steps that are indispensable for the European Union to reduce its dependence on external energy sources. The disruptions in gas supply in recent weeks have made certain points of the proposal particularly timely.

We can only agree with the need to place the Community regulation of gas reserves on new foundations. In addition to imposing obligatory minimum stocks, it is important, in our view, to strengthen the mechanisms of solidarity with Community regulations, in harmony with the Lisbon Treaty.

It is commendable that the energy review carried out by the Commission names the infrastructures whose creation would be in the common interest of all Member States. It is a welcome development that the proposal considers the interconnections of the Central and South-East European gas pipelines an important goal in addition to the Southern Gas Corridor. The significance of the initiative that was initially linked to MOL lies in the fact that the states involved will find it easier to assist one another rapidly in the event of disruptions to supply. Linking the networks will also stimulate competition in the region.

We consider the European Commission's decision to redirect a portion of unused EU funds to energy infrastructures a good one. What is less positive, however, is that the most vulnerable Member States are to receive a smaller portion of the financing for their infrastructure than they had wished. However, the emphatic commitments can only be honoured by a more spectacular financial contribution and solidarity on the part of Community.

'A Pole is wise after the event!' This old saying, none too complimentary to my compatriots, can be extended to cover the entire European Union. The unpleasant experience of the Russo-Ukrainian gas conflict in January 2009 was necessary for the question of energy security to become a matter of primary importance for the entire European Community.

We cannot hide behind the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon, which does include statements about energy solidarity, has not been ratified. All that is needed is the political will, supported by a cold analysis of the last crisis, in order to describe future scenarios and to deliver the European Union from problems similar to those which were caused by the gas supply blockade via Ukraine. Both the Commission communication and the Laperrouze report draw attention to ways of coping with emergency situations, such as increasing reserves and creating a transmission network which will ensure technical availability. These are matters about which there is no disagreement. It will be more difficult to agree a long-term strategy, which will have to include a realistic position on Russia, because it is - currently - the main supplier of crude oil and gas to Europe.

Mutual dependence, as we have learned, does not guarantee continuity of supply and relations based on rational economic premises. The interference of political motives is too visible to overcome naivety. The most difficult thing in relations with our eastern neighbours will be to root out the tendency to make bilateral agreements, and that is the real measure of success or failure of Community energy security and energy solidarity policy!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen.

I want to thank those who drafted the report for their versatile efforts, and for bringing what is an important issue to the heart of the debate. Like the rapporteur, I think it is very important for the Union in its energy strategy to commit to common, long-term targets. Measures to save energy are the absolute key to a radical reduction in energy consumption.

There are no national solutions to Europe-wide problems. To guarantee energy security in Europe, the Union needs to invest in the establishment of a common main grid and a common energy market, and better coordination.

The report places too much emphasis on nuclear power as one of Europe's major areas of investment in the future. Considering the risks and disadvantages of nuclear power, this is a short-sighted and harmful policy. The report is not ambitious enough as regards renewable energy sources. A competitive Europe built on sustainable use must aim to increase the renewable energy share to 80% by the year 2050. Many studies, including the German Aerospace Centre and the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung ERENE studies, show that the effective introduction of new and clean forms of energy would be technically and economically possible. Now only the political will is missing.

Mrs Laperrouze's report refers to an issue that is particularly important to every European citizen, especially during the gas crisis which we faced recently. We all need to make our contribution to successfully attaining the ambitious objectives which this Second Strategic Energy Review is proposing, namely energy supply sustainability, competitiveness and security.

I want to emphasise the importance of improving the security of our energy resources. We must take measures to diversify our energy sources and supply routes. We need to support investments in infrastructure and in new technologies with reduced energy consumption, so that we can successfully achieve the '20-20-20' objectives.

Now more than ever, Member States must demonstrate their solidarity and cooperate in order to ensure the security of their energy reserves. At the same time, this new strategy needs to lay the foundations for economic growth in the EU.

I would like to remind you of the geopolitical importance of Romania and the Black Sea region for energy security and diversification of energy supply resources.

Development impact of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) (short presentation) 

- The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Schröder, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the development impact of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the impact of economic partnership agreements on development. 'Economic partnership agreements' really is quite a mouthful, particularly in German. It is a horrible phrase, and no doubt very few people in Germany will concern themselves with this topic, despite the fact that it will be one of the most important topics in coming years. What is it all about?

The Cotonou Agreement states that economic partnership agreements should be concluded between the European Union and the ACP (African, Caribbean Pacific) States by the end of 2007. The background to this was that developing countries that were not, and are not, in the ACP Group of States complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the European Union was according the ACP States special privileges.

We have now managed to set up, at least in part of the Caribbean, an economic partnership agreement of this type, which we hope will be a success. My report states that this agreement will form a new basis for development cooperation: we are helping them to help themselves. We are trying to link together trade and development, by which I mean trade policy and development policy. There has, of course, been a certain amount of friction, in particular here in Parliament between our committee, the Committee on Regional Development, and the Committee on International Trade, relating primarily to the compatibility of this agreement with the rules of the WTO and especially the issue of parliamentary scrutiny.

My report originally included two paragraphs - numbers 5 and 17 - relating to parliamentary scrutiny. At the request and on the advice of the chairman of the Committee on International Trade, I deleted both of those paragraphs completely and submitted an alternative draft report with these paragraphs deleted, on which we will be voting on Thursday. Apart from the two deletions, my draft report is identical to the first draft. It sets out both the opportunities and the risks of the economic partnership agreements, but it particularly emphasises the potential positive effects of these agreements on the people in those countries.

Before I finish, Mr President, I would just like to say one more thing: some of our fellow Members have repeatedly claimed that people in the ACP States had too little time to conclude these agreements. That is not true: they had from 2000 to 2007; then they had another year until 2008; and we still have time. We are not, however, saying to people in these countries that they can do it whenever they like: time is running out. It is in the interests of the people in the ACP States, and I therefore call on all Members of this House to vote in favour of my report on Thursday, including those who originally intended to vote against it. This is not an argument between the left and the right; it is about helping people in the ACP States to become more self-confident and, in the foreseeable future, to become equal partners in international trade.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the report by Mr Schroeder, which represents a balanced overview of the diversity of opinions surrounding the development impact of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).

The dossier continues to evolve. We have signed a full Economic Partnership Agreement with the Caribbean region, whilst we have negotiated interim agreements with countries and regions in Africa and the Pacific. These interim EPAs provide for a trade regime compatible with WTO rules and preserve important trade preferences for these countries. The interim agreements are only transitory in nature, as they will be replaced by full regional EPAs. The pace of these negotiations will be set by the regions concerned to ensure those objectives and coverage match their own integration processes, capacity, needs and political priorities.

In parallel, the programming of the 10th European Development Fund has moved on. Most of the regional and national programmes are signed. In anticipation of the EPAs, these programmes include considerable support to help our African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) partners make the most of the agreements: direct support for the implementation of the agreements and indirect support to build up infrastructure and productive capacity.

The Commission recognises the essential role of development finance. At the same time we welcome the fact that the report acknowledges that the development objectives and outcomes of the agreements are a much wider issue than just financial support. We also recognise the essential role of reform in the ACP regions in reaching the development objectives, as set out in paragraph 14 of the report. This includes fiscal reform and changes to revenue systems. The reforms offset shifts in the tax base due to liberalisation and are in themselves valuable steps to ensuring sustainable public financing in the ACP.

Another essential objective is to support regional economic integration in the ACP. The interim agreements do not yet include all ACP countries. This is exactly why these agreements are only temporary pending full agreement. The full agreements will be flexible and comprehensive.

Building up supply-side capacity to trade and engage in goods and service sectors underpins the economic value of a trade agreement. The Commission's view is that protectionism is never a valid policy option. However, we do acknowledge that protection - the legitimate use of measures to protect sensitive sectors and emerging industry - is a valid and essential policy tool. This is why the EPAs contain all sorts of flexibilities, and in particular exclusions and asymmetrical commitments for the ACP side, as called for in the report. On the EU side, our markets are completely open for ACP products, with increased cooperation to meet technical and health standards and facilitate trade. ACP countries will only open their markets gradually, with the possibility to maintain exceptions.

The Commission does not see our commitment to the EPA process ending on signature. This is the start of a process of enhanced dialogue, careful implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the effect, especially as regards the development impact. All of this will use the institutions established to implement the agreement to ensure transparency and the participation of parliamentarians and civil society.

The Commission therefore welcomes the report by Mr Schröder and will provide a detailed reaction to the points raised in due course.

- The item is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - (FR) On Thursday Parliament will give its verdict on Mr Schröder's report on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). I would be extremely disappointed if our institution's first vote on this both very technical and highly political subject (since the whole future of our relations with the ACP States is at stake) were to result in the adoption of Mr Schröder's report. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament will not vote in favour of this text, since it in no way reflects the concerns both of Europeans and of our ACP partners about the EPAs and the way in which they are negotiated.

In contrast to the rapporteur's position, the PSE Group has tabled and will vote in favour of a motion for a resolution which puts development back at the heart of the EPAs' priorities, which rejects the liberalisation of public services and any negotiation on the Singapore issues or on services against the ACP States' wishes, which promotes regional integration, which calls for huge financial support to bring the ACP States' economies up to standard, and which takes account of the specific characteristics and fragilities of these countries, be they least developed countries or otherwise.

These are the conditions that would make the EPAs acceptable agreements. Unfortunately we are still a long way away from them.

Wilderness in Europe (short presentation) 

- The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Hegyi, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on wilderness in Europe.

Around 46% of the world's land mass can be considered a natural environment, a wilderness untouched by human civilisation. In Europe, however, wilderness makes up only 1% of the entire territory. We must do everything we can to ensure that at least the remaining wilderness, this 1%, is preserved for the sake of future generations. This is the aim of my report, and I hope that increased protection of wilderness zones will sooner or later be integrated into EU legislation. There is a dual perception of wilderness in European culture. On the one hand, it is viewed as a place to fear and avoid, where monsters and unknown dangers lie in wait for us, as is evoked in many folk tales. On the other hand, it is seen as an attractive, pleasant place that gives us temporary refuge from the stress of urban and industrial civilisation.

English-language literature on the topic makes a distinction between the concept of conservation, that is, the proper use of nature, and of preservation, in other words the protection of nature from all human use. These philosophical debates lie beyond the scope of my report, but for the record I would like to point out that I consider sustainable development to be the ideal solution. The wilderness cannot be locked up in a bank safety deposit box, like a necklace or a package of share certificates. We have a right to discover its values. Thus we must protect nature, but by means of human use.

The territory of Europe is too small to have zones that are off-limits to its citizens. Discovering nature and encountering conditions experienced by humanity before civilisation teaches respect for nature and can serve as the basis for high-quality tourism. At the same time, these areas are extremely vulnerable to environmental changes caused by human beings - for instance as a result of motorisation, chemicals and climate change - and to the appearance of alien plant and animal species. We need to be careful that visitors do not endanger the wilderness, and therefore all forms of tourism should be placed under the oversight of conservation experts. The development of sustainable tourism should be combined with the protection of these areas, and all proceeds should be devoted to wilderness protection.

The wilderness is a refuge for many species, such as the brown bear, the wolf and the lynx, which are unable to survive under even slightly altered conditions. There are still many species in Europe that are waiting to be discovered and described. Most of these live in the soil or in rotting timber and are highly sensitive to changes. These undisturbed areas are well-suited to the study of evolution, of natural changes occurring in nature. Wilderness zones are generally part of the Natura 2000 network, but they require stricter protection. My report therefore calls upon the European Commission to work with the Member States to map the remaining wilderness regions in Europe and develop a strategy for their increased protection. The natural values of the still-untouched areas and the characteristics of the habitats should be determined, and their further protection should be ensured. Experts have advised me that we should not think in terms of new legislation, but rather introduce more specific and stricter protection for wilderness zones within the Natura 2000 regulations. Since the financing of Natura 2000 is at any rate contradictory, and the source of much legitimate criticism, we will in any case have to make changes to the relevant regulations in the next parliamentary cycle but at the latest in the new budget. This could also be a good opportunity for the legal definition and enhanced protection of wilderness.

An area of my own country, the dripstone cave of Aggtelek, is also classified as wilderness. A part of this site is located within the territory of neighbouring Slovakia. I would be very happy if Hungarian and Slovak conservationists could successfully collaborate to develop a Protected Area Network (PAN) Park, since the network of PAN Parks has developed a successful European-wide system of wilderness protection.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, halting the loss of biodiversity is a priority for the Union and for the Commission. It is quite literally a question about the future of life on Earth. But, despite the fundamental importance of preserving biodiversity, progress to date has been limited.

In December 2008, the Commission adopted the first comprehensive assessment of progress made at both European Community and Member State levels. Despite the positive developments that have been made in recent years - for instance the Natura 2000 network - the EU's biodiversity is still under continuous pressure due to habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and the impact of invasive species. The Commission's conclusion was that we are highly unlikely to meet our 2010 target of halting biodiversity decline - and that further intensive efforts will be required, both at Member State and EU levels.

Against this background, the Commission welcomes the consistent support that Parliament has given to efforts to protect Europe's rich and varied natural heritage. We greatly welcome the initiative of Mr Hegyi for producing this important resolution on wilderness in Europe.

I would like to start by making the general observation that many of the issues highlighted in the report are already being followed up by the Commission.

For example, in December 2008, the Commission adopted a communication, 'Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species'. We are also launching an overall reflection on the future of EU biodiversity policy and look forward to the input of the European Parliament on these questions. Issues such as improving implementation and the relationship between biodiversity and climate change must be explicitly considered.

It is also important to add one clarification to the report. There is an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of our nature legislation - the so-called Article 17 reports - but there are currently no plans to amend our legislation, and the main focus is on more effective implementation.

Turning to the subject of wilderness, Europe is densely populated and only 1-2% of the territory has not been affected by human intervention. But while these wilderness areas are small in area, they are of high value in both scientific and cultural terms. They can even, as is the case in the common trans-border National Park of the German Bavarian and Czech Bohemian forests, be a symbol for European cooperation and integration.

Most of these areas are already a part of the Natura 2000 network. However, this report provides the inspiration to look again at the wild and nearly wild areas in the EU and to see if there are instances where additional European actions can help protect these special places. The Commission has commissioned a number of studies and is cooperating with the Czech EU Presidency. A conference will take place in Prague in May 2009. This Conference will offer a platform to consider the issues related to wilderness areas in Europe and identify measures needed to ensure their conservation.

Let me conclude by confirming that the Commission recognises that Europe's landscape is the result of a long process of human intervention. The concept of a living landscape that balances the needs of nature with the needs of man is the basis of the thinking that underpins Natura 2000. We certainly do not intend to re-convert our existing landscapes into wild nature, but we need to publicly commit ourselves to preserving the last remaining wild areas of Europe.

For this reason, the Commission considers the European Parliament resolution timely. It represents a very welcome input into the Prague conference. Thank you very much to the rapporteur.

Mr President, on a point of order, I would like to protest at the overuse and the increasingly liberal use of Rule 45(2) under which these most important debates are taken.

I rise at this point because I particularly would have liked to have spoken on the excellent work of Mr Hegyi's report and indeed I have colleagues coming on on subjects which are not discussed in my main committee and other colleagues' main committees, and I am being denied the right to contribute toward them in plenary.

In the PPE-DE Group we had a very vexed and heated argument both at working group and group level last week on the number of Rule 45(2) items on our agenda this week. I really do feel we need to urgently revisit this rule. I know it is a rule that was set by Parliament and the Members themselves signed off on, but our good will, I feel, is being abused by the number of points on our agenda - the most important points on our agenda - that we are being increasingly disallowed to debate.

- Mrs Doyle, we will obviously gladly take note of your statement, but I would remind you that the use of Rule 45 is in the hands of the Conference of Presidents and that, within the latter, votes are weighted, that is to say that the large groups, and your own in particular, have a huge amount of power to decide on what should be allowed in plenary under such-and-such a rule.

I am a bit like you; I must say that we have perhaps gone from a phase of being too tolerant to one of being too strict and that the truth is definitely somewhere in between.

Do not worry, however, we will have those concerned follow up this matter.

You should also refer to your group chairmen, ladies and gentlemen. I think that it is in this context that your message will be understood best.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. I was shadow rapporteur on this report on 'Wilderness in Europe' and I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Gyula Hegyi, on his work.

I wish to outline two things here:

First of all, we really need to proceed with the mapping of the last wilderness areas in Europe. Of course, this cannot be done without defining 'wilderness', therefore I urge the European Commission to take action in this field.

Secondly, I wish to speak on the key issue of this report, namely human presence and tourism. Human presence should not be excluded; on the contrary, people have to be introduced to the natural beauties of their country in order to preserve them better.

We need to support sustainable tourism in these areas and teach the site managers how to preserve and protect the wilderness.

Therefore I join the request of the main NGOs in the field and ask the European Commission to give some guidelines for wilderness preservation in Europe.

in writing. - Wilderness can mean different things to different people. I personally perceive wilderness as areas undisturbed by human activities, where natural processes are dominant. So for me, promoting wilderness tourism is a mere contradiction of the term 'wilderness'. On the other hand, I agree that sustainable tourism, if done properly, can provide an economic incentive for local communities to conserve the natural and cultural heritage.

But the increase in demand for wilderness tourism puts pressure on the very same values that the tourists are seeking and can speed up the destruction of fragile ecosystems. A solution would be to open a limited part of wilderness areas to high-quality sustainable tourism, which does not adversely affect the conservation objectives of the sites. Tourism activities should be allowed under strict conditions, such as a limited number of tourists per day, and on the basis of a solid sustainable tourism plan that supports conservation initiatives and promotes a responsible experience of wilderness. The tourism plans and the activities of the operators should be evaluated by means of thorough assessment mechanisms, especially designed for wilderness areas. The aim is to make tourists and operators aware that wilderness entails not only freedom but also responsibility.

Natural wealth must be preserved for future generations. In this respect, Romania is one of the countries which possess a significant amount and variety of flora and fauna. To achieve this goal, however, the Europe Union must extend the use of Community funds earmarked for financing wilderness conservation activities. Consequently, the Commission should allocate larger sums through the Fund for Rural Development to environmental protection projects in the European agricultural sector, with a clear aim of financing wilderness conservation activities.

On the other hand, the European Commission should introduce a set of clear rules for providing financial support to local community projects in the vicinity of these areas, which allow controlled forms of tourism in the areas intended for conservation and generate economic benefits which can be enjoyed by the relevant local communities.

In addition, the Commission must encourage cross-border cooperation between Member States for conservation projects targeting wilderness areas situated in the territory of two or more countries.

Europe's biodiversity is the most precious legacy which we can leave future generations. I welcome and support this report on Europe's wilderness areas. I would like to draw attention to the alarming state of the area with the richest biodiversity in Europe, the Danube Delta. The Delta is being constantly subjected to acts of aggression from poaching, illegal economic interests and, last but not least, uncontrolled tourism. One of the biggest sources of aggression affecting the Delta is rooted in the lack of awareness of the Delta's populations and of rural populations living along the Danube's tributaries flowing through Romania.

I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Commission and the Council, based on this report, to consider as soon as possible specific measures aimed at: setting up a working party to examine the situation of the Danube Delta, devising effective educational programmes about the environment targeted at the populations with a direct impact on the area's biodiversity, and establishing biodiversity protection standards.

At the same time, wilderness conservation in the European Union, especially in the Danube Delta area, cannot be achieved without applying similar measures in the countries neighbouring the EU. Therefore, I urge the Commission and the Council to step up their dialogue and the implementation of specific measures as part of their relations with these countries.

Bearing in mind that it will not be possible to meet the commitments made in 2007 by adopting the resolution on halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, the protection of wilderness areas through promotion, development and financing activities is becoming a priority in the light of climate change and the negative impact of tourism.

The proposal to create a system for mapping Europe's wilderness would help identify biodiversity and unspoilt areas which will require more attention and a significant effort on the part of Member States in order to protect them. Information campaigns aimed at raising the general public's awareness of wilderness areas, the implementation of high-quality sustainable tourism and the enforcement of the Birds and Habitats Directives are just some of the instruments which will help us protect these areas.

There are already eight national parks in Europe, including Retezat National Park in Romania. These parks are part of the Protected Area Network (PAN). This network is responsible for administering wilderness areas and brings together all the national authorities and local tourism agencies involved in ensuring the sustainable development of tourism. The European Commission should support this initiative and cooperate with this network with a view to exchanging information and good practice.

General and business aviation (short presentation) 

- The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Queiró, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on an agenda for sustainable future in general and business aviation.

Mr President, Commissioner, until now the general and business aviation sector has not been addressed specifically at European level. The political significance of this report therefore derives from the fact that this is the first time that the Commission and Parliament have examined this activity, at a time when it is recording accelerated growth both in volume and in economic importance.

The numbers speak for themselves: in business aviation alone, small and medium-sized enterprises working in this field are multiplying, the number of aircraft is expected to double to 3 500 in the next decade and annual turnover amounts to more than EUR 25 billion. Directly or indirectly, it generates 154 000 jobs across Europe. Together with general aviation, where it is calculated that there are between 30 000 and 50 000 aircraft, the sector represents around 9% of all recorded air traffic and boasts the fastest growth in Europe, twice as high as that of all other traffic.

The business aviation segment offers important social and economic benefits: by providing flexible point-to-point transportation it increases citizens' mobility, companies' productivity and regional cohesion.

The general aviation sector provides essential services in very diverse areas, from search-and-rescue aviation to firefighting, traffic regulation, cartography and leisure and sports aviation. It is also an important source of professional skills for the entire aviation sector.

I must also mention European industry in this sector, which has been showing continuous growth in its world market share, which currently hovers around 16% and which it is therefore necessary to support.

Looking at the report itself, I agree, as rapporteur, with the need emphasised by the Commission in its communication to examine the specific needs of the sector and identify its central themes. The former relate to data collection and are based on the necessity of providing political decision-makers with sufficient data and statistical information to give them a better understanding of the sector so that they can regulate it adequately. The second point relates to the application of the principle of proportionality in regulating the sector. The key question is whether the rules designed to govern the operation of commercial aircraft will be adequate for operating simpler and smaller, often single-engine aircraft.

We support the Commission in its intention to apply the principle of proportionality both in drafting the rules and in their implementation, always bearing in mind the necessity of not compromising safety in general. This is the case, for example, with the adaptation of certain airworthiness rules, already adopted by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), to operations with non-commercial aircraft, or the possible application of specific rules with regard to simplified security and passenger screening procedures in business aviation.

The third point concerns the problem of access to airports and airspace. The diagnosis has been made: these aircraft generally have difficulty in accessing large airports and are starting to have the same problems in regional and secondary airports. The solutions range from optimising the use of existing capacity to perhaps revising the regulations on slots. It is also necessary to stimulate investment in small and medium-sized airports to provide increasing interconnections between the different European regions and cities.

As regards the question of airspace capacity, we stress the importance of reforms within the framework of the Single European Sky and the SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) Joint Undertaking and, once again, we come back to the need not to impose disproportionate demands on small aircraft in terms of navigation equipment, while always complying with safety limits.

The fourth and last point refers to the environmental sustainability of this area of activity. Although the CO2 emissions of small aircraft are lower, it is still necessary to promote research, development and innovation, not only within the framework of the Clean Sky and CESAR (Cost Effective Small Aircraft) initiatives, but also in the use of less polluting engines and cleaner fuels.

I would like to end, Mr President and Commissioner, by expressing the hope that this report represents a real framework for future legislative and regulatory measures which may be drawn up for the sector. That is the wish of the Committee on Transport and Tourism when it calls on the Commission to report by the end of 2009 on the progress achieved on the issues raised in the report. With tomorrow's vote, my expectation is that this wish will be shared by a large majority of the Members of this House.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the report and thanks the rapporteur and the committee for their excellent work.

In January 2008 the Commission for the first time published a communication on general and business aviation. This was followed by a very positive Council conclusion in April 2008, and now by this important report of Parliament.

General and business aviation is an important sector of the EU aeronautical industry, worth about EUR 2.3 billion annually. It invests substantially in research and development, and is growing fast. Over two thirds of all aircraft certified in the EU are in this sector.

General and business aviation mainly comprises small and medium-sized enterprises. It is also a very diversified sector. The regulations need to be adapted to this specific nature, without, however, compromising safety or security. We are happy to see that this notion of proportionality is encouraged by Parliament in its report.

There are three main areas on which we will have to focus our efforts in the nearest future: development of common EU safety standards for general aviation; integration of non-commercial aviation into the next generation of air traffic management (ATM) systems for Europe; and reducing the negative environmental footprint of the sector.

The Commission intends in the coming year to propose a number of EU implementing rules ensuring a uniform level of safety of non-commercial aviation. As highlighted in your report, we have to make sure that they are not only providing for an adequate level of safety, but are also proportionate and do not impose unnecessary burden on operators.

We will also continue the development of the future ATM system for Europe with a clear understanding that airspace is a common good that should be accessible for all its users in a safe way. From the perspective of general aviation, the Single European Sky and SESAR will be of the utmost importance for enhancing, in a safe way, access to airspace and aerodromes. These technologies will open the way to new services, as yet unseen in Europe.

Last but not least, general and business aviation, despite the ongoing technological advances, are also impacting on the environment and, like the wider airline industry, they need to contribute to reducing these impacts. Here as well, proportionality will be an important principle to follow.

The Commission is looking forward to working with Parliament along the lines of the report, and will report back on the progress made.

- The item is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

At the outset I would like to thank Luís Queiró for his report on a subject so important to the future of transport in Europe.

I would like to emphasise the significance of the issue of developing general and business aviation and the aircraft manufacturing industry in this sector. Although the solutions proposed by the Commission do not bring any radical legislative changes and may seem of little significance today, their influence on the future of aviation in the light of deregulation of the market and development of the air carriage sector in Poland cannot be overestimated.

The Commission's objective is to facilitate development of this aviation sector by simplifying existing regulatory procedures, adapting provisions to new forms of air traffic management and revising them to ensure proportionality.

It is obvious that this initiative is worthy of full support. However, care should be taken that, in the processes of formulating and implementing policy, the needs of all categories of users of airspace and aviation infrastructure are given consideration in the planning and optimisation of capacity. In order to facilitate further reform a basic European data collection system should, however, be created for general and business aviation. Ultimately it will also be necessary to facilitate the access of this sector to foreign markets, supporting the development of new, competitive technologies, but at the same time taking care that respect is maintained for the principles of natural environment protection.

in writing. - I welcome this report for it seeks to harmonize and bring more clarity to the rules on General and Business Aviation on a community level. This is the fastest growing segment of civil aviation in Europe and it provides numerous social and economic benefits to Member States. However, to make the most of it, we need to establish the proper regulation. For example, currently there is a lack of reliable data on this sector and this deficiency must be quickly addressed for management, safety and security reasons.

The Commission should make a clear distinction between large-scale commercial aircraft operations and privately owned airplanes. The legislation should be proportional to the risks incurred by the different types of aviation and mindful in terms of the cost burden it places on them.

The future regulation should be stimulating and enhancing the industry instead of limiting it.

A cause for concern may be that most of the General and Business Aviation falls outside of the scope of the Commission Directive to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. Considering the fast growth rate of the sector, I think there is a need to offset its environmental impact in one form or another.

in writing. - (PL) At a time when we keep hearing the word 'crisis', it is not easy to talk about the stable future of general and business aviation. I therefore thank Luís Queiró for taking the trouble to prepare the report on this subject. Congratulations. I am certain that it is air transport which can be a driving force, setting the world and European economy in motion. We remember that barely 106 years ago the Wright brothers made the world's first powered, controlled flight (although it was for barely 40 metres) in an aircraft. It was the beginning of true aviation.

Today aviation is a highly-developed industry, making 'flying machines' which are increasingly better equipped with an array of instruments. Aviation also includes the whole complicated field of navigation and flight control, building a ground-based airport infrastructure, a system of security, and so on. We should be aware that in Europe about 50 000 aircraft are in use in general and business aviation, and almost four times as many small aircraft and gliders are used for sport and recreation. These numbers speak for themselves.

In this context, ensuring proper capacity for the European airspace and for airports themselves is an extremely important issue. I would like here to draw attention to the significance of regional airports for ensuring cohesion of communication in the EU. Naturally, when speaking of the development of air transport, we must not forget problems related to the natural environment.

Mr President, the debate on the aviation industry is frequently distorted: there is a biased focus on the problems of emissions from air traffic but people are not prepared to see its potential. Obviously, aviation and air traffic cause emissions, but it is just as obvious that they represent the future. This is true of commercial air transport and business and general aviation.

Although EU internal market legislation has mainly addressed commercial air transport, it is worth noting that issues to do with general and business aviation are tending to crop up more and more in areas such as climate policy, protection of the environment and aviation safety. When we take into account the growing importance of business aviation in particular, we definitely need to pay attention to these sectors and guarantee their competitiveness.

I wish to express a concern I have with regard to business conditions for aviation. Small and medium-sized airports are crucial for both general and business aviation. Their establishment and modernisation should be promoted and Member States encouraged to invest. The continuing growth in business aviation, however, is clogging up the airports in use more and more.

From the perspective of climate protection, we can say that, although smaller aircraft are not included in the future Emission Trading System, a voluntary carbon-offset mechanism is being developed by the sector. This is a sign of the development potential of air traffic as a whole. The Community should do all it can to encourage research into more innovative and more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly aircraft. The aim must be nothing less than emission-free air traffic.

Non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity (short presentation) 

- The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Záborská, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity.

May I first of all sincerely thank all fellow Members for their help with my own-initiative report. The voting in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality was the result of much wide-ranging discussion and accommodation.

The men and women who are today involved in establishing inter-generational solidarity networks deserve recognition. Their determination is an important contribution to national and European wealth and to the common good. Unfortunately, this contribution is not included in national statistics and accounts. This is the reason why men and women are being exposed to hidden forms of discrimination. Women and men are entitled to a free choice of suitable and comfortable activities. The obligation on society is to guarantee this freedom of choice and not to discriminate against any activity simply because it does not fall within the usual scope of the formal labour market.

This is a brief summary of my own-initiative report on non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity. The subject of this report is at the heart of discussions on the future of Europe and employment in its Member States. Although it is a rather technical report, it also has a human dimension. There is something in it for all of us as each of us lives within networks of broader or narrower family and social relationships, in which we are personally involved. Restricting the concept of inter-generational solidarity to just childcare is a mistaken interpretation. Inter-generational solidarity also involves responsibility with respect to our parents and elders and care for dependents.

Inter-generational solidarity also involves education of citizens with regard to respect for life, human dignity and environmental protection. It is predominantly a question of social justice. It is the basis for the future of Europe and the common good of its inhabitants. Human resources managers agree that human capabilities are comparable to university degrees. It is therefore necessary to assess this value in an explicit and positive manner.

The European Union must create a political framework in order to achieve this target. Women are the first to contribute to inter-generational solidarity, thus participating in the creation of social relations. This is why this report is devoted mainly to them. Economists use mathematical models to highlight the value of housework. Longstanding research by economists and demographers suggests that women's contribution to gross domestic product could be even higher if their unpaid work were factored in. Ignoring this fact means maintaining the ideas of the past. We must look forward in order to create the conditions for all women and men to become involved in inter-generational solidarity regardless of their social standing.

The European Union must act if it is serious about non-discrimination and equality of opportunity. My political group, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, is proud of its support for a policy of non-discrimination which pursues the general good and respects the distinct characteristics and complementary nature of men and women. Ladies and gentlemen, I should also like to point out that this report is the result of extensive consultations with numerous women's non-governmental organisations. In my report, I have also taken account of the opinions of three of our Parliament's Intergroups: ATD Quart Monde, the Intergroup on Family and Protection of Childhood and the Intergroup on Carers. The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality has adopted this report unanimously. Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to invite you to allow us to continue with this cooperation and to vote tomorrow for the FEMM Committee's motion for a resolution.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think Ms Záborská's work is very important because the subject she is tackling is one which is of the utmost importance in our society.

The question of dependence will become more and more important in the future because of demographic ageing, but also because of equality between men and women as the care of children and dependants is still carried out mostly by women.

Therefore, we have to put into practice measures that help women enter or stay in the labour market by improving family life conditions, especially those that facilitate a balance between professional and private life.

As specifically concerns the situation regarding the care of dependants, the Commission has already put the following actions on the table. Filial leave to care for dependent family members was included in the consultation of the European social partners on the reconciliation of work, private and family life. The Commission is also studying the quality of services for elderly dependent people and protection against ill treatment, as well as measures which could be taken at European level in cooperation with the Member States to speed up the development and modernisation of infrastructure and services.

The EU cohesion policy, through the European Social Fund, will continue to cofinance initiatives at national and local level. The open method of coordination in the field of social protection and social inclusion pays particular attention to the modernisation of pension schemes to take greater account of new forms of work, career breaks and long-term care for dependent people.

We are working on this, and really look forward to collaborating very closely with parliamentarians. We would like to congratulate Parliament on the very important work done.

(EL) Mr President, I should like to comment that, in this report which was adopted with an absolute majority in the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, there is also an alternative motion tabled by certain Members. We shall be called on tomorrow to vote by choosing between this motion and the motion tabled by a parliamentary committee. One demolishes the other. We cannot talk about this alternative motion in plenary, nor can we hear the Members who tabled it and nor can we express an opinion on it. It is a defect in the new rules which you need to bear in mind.

- Yes, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, what I said earlier to Mrs Doyle also applies here. We are applying Rule 45 which, in fact, provides a very strict framework for our speaking time, since only the rapporteur can take the floor.

We take our lead from the Conference of Presidents, which decided that this subject came under that particular Rule. Our Rules of Procedure certainly ought to be developed to allow for greater flexibility and richer debates, but, as you will understand, it is not up to me to amend these Rules of Procedure this evening. That being said, your comment is obviously noted.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Discrimination based on gender is still a reality, unfortunately, even in the European Union Member States. This fact is not only valid in the private sector, where men account for nine-tenths of the members of boards of directors in large companies, but also in the public sector where women are also underrepresented.

However, the Lisbon Strategy aims to ensure that 60% of women able to work are in employment. Apart from this, we must not forget that one of the biggest challenges in Europe in the medium- and long-term is the demographic situation. The European Union is facing a bigger rise in the average age of its population than other regions of the world, along with a population growth of just 0.4%, which means that the European Union will need, at the same time, to face up to a fall in the population able to work and an ageing population.

Consequently, the choice between having a career and raising a family must not be definitive or mandatory and it must be possible to balance these two aspects of life.

One of the European Union's key values is to eliminate any form of discrimination. Apart from eliminating discrimination, which also means between men and women, we have the responsibility to implement proactive measures to encourage professional careers for women. One of the fields in which women are hugely underrepresented is scientific research. In addition, they are not only underrepresented in numerical terms, but also within the management hierarchy: the higher the level in the hierarchy, the lower the proportion of women.

In this way, society is depriving itself of the creative potential of an important section of the population. The highly competitive nature of research, the inherent geographical mobility associated with scientific work, along with establishing a career at a relatively late age all make this activity difficult to combine with family life.

I am taking advantage of the discussion of this topic to highlight the need to introduce specific policies aimed at achieving equality between men and women in the academic profession. These policies must take into account a set of good practices at European level, such as facilitating dual careers, encouraging universities and research institutes to invest in childcare centres, as well as fast-track access to academic posts for women.

The Member States of the European Union must support demographic renewal, incorporating their action into the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs, in line with the policy of equality between men and women. A balance in European societies depends on the sum total of solidarity relations between the generations, which are more complex than ever before: young people continue to live in their parents' home for longer periods, while it is increasingly common for those parents to have to look after their aging relatives as well. The burden that this represents rests primarily on the young and middle-aged generation, and especially on women. For this reason, equality between women and men, that is to say, equal opportunities in the broader sense, would seem to be a fundamental condition for bringing about new forms of inter-generational solidarity.

With regard to family obligations, that is, the reconciliation of family life and work, the question of equality between men and women is clearly very important if European families are to gain new impetus. It is also of critical importance to guarantee the opportunity for childcare of appropriate quality and quantity for those who would like to take up paid employment alongside childrearing. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament is doing everything it can to ensure that the goals of Barcelona Process are met, and notes with disappointment that this objective is visibly absent from the Czech Presidency's programme.

in writing. - Thank you Chairman!

This report is important to showcase and reverse the discrimination based on gender and intergenerational solidarity!

It has been pretty clear that women who chose to take time off from work to take care of their newborn child have been discriminated against. They often have trouble returning to their jobs with the same opportunities, miss out on job promotions, and lose both income and social security benefits.

Furthermore, men and women who stay home for long periods of time to take care of the elderly or young children often lose out economically because they don't have an income and their work is not factored into the GDP even though it is important work. This work often goes ignored by policy makers and society as a whole. People look down upon people who chose to stay home instead of work because they feel as if they are not contributing to society.

Ladies and Gentlemen!

The EU should promote policies that eliminate this discriminatory mindset and give people who chose to stay home to take care of a family member more leave arrangements and more support. These policies should be funded by the public purse as to lessen the likelihood that employers' will discriminate against their employees!

Thank you!

Today's Europe is faced with unprecedented demographic changes. If Europe wishes to change the trend towards population reduction, we must, through the policy of the EU and the Member States, support families in all possible ways, and permit women and men to combine family life and work, but such that obligations connected with home and family are equally divided between men and women.

I wholeheartedly support the alternative motion for a European Parliament resolution on non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity, which is more realistic than the preceding report.

I must particularly emphasise the objective of creating a care policy that is balanced between the genders. Inequality in the performance of caring is often caused by the absence of affordable, available and high-quality services in Member States, and women are faced with the inevitability of sacrificing their opportunities to participate in social, economic and political life.

All of this preserves the inequality in the distribution of obligations connected with home and family between men and women, which generally forces women to choose a more flexible organisation of labour or give up working, which in turn influences their career, the continuing disparity between the wages earned by women and men, and pension rights.

I am cautious of the recommendation of the Czech Presidency to make childcare 'a fully valid alternative to a professional career'. I am convinced that the implementation of this recommendation would perpetuate the traditional division of labour between men and women.

The measures planned in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy play an important role in establishing equality in the division of labour between women and men; their objective, in addition to increasing employment, promoting innovation and raising productivity, must also be to eliminate in the EU the gender discrimination that has developed over time.

Caring has been the domain of women for centuries. Ideal mothers who spent their youth caring for their children represent today the majority of the elderly female population and it is this childcare and homecare that is not reflected in their pensions. Many of them do not receive an appropriate pension for this socially valuable work during their active life and this exposes them to a greater risk of poverty. This is also a reason why young women are postponing motherhood and giving priority to a professional career.

During my many speeches in the House, I have constantly emphasised that mothers and fathers who freely choose to bring up their children or to care for elderly or dependent family members must not suffer discrimination. I know many families who have disabled relatives and carry out this demanding work with great courage despite the obstacles they constantly have to overcome.

In this speech, I should like to praise the proposals made by the rapporteur Mrs Anna Záborská, which recommend recognition not only of traditional forms of gainful employment but also of the manifold forms of non-gainful employment carried out in families as part of inter-generational solidarity. This work is reflected in the GDP if a family employs someone. However, it is not the case if one of the parents carries out this work.

I believe that the report will inspire Member States to adopt measures to improve family policy within the EU.

At a time when Europe is facing a deep economic crisis whose final magnitude may be difficult to estimate, it is only to be expected that the birth rate will feel the negative repercussions of the turmoil on the labour market, as many women will tend not to have children because they are terrified of the possibility of losing their job and of the reduction in the material resources required to care for and bring up their children.

Against this background, it is the duty of every Member State to promote multigenerational activities, such as 'bridge-between-generation' centres, where older adults are paid to take care of and bring up children. These 'bridge-between-generation' centres, which operate successfully in some Member States, would allow women who have had a child to return to work quite soon, while also making it easier for elderly retired people to return to employment.

In the last few decades the population in the Member States of the European Union has increasingly aged. Successfully balancing professional and personal life is starting to become a strenuous task for women. It is therefore now even more important for Member States to promote the birth rate and to pay proper attention to families. In this area the EU could indirectly contribute and help Member States to modernise their policies. I consider that recognition of 'unseen labour' is one of the important steps which could be taken in this field.

We also cannot ignore the fact that ever more people of active age are looking after children and close elderly relatives at the same time, leaving them in a precarious position. This is why it is particularly important for the Commission to introduce practical initiatives for the official recognition of skills gained from activities connected with looking after children and dependent people, and household management, so that these skills are taken into account when rejoining the labour market.

Today we need to think about the future of all these mothers who look after children, who are the future of Europe, and protect them from the risk of one day receiving small pensions and being in an unequal position compared with other members of society.

Pre-commercial Procurement: Driving innovation to ensure sustainable high quality public services in Europe (short presentation) 

- The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Harbour, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on pre-commercial procurement: driving innovation to ensure sustainable high quality public services in Europe.

rapporteur. - Mr President, it is particularly appropriate that Mrs Reding is responding for the Commission tonight because my report is focused on a proposal that has been developed over a number of years with her services. It is an extremely important proposal, which has wide-ranging possibilities for the whole of the European economy. My first message to the Commissioner tonight is to thank her services for their leadership on this, but to say that I think this initiative needs to be much better known. It needs to spread out widely from DG Information Society - as I think it is now starting to do - because it is of such importance, particularly in the economic times we are in at the moment.

So, what am I talking about? Well, the core of the issue is that public authorities in the European Union spend huge amounts of public money on buying products and services. It is estimated that EUR 1 800 billion is spent on public procurement every year. How much of that procurement is actually spent on investigating, researching and encouraging the development of new solutions to the big challenges that public authorities and indeed society face every day: a better health service, a better transport solution, dealing with climate change, more energy efficient buildings? EU procurement spending linked to research and development is less than 1% of that total procurement budget.

Bearing in mind that we have an explicit objective in the Lisbon Strategy to move our R&D spending up towards the 3% target, there is huge potential here.

That is where the whole mission of pre-commercial procurement comes in. Essentially, what we are looking for are intelligent, research-focused public authorities to generate a demand for innovative solutions and then work with innovative companies large and small - but particularly small enterprises who really can benefit from this - to fulfil those requirements. We want those intelligent customers to really think ahead, to be demanding, to think about the solutions for which no commercial solution yet exists, but where there are basically a range of solutions which can then be developed with the financial contribution from the public authority to do just that - to fund research and development, perhaps through a first competing stage of ideas, and then take those development solutions to a next stage towards the viability of a product or service that can then be launched.

The benefits of having that backing, for a small enterprise in particular, and giving that commercial support will be really important to that business. Indeed, where this has been already rolled out, we see the experience where businesses, even if they do not produce the winning solution, have had an element of their research and development funded that they can then go on and use to develop other revenue-generating products.

This also ties in with the second initiative from the Commission covered in my report, the 'lead market initiative', where we are looking for public authorities to lead in a number of key technology areas around health and climate change in transport. There are signs of an integrated policy emerging, but my report says that we need more training, we need more best practice, and we need more dispersion and dissemination of this proposal. I hope that the Commissioner, and indeed the College, will pick up on this and that this Parliament will show it is right behind this solution.

In conclusion - and if you will allow me a short amount of extra time because this is, in a sense a point of order - I want to point out first of all to this empty House that I had two opinions for my report from Mr Sakalas from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Mrs Podimata from the Committee on Industry. They are of course not allowed to present those opinions here, which seems rather a shame since they made valuable contributions which I have added to my amendments. I also want to thank my shadow, Mr Hasse Ferreira, for working with me, and he has also contributed extensively.

Just to wind up, this is a solution where everyone will be winners: society, citizens, public authorities, business, innovators and the European economy. That is why it is so important and why, when we are looking to public authorities to continue investment in this time of economic crisis, this proposal is even more important than it was when I started this report a few month ago.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I could not agree more, because pre-commercial procurement serves a twofold goal. It improves the quality of public services, but most of all it opens up opportunities for industry to take the lead in international markets. So it is money very well spent, above all in a time of crisis when we need to help our industry to put into practice the results of research and to make the best use of technological solutions and innovations.

I am very glad that the rapporteur, Mr Harbour, together with the Commission, has supported what has been in the pipeline for quite a long time. But there is a difference between being in the pipeline and being put into practice. I really hope that Parliament's report will become a trigger and an important element to add to our research and innovation policy. Indeed, triggering a strong public-sector demand for the development of new innovative products and services in Europe can make a difference, especially for our SMEs, and that is why I welcome the initiative. I congratulate Mr Harbour on his work.

What are the next concrete steps we will have to take? As an immediate response to the concrete recommendations in the report, I can confirm that the Commission will support actions to promote the sharing of experience and awareness-raising, and will explore the means to provide incentives for procurers across a number of Member States in order to implement pre-commercial procurement projects jointly.

The Commission has already opened calls for proposals - in the INTERREG, CIP and FP7 programmes - to support the establishment of networks of public authorities on pre-commercial procurement.

In the medium to long term, I believe that governments in Europe should incorporate pre-commercial procurement in their strategic planning for public investments. I think that the recovery packages would be a good place to start. On the Commission side, I will emphasise this in a communication planned for early March this year, in which I will propose a strengthened strategy for ICT Research, Development and Innovation for Europe, so pre-commercial procurement will be included in this report.

As you know, some Member States have already started experimenting with pre-commercial procurement pilot projects. In the coming months we hope to see more of those, and I invite the members of the committee, and also the Members of this House, to go back to their countries and to talk to the ministers and the municipalities about pre-commercial procurement. We can only make a difference if we work together. Thank you very much for giving a helping hand here.

- The item is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Driving innovation and developing the knowledge economy are key in ensuring sustainable high quality public services. The US public sector spends USD 50 billion per year on research and development procurement, which is twenty times higher than in the EU, and therefore Member States must honour their commitment to invest 3% of GDP in research and development. Public procurement is a strategic instrument to achieve this goal.

There are today numerous European research programmes, the results of which have not yet been exploited by public authorities through public procurement. The current practice in the EU is based on exclusive development, which means that each company retains the ownership rights in respect of the new ideas it generates.

Despite the fact that pre-commercial procurement provides some simplification, the whole process is very exacting. Public authorities may be considerably assisted by the participation of universities and research institutes. Member States should be inspired by the experiences of the European innovation agencies taking part in research and development.

I believe that, on the basis of the suggestions in Malcolm Harbour's report, the Commission will produce a comprehensive, easy-to-understand handbook to provide in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and appropriate authorities in the field of public procurement with assistance in implementation.

It is only through close cooperation between EU Member States in the field of public procurement that we shall be able to drive innovation and ensure sustainable high quality public services.

Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)

Documents received: see Minutes

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

Combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (debate) 

The next item is report by Mrs Angelilli, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking my fellow Members for their excellent collaboration, which has enabled us, in my opinion, to draft a highly satisfactory text. I am also grateful to all the NGOs and institutions that have followed our work closely. Their valuable suggestions have enhanced the report.

We set out with two key objectives, the first being to check carefully to what extent the 2003 framework decision is being implemented within the 27 Member States, and the second being to propose improvements as necessary. The fact is that the framework decision must be updated to increase the level of protection for minors, in light of the rise in new and disturbing cases of exploitation linked to new technologies.

The first of the priorities identified is the fight against sex tourism, which worryingly is on the rise, partly because of lower travel costs. From this point of view, extra-territorial cooperation should be improved and Member States should be asked to rule out the principle of double criminality for crimes concerning the exploitation and abuse of children.

Secondly, grooming, that is to say online psychological manipulation with the aim of soliciting children for sexual purposes, should be considered a criminal offence in all Member States.

Thirdly, Member States should be bound to exchange the information contained in criminal records relating to sexual abuse convictions. The aim of this is to categorically eliminate the possibility that perpetrators of sexual abuse could hold jobs that involve contact with children.

Among the proposals to be implemented as soon as possible is the launch of the missing child rapid alert system. This system has already been trialled and implemented, although by only a small number of Member States and so only at trial level, but has given excellent results. We therefore need to roll it out across all 27 Member States. It is worth remembering, in fact, that every year in Europe, thousands and thousands of children disappear without trace.

I would like to highlight one further aspect: in general, national legislative authorities must commit to improving protection for child victims during investigations and before and after any court case in which children are involved. This will prevent children from becoming victims twice over, firstly victims of violation, and then victims of media or legal violation.

Finally, we have highlighted the need for urgency in criminalising forced marriages, the majority of which concern children.

To conclude, Mr President, I believe it is important to ask all Member States to ratify as soon as possible the most recent Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. This is the convention of October 2007, the benchmark representing the most innovative and up-to-date act on child protection.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Angelilli warmly for her remarkable report. I would also like to thank her for the way she has worked with the Commission on a very delicate, sensitive subject about which we feel so strongly.

Children are vulnerable and they are entitled to protection in order to ensure their harmonious development. Sexual abuse and the various types of exploitation, especially child pornography, are despicable crimes with deep-seated, long-lasting effects on its young victims.

It is a terrible phenomenon whose scale is unknown. Some sources say that between 10 and 20% of children in Europe have suffered one form of sexual attack or another during their childhood.

The European Union has armed itself with legislation on the issue. The framework decision of 2004 establishes a minimum level of harmonisation for national legislations in respect of criminalisation and jurisdiction. Despite the incompleteness of the information, the Commission considered, in a 2007 report, that the framework decision had, in general, been satisfactorily implemented. That, however, is not enough.

The development of the Internet is contributing to the proliferation of new threats for our children. Child pornography is one of these and others exist, such as child solicitation, to which Mrs Angelilli has alluded. Sex tourism to third countries for the purposes of abusing children is a reality, whilst it is not unknown for abuse to be committed by individuals who have been convicted in other Member States.

The Member States are not satisfied. At the end of 2007, they negotiated a convention with the Council of Europe to introduce a very high standard of protection. In its first year, 20 of the 27 Member States have signed this convention.

That said, Parliament is still not satisfied, and Mrs Angelilli's report is evidence of this. Parliament demands better implementation and especially a substantial improvement in the European framework, with a set of features to reinforce the fight against these crimes.

I must say that I am not satisfied either. I have announced a review of the existing European legislation on the issue and will submit a proposal for adoption by the Commissioners in March. I want to put an ambitious text on the table that will deal not only with enforcement but also protection for victims and prevention.

The suggestions contained in the report will help us to implement this proposal. Most of the report's contents should find a place in the new framework decision, but if this proves not to be possible, for technical or legal reasons, we will try to identify the most suitable tools to implement any proposals left out of this framework decision. We will see if there is a possibility for political initiatives, particularly to use dialogue with third countries, or even to provide ourselves with financial instruments, as is the case for the existing programmes.

There you have it. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to note Parliament's desire to move forward with the adoption of 'kidnap warning' mechanisms in each Member State. I have to say, at the last meeting of the interior and justice ministers, I argued with much determination that it was necessary to provide each of the Member States with a 'kidnap warning' system. To be fully effective, these systems would, of course, have to be interconnected.

Once again, I would like to thank the European Parliament for its determined commitment. I also thank Mrs Angelilli, who has unquestionably given us a high quality report.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the new proposal submitted by the Commission is urgently needed. The members of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality have specific questions and suggestions relating to the proposal. It is essential that we go beyond the confines of the Daphne Programme and introduce legislative initiatives in the area of child pornography. Of course, this is also the responsibility of the users, but the states must take action. For example, I believe that Europol is an important tool which, combined with an effective network of experts and a special unit whose members have had training on very specific issues, can be used to combat child pornography and prostitution. We must also resolve the question of extraterritoriality by taking a joint European approach.

We need more background information in the form of concrete studies on the social situation of the victims, because family members themselves are often responsible for abusing children and putting them on the net. It is important for us to make definite progress in this area.

I hope that the Commission is prepared to work closely with the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality so that we can resolve these questions together.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, Europol's organised crime report of 2006 stated that the advantages the Internet offers in terms of information and communication technology are extremely beneficial to organised crime. There is no doubt, in this regard, that children are the most vulnerable group. According to experts, around 90% of 12 to 17 year-olds chat on the Internet. Besides classmates and games, they use 'unknown user' networks via chat rooms on websites, which are perfect contact points for paedophiles using false identities to lure potential victims.

According to Internet Watch Foundation, which processed more than 30 000 reports in 2006, 91% of victims were under 12 years old. Eighty per cent were female, and child abuse domains totalled more than 3 000. Moreover, 55% of all child abuse domains were hosted in the United States, 28% in Russia and only 8% in Europe. It would be appropriate to put cooperation in the field of disabling websites abusing children on the agenda of an EU-US meeting.

We are witnessing a well-organised international network of paedophiles and organised crimes connected with the sex industry, as stated by Mrs Angelilli. On the other side, the international cooperation of law enforcement authorities is limited. It is almost incredible that eight ratifications are still missing in the case of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; four in the case of the Palermo Protocol, which is the basic document for international cooperation in combating trafficking in human beings. Slightly less than half of the Member States have still not ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime.

In this field there is a lot to do. Therefore, it is time to send a strong and clear message to the Council to revise the Council framework decision combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

Mr President, Commissioner Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking Mrs Angelilli and everyone else for their very constructive cooperation. You will surely remember how little was done at the beginning of this parliamentary term, but with the children's strategy a year ago, the issue of children's rights turned a corner. The decision we are to make here now concerns a child's right not to be sexually abused and the combating of child pornography.

I am, of course, particularly happy with the three proposals that I managed to get accepted in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and which I hope will be retained through the vote today. The first proposal is that a child should be classed as such until he or she is 18 years old. It is very important to be able to protect both young girls and young boys against sexual crimes, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation throughout the EU.

The second proposal is to protect children against child sex tourism by all Member States criminalising sexual crimes both within and outside the EU. This means that those who commit crimes will never be able to be sex tourists and exploit the poorest and youngest children and young people in other countries because prosecution and punishment will await them when they arrive home, wherever that is in the EU.

The third proposal is that we should now seriously tackle the Internet and, together with the largest credit companies, develop the technical means, with the help of banks and exchange bureaux, Internet service providers and search engine providers and, of course, the travel industry, to close down payment systems when payment is made for sex crimes and violations or the sexual exploitation of children and young people. The same opinions are found everywhere where people are striving to get websites closed down and that is that children come before confidentiality and that the abuse of children and young people must be reported.

With this report we can now sit back and be satisfied that, here in Parliament, we have taken the first step in respect of the rights of children, and when we get a new Treaty of Lisbon, children's rights will also be a legal basis and a goal within the EU, and this is not before time. Thank you.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her efforts and her initiative on this report. Protecting children while they are using the Internet and combating child pornography are two of the most urgent issues which we have to deal with. For me, it is very important to ensure that this Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography offers a higher level of protection. The abuse of children over the Internet can only be handled as a joint initiative at a European level, because the Internet is not subject to national boundaries.

There are three points in this report which I believe are in need of improvement. Firstly, a balance must be maintained between children's security and data protection. We must take into consideration not only children's personal data, but also the personal data of people and content which is relevant for the purpose of providing this protection for children. As well as creating criminal offences for Internet users and suppliers of child pornography, we must first identify the people behind these dreadful activities and arrest them. We can only combat this abuse successfully by attacking it at the roots. We must also target those people who make these services, these appalling criminal activities, available to others and who profit from them.

As well as criminalising the offenders, as described in Mrs Angelilli's report, we must also raise awareness among people who look after children and explain the risks involved in Internet use. We must focus on developing new technological methods and establishing the principle of privacy by design. In addition, we must promote the exchange of information and experiences between the individual authorities in the Member States. The data protection authorities in the Member States can act as important intermediaries in this respect. Only an all-embracing approach will be successful.

However, I do not approve of making Internet service providers into an extension of the law enforcement agencies. A much better solution is the implementation of agreements which allow Internet service providers to collaborate with the law enforcement agencies on a voluntary basis, as is already the case.

Child pornography in all its manifestations is no more and no less than a crime against humanity. We must put every effort into combating it. We must ensure that the Member States cooperate with us and that we in Parliament are all moving in the same direction. On this basis, the members of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe will support Mrs Angelilli's report.

Mr President, although the legal systems of Member States make provision for sanctions against the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, it is still necessary to raise the level of protection of our children.

It should be emphasised that children who use new technologies, and especially the Internet, are at risk of contact with potential perpetrators of sexual offences. In connection with the danger which exists, Member States should be called upon to block access to Internet sites which contain child pornography. This must be a legally binding obligation.

There is also an urgent need to carry out a Europe-wide campaign to make parents and teenagers aware of the dangers of child pornography on the Internet. Supporting the victims of this reprehensible business, and of their families, is also an important matter. They are often left without help. It is our obligation to give the best possible protection to our children.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I should like to thank Ms Angelilli for this report. I would echo what has been said by our colleague, Ms Bauer, in terms of our own Member States taking action to sign and ratify some of the conventions and protocols which are missing at the moment. If we are looking for a common framework and a common approach, these are very key reference points which also help to send a signal from Member States that they, too, are concerned about these issues. I think this is one of the key things they should be doing, and it would be interesting to know why certain Member States have not yet actually signed up to the relevant conventions and protocols.

We welcome much of the report in terms of the rights-based approach, which I would like to see leading on and away from the view that it is only about criminal justice. This is actually about the rights and the protection of children and young people. We need those clear measures to support children who have been victims - whether through court proceedings, where obviously the key issue is to find the truth but not in a way that leaves children more traumatised than they were at the beginning of the process, or through the collective work on identifying children.

However, the protection also has to involve the children themselves. We should encourage Internet literacy among children as well their own understanding of what the dangers are and what they should be looking for so that they, too, can play an active part in helping to combat these crimes.

We intend to support certain of the amendments this morning, particularly where we think there are certain principles which we tamper with at our peril - such as on double criminality and confidentiality in certain professions - and one or two others where we think the concept perhaps needs further definition. We are, however, generally very much in favour of this report and look forward to its further progress.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) This report has the support of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left. The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are abhorrent crimes, the prevention of which requires international cooperation. Children are violated by being forced to pose in sexual contexts, photographed or filmed and posted on the Internet. These films and images can be seen all over the world and increased international cooperation is therefore needed to stop these violations. We know that there are definite connections between the sex slave trade and the sexual exploitation of children. The United Nations estimates that 85% of the victims of the sex slave trade are children under the age of 18.

We do not know how many children are bought and sold as commodities to be sexually exploited, but we do know that it is a lot, and we know that every child that is affected is one child too many. The adult world must take responsibility for protecting our children from this, one of the worst crimes that a child can be subjected to.

In this debate, we must not forget that many of the crimes against children are committed within the family or within the family's circle of friends and it is therefore important for society to ensure that children have other adult contacts so that they have someone they can turn to for help.

All kinds of sexual abuse of children are criminal and must be seen as the crimes that they are in all Member States. All citizens who commit sexual crimes against children must be punished, regardless of whether the crime is committed within or outside the EU.

I should like to congratulate Mrs Angelilli on this lucid report. It is patently obvious that the sexual exploitation of children should be brought to an end. The explosive increase in criminal activities via the Internet requires a coordinated approach.

We should, however, exercise caution when it comes to prescribing detailed sentences for this abuse at European level. The Member States themselves will need to make every effort to penalise the abuse of modern media. Internet child porn will need to be regulated in the Member States' criminal law. The Council should, in line with the prohibition against pursuing one's profession, commit to closing the loopholes in the legal network, so that exploitation and transmission via the Internet do not move to countries where there is no adequate legislation. I would have liked to hear from the Commission whether it would also be possible to discuss this with non-EU countries, but the Council is absent, unfortunately.

Moreover, I would like to argue in favour of strengthening cooperation with Europol and Eurojust. The fight against international child pornography networks must be given priority in their organisations, as indeed, this enhances the scope for taking appropriate action outside of the European Union.

If we are agreed on the undesirability of the sexual exploitation of children, I suggest we also discuss the exploitation of adults. The initiatives to reduce prostitution at large-scale events, such as football championships and Olympic Games, deserve more support in this Parliament.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, paedophile organisations are a threat to citizens and, as such, should be treated like mafia or terrorist organisations, with special, severe laws.

It is an outrage that there are thousands of people who have been charged with child pornography offences and have spent not so much as a single day in prison. I would also like to remind the rapporteur, Mrs Angelilli, the quality of whose work we have all admired, that in her city last year, there was a case known as 'Lotus flower', involving 200 Roma children. Once the case was over, these Roma children virtually disappeared; no one knows whether they in fact went back to the same camps where the abuse took place.

All Member States must therefore be vigilant, special legislation must be introduced, and this outrage, this horrible threat to society, must be addressed with special and extremely severe laws.

(HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this House is debating a topic today which rightfully outrages all people of good will. We condemn the phenomenon, and then believe that such trauma can only happen to other people's children. Yet all our children are in danger, as the victims of the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography multiply. We must therefore fight to prevent such acts using all available means. We must ensure that the sanctions laid down in national legal systems are effectively applied, and that daily practice reflects this struggle. Member States must do everything possible to eliminate demand entirely.

We must be particularly vigilant regarding the constant challenge posed by the use of new online technologies - web cams, mobile phones and, in particular, the use of the Internet - in this regard. The introduction of technologies that block access can be one way of doing this, besides making families and children aware of the dangers. In any case, we must emphasise that these are serious crimes, and that in order to detect them, it is essential to remove any obstacles in the way of the smooth exchange of law enforcement records among Member States, to allow the creation of centralised databases for information on offenders.

I consider it very important and absolutely essential that the existing international documents be ratified by the Member States, and that their contents be effectively implemented. We must make sure that child safety becomes a central issue in all EU Member States. Mrs Angelilli's excellent report contributes to this effort, and we support it with our vote as well. Thank you very much.

(ES) Mr President, sexual exploitation is a reality endured by boys and girls all over the world, since there is a supply of child sexual exploitation, particularly in poor countries, and a demand for Internet pornography and sex tourism on the part of rich countries.

With this recommendation, we advocate that real steps be taken: we request European harmonisation of differences in the age of consent; tougher punishments for sexual abuse; and stronger, increased national intervention programmes and systems. To achieve this, we must focus attention on Member States so that - as Spain has done, beyond transposing the Council's framework decision on this matter, - we can develop and implement action plans in which interest groups are involved, including public awareness and social mobilisation programmes, without neglecting to work on international cooperation.

Finally, I would like to add my voice to calls urging Member States to sign, ratify and apply all the relevant international conventions so that we may guarantee that the rights of minors are respected.

(ET) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs Angelilli, ladies and gentlemen, the rapid development of information and communication technology has created a new channel for criminals to perpetrate or present their crimes. The crimes that are the subject of the report have been discussed in various global and European forums.

In 2003, the Council of the European Union passed a binding framework resolution on the sexual exploitation of children and the struggle against child pornography, and the contents of that resolution have today largely been integrated into Member States' legal systems. However, in connection with the rapid development of IT, it needs to be brought up to date and, of course, we cannot drag our feet on this. I am glad that the commission will soon have completed a new updated framework resolution.

All Member States must define the concept of 'child pornography' and declare the sexual solicitation of children through the Internet to be a crime. Harassers operating on the Internet are difficult to catch, but it is not impossible. At the same time, several national laws constrain surveillance. Thus, surveillance cannot be used in the case of second-degree crimes, and data protection is also often an obstruction.

In my home country, there have been cases, even recently, where a minor committed suicide due to the activities of an Internet harasser. There have also been such cases in other Member States. We must be able to protect our children before they become victims. There must be zero tolerance for paedophilia and child pornography in the European Union. We must achieve this.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the sexual exploitation of children is a terrible problem. It is a disgrace of today's world and a grave sign of our decline.

A sharp increase has been observed in recent times, due to the vertiginous spread of the Internet and of new and sophisticated technologies to which children are exposed and to which they have access, without any limits, rules, controls or penalties. These are now more urgently required than ever, and must be applied in an increasingly efficient and exemplary fashion.

Mrs Angelilli's excellent report, on which I warmly congratulate her, and the specific recommendations that Parliament will make to the Commission, indicate and suggest measures that can genuinely curb the spread of child pornography, online grooming of children, sex tourism and all forms of child abuse.

Recent disturbing data, including a UN study on violence against children, indicate that sexual exploitation of children is rapidly increasing and that, together with people trafficking, it is becoming one of the major sources of profit and one of the fastest growing crimes at transnational level, with a yearly turnover of approximately USD 10 billion.

According to an estimate by the International Labour Organisation, more than 12 million people are victims of forced labour, of whom more than 1 million are involved in sexual exploitation and between 45% and 50% are children.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography in general is prompted by the clear development of new telecommunication technologies.

Forms of online grooming of children have certainly increased, but I would like to take this opportunity to denounce the exploitation of images of women also. In the majority of EU countries, an often disgusting view of womanhood is propagated, where the commercial aim is pursued not only with vulgarity but with a real contempt for women's dignity, not to mention the use of subliminal advertising and also television programming - above all in my country, I have to say.

I agree with the rapporteur that Council Framework Decision 2004/68 should be updated to increase the level of protection for children and to better combat sexual exploitation in general. The ratification of the Council of Europe Convention is just as important, but we must not stop there: we also need to criminalise the online grooming of children and press for cross-border cooperation in this field.

In my opinion, Member States should be obliged to exchange the information contained in criminal records relating to sexual abuse convictions - and I believe that the ECRIS system is certainly a step forward on this front - in order to prevent those who have committed certain crimes from having contact with children and therefore to improve protection for victims, not just during investigations, but also after trials have been concluded.

I would like to close by emphasising that forms of child exploitation unfortunately encompass more than just sexual abuse, and I would like to see a greater commitment from our institutions on those other areas.

(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to congratulate Mrs Angelilli on her exceptional work on such a sensitive issue which concerns us all. The sexual exploitation of children is a phenomenon which continues to shock society in the Member States of the European Union and elsewhere. Child pornography on the Internet is a worsening problem if you think that, between 1997 and 2007, the number of websites showing the sexual exploitation of children increased one thousand per cent. Reinforced cooperation with the private sector could make an effective contribution towards limiting the number of websites hosting child pornography. For example, cooperation could be promoted with credit card companies to fight child pornography on the Internet at European level by using their systems for payments to commercial sites selling photographs of children.

In addition, the new Community programme to protect children using the Internet will help to promote a safer online environment. The Council of Europe Convention signed by 20 Member States of the European Union is the first international legal act qualifying the various forms of sexual exploitation of children as a criminal offence. In order to deal effectively with this phenomenon, Member States need to criminalise every form of coercion of children to take part in sexual activities. Finally, I consider it very important to take account of paedophile registers and to prohibit them from accessing jobs or voluntary work which brings them into direct contact with minors.

(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, around the world, some 40 million children under the age of 12 are the victims of some form of violent act. Given that the new technologies and, in particular, the constant development of the Internet and the new online methods used by paedophiles, it is of paramount importance that the level of child protection be increased. According to Eurobarometer, 74% of underage children use the Internet on a daily basis, and hence many of them are exposed to violent or pornographic elements.

In the interests of effective protection, I would like to recommend the introduction of the so-called free family information packages in Europe. These are already widely used by certain European Internet service providers, and I believe that others can also become partners in this effort. The packages address four basic safety topics - safety and communication, entertainment, downloading, and virtual violence, and, in a playful manner, offer families help with the safe use of the Internet. I further recommend that these packages contain a free, child-friendly Internet browser which could serve as a web filter, to keep children away from undesirable content on the World Wide Web. We must be sure that our children are safe, not only on the Internet, but in public and private institutions as well. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that everyone whose work involves regular contact with children be required to report any situation in which sexual abuse has occurred. Thank you.

(RO) Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are very serious crimes. Although legislation in many European Union countries is sufficiently stringent, there are still many measures which need to be taken to guarantee children adequate protection. All Member States should ratify the Council of Europe Convention and implement in full the framework decision in order to establish a united approach at European Union level.

Illegal material involving child abuse should be removed from the Internet at source and websites should be blocked by providers. Indeed, the telecom legislation review which we are debating at the moment in the European Parliament, along with the Council and Commission, offers a good opportunity to improve the legislation.

Perpetrators of sexual abuse should be denied the opportunity to pursue professional activities which involve contact with children. In fact, special orphan homes should be supervised much more closely by the local authorities.

Finally, I believe that the European Commission and Member States should provide financial and logistical support for the campaigns aimed at parents and children.

(PL) Mr President, I am very pleased that Parliament has taken up the question of combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography seriously. I am especially pleased because, until now, many left-wing groups in Europe have been fighting openly for the greatest possible sexual freedom, while not giving attention to the consequences of this course of action in relation to children. There have even been attempts to form paedophile political parties. This must fill every decent citizen of the European Union with horror. The scale of this phenomenon is huge, as can be seen just by looking through the daily papers.

Taking the opportunity of this discussion, attention should be drawn to the violation of children's rights and the sexual exploitation of children of immigrants from outside Europe. The fact that it is permissible in their home countries is one thing, but when they are living in the countries of the European Union, they must rigorously comply with the prevailing law or leave Europe. There cannot be some laws for the traditional peoples of Europe and others for immigrants. This concerns every aspect of life.

(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is undoubtedly an important issue requiring effective cooperation by all Member States. I would like to point out that the protection of children from abuse in a modern society has weakened in many respects. The reasons range from increasing family breakdown and the growing number of children brought up in single-parent families, to greater mobility of citizens and the spread of modern information technologies. That is why I am strongly in favour of the report.

I believe that frank sex education for children is relevant to the prevention of sexual abuse of children, but it should also be addressed at parents, educators and social and health professionals. It is important that everyone gains a proper awareness of such crimes while acknowledging first of all that they do exist, so that they can detect potential abusers and prevent the abuse.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that child sex offenders have a high repeat offence rate. To some extent, the adage of our German friends, einmal ist keinmal, applies here. However, if somebody commits such an offence two or more times, then we should be able to prevent them from committing further crimes. In such cases, both therapeutic and various preventive measures should be used, particularly bans on working with children and adolescents. Since extended periods of time can lapse between offences being repeated, information on tendencies to commit such crimes should be kept on record over the long term. I would also recommend the compulsory vetting of persons applying to work as teachers, coaches and youth supervisors for past sex offences.

In my experience, child sex offenders often try to circumvent bans on working with children by using various ruses, including false identities, to try to regain access to their targets. The free movement of people in the European Union gives them greater scope for doing so.

Mr President, I should like to thank Roberta Angelilli for this excellent report.

Sex exploitation of children is a crime against the most vulnerable in our society and I am, therefore, shocked that seven of our Member States in the European Union have still not signed the Council of Europe Convention; nor, indeed, have eight of these states ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

The fact is that the Internet now provides new routes for these crimes, and I therefore think it is incumbent on us to urge that the acts of using the Internet for child pornography and for grooming children be made a criminal offence. It is not enough for states to plead that this is difficult to do. We have to cooperate and coordinate our efforts in order to ensure we can do it. Indeed, in all Member States, it should be possible for any citizen or person living in the European Union who committed a crime outside the European Union to be brought before the courts.

Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mrs Angelilli for her very fine report. I think we will all support such a report.

As has been said, it is a crime, and anybody who would attack or in any way undermine children should be treated as criminals. Unfortunately, this is what is going on on the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful tool, a wonderful source of information for all of us and something that will be part of our lives into the future. However, there are those who prey on children and they will use the Internet as much as they possibly can to try to undermine children.

About 8 out of 10 children in the European Union use the Internet and I think we must take particular care to protect the most vulnerable children from bullying, grooming and harassment. We need to promote public awareness and online safety, especially among children, but also among parents so that they know exactly what is going on and what can be done on the Internet.

I think Member States should work together to introduce a network of contact points for the public to reach in order to report illegal and harmful content and conduct. It is important that both parents and children feel secure using the Internet and have a point of contact to report any wrongdoing. In order to make those who are responsible for online grooming and pornography accountable, we should see this for what it is. It is a crime and should be treated as such.

(PT) Mr President, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen: the 2003 framework decision aimed to narrow the legislative gap between Member States in combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. To this end, it adopted a common framework of provisions to regulate, amongst other things, criminalisation, the applicable sanctions and protection of and assistance to victims. I consider it regrettable that some Member States have yet to adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of this framework decision, even though the deadline for them to do so has already passed.

It is essential that all Member States criminalise all types of sexual abuse of children and that all European citizens who commit a sex crime against children in any country within or outside the European Union be subject to uniform extraterritorial criminal legislation applicable throughout the Union. It is important to ensure that the perpetrators of such crimes cannot slip through the law's fingers. I also support the revision of the framework decision so that it guarantees at least the same level of protection as the 2007 Council of Europe Convention. It is regrettable that some Member States have yet to sign this Convention.

It is also important to strengthen this framework decision in response to the most recent technological developments in the field of communication. Children make ever greater use of the Internet, which has become one of the preferred tools of potential and actual offenders, in particular through the grooming and fraudulent solicitation of children for unlawful purposes to which Mrs Angelilli has already referred. I take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work and on the report which she has submitted to us.

I am aware of the complexity and difficulty of this struggle, but I believe that it is possible to confront the sexual exploitation of children with unified action and a joint effort. The emphasis should be given to prevention, by promoting campaigns to make parents and children aware of the risks of child pornography, specifically on the Internet and, in particular, the risk of sexual exploitation in online chat rooms and forums.

(PL) Mr President, it was the poet Zbigniew Herbert who said, 'We must learn to say 'no' (...) 'no' is a very significant part of speech. It is disagreement with evil.' Today we must say 'no' to the violation of fundamental children's rights, 'no' to violence and the sexual exploitation of children, 'no' to depravity and pornography on the Internet and 'no' to sex tourism.

I therefore thank Mrs Angelilli for her report. I have raised this subject many times myself. Prophylactic and preventative measures are needed in this area. It is essential to raise awareness of the dangers, both among children and also among their parents and carers. Rapid crime detection and strict enforcement of penalties are imperative. Cooperation is needed from the media. These measures must include the whole world, because in some countries there are organisations which question the penalising of sexual contact with children. Indeed, there are even specious notions about so-called 'good paedophilia.' We should not be indifferent to the degradation of our children, or to their pain and humiliation. This is a reproach of our times.

(EL) Mr Vice-President, the recommendation presented so perfectly today by Mrs Angelilli and supported by my fellow members is directed mainly at the Council. However, as you said that you would be tabling your own proposal in March, I should like to ask for this proposal to be in keeping with numerous policies of the European Union and not move in just one direction. This proposal will need to make provision for criminalisation, strict measures and cooperation with Europol, whose convention is the first to mention trafficking in human beings. Let us not forget that, apart from the threats, violence, deception and abuse of dependents, especially within the family, we also have exploitation from deliberate promotion, mainly of people at an age at which they cannot react. I refer to the phenomenon of trafficking in abandoned infants which we have seen emerging on the Internet and, when I say Internet, I mean not just the World Wide Web and the chatrooms which children enter from their bedrooms, but also the numerous other means, including mobiles, which children can use, which is why we need to make provision for all the parameters.

When we talk about a criminal offence, we also need to think about the situation in correctional facilities and prisons. If we cut down on the number of people in these institutions, we have an increased risk of such phenomena. Provision also needs to be made for improving the living conditions of victims. We need to protect victims and their families, given that violence by abusers is spreading and the means which they use are stronger than the means of defence available to victims, because they are mainly economic. I trust therefore that your new proposal will feature a stronger level of protection for minors and high-specification means.

(PL) Mr President, Mrs Angelilli's report will help all parents to protect their children from paedophiles who prowl the Internet. We should remember that all the support we receive in the form of filters and monitoring service suppliers on the Internet does not relieve us, as parents, from our obligation to protect and warn our children.

I live in a small village, where people know each other and are interested in what is happening around them. A stranger arouses interest. In a small village in the south of Poland it would be difficult for someone to make contact with the children unnoticed, but I venture to say that in just such peaceful and safe places all over Europe, when the parents are quietly reading the newspaper or watching television, an unwanted stranger is in their children's bedroom, and has made contact with them over the Internet. Are we, as parents, helpless? No, we are not. Perhaps our children are more proficient in using the new technologies. Perhaps it is difficult to get them away from their computers.

Dear parents, do something today to protect your children. Remind them of something we were taught, namely: 'do not talk to strangers.' It is such a simple message. Today, those strangers are not lurking outside the school with a bag of sweets, they enter Internet chat rooms and seek their victims there. They are more dangerous, because we do not see when they slip without difficulty from one child's bedroom to another. We should teach our children that they must not talk to strangers, and likewise on the Internet, shut the door in their face.

Madam President, there is such political agreement on this issue that it seems strange that so little is happening in Member States.

Our focus on the Internet is obviously very important, but it suggests that this problem is a new one, when we clearly know that it is a very old problem and was very well hidden. It happened not just outside schools with bags of sweets, but it happened in homes, in all of our Member States, in churches and in hospitals.

The Internet has perhaps shone a light on this very dark part of society which we are still grappling with, and grappling very badly with. It is very urgent that Member States take seriously their many fine words about protecting children, just as we in this House have spoken very much about how we value and protect children, whereas in fact, our actions are often much weaker than the strong words we speak.

I mentioned that the home is sometimes the most dangerous place for children. We had a recent case in Ireland which highlighted this. I would also add that those who believe that small towns, where everyone knows one another, are a safe place for children, need to think again. In small towns, people very often close their eyes because they do not want to speak about 'soft information' that they have, and are perhaps afraid to pass it on to the authorities.

This is something that we all need to look at and be prepared to speak about, because silence causes abuse to grow, and causes awful damage to the children who are caught in that situation. I call on the Irish Government to bring forward legislation on a wide range of measures to protect children against sexual abuse. I think we also need to look at our Constitution, which puts the family before the rights of the child. They should not be in conflict: both deserve protection from our Constitution.

Madam President, I welcome this debate and, in line with the accompanying motion for a resolution, I encourage all EU Member States to sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. I also urge all EU Member States to sign up to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

The Council of Europe Convention is the first international legal instrument to categorise the various forms of sexual abuse of children as criminal offences, including such abuse perpetrated with the use of force, coercion or threats, even within the family. However, seven EU Member States have still not signed this Convention, and eight Member States have still to ratify the UN Optional Protocol.

The Internet is increasingly being used by potential and actual sex offenders as a medium for the sexual abuse of children, in particular, through grooming and child pornography.

While I accept that Irish criminal law protecting children against sexual abuse and exploitation is quite comprehensive, I would, nevertheless, urge the Irish Government to bring forward up-to-date legislation as soon as possible to deal with the proliferation of new ways by which children can be subject to sexual abuse.

(BG) Mrs Angelilli's report is very timely and important. We live in a world where the risks for children and adolescents are continuously growing.

Child exploitation, including the sexual exploitation of children, is among society's biggest ills. The battle against this phenomenon requires much common effort and an integration of measures, methods and resources. Judicial and punitive measures are very important, such as the criminalisation of sexual exploitation, especially legislation on Internet technology used against children's best interests.

We cannot allow to otherwise ignore the fact that prevention of this phenomenon is part of the battle against it: to educate children and parents how to avoid coming into contact with this phenomenon and with the people involved in it; to limit all types of advertising which provoke open and aggressive sexuality; that there is more concern for children in various institutions, who often become victims of sexual violence; integrating efforts for averting child trafficking - one of the main reasons for trafficking is namely sexual exploitation; and to form networks consisting of non-government and government structures as a countermeasure.

Madam President, it is truly inconceivable and shameful that, in the 21st century, with respect to sexual offences against children, the level of cooperation between different services within a state - but also of cooperation between Member States themselves - is not what it should be. I congratulate both the Commissioner and the rapporteur for speaking so clearly and for stressing the need for actual improvement.

I further ask them to name publicly those Member States that have deficient legislation in this respect. One measure I suggest should be considered is the establishment of a pan-European - or even better, international - public list of offenders convicted of sexual offences against children. I propose that such a listing should be permanent, with no possibility of anyone's name being erased from it unless there has been a court decision reversing the original conviction. A sexual offence against a child causes permanent damage to the victim and should also result in permanent labelling of the perpetrator. This will be an additional measure of punishment, but will also act as a prevention measure.

(PL) Madam President, 20 Member States have signed the Council of Europe Convention, the first international legal document which classifies the sexual exploitation of children as a crime.

Developments in science and technology and in new methods of communication, and especially the Internet and mobile telephony, have also revealed a new way of luring children into sexual exploitation, as well as a new way of distributing child pornography. The introduction of penalties for this kind of activity under the criminal law of all Member States is essential. However, the introduction of criminal responsibility for such acts is not sufficient. Another imperative is the establishment of systems which will prevent situations in which the danger of sexual exploitation of a child would be possible, such as by the education of parents and children, and also by tracking down paedophile organisations which are active on the Internet.

I thank Mrs Angelilli for a very important and well prepared report.

(SK) I agree with this draft recommendation of the European Parliament to the Council. Child protection must always be a priority issue in all countries of the European Union as children are the most vulnerable group of society. Harmonisation of laws would be a great contribution to preventing crimes of this kind and it would help in the more effective prosecution of offenders in all Member States. Subsequently harmonised legislation can prevent child sex tourism, which persists in the European Union because of varying levels of legislation.

Child protection is also needed in respect of children's access to the web, where they are exposed to all kinds of content, including possible abuse by paedophiles, and to Internet grooming. Sexual abuse of children and child pornography is contrary to the world code of children's rights adopted by the UN and, at the same time, it contravenes fundamental human rights.

(RO) Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are very serious crimes which are on the increase, but which can be combated through legislation, including awareness campaigns. As a mother myself and an MEP from a country which is among the main locations for hosting websites featuring pornographic content, I feel that EU Member States need clear laws which ensure that child pornography is banned from the Internet, while making Internet service providers block public access to websites which post such images.

Given that access to, and the distribution of, pornographic material are not controlled by time and place, I welcome the timely suggestion to set up, at European level, a separate unit for combating child pornography and prostitution and I suggest that Member States and the Commission provide financial support for information and awareness campaigns.

(CS) Madam President, I welcome this report with just two reservations. Firstly, I do not believe that prosecuting parents who coerce their children into forced marriages is effective. Realistically, it is impossible to prove this within a family where there is also an exceptional right to remain silent. Secondly, the provision on overriding professional confidentiality would need to be worked out in more detail. Regardless of these two reservations, I appeal to the Member States, the Council and the Commission, including the Czech Presidency, to urgently update the relevant European and national legislation and to ratify international agreements for effectively combating paedophilia. A Europe-wide database of paedophiles must be set up as soon as possible to prevent these people from being employed in education or child services in other Member States. The age limit for sexually motivated crime should also be harmonised. I would also like to point out that Member States need to finance the development and expansion of programmes which will help parents to protect their children from Internet grooming.

Madam President, I believe this debate has shown the European Parliament's unanimous commitment to the protection of children.

I am trying to be as clear as I can: I would point out that we are going to review the framework decision dealing with child protection. We wish to improve its contents to bring child protection in the European Union up to the level of the highest international standards, particularly the new 2007 Council of Europe Convention, and best national practices.

In terms of criminal investigations, the legislative proposal will include new criminal offences to deal with the new forms of abuse which are being facilitated by new technologies. It will be easier to carry out investigations and bring charges. I will say no more on this. As for helping victims, we will make it easier for them to gain access to justice.

Furthermore, and especially, we will organise prevention by managing offenders on the basis of an individual diagnosis and a risk assessment for each offender. In addition, we will try to prevent and minimise the risks of repeat offending and introduce measures to ensure the optimum effectiveness of safety mechanisms in the entire Union. In this respect, the ECRIS system, which will allow the networking of criminal records, will be very valuable.

I have also had questions on extraterritoriality. We will also take the opportunity to propose more restrictive measures at this level to prosecute crimes of sexual exploitation committed in third countries by citizens of EU countries, even if the third country in which the crime is committed is unable to do so.

That is the current thinking. Obviously, Mrs Angelilli, we will follow all the recommendations in your report most carefully as we develop this framework directive.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to say to Parliament that it is not enough to have a good legal framework. There is also a need for tools. This is why, at European level, around Europol, we are trying to build a platform which can be used to bring together information gathered in the Member States and distribute reports and statistics from the national platforms. Several EU countries have such platforms, but now there is a need at Community level to ensure that everyone can be familiar with all this information. In this matter, the European Union can offer added value, provided that we can succeed in creating this platform around Europol.

I would also say that we have a further tool in which I have a lot of faith, in other words, the informal public-private group created by the Commission, which has introduced a European financial coalition against commercial child pornography images. In the face of a quadrupling in the number of sites between 2003 and 2007, we have to involve the private sector, as it controls a large part of the IT infrastructures. In particular, the access providers have to be mobilised. This is fundamental.

The coalition will bring together all of the stakeholders: non-governmental organisations, banks, companies that issue credit cards, online payment organisations, Internet service providers and other private operators with an Internet presence. It will set about locating and confiscating the profits made from criminal activities. This is a major factor in bringing an end to a number of commercial practices which are exploiting such child pornography.

That, in brief, is my answer, Madam President, but we will have occasion to return to this major issue. I would add that, last week, we had a very nice data protection day. It saw youngsters sending out remarkable warnings to other young people to be careful when they use the Internet.

You are aware that there are now an increasing number of monitoring mechanisms that families can use to make the Internet safer for children to use. I am not saying that things are perfect, but a major effort is being made and, of course, we need to mobilise the entire Internet community.

I wish to stress the concept of 'kidnap warnings', because they have not been the subject of many speeches. It really is important for Parliament to encourage the Member States, as it did in its declaration of 2 September 2008, to arm themselves with warning systems and to conclude cooperation agreements to achieve cross-border trigger mechanisms.

In addition, you have also very generously created a budget line to encourage Member States to create these mechanisms, or at least to create links between themselves to deal with 'kidnap alerts'. We know that a 'kidnap alert' can be very effective if it is triggered quickly. Now, before the European Parliament, I would lay particular stress on the horror that is child kidnapping, often carried out for the purposes of pornography.

I would again like to thank the European Parliament for its support in the struggle to protect children. I would also add that I have noted the speeches on data protection during legal procedures involving children. I cannot go on any longer, but I would stress that in March, we will attempt to give the European Union an exemplary legal framework in accordance with the most stringent standards of child protection.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank my fellow Members once again for their thoughts and the support shown during the debate and, in conclusion, I would like to extend a special thank you to the European Commission for its active collaboration. To Mr Barrot I owe a particular debt of gratitude, since even this morning he demonstrated extremely strong political and legislative will in terms of child protection. He really has provided much food for thought and, above all, practical commitment.

I would like to take this opportunity to make a few additional points. Firstly, there is a lack of data. Too often we lack sufficient data, statistics, which are indispensable as a basis for our work in better monitoring, better understanding and, of course, better combating child abuse. This lack of data is - how can I put it - a recurring issue, but I think it important to emphasise since it is a shortcoming that we must overcome.

As far as data protection is concerned, some Members raised this topic and the Commissioner has already given them a very specific response. I would like to stress that I am very aware of data protection and I do not believe that there is a conflict between privacy and children's rights, if, of course, the institutions play their part and if everyone, from the providers to the police, respects the rules.

Moreover, I would point out that children are, in fact, those with the greatest need for privacy and data protection. Mr Barrot mentioned this too: often during legal proceedings, when a scandal breaks in which the victim is sadly a child, it is precisely the exploited child that is fed to the media without any form of protection, and I would say without any compassion either for their image or for their privacy, and all simply to boost television ratings and sell a few more newspapers. I would also like to add that no child is exempt from these dangers, and unaccompanied children and Roma children are often even more vulnerable.

I will conclude, Madam President, by saying that clearly a significant effort is needed at a cultural and political level, and this effort must be made by families, schools and the media. Much can be done in terms of self-regulation, but without binding, weighty legislative instruments, clearly, we cannot fight cases of exploitation behind which there are not only individuals but often actual criminal organisations.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today.

Written statements (Rule 142)

One of the features of sexual abuse of children has been its rapid spread with the help of the Internet, making it all the more difficult to combat. It must become a legal obligation to block access to websites which spread child pornography. Indeed, grooming children must be considered an offence.

We need to be much more aware of the risk of new technologies being used by paedophiles at a time when children are becoming increasingly more active in their use of the Internet. We cannot help but be concerned by the gap that exists between generations in terms of Internet usage and, by extension, in terms of controlling children's access to websites posing a high level of risk.

It is extremely important to establish communication between the school and family in order to educate children in how to identify risk situations and respond. This is the reason why special information and education programmes are useful, not to mention a European strategy for combating sexual abuse and more active cooperation between Member States aimed at setting up a transnational police network for tackling child pornography and prostitution, as well as a network for managing a database containing the details of people convicted of such acts.

From the point of view of European cooperation, it is regrettable that the ratification process of the Council of Europe's 2007 Convention has been so slow.

in writing. - This report recognises that the violation of a child's dignity is a serious breach of human rights, as well as a despicable act, which, unfortunately, is not tackled uniformly throughout the EU. It is disturbing that some Member States have not implemented all relevant international conventions for the protection of children. I urge the Commission to use all tools at its disposal to pressure those states into compliance.

To fight child pornography, the EU should enforce tough legislation, but also undertake educational projects that inform people about this subject. Existing technical solutions to protect children should be promoted among parents, in particular, software tools that are easy to use and available for free or at a low-cost.

Low barriers of entry and minimal risk are making it very easy for criminal organisations to get into cyberspace. To face this new threat, we need to harmonise legislation, boost law enforcement and strengthen cooperation in police work. Moreover, EU legislation would only partially solve the problem since this issue has a global dimension and therefore needs a global framework to enforce the law internationally. In that regard, I urge the EU to take the lead.

in writing. - Exploiting children in any way is unacceptable. Being the future of any society, children are, at the same time, the most vulnerable group of it. Therefore it is the priority duty of politicians to protect children from any abuse, in particular, to free them of the risks of sexual abuse.

I warmly welcome the comprehensive report which calls upon all Member States to address the problem in question with utmost seriousness.

I support the call to the seven Member States which have not yet signed the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. Furthermore, I join the call upon all Member States to sign, ratify and implement all relevant international conventions to protect our children.

Nevertheless, signing and ratifying conventions is merely providing a framework for improvement. Practical actions are needed because of the increasing evidence of sexual exploitation of children. Children need to grow up in a safe environment for which parents have the primary responsibility. Urging the Member States to coordinate their actions, I also support the idea to set up the Missing Child Alert System which would improve the cooperation on this issue on the European level.

Children need our care and protection as legislators. It is very important that seven Member States and neighbouring countries sign the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. The implementation of the Council's framework resolution is also important.

Those who have fallen victim to abuse at an early age must be guaranteed full protection during the investigation, before and after judicial proceedings. Victim protection mechanisms such as the provision of appropriate assistance to families of victims and the treating of victims as particularly defenceless victims must be implemented immediately.

We must raise the level of protection. What is taking place on the Internet has surpassed all limits. Children are often unable to understand the seriousness and consequences of a situation. What often seems to be a game can lead to lifelong psychological damage.

Thus, we must ban paedophiles' chat rooms and Internet forums, and make solicitation using such methods a criminal offence. We really must.

It is our duty to protect children from a world that may destroy them. We must keep sexual criminals away from children, and we must take the necessary steps to ensure that.

Estonia is one of the countries in which the process of strengthening punishments against those who have committed crimes against children is currently underway. This, however, is a struggle against consequences.

In order to prevent crimes, we must promote 'Internet literacy', which must also include teaching people about risks. The world of computers is, unfortunately, precisely the place in which parents have been unable to act as guides for their children.

In order to prevent crimes, one must increase awareness. The 2008 Eurobarometer study shows that a large percentage of parents do not pay attention to what their children are doing on the Internet. I, for instance, represent a country where Internet use is among the highest in the EU, but parents' disregard is also among the highest in the EU. Namely, 60% of them are not concerned that their children might fall victim to harassment; 47% are not concerned that their children see pornography or violent material; 62% are not concerned that their children may divulge personal data.

It is very important that parents be informed and that awareness programmes for children be launched on the Internet, because only 10% of (Estonian) children claim that they have approached their parents for help in connection with unpleasant incidents they have experienced on the Internet.

Sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (debate) 

The next item is the report by Claudio Fava on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, four minutes will be enough to give you a summary of two years' work - work that has been hard but, I hope, useful - which has involved Parliament alongside both the Commission, with its proposal, and the Council. The essence of this work has been to prepare a directive which, for the first time, lays down sanctions for employers who benefit from the work of illegal immigrants.

I believe we have succeeded in changing the philosophy behind this directive, which had been confined solely to fighting illegal immigration. The compromise text agreed with the Council also provides some protection for those immigrants forced to work illegally, who are often held hostage by criminal organisations. Otherwise, Madam President, there would have been a risk of punishing them twice over, both as exploited workers, often forced to accept indecent working conditions, and as illegal immigrants who have to be repatriated, with the repatriation ban which, in many countries, means years and years.

In this context, in Articles 7 and 14, we have provided that, in cases involving minors, serious exploitation or people trafficking, the Member States will be obliged to draw up rules for issuing temporary residence permits, the term of which may be extended until any remuneration due has been paid. We should have liked this possibility to be extended to all illegal immigrants, but that is prevented by the Return Directive adopted last year. I was not one of those who supported it.

We have, however, succeeded in introducing a rule allowing Member States to apply more favourable measures to immigrants regarding the issuing of residence permits. Article 10 is, in my view, the key article. For the first time, it provides for criminal sanctions to be imposed in the worst cases, including those where the regular workers are minors.

I think the additional sanctions laid down in Article 8 are important. They include withdrawal of licences, closure of establishments in particularly serious cases, and exclusion from state aid derived from European funding. Otherwise, we would be guilty of extraordinary hypocrisy: we would be punishing employers with one hand yet still giving them generous subsidies with the other.

I believe it is fundamental that we have succeeded in including a definition of remuneration that equates the pay due to an illegal immigrant with the pay of a regular worker, without any discrimination.

We have included temporary work agencies in the scope of the directive. In certain countries - such as my own - in particular, these are the organisations that most readily recruit illegal workers under the very worst kinds of exploitative conditions. Just think of the cases where illegal agricultural workers have been hired, which have long filled the crime columns.

We have successfully asked for the trade unions to be able to represent immigrants in administrative and civil cases. The text previously mentioned third parties in general, but now it mentions trade unions.

We need a running-in period to see how it works, and we have therefore asked the Commission to report to Parliament and the Council after the directive has been in force for three years, specifically about the rules on inspections, residence permits, sanctions and subcontracting.

On the subject of subcontracting - Article 9, which was the subject of discussion between Parliament and the Council and within the Council itself - your rapporteur would have like to extend liability to the whole contracting chain, as the Commission had originally proposed. The Council and Parliament, or rather part of Parliament, were for excluding subcontracting entirely, but we have reached a compromise solution that I believe is workable: dual liability, which should not prevent us from legislating again on this issue in future. That is why tomorrow, for my part and on behalf of the other shadow rapporteurs, whom I thank for the collaboration they have given me during these two years, I shall ask the Council to add a statement to the compromise text on which we are going to vote, to the effect that the provisions of this Article 9 shall not prejudice any future legislative action on subcontracting.

In conclusion, Madam President, I believe this directive lets us envisage a Europe in which immigration has finally become a matter of collective responsibility and recognised rights, and not just of rules against immigrants.

Madam President, I would, of course, like to thank Mr Fava and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Major efforts have been made by various parties to reach an agreement at first reading and, given the broad majorities in favour of this on the LIBE Committee several days ago and on the Permanent Representatives Committee just before Christmas, I think we will get there.

This text, of course, does not fulfil the initial ambitions in all respects. The Commission can, however, support this compromise without hesitation. This directive lets us introduce an effective instrument, a common framework to discourage the employment of workers from third countries who are residing illegally.

The Commission will be vigilant about the inspections. The compromise text recommends better targeted, qualitative inspections, so it remains to be seen in the coming years if these qualitative criteria have been used and if the obligation on Member States to regularly identify the risk sectors for illegal working on their territory has been really effective. This is what we want, in order to fight against the employment of people from third countries residing illegally and, above all, to impose sanctions on the employers who profit from these people. Examination of the implementation of the provisions relating to the inspections will, therefore, be a priority for the Commission in its future reports on the application of this directive.

In addition, there are, of course, positive results emerging from this compromise, particularly the consensus achieved on the difficult question of subcontracting. I have noted that Mr Fava was hoping for a statement from the Council and Parliament. Personally, I do not see any drawbacks.

The Commission is pleased that the directive recommends criminal sanctions for particularly serious cases, for which these sanctions are both necessary and appropriate. They are necessary to reinforce the deterrent since, in the most serious cases, administrative sanctions are not sufficient to deter unscrupulous employers. They are appropriate in an instrument intended to match the ambitious European policy to combat illegal immigration. In this context, the Commission appreciates the fact that criminalisation of employers of the victims of trafficking has been reinserted in the text in the final compromise.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this directive is a first significant step in the fight against illegal immigration. It targets the practices of unscrupulous employers, whilst protecting migrant workers who, most often, are the victims in such cases.

This directive should be adopted and implemented quickly. The Commission will support and accompany this process by calling regular meetings of experts from the Member States during the transposition phase to discuss any issues that might arise. It is an important tool and the Commission will do everything necessary to ensure this tool is used effectively.

My thanks go to Parliament, Mr Fava and the LIBE Committee.

It is hoped that legislating against employers employing illegal migrants from third countries will be an instrument for reducing the 'pool-factor' of illegal migration. However, on the other hand, one can also see its possible effect on improving conditions for competition and I also believe that it will help to combat human trafficking.

There is a view that this legislation will not bring added value. As no such legislative instrument exists yet at Community level, for some Member States, the added value is high, while for others, where such legislation already exists, the added value may not be evident.

In discussions of possible compromises with the Commission and the Council, the discussions concentrated on particular problem areas. Firstly: the issue of the contractor's liability for obligations under law on sub-contractors, where the draft proposal limits the liability for the actions of direct sub-contractors. Secondly: the means of ensuring effective procedures by which illegal migrants can be paid outstanding wages where we have pursued the principle of non-discrimination, and we looked for a way to provide available help to illegal migrants and to provide tools for them to receive wages even after their return to their home country. Thirdly: the possible effect of postponing the execution of the return of an illegal migrant until that person receives their wages. Here I would say that postponing the execution of such a decision would greatly undermine and possibly negate the purpose of the proposed legislation. And finally, the problem of inspections has been left to Member States in the knowledge that labour inspectors play a vital role in making the legislation effective.

No doubt there are various views on how to resolve this and other problems in this draft. Some of these will be decided when it comes to their implementation. I would like to finish by thanking Mr Fava, the Commission and the French Presidency for successfully incorporating the compromises.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. - (NL) I, too, should like to thank the rapporteur for his work, without overlooking the efforts, though, of the shadow rapporteur of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Busuttil, and the social affairs rapporteur, Mrs Edit Bauer. It is, after all, thanks to their efforts that the compromise reached ultimately does what it is supposed to do, namely take away the prospect of work as an incentive for illegal immigration by actually penalising workers who are staying in the European Union illegally.

Contrary to what some parties in this Parliament tried to achieve in the first instance, this legislation has not become an instrument for subsequently legalising illegal immigrants. Indeed, the debate on legal migration is being held elsewhere. As rapporteur for the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, I do believe, though, that more thought should be given to gender issues when dealing with this group of people who are staying in the European Union illegally and, as has already been stated, are often the victims of exploitation.

Estimates of how many people from third countries are staying in the European Union illegally are not precise and vary between 4.5 and 8 million. Moreover, these estimates give no indication as to the proportion of men and women in that total, and neither do they grant an insight into the gender-specific problems which illegal female immigrants face. I would draw your attention to the fact that female illegal immigrants are very vulnerable and that they are often at the receiving end of forced labour, human trafficking and violence. This, therefore, requires specific education within the bodies that deal with these issues.

As ever, though, this is about effective monitoring. I am pleased that the arbitrary 10% monitoring level that was suggested initially has now been dismissed and that a risk approach has been incorporated in the compromise text. The reports in the Belgian newspaper De Standaard last summer about house slaves in certain embassies in Brussels, only a stone's throw from the Berlaymont building, prove that these scenarios are not far-fetched. I would therefore like to say to the European Commission that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Face up to your responsibility to examine critically how countries deal with this legislation and whether they apply it effectively.

This law, Madam President, is probably one of the first that directly tackles the illegal immigration phenomenon using legislative tools, and now it can be said that this law has finally arrived. It was sorely needed and therefore I am extremely pleased that we have managed to reach an excellent compromise here. What exactly did we achieve by way of this law? What we did was to attack one of the main sources that motivate people to turn to illegal immigration. We attacked incentive. What kind of incentive are we referring to? The incentive is that a person living, for example, in Africa might have to risk his life in order to journey to another country, thinking that he might find work there, even if illegally. From now on, we are sending out the clear message that illegal employment will no longer be tolerated and therefore it makes no sense to make the crossing over to Europe, while under the mistaken impression that there are jobs to be had here. As of now, this will be absolutely impossible. As the previous speaker said, it is important that this instrument is not used to regularise irregular situations, but should serve as a clear message that illegal employment can no longer be tolerated. This is being enforced through effective measures and sanctions: financial, administrative and even criminal ones. These also serve to pass on the unequivocal message to employers that we shall no longer tolerate the recruitment of workers without a permit. Thank you.

Madam President, we have managed here in the European Parliament to radically change the objective of the directive which we are debating today. Claudio Fava deserves our congratulations on this in particular. Firstly, we have managed to obtain provision for the mandatory payment of remuneration outstanding to illegal immigrants who are deported. Secondly, we have helped to ensure that provision is made for strict and binding criminal sanctions for employers of immigrants under unacceptable living conditions. Thirdly, we have safeguarded the right of trade unions and other bodies to go to court on behalf of immigrants and, fourthly, we have imposed the right to grant residence permits of short or longer duration to illegal immigrants who uncover criminal organisations. In other words, we are at last treating illegal immigrants as human beings, without at the same time legalising illegal immigration, which is why we support this compromise.

However, there is still a dangerous mismatch between the continuing police approach to illegal immigration and the reality in numerous Member States. That is why the application of the directive will also require special attention. It could lead thousands of illegal immigrants into poverty, ghettoisation and crime and, although we demonstrably cannot or will not deport them, these illegal immigrants may remain out of work. If, in fact, numerous illegal immigrants are currently occupying jobs in Europe which Europeans do not want, we should now be debating in this House, at long last, common rules on legal immigration into Europe and the legalisation of these people, not new rules to deport them.

Finally, the absolutely necessary fight against the black labour market obviously does not only concern illegal immigrants; it mainly concerns legal immigrants, it concerns millions of European citizens whose employment rights are trampled underfoot by their employers on a daily basis, it concerns the fact that employment laws are being trampled underfoot, without any material control or material sanctions. Today's directive should therefore have as its legal basis, in my opinion, the general fight against undeclared work in Europe, not immigration in particular. This targeting of immigrants every time something goes wrong in Europe is very dangerous for social cohesion in our countries. Obviously, illegal immigration also needs to be combated, but we cannot demonise people who are fleeing miserable conditions in their own country in the hope of a better life.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) For years, the European Union has had to contend with the presence of millions of illegal immigrants on its territory, and the pressure to find a solution is mounting. This pressure is considerable, and rightly so, frankly. Indeed, if we wish to adopt manageable and reliable migration policy, in which refugees are entitled to protection and in which we create transparent opportunities for legal migration, then an approach that takes due account of all discouraging and encouraging factors that lead to illegal immigration is a necessary measure.

Last summer, the Council and Parliament reached agreement on what was known as the Return Directive, which mainly focuses on the illegal immigrants themselves, whereas today, we are looking at the employers who do not hesitate to employ illegal immigrants. This is not only a significant inducement for illegal immigrants, but also unmistakeably creates cases of abuse and gross exploitation.

The importance of harmonised European policy is, in my view, beyond dispute. After all, when internal borders are non-existent, Member State A may worry itself silly, but if Member State B barely addresses the employment of illegal immigrants, if at all, then Member State A will remain nothing but a voice in the wilderness.

After a rather slow start, there is now, following intense negotiations with the Council, a compromise before us that is acceptable to me, and I would like to thank the rapporteur for his constructive and pragmatic way of working. It was like a breath of fresh air which, in fact, cannot be said of a few of his fellow MEPs who now insist, at any price, on this accompanying written declaration, a show for the Bühne, which does not do much for the image of this Parliament. That too, my group will accept.

Moreover, it should be clear that, once this directive has been adopted, it is up to the Member States to galvanise themselves into action. It should be clear that neither the European Commission nor the European Parliament have magic wands at their disposal when it comes to decisiveness or enforcement. The Council was emphatically opposed to a binding percentage of inspections, and this is exactly where the problem often lies - as has been said by many in this Parliament, as well as the Commissioner. All I can do now is urge you to turn this enforcement into reality so as to ensure that we do not get bogged down with empty words on paper once more as, indeed, nobody benefits from this.

The proposal is again a step in the right direction when it comes to achieving comprehensive migration policy. We still have a long way to go though, so what we must do now is persevere. In this connection, I would like to ask the 64 thousand dollar question that has been on everybody's lips today: why is the Council absent from this debate? This is, quite frankly, unacceptable, in my view.

Madam President, the European Union is not coping with illegal immigration. Many facts prove this, and we also see this in Mr Fava's explanatory statement, where we read, amongst other things, that '[i]t is estimated that there are between 4.5 and 8 million illegal immigrants in the EU, a figure that is steadily increasing, notably because of easy access to illegal work.' The very fact that the numbers from 4.5 million to 8 million are used shows that we are not even able to state precisely the scale of this problem and issue. And yet, economic migration also concerns many EU Member States, especially those which acceded more recently.

Today, millions of Poles and citizens of other countries are moving within the EU to the old Member States. These citizens are subjected to the same ills and are in the same situation as migrants from third countries. For illegal employment means the exploitation of workers while denying them the benefit of health insurance or pension rights, the exploitation of juveniles and even human trafficking. We can overcome this phenomenon only when there are severe legal sanctions and when we consistently make use of them.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, we very much appreciate the work of both Mr Fava in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and Ms Bauer in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. I think we in this House will have to get used to the enhanced cooperation procedure on measures which actually link employment and migration.

As has already been said, this is supposed to be part of the common immigration policy of the European Union, dealing with the pull factor of possible work, often within the informal economy and amongst vulnerable and non-organised workers. However, it can also apply where there are genuine vacancies, which cannot be filled from the national labour pool, and where Member States are not issuing sufficient work permits, or where there is a creaking bureaucracy that cannot respond quickly enough to applications with a labour-market purpose. There is also a gap that we have yet to fill for people for whom no return to their country of origin is possible - for example, to Zimbabwe - and who are often left legally destitute, as it were, and, therefore, need to find a way to keep themselves alive.

The majority of Member States already have, in theory, measures in place to deal with the situation of irregular migration, and you would think that would signal an apparent commitment to action. Yet the Commission proposals on inspection in its original document have been really watered down, and Parliament has had to fight to get even what we have currently in Article 15. It is to be hoped that those inspections will not just pick off small businesses but will actually look at some of the larger enterprises that rely very heavily, at the bottom end, on vulnerable workers. That is why the issue of subcontractor liability was extremely important to many of us in this House. Some of us consider that what we are left with is, again, a watered-down version of the Commission's original proposal.

People have mentioned the issue of the residence permit, where Member States may choose to make this available for particularly severe cases where complaints have been brought. That, I suppose, is a step forward - at least from where some Member States were.

One of the issues that has concerned many of us is remuneration - when you cannot determine what the length of an employment contract was - and issues regarding payment of national insurance and tax, which we know for many vulnerable workers are often taken out of their pay packets but not necessarily handed on to the authorities.

For many of us, this issue about payment for work done is a question of principle; it is also that companies and economies have benefited and that this is not supposed to be a legislative measure to punish the irregular migrant. It is also - if you are looking at this as part of an overall policy - part of a sustainable return that people will actually go back with what they have earned.

We have no guarantee that Member States will ensure that people are paid. We have an assurance that mechanisms will be in place so that claims can be made but not that money will be paid out. There is thus no guarantee that payment will be made. Some may take the view that individuals take a chance and there is a risk, but if we are looking at questions of human dignity, and where this fits in the overall goals of a common immigration policy, this is a serious issue.

So, for my political group, the balance of this proposal is no longer clear either on inspections or remuneration, and other areas have been watered down. We do not feel that Member States are showing much commitment and, therefore, we will not be supporting this proposal.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there are between four and a half and eight million non-EU citizens in an irregular situation in Europe - these are the Commission's figures.

This is an utterly negligible number: just over 1% of the resident population of the European Union. It is clearly a problem that has been over-exaggerated. These are workers who perform useful services, such as personal services and work in the tourist industry and, in the vast majority of cases, they have been absorbed by the job market. These are workers who are useful to our economy, but they are exploited workers - exploited to reduce labour costs and to enrich unscrupulous employers. These are workers who often do jobs not performed by EU citizens.

We need these people, but they have entered Europe illegally for a simple reason, which is that there is no legal way for them to come in. The same thing happened to the great majority of citizens whose situation is now legal but who entered the European Union illegally.

What was needed was another measure: one that regularised the situation of these millions of people. What was needed was a measure to free them from slavery, blackmail and exploitation. Instead we have a directive that carries on where the Return Directive left off. First we decided on the expulsion procedures; today we are deciding on the potential expulsion catchment area and are even specifying who will pay for the expulsions. With this directive, the exploited pay more than the exploiters. Unfortunately, there is no provision for a general regularisation measure, not even for those who report their own status, or who report their exploiters or the crime that is being committed. They go straight from being exploited in illegal work to being expelled.

We needed something different. We needed a measure to favour legality, and not the criminalisation of those who are currently here illegally. We needed a measure to curb xenophobia. Yesterday, the Italian Minister for Home Affairs said specifically, 'We have to be hard on illegal immigrants'; in other words, we have to be hard on the vulnerable. I believe we are fostering this kind of xenophobic attitude with this directive.

We in the European Union need immigrants - the Commission says so itself: 50 million by 2060 - because we are in the middle of a demographic crisis, but we are doing nothing to help them enter. Instead, we are harmonising the expulsion system and today we are deciding to expel those who are here illegally even though they may be workers who have been absorbed into the European job market.

I think the effects of this directive will be devastating, because it will make immigrants and the job market go even further underground and increase the exploitative crimes of unscrupulous bosses.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, illegal immigration is a problem, which is made worse by the free movement of peoples. However, the current wave of unrest that is spreading rapidly through Britain is, of course, being caused by legal migration and by the European Union's own rules.

For 20 years, British trade unions, having being seduced by Jacques Delors, thought the European Union was in their interests. Well, now the penny has dropped and they have realised that a British government is unable to put British interests first.

I am afraid it will get quite a lot worse. As we embark upon a round of massive public spending projects, such as the Olympics and council house building, thousands of European workers are set to benefit. British jobs for British workers cannot be guaranteed all the while we are inside the EU. The prospect of British taxpayers funding foreign workers is, frankly, unacceptable.

But the Government is holding firm, saying that the European Union is a wonderful thing. Well, it is not surprising is it? Lord Mandelson is still getting GBP 78 000 a year from the European Commission and, of course, gets a dependent pension on this in just a few years' time - a conflict of interest if ever I saw one.

The big concern now is whether the xenophobic far right will benefit. We do not want that either. We in UKIP will put a non-racist agenda to the British people at the European elections, saying that it is time to put British interests first. We are not protectionists, but we want good common sense. We want to control our own borders and decide who lives, works and settles in our country.

(DE) Madam President, throughout the world the hope of obtaining a well-paid job has a very strong appeal. In particular, in difficult economic times, the black economy starts to grow which, of course, results in many people risking their lives in the search for the land of plenty. It is important for us to make it clear that illegal employment will no longer be tolerated.

However, the recent report on fundamental human rights presents a few problems in this respect. The report indicates that breaches of EU entry requirements will be rewarded, as immigrants will be given greater protection than the people of Europe, whose identity and social harmony are under threat from mass immigration. Illegal immigration will be trivialised if, in future, every illegal immigrant is seen simply as a person without a valid work permit.

However, we must not forget that migrants without residence permits will ultimately have to be deported. It is important for us to do away with incentives, such as mass legalisation and the prospect of employment. In addition, we must negotiate effective agreements on deportation with the countries of origin. Also, the FRONTEX border security organisation must finally be expanded so that it can be deployed efficiently.

(RO) The current directive helps consolidate the common policy on illegal immigration and is a first step towards combating illegal employment by imposing financial penalties on employers. However, I should remind you that all Member States have national legislation governing illegal work and tax and duty evasion. Applying these laws also helps to identify the employment of illegal immigrants.

This is why I believe that it is important for us to have adequate regulations, but it is even more important for Member States to ensure that these regulations are strictly applied. I welcome the provisions in the final text on sanctions which are proportional to the number of illegal employees, as well as on imposing smaller fines where the employer is a natural person and the employee provides personal services or domestic help, and the working conditions are not regarded as exploitative.

The negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council have resulted in clarifying the concept of a subcontractor which can be held liable and in establishing the amount of the retrospective payments which need to be made by the employer. I firmly believe that the application of this directive will improve the situation in terms of observing Community preference when assigning jobs.

I also feel that the application of this directive should be an additional reason for Member States to remove the labour market restrictions imposed on European citizens, in view of the fact that restricting the chance of employing illegal immigrants will create new opportunities for the EU to recruit its own citizens.

(SV) I would like to begin by thanking Claudio and everyone else who made this report possible. In previous debates about future asylum, refugee and migration policy, we mainly focussed on those who stay here illegally, on those who are well-educated and who are permitted to come here, or on people who are simply poor and wish to provide for their family and want to be able to come here.

Now we are placing the responsibility on employers who employ people with no documents. There would not be as many people without documents staying here if we did not always have irresponsible employers who will pay and exploit them. To me, it seems quite right to impose sanctions and to introduce an information requirement for employers, and if an employer has exploited someone, compensation should be paid even after that person has gone home.

However, there is one proposal that I would have voted against had there not been a vote in the committee, and that is that the majority is introducing less stringent rules for employment in the home. This, for me, is a question of equality, as it has mostly been women who have been working in the home for low wages. This group has also found it more difficult than those in workplaces with several employees, but I see this as a first step.

I was sorry to hear in the news today that the Swedish Conservative Government has a negative view of the report, which is intended to support responsible undertakings and criminalise irresponsible undertakings that exploit workers with no documents.

Finally, I am, of course, also concerned about the opinions we received from the trade unions regarding the report. I hope that we will be able to resolve these issues before a decision is taken. The same rules must apply to all employers, such as shared responsibility in connection with works contracts, otherwise we will be incorporating loopholes and encouraging cheating.

(ES) Madam President, the best way to safeguard a controlled form of immigration that is manageable for our society - manageable in both economic and social terms - is to combat illegal employment as well.

This does not mean we should fight against illegal immigrants themselves, since every one of them has his own story to tell, but rather against the phenomenon of illegal immigration as the only way to justify and truly systematise controlled immigration, particularly in today's world.

Of course, this should be done not only through those seeking work but also through those offering it. The fight against illegal immigration cannot only be waged in the underground stations in London or Madrid but must also be carried out in the human resources departments of the many companies that employ illegal workers in order to exploit them and deprive them of their rights.

That, therefore, is our reason for wholly welcoming this directive. It is a directive that gives context to employers' obligations and, certainly, the sanctions that must be imposed on employers who exploit workers without rights for their own benefit.

This is a well-balanced directive. The rapporteur should be congratulated on having reached a fair compromise and achieved a good balance on this matter.

I would like to highlight those articles that safeguard the rights of workers who have been exploited. They protect workers so that they can report the situation in which they find themselves. They protect them by guaranteeing that they can claim back what they have earned, without, of course, this resulting in a right to remain. However, any work that was done illegally, without national insurance and without payment will, of course, be remunerated regardless of the employment status of the worker who was working illegally.

The sanctions are certainly suitable and in proportion. The agreement on subcontracting, to which the rapporteur has already made reference in his speech, is very important. It is of great importance in practice, and that is what we are talking about.

Just one final mention: I consider the 24-month transposition period for this directive to be excessive. I realise that this cannot be changed, but 24 months is too long and should be shortened if possible.

(PL) Madam President, employing third-country nationals who are staying illegally in the European Union makes fair competition impossible and also denies the employees concerned the right protection.

I am thinking first and foremost about safe working conditions and social protection in the case of an accident at work. The number of illegal immigrants in the EU is estimated at 4.5 - 8 million people, and they are most often found working in the construction, agriculture, tourism, hotel and services sectors. Cases of slave labour occur, under conditions of exploitation and child labour. Illegal employment plays a significant role in reducing standards of employment.

This is why the right of trade unions to represent the interests of these workers is so important. It is the employer who decides to take on a person who is staying illegally, and so it is the employer who should be subject to a penalty for breaking the law. Coordinated action by all the countries of the EU is needed to tackle every aspect of illegal employment.

Madam President, there is an urgent need to protect workers from exploitation in these times of economic trauma, and the case to ensure the terms and conditions of European workers are not systematically driven down by exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers is unanswerable. Responsibility for this rests squarely with Member State governments and authorities.

While Member States need to take steps to regulate immigration, I regret very much that the legal base for this proposal is the fight against illegal immigration. The real fight is against rogue exploitative employers, and what we need at this time is an agenda that is pro-worker, not anti-immigrant.

The political and economic imperative must be to stop the exploitation of irregular migrants, to punish rogue employers, not to scapegoat or criminalise workers, migrant or otherwise. The use of criminal sanctions in this proposal should not be the competence of the EU and those that argue that the expulsion of migrant workers is the solution to exploitation are misguided. This directive does not strike the right balance.

(NL) It is already two years since Commissioner Frattini unveiled the plans to tackle illegal labour that guarantees a steady flow of illegals entering the European Union to work. This situation is degrading and should be stopped.

Madam President, I beg to differ with the rapporteur, though, about the question whether the European Union should get involved in criminal law. I am not in favour of including criminal law within Europe's remit. Instead, an open method of coordination is what is needed here. I am, therefore, delighted about the fact that the amended compromise proposal is cautious about applying criminal law. The financial penalties are enough of an incentive to be careful in the selection of employees. I hope that the inspections of businesses will encourage Member States to refer to criminal law.

(NL) It is to be welcomed that a directive will be introduced that will penalise employers of illegal immigrants. It is stated, with good reason, that the possibility of finding a job in the European Union is an attractive factor for illegal immigration. We should, however, be consistent and also tackle the other factors that attract immigrants. The most important of these factors is the impunity with which aliens can come to Europe illegally. There are, in fact, Member States that reward illegal aliens, the mass regularisations in Spain, Italy and Belgium, among others, being a case in point.

There is also the hypocrisy of the so-called individual regularisations on humanitarian grounds. Last year alone, there were no fewer than 12 000 in as small a country as Belgium. Illegal immigrants should be deported, not regularised, for indeed, every regularised illegal immigrant attracts a multitude of new immigrants. Every Member State that regularises them does so on behalf of the other Member States. It is therefore not enough to tackle the employers. We must address illegal immigration in its entire context.

(PT) Madam President, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, during this plenary sitting, we have adopted several measures aimed at creating a coherent and integrated immigration policy. This common policy must, firstly, involve legal channels for immigration as well as the integration of these immigrants into the host societies. To this end, two months ago we adopted the Directive on the Blue Card and the Directive on a single application procedure for a single permit to reside and work in the EU.

At the same time, we must fight illegal immigration effectively, as well as all forms of criminality that are associated with it. This initiative seeks to fight the pull-factors for illegal immigration into the European area and bring an end to the exploitation of illegal workers. It is important for those who attempt to enter the European area at any price - sometimes paying with their own lives - to understand that there is only one possible route: legal immigration, with all its inherent rights and opportunities. It is estimated that there are between 5 and 8 million illegally staying immigrants in the European Union; a significant number are doing low-skilled, fairly low-paid jobs and, in some cases, being severely exploited. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Fava, and, in particular, my colleague Mrs Bauer, on their work and on the compromise reached.

I therefore agree with combating illegal work across the European Union. The intention of this directive is to ensure that all Member States are able to introduce similar sanctions for employing illegal immigrants and enforce them effectively. It will be possible to impose three types of sanction: financial, administrative and criminal, depending on the gravity of the infringement. There will also be a requirement for employers to take preventative measures and to check the immigration status of these individuals in order to avoid employing workers who are staying in the Union illegally.

(DE) Madam President, firstly, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Claudio Fava, on this report and on the fact that agreement was reached in the trialogue meeting. Of course, it is always possible to ask for more and to achieve more. However, the fact that it has at last been recognised within the European Union that illegal immigrants who are caught must also be granted rights and must be protected against exploitation represents an important step forward.

Of course, this must form part of an overall policy on migration and immigration. No one disputes this. However, there is one thing that I do not understand. While the Greens - Jean Lambert is no longer here - or those on the left from the so-called communist side, such as Giusto Catania, maintain that this does not work, that it has once again come to nothing, that nothing can help, I would like to say that it does not help to promise the people living in these difficult situations a four-course meal and then to fail to give them their daily bread. This is cowardly and unhelpful. I have to ask myself what the Greens really want if they always vote against measures which would improve people's situations. We have already seen this in the case of many reports and actions.

In addition, there is nothing to prevent national states from establishing proper controls, imposing fines and making subsidies and national and EU funding unavailable to companies who employ illegal immigrants.

I would like to see the same tough approach which the Member States sometimes use in the case of illegal immigrants being applied to tax evaders and those who work on the black market. Of course, we must speak to our colleagues in the national parliaments to encourage them to demand that illegal immigrants be granted the rights which have been decided on here. There is, of course, one thing that we can be sure of. If someone is employed illegally because he can no longer survive in his own country, he does not have the option of going to the police and saying that he is being exploited. In the same way, a woman who has been raped cannot report the crime. Both of these people know that if they do go to the authorities, they will be deported.

This is why we will be voting in favour of this report. It represents the first step in the right direction.

(DE) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I believe that what Mr Kreissl-Dörfler has said is right. I would like to thank Mr Fava for his report and for the excellent work that he has done.

The report makes it clear that both parties involved in illegal employment must be held equally liable, which will create a legal balance. Illegal employment must be penalised and prohibited in all Member States.

Employers must be made responsible for upholding this ban, but it is also the job of the relevant authorities to monitor the observance of the ban and to impose penalties. The most important issue is to protect the people in these employment relationships from exploitation.

Establishing legal penalties certainly represents a step forward. However, the authorities must put in place more controls and prosecute those suspected of committing offences. The report is a compromise between the Council and the European Parliament and specifies minimum standards.

Nevertheless, the prospect of Member States strengthening or weakening the requirements is not inspiring. We have taken the first step forward. Now we should go the rest of the way together. I think I can say, at least for myself and on behalf of parts of my group, if not for the majority, that we can support this report in good conscience.

(EL) Madam President, the directive we are examining concerns one of the most basic aspects of development and economic sustainability in our countries. It concerns illegal employment, which often leads to wage compression and a reduction in state revenue, with all the concomitant difficulties in providing benefits, and a reduction in the operation of the welfare state. It deprives employees of access to social and other insurance, to pensions and even to bodies responsible for protecting the conditions that prevail at their place of work.

Unfortunately, illegal employment forms part of the current system, which has resulted in a global economic crisis that we need to address with means which will help to safeguard not only therapeutic, but also real corrective measures which will safeguard prosperity in the long term. As such, we consider that the fight against illegal employment cannot be examined in a piecemeal manner. The measures being proposed to safeguard a humane approach to immigrants do not satisfy us. Let us take care, therefore, not to turn them into duplicate issues.

(EL) Madam President, the rapporteur Claudio Fava and the shadow rapporteurs truly deserve our hearty congratulations. They have managed to achieve an exceptional compromise with the Council, with the help, of course, of Vice-President Mr Barrot, whom I also congratulate. At long last, the directive imposing sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants has been advanced to the stage of final approval. I believe that, formulated as it is now, the directive will effectively serve the objective of combating the employment of illegal immigrants. This is the first time that the European Union has turned its attention in the right direction towards people who exploit illegal immigrants, towards employers who break the law. At long last, the employment of illegal immigrants has been criminalised. The criminal and other sanctions provided for in the directive will, I am sure, be a frightening deterrent which will help to limit and prevent the unacceptable exploitation of illegal immigrants. Multiple, balanced and realistic sanctions are provided for in the directive. I trust that they will prove to be effective. Despite the fact that illegal immigrants are treated as victims and protected by the directive, they too are being given a dissuasive message that it will no longer be easy for them to find employment and, consequently, that there will be no attraction in obtaining work even on unfavourable terms. However, special care must be taken for all those illegal immigrants who are already in the European Union. In my country, Cyprus, where illegal immigration is a huge problem, illegal employment was criminalised some time ago. Of course, it has not wiped out illegal employment, but it has limited it. However, with the multiple sanctions provided for in the directive and the system of inspections of employers being introduced, the problem of employment of illegal immigrants and of illegal immigration in general will certainly be mitigated.

(FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Fava for the remarkable job he has done over the last few months to produce this balanced text.

It was no easy task and the path was strewn with pitfalls. However, I think the results are very positive and I will mention three points in particular.

The sanction applies here to the offending employer, whilst the migrant is considered to be the victim. Apart from financial penalties, penal sanctions are recommended for repeat offenders, for trafficking in human beings or exploitation of minors. I believe that penal sanctions are essential and I also believe that it is up to us to ensure that regular checks are carried out so that this directive is effective.

Another positive point to mention is the automatic payment of outstanding wages to the workers. Finally, associations and unions are advocating the defence of the interests of workers living in a country illegally so that they can report a dishonest employer without fear of subsequent prosecution.

Of course, as with many other texts, we could have gone further but can we take the risk of threatening the compromise position when this text will already allow major advances in protecting workers and their dignity?

We need to support a balanced view of the migration issue and recognise that immigration for work is more than necessary and will become increasingly so in the future given the demographic forecasts.

In this context, it is therefore essential to state that the model we want is one in which immigrant workers are viewed as fully-fledged workers enjoying the same rights as workers from Member States.

We must therefore mobilise to defend these rights and this is why I think we should give our support to this report, because it is a decisive step in the introduction of minimum standards and in the fight against illegal working and the exploitation of migrant workers.

(SV) We know that more and more people are hiding within the EU's borders. We know that, in the near future, the EU will need rising numbers of immigrant workers. We also know that thousands of people every week are trying to find a better life in Europe. Many of them die on their way to our continent. We know that many people without documents are exploited and live in miserable conditions. This is not worthy of the European Union. The universal values that the EU wants to spread throughout the world include the right of every person to a dignified life. There is a shameful paradox here.

The fact that the EU is to have a common asylum and migration policy is reasonable, but it must not mean that those countries that want to take a harder line and hunt down people in various ways should be the ones making the decisions. This will reduce the chances of finding a decent life in Europe. At the same time, it is important that the devious employers who exploit people in a vulnerable position know that punishment and sanctions can be meted out anywhere in the EU.

I admit that the report is a difficult balancing act and I can sympathise with Mr Catania's reasoning with regard to his reservation. However, the compromise is a step in the right direction, even if I have certain opinions on, for example, the extent of the employer's reporting obligations.

I would like to say to Mrs Segelström that we do not have a conservative government in Sweden. We have a four-party government with strong liberal elements.

(PT) The Fava report introduces progress and humanisation into the immigration laws. It provides us with the moral reassurance which we have owed ourselves since the Return Directive. The general ban on employing illegal immigrants not only avoids the endemic illegality of immigration, but above all avoids the potential for exploitation and taking advantage of human misery that generally goes hand in hand with this type of work.

The first essential point about the Fava report is that it challenges the school of thought on illegal immigration that settles for an easy but unacceptable condemnation of immigrants, instead setting out a systemic response that makes the state and the employer equally responsible. Until now, the main failure of immigration policies has been the lack of a fair response to the terrible situation of illegal immigrants, with the weight of the legal system falling on them and their status as culprits rather than as victims.

The second essential point about the report is that it brings into the European public arena an ethic of shared responsibility between the state and companies. The obligation of employers to carry out advance supervision by checking workers' residence status is valuable in that it grants a competency to the private sector; something that the European Union has not often tried. We applaud this competency because the defence of legality and public ethics falls not just to the state, but to everyone. The report is therefore blazing a trail for a new political method which other reports ought to follow.

The third point - and, coincidentally, the most fundamental one - is the crucial separation of the obligation to pay remuneration from the problem of the legality of residency. It constitutes a simple declaration of the universal moral precept that states that humanity comes before the rules of the legal system and takes precedence over them.

Congratulations, therefore, to Mr Fava.

(ES) Madam President, firstly I would like to thank our rapporteur, Claudio Fava, for his hard work in reaching a common position with the Council; the result includes many improvements suggested by our Parliament.

With this directive, once again we are showing our commitment to developing a common migration policy based on a global approach. The aim of this directive is clear: to fight against mafia groups, to penalise unscrupulous employers and to protect exploited immigrants who have no form of social protection.

We want to see the disappearance of starvation wages, which are unfair on immigrants and, what is more, distort average wages, particularly in sectors such as construction, agriculture, domestic services and the hotel industry.

These measures require a great deal of courage and political will, for there are many vested interests and a lot of money circulating in the informal economy. Particularly in difficult times, it is more important than ever that we manage migration flows intelligently and generously, but responsibly.

It would be easy to succumb to the temptation of not trying to keep the informal economy in check. We cannot look the other way and leave some 8 million illegal immigrants defenceless against working conditions bordering on slavery.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we want this directive to be effective, there need to be rigorous inspections and economic sanctions, including criminal sanctions in the most serious cases, which will act as a deterrent to employers.

We will thus succeed in shrinking the informal economy market and putting an end to the incentive to migrate that arises from the possibility of working illegally. It must be made clear that working legally is the only way to work in Europe. For this reason, we want to move forward with a global approach and, Commissioner, Mr Barrot, we call on the Commission to introduce the new 'blue cards' for all other employment categories as soon as possible.

(PL) The result of easy access to illegal work is that there are several million illegal immigrants in the European Union. Illegal employment, very often in conditions of exploitation, leads to reductions in pay levels in the sector concerned and also imperils competition between businesses. Furthermore, unregistered workers do not benefit from health insurance or pension rights. It is therefore essential to establish mechanisms which will enable exploited workers to file complaints against their employers personally or through the agency of a third party.

I will also draw your attention to the fact that the directive should also include in its scope workers who are legally resident in the EU, in particular, citizens of the Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007, and who are still subject to transitional provisions which restrict their access to legal work.

(EL) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, today's proposal forms part of an overall attempt to find a solution to immigration policy in the European Union which, of course, we must all accept smacks of dishonesty. Dishonesty because we are trying to correct certain aspects of this policy with the blue card, with the decision to remove illegal workers, with the decision today to punish employers of illegal immigrants, but these are only some aspects of the problem that we are trying to correct.

Of course, we cannot understand how an illegal worker takes on work and the person who takes him on in order to cover his residency and survival costs is ultimately punished. It is a logical contradiction which we need to cover with the terms imposed by decent work. The legislation of all 27 Member States prohibits illegal and undeclared work, especially with the dual absurdity we have here of illegal entry to the Member State and illegal exploitation. The problem is therefore a complicated one and the compromise achieved does, of course, have a lot of gaps. One such gap is with employees who are used mainly by people, shall we say, for charitable reasons and, of course, they provide work but, at the same time, they find a way to live. What will become of them? How will they live the rest of their life within the framework of their forced illegality, given that neighbouring countries have not accepted the return of immigrants?

(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we well know in this House, compromises must be analysed by separating the pros and the cons and reaching an overall judgment that takes on board the constraints and the legislative and political context.

With regard to the employment sphere, a prominent element in the directive that will be put to the vote tomorrow, our judgment is positive on many aspects. Some positive points include the insertion of a definition of remuneration that makes comparison possible with legal employment relations; the reduction of the procedural burdens of sanctions for domestic and care work; and the linking and strengthening of Community provisions protecting the victims of trafficking and exploitation, particularly minors. The undertaking not to regard the provision on subcontracting as a precedent is also important.

Some doubt remains on liability in the chain of employers and on the difficulties workers face in receiving payments due to them before they leave the country. The question is not entirely hazy but, since this directive is tightly bound to the Return Directive, its hands are tied with regard to the situation of illegal workers and employers who have not been able to find legal employment routes.

My confidence that we will decide to adopt this document at first reading is not diminished if I point out a couple of risks: the risk that Parliament's work will continue to suffer pressure from the national governments, and the risk that we will be reinforcing the 'evil stepmother' face of Europe.

(FR) Madam President, this draft directive is of key importance in the fight against illegal immigration and has been essential to the introduction of a common policy on immigration. We are all aware that undeclared work is the main attraction for the thousands of men and women who cross our borders every day in search of a decent job and a way to feed their families.

In reality, they often find employers who use and abuse their fragile situation and their ignorance of their rights to exploit them and use them as cheap labour. This is what we know as modern slavery.

We must not hide the fact that this phenomenon also involves individuals, be they European citizens or people from third countries, who are working and residing normally, but who fall outside the scope of this directive, as it forms part of the framework of the fight against illegal immigration.

It is not a case here of pointing the finger at men and women who are often of good faith yet are victims of dishonest networks or employers. The aim of this text must be precisely to protect these vulnerable people and ensure that their most basic, most fundamental rights are respected; this is precisely the declared objective and ambition of the compromise achieved.

We should not tar all employers with the same brush and, of course, we should not treat someone who employs a person in good faith, believing them to be working and residing legally, in the same way as those who seek to exploit the situation of these people.

We need to be firm, to send out a clear message. We need courageous provisions that are conscientiously applied. The adoption of this text will indeed send out two clear signals. The first is to employers, to tell them they will be unable to carry on abusing this vulnerable workforce and they will thus be truly dissuaded from recruiting an illegal immigrant. The second signal is to those thousands of would-be illegal immigrants who will be discouraged by the rigorous employment conditions in Europe.

My thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and to the rapporteur and, like many, I hope this text will soon be put in place to fight against illegal immigration and, therefore, the promotion of immigration...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(PL) Madam President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur. I am aware that it was no easy task to reach a compromise solution taking account of the interests of the national labour market whilst simultaneously protecting immigrants against exploitation. Mr Fava is certainly to be commended.

I travelled to Italy, to Foggia, as soon as the so-called work camps were discovered. In the latter, both Union citizens and illegal immigrants were living and operating in appalling circumstances. I have an abiding memory of the conditions in which they were living and working. Indeed, they often died as a result of hunger and cruel inhumane treatment. I warmly welcome this directive because it will at last put labour relations on a civilised footing. It represents a victory over grasping employers, their pursuit of profit, a cheap and often even free labour force, and their exploitation of illegal immigrants.

For this directive to come into force, it must be implemented in all Member States. Paradoxically, under the internal law of the latter, illegal employment is considered a punishable action, and an offence. Nonetheless, the law is not working. We must therefore make every effort to implement this directive. All the necessary legal mechanisms need to be in place so that no more unfortunate cases of this kind can arise.

I should now like to address the British Members of this House, and ask them to tell their employers that illegal employment of immigrants is a crime. Do not complain that the Union...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(DE) Madam President, the most important result of this report is that not only illegally employed third-country nationals, but also their employers, will be penalised. We must be aware - and this really is a crime - that these people are being exploited even in a progressive confederation of states such as Europe. Someone is making a good profit out of them. They have no right to healthcare or pensions and they live in constant fear of being caught and sent back to their home country.

For this reason, I believe that another very important point is the opportunity in future of imposing penalties on employers who exploit illegal immigrants. Measures such as fines, responsibility for the cost of deportation, withdrawal of public funding or support or even temporary or permanent closure of the business are, in my opinion, urgently needed to bring about a change in the situation. Regular and effective inspections by the individual Member States are also, of course, essential in this respect, along with the possibility of requiring tax and social security contributions to be paid retrospectively.

A Europe in which some people are exploited by others is not a truly social Europe. It is my belief that this directive represents a step in the right direction. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his outstanding work. However, this must not, under any circumstances, be the last step that we take.

(RO) I feel that this legislative initiative is welcome at a time when workers from third countries account for a non-negligible percentage of the European Union's labour force, making illegal immigration a concern. With this in mind, I would like to stress the need to establish a legislative framework which will allow us to define more clearly the sanctions to be imposed on employers of third-country immigrants staying illegally in the European Union, considering that illegal work is an alarming problem at European level and exploitation of the immigrant labour force is a reality.

We also need to be aware that a number of employers are boosting their profits by employing immigrants without papers, thereby avoiding payment of social insurance contribution or taxes to the state. We must also ensure that this kind of behaviour is appropriately punished.

This is why each individual state must adopt measures to combat illegal employment, offer greater protection to immigrants and organise regular inspections, especially in business sectors where illegal immigrants are assumed to be employed. We also want access to be given to the European labour market in a controlled manner and for immigrants' rights to be respected. For this reason, we are asking Member States to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure more effective cooperation and facilitate the exchange of information between the national authorities involved.

(FR) Madam President, I would first like to congratulate Mr Fava for his excellent work that will allow the adoption of a directive setting out sanctions for the employers of illegal workers.

However, I would like to draw your attention to the complexity of the current situation. We need to draw up legislation which is equal to this complexity.

Throughout the European Union, those who place orders are resorting to a cascade of subcontracting, using subcontractors from the Member States without knowing whether or not the employees are working legally. An amendment was proposed that would check the legality of their employees' situation. Why has it not been included?

Also, it is stipulated that the main contractor is responsible for the payment of wages, but only if they know that the subcontractors are employing illegal immigrants. Well, you are not going to find anyone who places an order who will spontaneously admit their guilt.

Finally, the best directive in the world can only be effective if it is accompanied by real checking mechanisms. We could improve these checks if we had more employment inspectors in each European country with wider roles.

It is essential that we design a more rigorous legal arsenal as soon as possible so that those placing orders are declared wholly responsible in case of fault on the part of subcontractors.

We should not close our eyes to known practices in certain economic sectors that are complicit in the activities of organised illegal immigration networks.

(CS) Madam President, in the context of this report, I would like to draw your attention to an urgent problem that has emerged as regards the present crisis. In some countries - including my own - we are witnessing the mass dismissal of agency workers, the majority of whom came to our country from eastern European and Asian countries. They have become illegal workers. After their dismissal, they have been left with no means of support, and so become pawns in the hands of so-called 'entrepreneurs' who subject them to even worse exploitation than the agencies did. At the same time, I would like to reiterate the very inadequate human resources that labour inspectorates have at their disposal in many of our Member States. Nothing will change unless we set up a thoroughly trained and equipped network of inspectors who understand labour legislation and who are familiar with European directives.

While the European institutions have now agreed on certain standards for business, there is usually an outcry among the Member States whenever even the slightest attempt is made to do something similar in the field of social legislation. Referring to tradition, subsidiarity and the like in a situation when workers in the European Union are subjected to unbridled exploitation is ridiculous and hypocritical. For this reason, I welcome any attempts to prosecute and sanction those who employ illegal immigrants and I thank Mr Fava.

(RO) Illegal employment is concentrated in certain sectors where the work is assumed to be of an unskilled nature, such as construction, agriculture, cleaning and the hotel and catering industry. These sectors use illegal labour to an alarming degree. Especially in times of crisis, employers are tempted to try to get round the law and resort to illegal workers in order to maintain profits or simply survive on the market.

The document we have before us today marks a step towards reducing the incidence of illegal employment, which has so many adverse repercussions from a fiscal and social perspective. It is a good idea for us to punish the illegal employment of third-country nationals, but we must not forget that the same scourge is afflicting our fellow citizens from the European Union's less developed Member States. Even Romanians are facing numerous abuses by employers within the European Union.

With regard to the report text, I would like to see tougher sanctions for punishing labour market intermediaries.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel that we are dealing with this subject at a particularly sensitive time.

The international economic crisis has led, or is leading, the countries that are in the worst crisis to use illegal labour, which almost always involves illegal immigrants, especially in certain sectors, among which construction, agriculture and others have been mentioned. This encourages illegal immigration, resulting in the tragedies that we have been experiencing. It is not surprising, then, that illegal immigration is increasing enormously, and this afternoon and tomorrow, we will be dealing in this House with the problems of Lampedusa and other border countries.

This measure therefore comes at just the right moment. I believe, therefore, that the sanctions laid down for employers will certainly act as a further deterrent, because there are already sanctions for illegal work, especially involving illegal immigrants. These sanctions will further deter employers from hiring workers.

We have heard that there are 8 million illegal residents doing illegal work; we must assume that as soon as these measures enter into force, we will have 8 million illegal immigrants on the streets, and we will have to deal with them. I think this is a problem that we must start to recognise, because otherwise those who survive illegally, but survive none the less, will be officially reported as illegal by their employers, who will no longer be able to house them, and we will have an enormous problem of 8 million people in Europe that we will have to expel and help. I believe this is a subject that must be addressed in advance - I am finishing, as I see I am out of time. We must look carefully at the problem of the temporary hiring of workers, particularly in agriculture, and we must cut out red tape to facilitate their inclusion and acceptance.

(CS) Madam President, illegal employment not only affects five to ten million people but, in particular, those who employ them. Unlike the author of this report, I believe that the problem affects not just illegal migrants from third countries, but also millions of citizens of the European Union who do occasional work for wages which are not taxed and from which the employers do not deduct insurance contributions. The growth of illegal work seriously undermines economic competition. One effective cure that the Member States have at their disposal would be to reduce the tax burden on employment. However, I also support this proposal of the Commission to harmonise sanctions for employers, as I believe that consistent sanctions aimed mainly at employers who are repeat offenders will restrict the availability of illegal work and, hence, also the number of illegal migrants. It will also reduce the scope for social exclusion and, to some extent, also the exploitation of the citizens of third countries. However, I see problems in placing the onus of checking the residential entitlement of workers on employers.

(PL) Madam President, I should like to return to the issue of sanctions against employers whose subcontractors employ illegal workers. I am very concerned about this provision, because an employer has no way of checking if the subcontractor is employing such persons or not. Should the employer even harbour any suspicions that such is the case, what action should the employer then take? Should he or she report the matter to the police, or terminate the contract? If the contract is terminated, the employer risks being taken to court, and it would then be necessary to justify the reasons for terminating the contract. The employer would not be in a position to provide the relevant evidence. I would therefore like to reiterate my serious concern about this provision. The provision may well turn out to be useless. Alternatively, it may be that it will be used to sanction employers unfairly and unjustifiably.

Madam President, I welcome the report as we need to highlight and tackle this problem of employers exploiting illegal immigrants. I have received representations from constituents, so I welcome action on this matter.

There are numerous damaging consequences, including the exploitation of immigrants through underpayment or, in some cases, non-payment. It creates negative pressures on the wages of legally resident workers and distortion of competition between companies that comply with employment legislation and those who flaunt it.

In conclusion, if we are to strive to stamp out this illegal practice in our Member States, we have to get across that this is not only a workers' rights issue but also a competition issue.

(PL) Madam President, I should like to conclude the comment made in my main intervention, and explain what I wished to convey to the United Kingdom MEPs who are complaining that this directive is interventionist and amounts to interference in the internal affairs of Member States. In fact, rather than interfering, it actually puts things in order.

I wanted to say to the United Kingdom MEPs who have voiced complaints that they should approach employers back home to ensure that immigrants' rights are respected and that individuals illegally present on the territory of the United Kingdom are not employed. Then we could all agree that this is a good directive.

(PL) It has been suggested that migration might be one way of alleviating the negative consequences of the demographic crisis. It is very important to encourage citizens of third countries to enter the territory of the Union in order to take up employment. We are, however, only interested in legal residence and legal employment. Illegal foreign workers mean budgetary losses and distort healthy competition between enterprises. The employers benefit most from the efforts of illegal workers. They can easily procure a cheap labour force. Foreigners from third countries are most often employed in the heaviest and lowest paid jobs. As they are in a difficult situation, they are prepared to do everything the employers ask of them. The latter often exploit their despair. Not only are these people poorly paid, but they are also working without any social protection or health insurance and are under constant threat of expulsion from the country where they are staying. The Union should make it easier for immigrants to take up employment, and we should act accordingly. I have in mind, for example, work in Poland for citizens of Ukraine.

Madam President, I think this very interesting debate, for which I thank all the speakers, has shown that there is very broad agreement in Parliament on the need to target employers who take on and, very often, exploit illegal immigrants.

I would point out to Parliament that the impact assessment the Commission carried out showed that the current sanctions have failed to guarantee compliance with the rules. The directive has improved this situation by obliging Member States to introduce equivalent penalties and ensure their effective application. At the start of this sitting, I also stressed that the Commission will monitor the inspections that Member States have to carry out.

I would also like to thank Mr Fava and Parliament once again for having enabled this compromise. It seems to me to be a good first step.

I would also point out that this directive is part of the framework of the European Union's common immigration policy. We must, of course, fight against illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. This is the subject we are dealing with today, but we must also underline the benefits of legal immigration. Apart from the two proposals presented in October 2007, on the blue card for highly qualified migrant workers and on the single permit, relating to migrant rights, in spring 2009, the Commission will present three other draft directives on legal immigration aimed at establishing common rules for seasonal workers, who are generally less qualified, for individuals transferred within their companies and for paid trainees.

I would add that the Commission, in accordance with its commitment to the European Parliament and within the framework of the preparation and implementation of the Stockholm programme, will consider if there is a need for legislation for other categories of migrant workers.

There you have it. I felt it was necessary to put this proposed directive in the general context of the Pact on Immigration and Asylum. I wanted to bring it before Parliament to show that your wishes will be put into effect. Thank you as well for the quality of this debate.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the Commissioner's remarks and hopes. Parliament has, I think, said quite clearly - and not just today - that measures on legal immigration are needed and immigration needs to be dealt with in an overall context, which does not just seek to produce punitive measures against illegal immigration.

We are overdue in that respect, and of course we are not happy that the Treaties do not authorise this Parliament to enter into a codecision procedure with the Council on legal immigration. The legal basis that now constrains us to talking only about legislation to combat immigration is something that I too find frustrating, but it is the legal basis that we have to abide by.

Having said that, I believe that our report today has introduced articles that genuinely protect the rights of foreign workers, even if they are illegal immigrants. I am thinking of the temporary residence permit for minors who have been exploited. I am thinking about pay: it is, at last, expressly stated that remuneration cannot be lower than that which the law recognises for all other European citizens. I am thinking of the role of the trade unions which, for the first time, can defend and represent foreign workers, even illegal ones, in administrative and civil cases.

These, I believe, are all reasons why we can talk of recovered rights, a step forward and not back, and a directive that tackles a difficult and sensitive subject, but with a sense of balance to which this Parliament is particularly alert.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 4 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

This report has various merits.

Its first is that it aims to be informative: it records the alarming facts of the growth of illegal immigration in Europe, immigration estimated, according to the Commission's own figures, at between 4.5 and 8 million people. It also identifies those sectors of the economy in which illegal working is most concentrated, namely, construction, agriculture, cleaning, hotels and catering.

Its second merit is that it intensifies the fight against undeclared work, particularly with the option of financial and penal sanctions for employers of illegal workers.

Unfortunately, the report has many limitations. It says nothing on what measures should be taken to stem these intermittent flows of illegal immigration. It does not even consider the reintroduction of checks at internal borders.

In a time of both social and economic crisis and a big rise in unemployment, the first requirement for the countries of the Union is to protect their jobs. To do so, it is essential to introduce national and European social protection policies. Jobs in France must be reserved for the French, while jobs in Europe are reserved for Europeans. Application of the principles of national and European preference and protection is an essential condition for economic and social recovery in the countries of the European Union.

No one can cast any doubt on either the usefulness or timeliness of the measures aimed at punishing those employing illegal immigrants. The country which I represent is less prone to these particular concerns because it is still more of a transit country for illegal immigration.

At the same time, we need to be aware of the future risks which we are exposed to. As regards the actual report, I welcome the proposal to remove the mandatory control percentage which the Commission would like to impose. This percentage is excessive and would only have the effect of generating red tape and huge public expenditure, without actually making an impact.

I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur on the fine job he has done. We all know that between 4.5 and 8 million illegal immigrants work in the European Union in sectors such as construction, agriculture and tourism.

I welcome the fact that the directive provides for criminal sanctions against employers guilty of repeat offences, of employing a large number of people whose status is unlawful, if the employee is a victim of human trafficking and the employer is aware of this fact, or if the employee is a minor.

Member States must also establish a mechanism which offers illegal immigrants the opportunity to lodge a complaint when they are, for example, victims of exploitation.

We must bear in mind the fact that people staying illegally have left their country of origin to provide a better future for their families. An ever-growing number of children are being left behind: some are unsupervised, while others are left in the care of grandparents and neighbours, and even in institutions.

Whenever these children accompany their parents, we need to offer them the chance to have access to the education system and social protection within the European Union, even if they are staying illegally.

The report compiled by Claudio Fava is part of the package of measures aimed at combating illegal immigration by discouraging companies from employing these people. Unfortunately, the rapporteur placed too much emphasis on measures aimed at punishing employers and supported the extension of illegal immigrants' rights.

As it is extremely important to maintain a balance with regard to the sanctions which can be imposed on employers, I have tried, with the amendments I have proposed, to highlight those provisions in the report where sanctions against employers are too harsh and which could have left scope for an interpretation which would lead to abuses against them.

At the same time, special attention must be focused on the humanitarian situation of these immigrants. For this reason, it is of paramount importance to encourage Member States to impose criminal sanctions in serious cases, such as when the employer knows that the employee is a victim of human trafficking. In addition, the verification and notification obligations incumbent upon employers as specified by the report play a proper role in making the latter accountable with regard to this acute problem which we are facing in the EU with ever-increasing frequency.

The Member States should cooperate more closely to combat illegal immigration by strengthening action against illegal employment at the level of Member States of the European Union. One of the main factors encouraging illegal immigrants to travel to the EU is the possibility of taking a job without the need to regularise their legal status. Action against illegal immigration and illegal residence should serve as a deterrent.

Nonetheless, the directive on combating illegal immigration should apply without detriment to national legislation banning illegal employment of third country citizens who are legally resident on the territory of Member States, but who are working in violation of their status as authorised residents.

Reducing the financial penalties for employers of third country nationals should also be considered in cases where the employer is a natural person.

Common definitions, methods and standards in the area of combating illegal immigration are a sine qua non in the process of creating a common European policy on migration.

in writing. - (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking all those involved in drafting the directive.

The statistics on the number of illegal workers in the Union are alarming. Close cooperation is undoubtedly needed in order to combat illegal immigration. Dealing with illegal employment is a priority of the EU's strategy in the area of immigration.

The draft directive leaves something to be desired. It could be wider in scope and cover citizens legally resident on the territory of the EU, but employed in very unfavourable conditions. It would also be beneficial to broaden the definition of employer to include temporary work agencies and also employment agents. Despite its shortcomings, the project under debate merits commendation.

It is true that employers bear responsibility for illegal employment. The directive imposes additional administrative obligations on employers and provides for a range of different sanctions for failing to meet these obligations. This does not, however, mean that the directive is only about penalising employers.

I should like to make it very clear that our primary aim is to do away with situations where individuals are exploited at work. It must be made impossible for people to be employed in undignified and inhumane conditions, deprived of their rights and of basic social benefits. I believe that the directive in question is essential in order to obtain minimum harmonisation of provisions banning illegal employment. I trust, too, that these provisions will be effectively implemented by the Member States.

1. Extension of the EC-USA agreement for scientific and technological cooperation (

2. Renewal of the Agreement between the EC and Russia on cooperation in science and technology (

3. Wilderness in Europe (

rapporteur. - Mr President, as we did not have a plenary debate on this item and there was no possibility to table amendments following the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, you either have to trust your rapporteur - myself - or reject the whole resolution. In my view, it is not a good system, but that is the current tool.

Many aspects of the Natura 2000 Directives should be reopened in the near future in any case and hopefully, the legislative act will cover the wilderness areas as well, giving full opportunity for the next Assembly to go further on this beautiful topic. I hope that my resolution will become a basis for further legislative actions providing the possibility for members to improve it in the future.

4. Request for waiver of the immunity of Miloslav Ransdorf (

5. General and business aviation (

6. Pre-commercial procurement: driving innovation to ensure sustainable high quality public services in Europe (

7. Second Strategic Energy Review (

8. Non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity (

(ES) Mr President, I would like to make a minor linguistic, and perhaps semantic, observation.

(PL) Paragraph A contains the wording '...and recognising the diversity of 21st century family patterns...' rendered in other languages as 'a także uznając różnorodność wzorców rodziny...' '...en reconnaissant la diversité de schémas familiaux...' '...Anerkennung der Vielfalt der Familienmodels...'. If this is to be understood as acceptance of diversity along with a model of a single sex family, if that was indeed what Mrs Záborská intended, then I shall vote against it. I would welcome clarification as to whether this is simply about noting that such models have been observed, or whether it is about recognising and accepting them. We need to understand what we are voting on.

Thank you, Mr President and Mr Zaleski. Of course, in this context we recognise other models.

It is clear then, Mr Zaleski: we note that they exist.

9. Combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (

Voting time

We shall now proceed to the vote.

(For results and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

(CS) Wilderness and its diversity represent a gift and treasure that humanity should look after not just in the European Union. The European Union's efforts will remain ineffective as long as we do not stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, plundering Asian, African and American waters, as long as we do not spread more effective education about our joint responsibility for protecting nature against humanity all over the planet, and it will make this report, which I also supported today, just another scrap of paper.

(PL) Mr President, if we wish to halt the accelerating process of loss of biodiversity, it is essential to protect Europe's wildernesses forests and water bodies. For our common actions to be effective, it is vital, firstly, to draw up unequivocal definitions of wildernesses and to establish the precise location of the latter on the map of the Community.

It is also vital to develop a strategy based on expert analyses of risks and of the processes involved in the degradation of wilderness areas. This relates, in particular, to the invasion of foreign species that compete with the indigenous ones, and also to the impact of ongoing climate change.

Another key issue is tourism in its broadest sense. I refer, in particular, to the implications of unsustainable or indeed aggressive tourism. If we are to raise awareness of these issues amongst the Community's citizens, it is important to conduct information campaigns, to provide special funds in the framework of local authority institutions and to support grass roots initiatives.

Mr President, I would like to congratulate Gyula Hegyi on his dossier and thorough research.

At this time of global climate change and environmental troubles, it is clear that we need to address the issue of the European wilderness. I believe that it is important that we coordinate a strategy for the protection and restoration of our precious wild lands. We have a responsibility to nature to use land properly.

In my own country, Slovakia, an increase in the bark beetle population forced the national park services in the High Tatra region to use pesticides to combat the corrosive nature of the insect. However, these pesticides contain the chemical cypermethrin, which often destroys healthy vegetation and poses serious health risks for humans and animals in the region.

Just as we must find a better solution to this dramatic insect population explosion in Slovakia, it is necessary across Europe to find ways to effectively protect our natural and wild lands. I urge the European Parliament to act responsibly and quickly in order to protect the remaining wilderness.

(CS) Mr President, I am pleased to support the report on pre-commercial procurement as it greatly minimises the risk of investing in innovation. This aspect is particularly important at a time of recession. The success of pre-commercial procurement will enable public institutions to collaborate in developing new products in order to improve the quality of public services. We believe that this will increase the interest of SMEs in proposing innovative solutions for improving the quality of public transport, healthcare, reducing energy consumption in public buildings and protecting citizens from security threats without having to intrude upon their privacy. This new approach will help Europe's public sector to tackle fundamental public tasks without state aid while, at the same time, increasing the innovative potential of European firms. With this report, we have given the European Commission a powerful signal to hurry up and make some specific legislative changes.

(CS) Mr President-in-Office, at this point, I would like to express my opinion on the unbundling of production and transmission systems for gas in connection with the adopted legislation. The proposed certification procedure for third countries seems a reasonable solution. This is the very first time that the EU is giving its attention to energy security in the context of the gas market. In response to the gas crisis which we have experienced, it is also necessary to speed up the construction of alternative pipelines to Europe which are not dependent on Russia. The main infrastructure projects, such as the Nabucco gas pipeline, which is to link the Caspian region with Europe, cannot exist without large-scale vertically integrated undertakings and their investments. However, these are hardly going to come pouring in if the risk of unbundling, and hence a weakened economic position, is hanging over them. The solution that Parliament could use is to establish exemption from unbundling for the new infrastructure until such time as there is a return on investments. I do not know whether we have exhausted all the possibilities open to us in this legislation.

(PL) Mr President, the common energy policy is currently one of the greatest challenges facing the European Union. Our response to it must be based on solidarity.

We are all aware that Russia remains one of our most important and also most difficult trading partners. The fact that Russia is our main source of gas supply cannot, however, be allowed to mean that it can receive special treatment. The rapporteur suggests relaxing the Union's policy towards the Russian Federation. I believe that we must pursue a fair but strict policy towards a trading partner that uses the raw materials of energy as a weapon with which to exert political pressure.

It is emphasised that diversification of energy sources is one of the fundamental issues arising in the area of energy security. One way of tackling this would be to free ourselves from dependency on Russian raw materials. The construction of the Nabucco pipeline and the exploitation of other sources of energy are steps in this direction.

Mr President, once more we have preened ourselves in this Parliament on our green credentials, and speakers have competed to push higher and higher the unrealistic targets for energy from only renewable sources and the targets for reductions of CO2 emissions - all in the belief that by our puny but costly efforts, we will save the planet.

Yes, we should use and promote sustainable energy sources, but pursuit of what for most has become a dogma with no regard to cost or viability needs to be tempered by reality, including the reality that climate change is not new, but cyclical, as well as the reality that while we inflict these targets on ourselves, manufacturing increasingly switches to where no such restraints inhibit them. One day, we will have to account for the own goals in which the EU excels.

(DA) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Laperrouze's report, but I also voted in favour of a number of amendments, all of which put a question mark against nuclear power as an energy source of the future. They were rejected. By voting in favour of the report as a whole, I am supporting the many good elements it contains, but I also recognise the fact that the majority sees nuclear energy as part of Europe's CO2-free energy mix.

However, I still feel that this is not the solution for the future. The solution for the future is a massive investment in, and development of, renewable energy.

(LT) I agree with the provisions of the Second Strategic European Energy Policy Review, but I would also like to mention some aspects of the gas crisis. The current gas crisis between Ukraine and Russia, unfortunately, not the first one, has affected 15 Central European and Balkan countries. I have not seen figures showing the extent of economic losses which the countries affected have experienced, but I would like to underline the moral and valuable losses. How are EU citizens supposed to feel when the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which was obviously political, ruins the EU economy, energy security, political stability, and EU states are unable to take any measures? I refer to Slovakia and Bulgaria's intentions to renew operations at safe nuclear power stations which had been closed, something which many of us parliamentarians support. When we debate any EU legal act, including any in the field of energy, we stress that the consumer is most important, in other words, a layman. When are we going to pay attention to a layman - the European Union citizen?

Mr President, to many colleagues, a target of a 95% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 may seem extreme but, if we are to accept - as I do - the peer-reviewed science as represented by the latest IPCC report, that level of reduction will be required if we are to keep the 2 °C increase in global warming in our sights.

Secondly, while I voted against a range of nuclear-related amendments due to my ongoing concerns with nuclear fission, I have no problem with references to research on safety issues or on new generations of nuclear energy. Like many, I watch and wonder as to whether nuclear fusion will ever become a reality.

The third point I would like to put on the record is my ongoing concern with the Irish situation and the lack of transparent and real ownership unbundling of our electricity grid, which remains a major disincentive to investment by other producers, especially using alternative fuels, with the result that the Irish have one of the highest electricity costs in Europe.

Mr President, that issue of high electricity prices in Ireland has been tackled by a colleague of ours, formerly of this Chamber, Simon Coveney, and we hope that he is successful in it.

I voted in favour of this report because it talks about sensible issues like energy efficiency and energy security related to the climate change agenda. I have concerns about nuclear power, as do many people in Ireland, but I think we need to acknowledge that, when interconnectors are up and running, we are likely to be using power generated by the nuclear sector. So, yes, we need research into the safe disposal of nuclear waste and into new developments of this technology to enhance the safety and security of it.

In the absence of that, I remain concerned and voted in accordance with those concerns in relation to this report. I particularly regret that Amendment 37 was rejected, as I think it reflected, very fairly, many of the concerns of this House.

Mr President, I was delighted to be able to support Mr Luís Queiró's report on proportionality and subsidiarity of small airports. We have always tried to have one-size-fits-all policies in the EU, but the EU must recognise that each Member State and all local circumstances require different solutions. Mr Queiró's report has addressed that in its fullest.

There are small airports, there are medium-sized airports and there are large international hubs. We do not want the European Union to be a massive airport structure. We have got the right balance in this report, and that is the way we should be looking at our infrastructure in the future. This is one of the reasons why, in my own constituency of the South-East of England, I am very reluctant indeed to support a third runway at Heathrow when we could have a better structure for Kent in a new airport on the Thames Estuary.

(SK) In practice, it can be seen that the procedure under Article 45(2) has serious shortcomings. Apart from the fact that no one other than the rapporteur in the debate can discuss the topic in plenary, it even deprives the rapporteur of the possibility of discussing individual amending proposals which are problematic in the report.

I did not vote for the amending proposal of the Green group because, on two points, the new version expresses reservations regarding the Czech Presidency's proposal. However, as this is not the official position of the Council, such recommendations are premature and often counterproductive.

If working life is to be compatible with family life, one's professional career must be placed on an equal footing with non-gainful activity which takes place in the context of inter-generational solidarity. I am convinced that the report brings new incentives to eliminate the multiple discrimination facing men and women who freely decide to care for their nearest and dearest.

I would like to emphasise the work done by rapporteur Anna Záborská, but I am sorry that because of the procedural processes, we have not voted on her draft report.

(CS) Mr President, I distance myself from the amendments just announced to the Záborská report on non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity. A mature European society must learn to see full-time care for children and other dependents as a fully valued alternative to professional life. The proposal from the Greens, which attacks this approach by the Czech Presidency and calls it reactionary, is, in my view, erroneous and immature, although the MEPs have unfortunately voted for it. Far from being a reactionary relegation of women to a role of subordination to men, it is a way to rehabilitate the family within society, giving equal rights to men, too. Today it is men, too, who push prams and care for children in hospital. Those men and women who devote part of their lives to caring for a child or for infirm parents are performing socially important work which must not, in future, be considered an inferior occupation. I welcome the fact that the Czech Presidency has placed this approach among its priorities. Our aim must be to create conditions where a man or woman who decides to take this course will not suffer discrimination in the job market and will be able to use a range of options for balancing work and family life according to the principles of flexicurity. We must strengthen parenthood, and hence inter-generational flexicurity, instead of weakening it with obstacles imposed by the labour laws. The prejudices of the last century are deepening the demographic crisis. The Záborská report was a step in the right direction, and I object to the amended version which has been adopted.

(CS) Likewise, I would like to express full support for Mrs Záborská, who has presented her own-initiative report which indeed addresses and underlines the need for inter-generational solidarity between individual family members. This is not only a question of care for the younger generation, the new arrivals in the family. In many cases, we also need to solve the problems of caring for older members of the same family.

I think the Czech Presidency has rightly grasped the urgency of this current demographic situation - and there are also economic benefits to be considered - and I reject the position of the Greens, who have quite wrongly submitted an amending proposal which devalues this correct intention. I fully support Mrs Záborská's report.

At voting time on the final report, my voting machine did not work. I was in favour of the position put forward by Mrs Záborská.

Mr President, thank you for your patience and indulgence. Let me take the opportunity to explain why I voted against the Greens and their amendment. I do not want to vote against the Czech Presidency.

My first point is that the Czech Presidency does not call for a particular change in the so-called Barcelona targets, but for the opening-up of the debate on a possible and viable revision of the targets. My second point is that it is evident that there are different social, cultural and economic conditions which can hardly enable the achievement of the Barcelona targets in general terms and equally all over the EU. Thirdly, the report does not take into account further factors, such as the freedom of each family, as well as the interests of children. Last, but not least, it is also difficult to achieve the Barcelona targets because childcare is, quite rightly, entirely in the hands of national governments.

(NL) I, too, intended to vote in favour of the Záborská report because it was, all in all, an even-handed report that does not lapse into the traditional, politically correct clichés when it comes to matters such as discrimination or what is meant by it.

The amendment tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance which I voted against, has, in fact, completely nullified the report and does contain a number of very questionable elements, including the attack on the Czech Presidency and the gratuitous claim that raising children in the home would, in fact, have a role-confirming effect. This is a particularly weak argument, but any stick will apparently do to beat a dog and to hold debates, to provide real arguments for an issue such as pay for stay-at-home parents.

(PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Záborská, notably because it recognised the work undertaken in the home by women. Work of a nursing, caring, educating and teaching nature should be properly valued. After all, if such work is undertaken outside the home, it is recognised and included when calculating the GDP. Gary Becker, a Nobel prize winner, refers to the importance of the economic contribution made by people undertaking domestic tasks to the economic progress of society as a whole. As to the definition of a family, in Polish, this term refers to a union capable of procreating, and does not therefore encompass same sex unions.

(DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the Záborská report, which the Greens were opposed to and introduced an alternative discussion about. I am of the opinion that we in Europe must ensure, on the basis of our community of shared values, that women in particular who are starting a family have the right to choose whether to stop work completely or only to work part-time after the birth, in order to care for their child. I was very fortunate that my mother was able to do this and I must say that I have benefited from it.

If my mother had been unlucky enough to be divorced after twenty years of marriage, she would have been in a difficult situation, because she would not have received any social security support, particularly in old age. I have been fighting for forty years to ensure that women who choose to devote themselves to their family and their children are not discriminated against and do not put themselves in the wrong by making this choice. I cannot vote in favour of an ideology which wants to entrust children and adults to the state from the cradle to the grave.

I regret the fact that the report from the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality was rejected. The majority of members who voted against it did a disservice to women, to the family and to society.

Mr President, I am very grateful to Anna Záborská for producing this report. Even though my group had some issues with it, I feel that she has touched upon something which is fundamentally important for the EU.

The EU's population is dropping sharply. The role of women in raising families is not recognised in many of the Member States as a contribution to their national GDP. Women and mothers are an integral part of working life in our society, and there are many millions of mothers looking after their children in my constituency in the South-East of England. Their contribution to the British GDP and to my own region's wealth is of fundamental importance for our country.

This report, for the first time in the European Union I believe, recognises that contribution. We need to encourage our Parliament to look at these issues in technical detail in the future so that we have equality and solidarity between the sexes.

Mr President, today we debate and deplore the evil of the sexual exploitation of children. Virtually every speaker in the debate rightly condemned paedophile activities and pornographic abuse of children. Likewise, the misuse of the Internet drew the wrath of many.

It is disappointing, however, that, despite such unanimity, several Member States have not attained the same level of criminalisation of this abuse of children. Grooming, sexual abuse and child pornography should have no place anywhere in the EU, nor should we tolerate any of it. Silence is the best friend of paedophilia. We have seen it in churches, families and communities, where a blind eye has been turned, leading to some of the scandals of which we are aware in our various Member States.

(CS) Mr President, I was glad to support the report just now, but I should add to my previous comments the fact that seven countries have not yet committed themselves to the Council of Europe Convention or to the UN's Optional Protocol containing modern instruments for fighting child trafficking, prostitution and pornography. I am sorry to say that this also applies to my country, the Czech Republic, which, of course, wants to combat this more effectively, but for a long time has been resolving the issue of incorporating criminal liability of legal entities into its legislation. It is, of course, these legal entities that are organising child trafficking and making fat profits from it. I therefore call on the Czech Presidency to ensure that this domestic problem is resolved and that it serves as an example to the other EU Member States.

Written explanations of vote

in writing. - Such agreements are vital in the process of strengthening the ties between the European Union and the United States of America. With competition from the new emerging markets ever increasing, it is of the utmost importance to be on top of the situation, and I think that this report expresses this feeling exactly.

I voted in favour of the Niebler report as scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and US is an absolute necessity. This transatlantic agreement must inspire both the US and European Community to reap the reciprocal benefits resulting from the scientific and technical progress achieved through research programmes. This agreement will facilitate the exchange of ideas and the transfer of expertise for the benefit of the scientific community, industry and ordinary citizens. I would like to emphasise that the US is a global leader in the field of science and technology.

We must take note that the agreement is based on the principles of mutual benefit, promotes participation in cooperation activities, such as coordinated calls for joint project proposals and access to each other's programmes and activities. Principles supporting effective protection of intellectual property and equitable sharing of intellectual property rights are actively promoted. The proposal also provides for missions by EU experts and officials and for workshops, seminars and meetings to be organised in the European Community and in the United States.

I hope that this agreement will also contribute to the success of the Lisbon Strategy which is aiming to create a knowledge-based Europe. After setting up the European Institute of Technology, this transatlantic scientific and technological cooperation will generate new opportunities.

in writing. - Mrs Niebler has presented the report on the third extension of the EU-United States Agreement, which supports the Council decision concerning the extension of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America. As a mutually beneficial agreement advancing scientific knowledge and technological progress, I am very pleased to support this measure.

in writing. - The extension of the Scientific and Technological Cooperation agreement between the EU and the USA is, beyond doubt, a positive aspect for European Research. The overwhelming vote shows just this.

However, experience shows time and again that the most fruitful scientific collaborations are obtained when two researchers from two institutions collaborate on a commonly designed and jointly funded project. Therefore, in order to bring more substance to the scientific cooperation with the US, I call upon the Commission to explicitly establish simple, project-oriented financing instruments of joint research grants between researchers in the US and the EU. The explicit inclusion in the agreement of fields such as biomedicine, nanotechnology and space research is welcomed. I would like to see included also other cutting edge fields, such as stem-cell research. The fact that there are justified ethical issues related to some research fields should be a drive to a common reflection on these aspects rather than a barrier to common scientific progress.

Due, in particular, to the European Research Council grants, the EU is increasingly attractive for American researchers. The EU now has instruments to seek higher and longer term incoming scientist mobility and must act so that the EU achieves a net brain-gain.

Extending the agreement for scientific and technological cooperation with the United States is a confirmation of the need for cooperation and mutually beneficial exchanges between the EU and US in the cutting-edge sectors of research and innovation.

The inclusion of the space and security sectors in this agreement marks an important step towards consolidating transatlantic relations, which is a priority objective of the PPE-DE Group. This cooperation must also cover forms of civil and military collaboration in areas of common interest, including pioneering fields such as the new space technologies, nanotechnologies and defence research.

I firmly believe that this cooperation will help boost the results obtained from the activities which have been carried out aboard the international space station, as well as in the sensitive area of communication satellites. In addition, I feel that cooperation with third countries is important, especially with Russia, mainly in projects of the GPS-Glonass-Galileo type.

All stakeholders must benefit from the valuable results obtained by one of the parties, whether in the civil sector or in the military sector with an application for the civil sector, because safety and security are the prime concern of the world's citizens nowadays, and sharing this success is not only proof of mutual trust and partnership, but is also a guarantee that these results will not be used for anything other than the benefit of mankind.

in writing. - I wish to record that I support this report on Extension of the EC-USA agreement for scientific and technological cooperation.

However, my voting machine did not work and I wish to record my vote in favour of this report for the record.

I voted against Angelika Niebler's report on the extension of the agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America.

The content of the extended agreement differs from the previous agreement in that sections on space research and security research have been added. As both the USA and the EU are explicitly planning to use space for military ends and as they define security primarily in military terms, it is reasonable to assume that the cooperation agreement will also serve military purposes.

Cooperation in the fields of science and research is extremely important. However, it must be used for civilian purposes. I am opposed to any military use.

I voted for this report proposing renewal of the December 1997 agreement, renewed for the first time in 2003, which will allow the two parties to continue, improve and intensify their cooperation in scientific and technical areas of common interest.

This collaboration will bring mutual benefits from the scientific and technical progress achieved by our respective research programmes. There will also be a transfer of knowledge that will benefit our companies and our citizens.

This cooperation is part of the European policy on technical research and development that is such a major part of the European legislation. It will allow us to strengthen the scientific and technical bases of European industry and promote its increased international competitiveness.

Today I did not vote for the report on the continuation of scientific and technical cooperation between the EU and the USA. This is despite the fact that the level of investment by the EU and USA in this field is amongst the highest in the world, and many interlinked scientific institutes are leading scientific and technical progress around the world and are contributing towards solving a number of global problems. In the long term, however, I would criticise the unwillingness of the Commission and the Council to reach agreement with the USA on basic common ethical principles for science and research. It troubles me that the present agreement once again contains no such provisions. This is irresponsible towards humanity and shows a lack of consideration for those scientists who voluntarily maintain specific ethical principles while others do not. This applies especially to biotechnology.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the Niebler report concerning the extension of the EC/US agreement for scientific and technological cooperation. The agreement for scientific and technological cooperation came into force a little over 10 years ago and has already been renewed once, after the first five years. I fully agree that the agreement needs to be extended again so as to continue to foster scientific and technological cooperation with the United States in common priority areas that provide both parties with socio-economic benefits.

I am also satisfied that the terms of the agreement are virtually identical to those signed previously, except for a few technical amendments. Finally, I applaud the addition of space research and the security sector to the EC/US agreement.

I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council decision on extending the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America as I feel that any scientific cooperation can lead to new discoveries which, in turn, can support the development and evolution of mankind. Given that the US is one of the biggest global driving forces in the field of scientific research, I feel that the extension of scientific cooperation with this country will be beneficial to every Member State in the European Union.

The renewal of the agreement for another five years would be useful for both parties, as cooperation between Russia and the European Community in the field of science and technology would be continued.

As the content of the renewed agreement will be identical to the content of the agreement which expires on 20 February 2009, there would be no sense in continuing talks on the renewal of this agreement in the usual manner.

Given the advantages to both parties of a speedy renewal of the agreement, a one-step procedure is proposed (one procedure and one act, linked to the signing and formation of the agreement). Both parties to the agreement are striving to ensure continual cooperation (in particular implementing such activities, in which third parties must participate, pursuant to the cooperation agreement). I agree entirely with this proposal.

I voted in favour of the Niebler report as scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and Russia is a necessity. The agreement between the EU and Russia must inspire both the European Community and Russia to reap the reciprocal benefits resulting from the scientific and technical progress achieved through research programmes.

This agreement will facilitate the exchange of ideas and the transfer of expertise for the benefit of the scientific community, industry and ordinary citizens. I note that this agreement is based on similar principles to the agreement signed between the EU and US in the same fields, namely science and technology.

We must take note that the agreement is based on the principles of mutual benefit, promotes participation in cooperation activities, such as 'coordinated calls for joint project proposals and access to each other's programmes and activities'.

Principles supporting effective protection of intellectual property and equitable sharing of intellectual property rights are actively promoted. The proposal also provides for missions by EU experts and officials and for workshops, seminars and meetings to be organised in the European Community and Russia. In this European Year of Creativity and Innovation, let us hope that this agreement will contribute to making the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia more effective.

in writing. - Mrs Niebler has presented the report on renewal of the existing agreement between the EC and Russia on cooperation in science and technology. Peaceful collaboration and work between Russia and EU is mutually beneficial in advancing scientific knowledge and research and I am delighted to support this measure.

Renewing the partnership agreement on scientific and technological cooperation with Russia is an important step in the process of normalising and consolidating relations between the EU and the Russian Federation, apart from easing recent tensions.

However, it is not sufficient to normalise relations for cooperation in these fields. The EU and Russia must first of all find a way of consolidating their partnership and of cooperating in the area of security policies, primarily the energy security policy. The recent gas crisis highlighted the need for us to adopt a serious and united approach to dealing with the issue of the European Union's dependency on its resource suppliers.

Let us not forget either the crisis in Georgia which, for a time, put at risk the whole post-Cold War structure in Europe.

In view of all the challenges posed by globalisation and the global crisis, Russia is an important player which cannot be excluded from or ignored at the negotiating table. However, the Russian Federation must observe these agreements and standard international regulations.

I appeal to the European Commission and Czech Presidency to find specific ways of resolving these problems as soon as possible, for their own benefit and that of Europe's citizens and third country partners (Ukraine and Moldova).

in writing. - I wish to record that I support this report on agreement between the EU and Russia on cooperation in science and technology.

However, my voting machine did not work and I wish to record my vote in favour of this report for the record.

in writing. - (SK) I voted in favour of scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and Russia because it is necessary to build firm, stable and genuinely neighbourly relations with the Russian Federation. I see cooperation in science and technology as an excellent means of building such a relationship. The European Community, like Russia, has achieved significant scientific advances which may be mutually beneficial to both sides. The Community can certainly benefit from such cooperation, realising and perfecting its own scientific and technical projects. However, I would underline that for genuine neighbourly relations, willingness and reliability are needed on the other side, too.

The last few days have borne witness to Russia's serious unreliability as a trading partner. The actions of the Russian Federation caused a gas crisis in many countries of the European Union and this posed a direct threat to the economies of Member States, showing up the drawbacks of energy dependence on Russia. I hope that in the interests of good cooperation in the scientific and technical field, such events will not be repeated in future.

Just as I voted against the agreement with the USA, I also voted against the report on the Agreement on scientific and technical cooperation between the EU and Russia. I did so for exactly the same reason. It troubles me that it does not have a chapter devoted to an agreement on common ethical limits for research. I regret the fact that the Commission and the Council underestimate this all-important aspect of research and do not even attempt to frame such an agreement. It is as if they are not aware that ethical limits have a place, more than anywhere else, in science, where preliminary caution is so necessary. At least in the case of science and research financed from public funds, an international agreement on ethical principles would be entirely appropriate within such a cooperation agreement.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted for the report by Mrs Niebler on the renewal of the EU/Russia agreement on scientific cooperation. It is indeed essential to renew the agreement drawn up with the Soviet Government years ago. Cooperation between the European Union and Russia has produced excellent results, due to the fact that they have joined forces to achieve the sole objective of improving general wellbeing.

I therefore welcome Mrs Niebler's initiative and stress the importance of continuity and constancy in the diplomatic relations between the EU and Russia in order to ensure that the international geopolitical balance is maintained.

in writing. - There are several reasons why this agreement strengthens the EU internal market and cooperation in standards as well as maintaining consumer protection.

First among them is that science is a global discipline and advances we can share go towards increasing the sum total of human endeavour. Benefits which we can work towards are specifically and generally a positive.

Whether it is the car industry working to reduce emissions, or universities creating strategic links, the success of promoting this agreement is measurable.

Consumers, too, are beneficiaries indirectly, as the best minds can be brought to bear to create greater trust in the answers to our joint concerns.

Although it may seem that the adoption of the draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the agreement (renewing the Agreement on scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and Russia) is really a formality of only secondary importance, I do not think this is so. With increasing urgency, it is becoming clear that Russia must be a strategic partner for the EU, rather than eternally condemned and seen as a bogeyman. We should therefore welcome any step in the direction of cooperation between the EU and Russia at various levels and in various forms. Cooperation with Russia can also be expected to play a very important, unambiguously positive role in the current severe economic crisis. Russia cannot be separated from Europe. It belongs to Europe, whether we like it or not, and cooperation with it may soon be vitally important for Europe.

in writing. - When we talk about wilderness, in reality we are referring to a natural environment from which significant human activity has been absent, in other words, virgin areas. Wilderness may refer to both land and sea.

There are two different approaches: one refers to the concept of conservation and the other to that of preservation. These are distinct. The former can be described as 'proper use of nature', the latter 'protection of nature from use'. I believe that conservation and preservation may be distinct, but their application depends on the particular area. To take an example, Europe is too small to have forbidden areas for its citizens. Forests cover about one third of the land area of which only 5 % can be described as wilderness.

Most areas in Europe which are wilderness are protected under Natura 2000. This is a European network which already covers the most valuable and bio-diverse areas of the EU. That is why I agree that no new legislation is required concerning wilderness areas as most are covered by Natura 2000. It is, however, important to map wilderness areas according to forest, fresh water and marine wilderness.

I voted in favour of the report. There are several reasons why Europe should be interested in protected wilderness areas. Firstly, they function as refuges and genetic reserves for many species that cannot survive in conditions that are even only slightly altered. There are also many species that have not yet been discovered and described. Most of these live in the soil or in rotting wood and are highly sensitive to change. These unpolluted areas are ideal for studying natural changes and the evolution of nature. At the same time, these areas are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change caused by humans outside their boundaries.

Then there are many purely ethical reasons for preserving wilderness areas in Europe. We have a moral obligation to ensure that future generations can take enjoyment and benefits from the protected wilderness areas in Europe. The development of sustainable tourism is being used as a means to attribute an economic value to wilderness areas and to promote their conservation.

It is therefore important to draw up appropriate recommendations to help the EU Member States find the best way to ensure that present and potential protected areas, as well as wilderness areas and their natural processes, are safeguarded within the Natura 2000 framework.

in writing. - I voted in favour of this report since I agree that we really need to proceed with the mapping of the last wilderness areas in Europe. Of course, this cannot be done without defining wilderness. Therefore, I urge the European Commission to take action in this field. I also agree with the idea that we should promote sustainable tourism in these areas and teach site managers how to preserve and protect the wilderness.

Therefore, I join the request of the main NGOs in the field and ask the European Commission to give some guidelines for wilderness preservation in Europe.

in writing. - This report indicates that not even the farthest reaches of Europe are beyond the EU's grasp. The whole point of wilderness is that it is supposed to be untouched by mankind - including the EU. However, given the various pressures on the environment, the Commission has proposed action to protect and nurture Europe's most remote and isolated regions.

I am therefore generally supportive of this report, provided that Member States retain a prominent role in the management, designation and protection of wilderness.

I am somewhat sceptical about the merits of an EU strategy on wilderness, given that the EU's management of agriculture and fisheries has proved to be so disastrous. It is vital that the EU acts as a facilitator and repository of best practice in this process, otherwise the whole point of the measures proposed would be undermined.

Notwithstanding those caveats, my region of north-east England is blessed with isolated areas of outstanding natural beauty largely untouched by humans. I therefore supported this report.

in writing. - Natura 2000 has done much to protect unspoilt or virgin environment. This report stresses the importance of such projects and I am in full agreement with the rapporteur that many resources must be used to ensure the protection of such areas. It is important to map these areas because it might be too late if we leave this too late.

in writing. - Mr Hegyi's own-initiative report emphasises the importance of the protection of wilderness areas in Europe in the application of existing Directives, proposing a definition of 'wilderness' as still untouched areas as well as 'areas where human activities are minimal'.

While the report is welcome, certain areas remain unclear; for example, whether existing wilderness areas or potential future wilderness areas are being discussed. I would also like to know whether there are wilderness areas that are currently not listed as Natura 2000 sites which would potentially come under the consideration of this report.

Areas of special consideration under Natura 2000 fall under the competences of various DGs in the Commission. While I am appreciative of the work undertaken by these different departments and their different mandates, increasing the levels of cooperation and coherence could greatly enhance the protection afforded by Natura 2000 sites. I am pleased to support Mr Hegyi's report, but regret that due to the application of Rule 45(2), I was denied the opportunity to debate it.

in writing. - (PT) I voted for the Hegyi report, since I believe it is necessary to improve the protection and promotion of wilderness areas in Europe.

Due to the environmental pressures resulting from centuries of human activity, wilderness areas today cover only 46% of the Earth's surface.

I believe that it falls to the European Commission to draw up recommendations for the Member States, which must include the production of a map and a strategy for Europe's wilderness areas.

We voted in favour of this report because we need to protect nature, but through human use. Forests currently cover 33% of the land area of the countries of the European Economic Area, corresponding to 185 million hectares. Only about 9 million hectares of forest (5% of the total forest area) is considered 'wilderness'. These areas, together with their native plant and animal communities and the ecosystems of which they are a part, are in an essentially natural state. These wilderness areas should enjoy effective and specific protection conditions, as genetic reserves and refuges for many species which are unable to survive even in slightly altered conditions, especially large mammals, like brown bears, wolves and lynxes.

We have a moral obligation to ensure that future generations can enjoy and benefit from Europe's wilderness areas. The development of sustainable tourism can be used as a means of giving economic value to wildernesses and creating support for conservation, encouraging ordinary people to discover the hidden value of nature without damaging it. Sustainable tourism strengthens acceptance of conservation policies, since the tourists come to understand the need for protection as a result of their personal experience, while helping to economically maintain wilderness areas which can provide job opportunities for local people.

Today, Europe's wildernesses are reduced to a fraction of what they were in the past, so their protection is a priority.

They must, therefore, be central to European biodiversity policy and the Natura 2000 Network must take these areas into account, so as to make the best use of the ecosystem services they provide.

I therefore approve of the Hegyi report in the hope that European wilderness areas can be better preserved for enjoyment by future generations.

in writing. - I support this report which highlights the need to protect the 46% of the world's land which is wilderness and has not been significantly modified by human activity.

Gone are the days when the history of humanity was a story of survival in the face of nature's adversity. In our part of the world, although we still need to protect ourselves from nature and its attacks, it has become necessary to protect nature from human presence and domination. We must do so for ourselves: for the interest we have in preserving the richness of biodiversity and for our need to preserve the planet on which we have been offered the chance to live. It is on the basis of these precepts that we must consider efforts to preserve wilderness in Europe and, very specifically, in the outermost regions, where such diversity is so important. The same precepts demand that interventions and regulations be balanced and considered. If we want to foster a new way to use our rural areas, we must not increase the human activities undertaken there to levels that cannot be borne. The protection of wilderness, especially where it coexists with human activity, must mean the promotion of balance, preservation and sustainability. We must not place intolerable burdens on rural life or make people abandon areas already impoverished in themselves.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting for the Hegyi report on wilderness in Europe. I believe that the European Union should take a greater interest in wilderness areas, because they act as refuges and reserves for many species that cannot survive in altered conditions. Moreover, the ethical reasons for this decision must not be forgotten.

We European citizens have a moral obligation to ensure that future generations can benefit from the protected wilderness areas in Europe. I therefore applaud Mr Hegyi's initiative, aimed at promoting the development of sustainable tourism, a real indicator of the economic value of wilderness.

I voted for this report because, in my view, Europe must protect its wilderness areas and contribute to the upkeep of its national parks. According to the 'Wilderness in Europe' report, there are 10 national parks in several regions of Europe. The upkeep and protection of these national parks also mean protection for the species of animals and birds which inhabit these areas.

In view of the fact that some of these species are on the point of extinction, I feel that the European Union must become actively involved in developing programmes which will help to revitalise these species and repopulate certain areas where, unfortunately, some species of animals and plants have disappeared.

On the same lines, I believe the following measures are necessary: a closer analysis of land clearing activities in areas which are not designated as national parks and the development of specific projects aimed at reforestation in areas which have been cleared. I personally give my strong support to any such project and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur.

The term wilderness refers to a natural environment that has not been significantly altered by human activity. Even now, 46% of the surface of the Earth is classed as wilderness.

There is a difference between the notions of conservation and protection. The former involves proper use of nature. The latter implies protecting nature against exploitation. In my view, nature needs to be protected, but through human action. Europe is too small for it to be sensible to ban its citizens from entering certain territories. The territories in question are of particular and exceptional value. This can be exploited in an environmentally friendly manner by developing new products in the area of tourism.

At the same time, these territories are especially vulnerable to the impact of environmental change caused by human beings. It is our moral duty to ensure that the next generation is able to see and experience genuine wildernesses in Europe. The development of sustainable tourism may prove a way of benefiting from the economic importance of wilderness lands and acquiring resources for their protection.

An interesting initiative linking programmes aimed at wildernesses and sustainable tourism has arisen in Europe. I refer to the PAN Parks Foundation, whose aim it is to develop sustainable tourism in those lands.

There is no need to introduce new legislation regarding wildernesses, but the European Commission should develop appropriate recommendations to ensure that that Member States of the EU receive assistance concerning the best ways of protecting present or potential wildernesses that might be included in the Natura 2000 network.

in writing. - In recent years, general and business aviation has been the fastest growing branch of the aviation sector. Airports in my constituency of North-East England, such as Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley, are popular with amateur pilots and, increasingly, business people. It is therefore a sub-sector that needs support and sensible regulation.

I am impressed with the Commission's commitment to proportionality in the regulation of general and business aviation. This approach marks a significant departure from many previous transport-related proposals and is to be welcomed, although we must remain vigilant to ensure that the sector can continue to grow in a sustainable way without the kind of onerous red tape that, far too often, has characterised the Commission's proposals.

Inevitably, this sector will decline somewhat in the short term as the economic crisis continues to set in. However, general and business aviation contributes significantly to economic growth, especially at a regional level as we in north-east England can attest.

I voted in favour of this report.

in writing. - I agree with the rapporteur on the need to emphasise the importance of data gathering, proportionate regulation, airport and airspace capacity, and environmental sustainability, whilst acknowledging the importance of one of the fastest-growing industries of our time. We call to strike a balance in these mentioned issues so as not to hinder the business and leave it sustainable.

in writing. - MEP Queiró has responded to the Commission's communication 'An Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation' and has highlighted several areas where policy considerations for the non-commercial air transport sector in general and business aviation have additional impact. Of particular interest are the extension of Community competence in areas of security and safety, and the impact on the sector of Community initiatives such as the Single European Sky and the Air Traffic Management System.

Ensuring safety, while ensuring that environmental concerns are met by the sector in a responsible manner, both in reducing noise pollution and reducing the volume of emissions generated, is a primary concern. The rate of growth of the sector and its diversity both make it one where future regulation will be necessary. This communication points to a path for developing future policy.

I have voted against the report by Luís Queiró on the future of general and business aviation.

It is undoubtedly true that the number of general and business aircraft movements has increased significantly and therefore that the environmental impact has also grown.

However, in my opinion, investing in the expansion of airports is the wrong approach, because this will only lead to more demand for travel and an increase in air traffic. We need to find alternatives so that the level of air traffic does not escalate and pollution remains within reasonable limits.

General and business aviation is a flourishing sector characterised by an increased degree of adaptability and flexibility, features which conflict with the rigid inflexibility typical of large airports in particular. For this reason, I support the recommendations of my colleague, Luis Queiró, on the consistent application of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity in this sector, on a case-by-case basis, with the proviso that all the security and safety requirements are complied with.

I appeal to all Member States to take into consideration all the recommendations made by the Commission and rapporteur, especially those concerning how to make airport capacity more efficient and use it to optimum effect, not only with regard to large airports, but especially regional and local airports.

In fact, as rapporteur for the European Single Sky II package and the extension of the EASA's powers, I took into account the need for this segment of the aviation sector to enjoy all the conditions which are required to ensure sustainable development for the benefit of both the industry and, ultimately, passengers too.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Queiró on an Agenda for a Sustainable Future in General and Business aviation. Certainly we are warned that a new European policy is required concerning general and business aviation.

This is because there has been a constant growth in the total turnover of companies in the civil aviation sector. Indeed, it is estimated that the number of passengers using business aviation could double in the next ten years or so. Furthermore, the advantages brought by this type of aviation to economic and social wellbeing as a whole must also be acknowledged.

I therefore welcome the report by my fellow Member and hope that the potential of a sector enjoying remarkable growth can be fully exploited in the future.

in writing. - The public sector has been hampered by traditional methods in the procurement of research and development services. This can be altered through what is known as pre-commercial procurement. Pre-commercial procurement is a special approach for the public sector to procure research and development.

The EU needs a broader innovation strategy. And what we are terming pre-commercial procurement has to be seen as part of the strategy. This is essential to re-enforce the innovation capabilities of the Union and to improve public services for European citizens. The US public sector spends USD 50 billion on research and development procurement. Europe spends USD 2.5 billion. It is obvious why pre-commercial procurement is crucial to help the public sector in Europe address major public challenges.

One of the problems existing in the EU is a lack of awareness of how to optimise research and development procurement. The problem is a result of what is known as exclusive development. Companies which have developed a product or service for a public body cannot use their findings for other customers. Pre-commercial procurement will address this anomaly. It will allow a specific approach which involves risk benefit sharing. This will also result in cost-effective development of innovative solutions.

Thank you, Mr President. I shall vote in favour. I consider that pre-commercial procurement has the potential to be very advantageous for innovation and that it can offer updated public services of high quality in the European Union.

Not only that. Pre-commercial procurement contracts offer major opportunities to small and mediumsized enterprises, in relation both to the public contracts sector and to their global development and experience. Indeed, they are, by their nature, more accessible for small and mediumsized enterprises than traditional large commercial contracts.

Despite all this, I fear that what is proposed will not succeed in attracting small and mediumsized enterprises unless the way in which such contracts are to work is made clear, especially in a cross border context, and unless further clarification is provided on certain procedural aspects, including provisions on State aid and intellectual property, so as to create a transparent and stable environment for public bodies and enterprises.

in writing. - This report makes sobering reading: for all the talk about the Lisbon agenda, and making Europe the world's most competitive economy by next year, I was shocked to read that the US public sector is spending USD 50 billion per year on research and development procurement.

This amount is twenty times higher than in Europe and an amount that represents approximately half of the overall research and development investment gap between the US and Europe.

I welcome this report by my colleague, Malcolm Harbour, who has set out ways in which Europe can begin to close that productivity gap. The key to this process is in the title: driving innovation.

In my view, the best way for the aspirations of this report to become reality is to ensure that the EU encourages innovation and technological development rather than throwing regulatory obstacles in the way.

Given the important role of public procurement in promoting and supporting new technologies, I supported this report. I hope its principles will be of use to local authorities in my region of North-East England.

in writing. - I agree with the rapporteur on the importance of innovation, especially in demanding sectors such as health, ageing and security. Pre-commercial procurement marginalises the room for error and should thus be used as an innovative means.

in writing. - My colleague, Mr Harbour, has presented an own-initiative report regarding increasing innovation in Europe to ensure sustainable and high-quality public services. Access to such services in a fair and equitable manner is essential for the full functioning of the free market. This communication addresses the issue of the research and development (R&D) phase of a pre-commercial product.

Pre-commercial procurement is a specific approach for the public sector to engage R&D, with a view to driving innovation to ensure sustainable high quality public services in Europe. The scope of public services concerned covers healthcare, education, security, climate change and energy efficiency, all issues which benefit the entirety of society. The adoption of this strategy will allow for cost-effective, value-added development of new and innovative solutions, and so I supported this proposal.

Public procurement in the area of research and development in Europe represents an insignificant proportion of total public procurement. Europe does not appear in a favourable light either in comparison with the United States, whose public sector allocates USD 50 billion a year to public procurement in the area of research and development, an amount 20 times greater than the sum spent in Europe. This is most unfortunate if we really want to strengthen our innovative potential.

It is worth noting that many products and services currently available would not exist were it not for the commitment of public resources. The GPS satellite navigation system and semiconductor technology are but two examples.

Europe needs to make technical improvements in many areas, such as health, sustainable growth and security. For many of these areas, no commercial solutions are yet available, or if they are, further research and development action is required. Pre-commercial procurement is one way of eliminating this gap between public sector demand and supply, offering the public authorities the possibility of improving the services they provide.

Pre-commercial procurement also represents an important opportunity for SMEs. The innovative potential of the latter is enormous and, thanks to the commitment of public resources, they have the opportunity to develop and sell the solutions devised to other clients.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I warmly welcome the report by Mr Harbour on precommercial procurement: driving innovation to ensure sustainable, high quality public services in Europe. It is extremely important for the European Union to confront social challenges in an appropriate fashion, so as to guarantee considerable improvements in the provision of public services.

Precommercial procurement, from this perspective, can help to bridge the gap between supply and demand in the public services sector. I agree with the rapporteur when he emphasises the need to educate customers on how to approach innovation in public contracts, since the profession is highly skilled and needs well-trained staff.

Pre-commercial procurement occurs when the public sector places orders in the area of research and development, thus supporting innovation and ensuring the sustainability and high quality of public services.

Pre-commercial procurement is tremendously important in terms of strengthening the innovation potential of the entire European Union, improving public services provided directly to the citizens, and also eliminating the gap between supply and demand in the public sector.

One example of a solution developed on the basis of public procurement is the GPS navigation system.

In the United States, the funding allocated to orders in the area of research and development is 20 times greater than that allocated in the European Union.

For SMEs, public procurement represents a valuable opportunity to gain experience. Pre-commercial procurement contracts are advantageous for smaller enterprises, as the latter often do not comply with the requirements for ordinary commercial public procurement.

As a matter of urgency, Europe should develop comprehensive solutions to improve the use of pre-commercial procurement, not only by national authorities, but also by local and regional ones.

First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Harbour for the report he has compiled, for the way in which it reflects the work of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). Adopting this own-initiative report compiled by Mr Harbour will help boost innovation in research and development within the European Union. We must capitalise on the benefit which we will gain from a pre-commercial procurement policy. Public procurement is an area which offers the prospect of huge opportunities for SMEs, with pre-commercial procurement being easier to access than large-scale procurement contracts.

We need to follow the example of the US and focus more on procuring research and development services. We must define a beneficial pre-commercial policy instrument in order to boost the EU's innovative base. At the moment, companies which have developed a product or service for a public body are not able to reuse their findings for other potential customers, which comes on top of the financial barriers to procuring rival solutions. Pre-commercial procurement allows cost-effective development of innovative solutions.

in writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote against Mrs Laperrouze's report, as we believe that the final report is unbalanced and infringes the right of the Member States to decide whether or not they wish to use, develop or invest in nuclear energy. We are in favour of common research into nuclear safety, for example, but we feel that, in several cases, the report is far too pro-nuclear energy. These decisions should be made at Member State level.

Moreover, we are, in general, in favour of investments in energy infrastructure, but we are dubious about supporting all of the projects and investments that the rapporteur would like to support. We would have liked to have seen clearer criteria in order to be able to support such a position, particularly in the light of the debate on Nord Stream.

in writing. - First and foremost, Europe must devote its efforts to help its members in their quest for the search of oil and gas. There is a probability that Malta has fossil-fuel reserves beneath its seabed. Full exploitation cannot be carried out because of issues on the median line between Malta and its Northern African neighbours. This should not only be a bilateral issue but it is also in Europe's interest to seek a solution on behalf of its Member State.

The issue of nuclear energy has once again taken a prominent position. There are pros and cons. The nuclear debate is never-ending. One cannot fail to take note of the possibility of evaluating this energy supply.

I am informed that Malta was considering the importation of energy generated from nuclear plants in France. This energy, on reaching Malta, would be in the form of electricity and the negative aspects associated with nuclear plants would not be an issue. The energy generated would be cheaper than that from a gas pipeline from Sicily. Malta would not have to undertake the capital expenditure needed to construct a power station.

in writing. - I welcome this week the financial allocation of EUR 100 million that is being given by the European Union in support of the construction of new electricity networks between the East Coast of Ireland and Wales.

This new project is part of the EUR 3.5 billion economic stimulus package which was announced by the European Commission last week in Brussels. It will help to construct more modern energy networks which will fully protect the security of energy supplies into Ireland into the future.

The European Union is also going to financially support new projects in the field of alternative energy, and this includes the wind energy sector.

As a member of the European Parliament's Environment Committee, I have witnessed the growing dispute about energy supply.

We all must reflect on what has been happening for a number of weeks now concerning energy supplies coming from Russia into the EU via the Ukraine.

The reality is that we in the EU need to break down our absolute dependence on Russian energy supplies. We need to develop other energy sectors

Thank you, Mr President. I am voting in favour. I consider that forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, hydroelectric or geothermal energy, biomass or marine resources, are potentially the most important source of energy for the European Union. These can help to stabilise energy prices and contain the increase in energy dependency.

It is therefore very important to set out a European energy policy that will allow a substantial shift towards energy technologies that are efficient and have low carbon emissions, so as to cover our energy needs. If energy efficiency and energy saving continue to be a priority, in line with the continuing development of renewable energy sources, I agree that it should be possible to meet our energy requirements using low emission sources by 2050. I also agree on the importance of a systematic approach founded on synergies between the various sectors. In short, the long-term energy and climate challenges, at both European and global level, are an exceptional opportunity for encouraging new business models in all economic sectors, in order to stimulate innovation and to encourage environmentally friendly entrepreneurship.

We do not have a single European energy policy. Each state defends its own interests. An additional EUR 5 billion have been allocated to EU electricity connections and broadband Internet. This is an historic event as, for the first time in the history of the EU, the European Commission debated the budget again and proposed such a project. This is especially important for Lithuania since, so far, it has neither an electricity link with Sweden nor one with Poland and is an energy island. Energy links are investments which do not reap many rewards financially. Therefore, such vitally important projects should be financed with EU funds. Today, Lithuania buys gas for around USD 500, while other EU states, which are much further from Russia than Lithuania, pay less for gas. We would gain a lot by showing solidarity and speaking with one voice to Gazprom about pricing.

in writing. - The three main objectives - security of supply and solidarity between Member States; combating climate change: recalling the 'three times 20' objective for 2020 and the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by between 50% and 80% by 2050; and the economic growth of the EU: obtaining the best prices while avoiding price volatility - are of utmost importance when we discuss the European energy policy. We have to consider the policy that the decentralisation of energy sources will have, and new types of renewable energy should also be encouraged.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues welcome the strategic approach on the supply of energy as contained in the Laperrouze report on the Second Strategic Energy Review.

We voted against the references to the Lisbon Treaty in line with our long-standing policy of opposing it. However, because there are references to the Lisbon Treaty which we could not specifically vote against, we have decided to abstain on the final vote.

I voted in favour of Mrs Laperrouze's report on the strategic analysis of the EU's energy situation because it stipulates that the EU's future energy policy should include emergency action plans, the implementation of projects aimed at diversifying supply sources, as well as new climate change objectives.

We voted against this report because we disagree with many of the proposals that it propounds, as they are always based on free competition and liberalisation of markets in a strategic sector in which the existence of public policies and public ownership of the principle means of energy production was essential.

However, we voted in favour of several proposals. For example, we are also concerned about the security of fossil fuels such as oil and gas, and the rapporteur's statement regarding the unlikelihood of world production exceeding 100 million barrels per day (currently 87 million). when requirements in 2030 are estimated at 120 million barrels per day, as well as the risk of a major crisis during the next decade.

We also agree that more research in the energy field should be undertaken, specifically into the transmutation of nuclear waste and nuclear fusion.

Nevertheless, we oppose the attempt to put economic groups in the European Union in a position of strength relative to the public companies of third countries, and the use made of this report to defend the Treaty of Lisbon and call for its ratification.

in writing. - I voted in favour of the Laperrouze report on the Second Strategic Energy Review despite (for me) its over-enthusiasm for nuclear energy. I am not in favour of early closure of safe nuclear plants, but my enthusiasm for new plants is extremely limited. In my own region, the South-West of England, we have the possibility of constructing a tidal barrage across the Severn that would, with far less potential damage to the environment, have an output of two nuclear power stations and provide in a 'green' way 5% of Britain's energy needs.

I also voted in favour of the Green Amendment 22 pointing out the delay and escalating costs of the fusion power ITER project. I was not in favour of basing this joint project in Europe as the host pays a disproportionate part of the total budget. I was therefore in favour of Japan, which wanted it, hosting this white elephant. Far earlier than anticipated, I am being proved right.

Everyone is aware that energy is a major challenge for the Member States. Energy saving, increased energy efficiency, research into commercially viable renewable energy and new technologies for transport and diversity of supply are all known routes to reduced dependence for the Member States. We do not question the need for some cooperation, organisation even, at an intergovernmental level, for solidarity between the States.

In reality, though, it seems from the report that the design of an energy strategy and security of supply are much less important than the introduction of a single energy policy or the introduction of a single network for gas and electricity, under the aegis of a single European regulator for each sector. Now, the choices, needs, options and capacities of the various states are extremely different.

This sensitive issue really is a strategic one and, as such, can only be left up to the sovereign decision of the states in accordance with their interests. The objective once again, though, is an increase in the powers of the Brussels bureaucracy. We know this is what we have to thank for providing us with problems ranging from an explosion in electricity prices to regular power cuts.

That is why we have voted against this report.

The report again suggests the nuclear option, even though this energy is not competitive and uranium is obtained in dangerous conditions that give rise to ethnic discrimination and have an unacceptable impact on health.

Due to the issue of global warming, coal cannot be considered a 'transitional component'.

I believe that the 'diversification of EU energy resources' is linked to the exploitation of fossil resources in the Caspian Sea. The gas and oil fields of the Kashagan region are putting pressure on the populations and their environmental resources: the extraction of oil rich in sulphides threatens the health of the populations and biodiversity.

The diversification of energy supplies assumes that there are gas and oil pipelines to transport resources to the EU. The TBC and Nabucco projects are affecting the political stability of our neighbours. We have an obligation not to allow our energy needs to threaten their stability. The populations of the Southern Caucasus must receive an economic and social benefit from the extraction of energy from their territories.

In Africa, the production of solar energy destined to meet our needs has to be suitably rewarded.

Why not say in the report that renewable energies and energy saving are the answer in the future? As it stands currently, I am voting against this report.

To guarantee EU energy security, a common EU energy market is needed, into which all Community Members would be integrated, above all the Baltic region. The dependency of countries in this region on Russia, as the single supplier of energy resources, stands in the way of energy security, not just for these countries themselves, but for the Community as a whole. Therefore, it is necessary to allow the connection of the Baltic countries to EU networks through priority and sufficiently funded EU projects. The diversification of energy sources and suppliers cannot remain a matter for the member countries themselves. It must be decided at EU level. Therefore, I particularly support the rapporteur when she urges the Commission 'to prepare a European strategic plan which would set out long-term investment intended to satisfy the needs of future electric energy production and concrete guidelines for investment in nuclear energy'. As the financial crisis has hit the construction sector particularly hard, equally so in Lithuania, the rapporteur's call for 'greater efforts to solve the problem of final disposal of all types of radioactive waste, and especially very radioactive waste', becomes particularly relevant with the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power station.

Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (in particular with Russia) must be a means of safeguarding the interests of all EU Members, and EU Member States must adhere to the principles of solidarity and unity in discussions with energy suppliers in third countries. Only a united Europe is strong and competitive in an age of rapid globalisation.

The issue of the European Union's energy security is a regularly recurring topic, which is becoming increasingly relevant, clearly indicating that there are deep-seated, unresolved problems. The recent gas crisis has demonstrated the absolute need for Member States to join forces at Community level and show solidarity, both in crisis situations and in devising and implementing joint solutions which are mutually beneficial.

Being located at the EU's eastern border, Romania is aware of both the risks and benefits accorded by this geo-strategic position. For this reason, Romania supports and promotes, on the one hand, the construction of alternative energy transit routes, primarily the Nabucco gas pipeline, while, on the other, it supports the process of clarifying and strengthening partnership relations with Russia, which is a major player in the international arena, not only in this difficult sector involving the supply of energy resources.

With this in mind, the recommendations made by the rapporteur regarding the Southern Europe Corridor, especially Nabucco, and the interconnection of the gas and electricity networks running from north to south in South-East Europe, must be considered and implemented as quickly as possible.

The gas crisis which we have just survived has clearly demonstrated once again how important a secure, reliable and cheap energy supply is for the EU. It is disturbing that nuclear power is suddenly being promoted as 'climate friendly' as part of the energy debate and that reactors which have come to the end of their useful life and which have had millions in subsidies spent on decommissioning are suddenly being reactivated. This is probably a result of the fact that the EU ignored the gas dispute and left the Eastern Member States in the lurch. This is a lesson for the future. We must reduce our energy consumption, although critics doubt whether the compulsory introduction of energy-saving bulbs will achieve this, and we must push for the use of alternative forms of energy. However, while the focus of the budget is on nuclear power, this will never happen and new energy technologies will be marginalised.

Although considerations relating to the security of the EU's energy supply are important, they must not result in support for Turkey's entry into the EU for reasons of energy policy. Even if Turkey does not become a member, the planned oil pipelines will still be able to pass through Turkey and it will still be possible to implement the gas infrastructure projects.

I greatly valued Mrs Laperrouze's work and have therefore voted in favour of its adoption. I only hope that the ideas and indications she has supplied in her report will be adequately appraised by the Commission and interpreted in the most positive and wide-ranging way possible.

I therefore hope that no obstacles will be put in the way of the quickest possible definition of projects regarding infrastructures and that they will be appraised in accordance with priorities that relate solely to development times, financial structure, available supplies and the relationship between public support and private commitment.

In this connection, the presentation of the Commission's proposals for the European Recovery Plan, with a plan for financial support for certain projects, neglects the Mediterranean area by excluding the AlgeriaSardiniaItaly natural gas pipeline (including the section within Italy) from the highest priority European projects.

I still hope that within the ambit of diversification of sources and supply routes, we can make gradual progress, making use of new opportunities to start on infrastructure where it is lacking.

I hope that the mechanisms of solidarity will not permit market distortions or give rise to excessively onerous procedures. I hope that the Energy Charter will be able to play a fundamental role together with the enlargement of the Energy Community, in particular, in relation to transit countries, including in the field of renewable energy sources.

The context in which a strategy that is intended to be long-term is given consideration has a decisive influence on the result of the analysis and the content of proposals. The debate on the Strategic Energy Review is no exception. In this context there are, however, repeated indicators suggesting that it is more permanent than transitory. These indicators include energy dependency (whether on Russia or on the main oil-producing countries) and its consequences; increasing energy costs, whether because of higher prices brought about by greater global demand or because of the decreased purchasing power of states impoverished by a severe economic crisis; and the environmental consequences on various levels of constantly increasing global energy consumption, which the economic crisis is unlikely to reverse. Together, these factors point to a need for a strategic approach based on lesser dependency and, as a result, greater diversity (either of suppliers or of energy consumed); greater efficiency; a sustained research effort into alternative energy; greater integration; and, at the same time, the development of production capacities at a local level - specifically, those using alternative energy sources. It is an enormous challenge, but it is a strategic issue which we cannot ignore.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Laperrouze, on the Second Strategic Energy Review. I agree that we need to establish a true base for future European energy policy, aimed at pursuing the objectives of security of supply, combating climate change and the economic growth of the European Union.

Like the rapporteur, I emphasise the importance of achieving the institution of a European fund, guaranteeing the noncommercial risks of certain projects for the production and transport of energy that affects Europe, so as to encourage investments in all networks.

in writing. - The EU has ambitious plans, matched against a risk that resources will be increasingly constrained as populations around the globe demand more energy. The answers, in maintaining current security of supply and developing efficient non-carbon based energy, are not mutually exclusive.

Safety of our environment and avoidance of energy poverty among those people, particularly in the South-East of England who live on fixed incomes, are equally important objectives.

That is why I support a mixture of technological solutions to energy supply in the EU. Whilst I respect the necessity for caution in the nuclear industry as regards safety, I believe it offers a degree of certainty: if we were deprived of this process now, it would be accordingly disastrous for many of my constituents on fixed incomes.

The report on the second strategic review of energy policy shows far too little in the way of cohesion. In my view, total commitment to bringing about an energy-efficient economy should receive top priority in European energy policy. Restricting the consumption of energy should be given absolute priority in a bid to achieve the objectives concerning climate change, sustainable development, innovation, job creation and competitiveness. In fact, an approach such as this is a very effective and inexpensive way of safeguarding a continuous energy supply. As already stated, it creates a huge number of jobs for both highly qualified workers and unskilled ones.

European energy policy must give due consideration to the changing way in which energy is consumed and produced, with a view to the future. Decentralised energy systems will need to be combined with extensive sources of renewable energy. Alongside energy efficiency, energy-saving measures are of key importance. We should therefore insist on insulation, as well as other measures, in the building industry. In this report, the significance of nuclear energy is overrated. It may cover about a third of total demand for electricity, but that only comes to 6% of the total demand for energy. In this context, I would like to remind you that there is still no sustainable solution for the problem of (highly) radioactive waste.

in writing. - Energy independence in Europe needs to be higher on the political agenda. The need for clear definitions across the European Union on energy poverty is also important. There also requires to be more joined-up thinking in terms of how we can harness the Green Economy to help us through the current financial crisis by creating jobs, but also to give the EU the energy independence which we need. An investment in the EU Grid has to be addressed.

The report by Mrs Lapperouze on the Second Strategic Energy Review contains a point advocating the construction of the South Stream pipeline. This is a sister project to the North Stream pipeline, aimed at making it totally impossible to implement the Nabucco project. The South Stream pipeline strengthens Russia's position in terms of the supply of sources of energy, and cannot therefore be considered a project to achieve diversification in this area.

in writing. - (SV) We are highly critical of Mrs Záborská's report and intended to vote against it, as we thought that it was extremely hostile to women. Women were to take care of the home, children and the elderly instead of working. As luck would have it, we did not need to vote against the resolution, as the amending resolution from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance was approved.

Even though we ultimately chose to support the resolution, there were wordings that we were opposed to or were doubtful of, and therefore it was not clear how we should vote.

As Swedish Social Democrats, we think that the right to work should apply to everyone. Society must, then, also provide the tools and conditions to enable women to go out to work, something that is a pre-requisite for their emancipation. Well-developed childcare and care for the elderly is one of the most important pre-requisites necessary for women, too, to be able to go out to work. Of course, there must be solidarity between the generations, but this solidarity must not result in women being forced to stay at home to look after the elderly and children.

We nevertheless believe that the resolution adopted by the majority sends a clear message to the Czech Presidency to show that its objective of placing the care of children and the elderly in the home on an equal footing with work is both old-fashioned and extremely hostile to women.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues are supportive of a number of the general principles outlined in this report, including support for carers, work-life balance, and parental leave.

However, due to certain references in this report, particularly with regard to the Working Time Directive, we have chosen to abstain.

in writing. - It is a fact that in the Lisbon strategy, the concept of 'work' relates to formal gainful employment. The concept of 'work' has to be given a wider interpretation. There are activities carried out by both men and women which do not qualify as formal gainful employment, but one cannot deny that these activities constitute work. For instance, voluntary, domestic and family work are all different aspects of the concept but do not fall within the traditional definition of gainful employment.

The definition of work to this day is too economic. Many people of either gender care for dependents and yet, notwithstanding this, the input of such work is ignored by employment statisticians. In my opinion, domestic work is household production and should form a significant part in statistics relating to the economic output of a country.

This, however, is not recognised when calculating the goods and services that make up the GDP of a country. The result is that women, who are responsible for the greater part of household production, are undervalued as regards their input. Given the hours of work in household production, one must accept that this should be taken into account when computing the total production of a country.

I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Záborská. I believe that in particular, women running a household and bringing up children should not encounter discrimination on the labour market. Running a home and bringing up children is largely unseen work. It does not enjoy prestige, yet it is work undertaken for the benefit of the entire community. There are some six million women in Poland who are homemakers. Accordingly, the EU's policy should define the notion of work in such a way as to allow for a series of concessions benefiting women who put their professional career on hold, women who devote themselves to their family and also women who care for their family whilst they are also active in the workplace.

In Europe, the employment rate for women caring for children is only 62.4%, while for men it is 91.4%. Moreover, 76.5% of part-time workers are women. Unsuitable services, low pay, late inclusion in the labour market, lengthy procedures regarding agreements on fixed-term work and insufficient incentives for young couples - these are some of the reasons why young people choose to get married and have children later. I urge EU states to make provisions for the cost of maternity leave to be covered not just by the employer, but by society too, and to offer parents more opportunities for flexible working, and child care institutions more opportunities for flexible working hours, so that both women and men can balance work and family life more successfully.

in writing. - I support this report which focuses on the various aspects of direct and indirect discrimination towards women and men who are responsible for taking care of dependents. It argues that a better understanding of the relationship between employment (paid work) and family obligations (unpaid work) is essential to enhance economic independence of women and consequently gender equality.

The non-gainful employment of women and men who, for instance, educate children, care for the elderly at home, provide inter-generational solidarity and work for the common good, is still not considered economic work to this day.

The report calls on Member States to take measures aimed at the recognition of not just traditional forms of gainful employment but also of various other forms such as voluntary and domestic and family work, and to assess how they should be included in Member States' systems of national accounts, and to assess its impact on GDP.

in writing. - MEP Záborská has presented a report which presents a definition of the term 'work' which includes non-monetary and informal labour, which extends recognition to non-market-based or non-remunerated work. Despite the prevalence of this work in all Member States, statistical evaluations of 'labour forces' rarely take this into account, leaving it under-analysed, ill appreciated and unrecognised. At the very least, all full-time mothers' work must be credited for contributory pension purposes.

I voted in support of this report despite some misgivings and concern with the overall thrust of the report.

We voted in favour of this alternative position presented by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, even if there are certain parts with which we are not in complete agreement, because it improves on the rapporteur's proposal.

This is an area in which public policies that are intrinsically linked to achieving gender equality are essential. It is essential that public services exist and that everyone has access to quality services, irrespective of their financial position and gender, and without suffering any discrimination. This requires national public health services that are free or mainly free, and quality, free, public education for all.

It is also essential to create and maintain good quality, affordable public health facilities, with opening hours that meet the needs of parents and children, as well as good-quality, affordable care facilities for the elderly and dependants. All this is essential in guaranteeing the general public better living conditions and facilitating women's access to the labour market and paid work, so that they can become economically independent, which is a basic issue for the emancipation of women.

The explanation of Mrs Záborská's reasons shows us that the objective of her report is the proper social and economic recognition of certain activities which cannot be classified as part of the 'formal labour market'. To put it clearly and succinctly, we are talking essentially about educating children and, in our ageing societies, caring for dependent people. That needed to be said because it is not obvious at first, neither in the report's title, which talks about discrimination, nor on first reading of a text which is written in an occasionally strange style.

In fine, the text talks rightly about recognition by society, about including all wealth creation, however invisible, in the national figures, about freedom of choice, and even about the granting of personal rights to social security and pensions to those who choose to dedicate themselves to the family rather than to a career.

However, it is sad that Mrs Záborská didn't follow her logic to its conclusion and forgot the only measure which would really be able to give both freedom of choice and promote a rise in birth rates by getting rid of the financial constraint, namely, the parental wage that the Front National has been advocating for years.

I have voted in favour of the Záborská report on bringing an end to discrimination.

We must do everything that we possibly can to achieve gender equality.

On the one hand, men must become more involved in housework and childcare and, on the other, it must be possible for women to follow a completely independent career. However, it is important that we never lose sight of the welfare of children and make appropriate, affordable childcare facilities available.

in writing. - (SV) Equality and equal treatment on the labour market, as well as in all other contexts, go without saying in a democracy. To that extent, the rapporteur is, of course, right.

However, as usual, it appears that the measures proposed to rectify our lapses with regard to human rights and democracy seek to increase the EU's political power at the expense of the Member States. It always ends with an attack on subsidiarity. In practice, this report proposes that the EU should shoulder the responsibility for the Member States' social policy and legislate on issues that are closely associated with labour market policy. There are also wordings that open the way for a common tax policy. All of these are examples of political issues that the Member States themselves should have control over.

In spite of several of the good intentions, I have therefore chosen to vote against both the own-initiative report and the alternative proposal for a resolution.

The Záborská report makes it clear that for women, the decision as to whether or not to go out to work still represents a choice between two unequal alternatives.

I am in favour of the work done by both men and women in the home, including housework, bringing up children and caring for elderly or disabled relatives, being better recognised and better paid. The household economy deserves a more important role than the one currently allocated to it. This commitment must be taken into account in particular in national social security and pension policies.

It is right that the demand for 'solidarity between the generations' has been raised. We support social responsibility towards older people and we will not permit entire groups to be discriminated against and excluded. The value of this integration work amounts to almost one third of the national income in Germany. This example should become the accepted approach throughout Europe.

We also need to recognise the contribution made by people over the age of 50 to the common good. Younger pensioners currently find themselves in a difficult situation because they have finished working far too early, usually as a result of being forced to do so. We need more jobs which are suitable for older people. Their experience, their detailed knowledge and their readiness to try new things put them in a good position on the labour market.

in writing. - I support this report which is in favour of the rights of workers regarding parental and carers' leave, providing a call for non-discrimination against carers, and more recognition for the work they do.

in writing. - (DE) Instead of setting quotas, which can easily give rise to feelings of envy and resentment, it would be more appropriate to provide support for young women in their educational choices and career planning, in order to discourage the focus on women's professions. If a woman chooses the security of working in a team or within the family instead of a lonely, stressful managerial role, we must accept this. Equal pay for equal work is something which is long overdue. If this is not implemented, then all attempts to provide paternity or parental leave will fail, on account of the financial realities.

Single parents are at particularly high risk of poverty and society needs to show more solidarity in this respect. Another problem is that work done by women, such as housework, bringing up children or caring for relatives, is often not regarded as proper work. We must bring about change in this area. If we want family life to continue, we must introduce family-friendly working hours, but the EU is opposing this. It is not enough to call for solidarity between the generations. We must put it into practice. Today's report appears to be a step in the right direction, which is why I have voted in favour of it.

I have voted in favour of the motion for a resolution tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance as an alternative to Mrs Záborská's report, since it better tackles the actual problems that still persist with regard to achieving true equality between men and women, recognition of changes in the family model, reconciliation of personal and working life and the positive measures for action that we Socialists have always upheld.

We cannot perpetuate stereotypes nor solve our economic difficulties by forcing women to stay at home and take care of elderly people and children, as stated in Mrs Záborská's text, which presents women as 'potential mothers' who procreate and bring children into the world, bringing them up chiefly together with fathers.

With my vote I also want to send a clear message to the Czech Presidency which, as it explained in its programme for these six months, also intends to promote the image of the woman-carer, encouraging many female professionals to give up their careers to take care of their families. I am given the impression that the Czech Presidency does not understand the term 'equality between men and women' in its fullest meaning. I hope that in six months' time, we will be able to provide it with an explanation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I vote in favour of the report by Mrs Záborská concerning inter-generational solidarity. I consider that the concept of 'work' as currently expressed by the European Union does not adequately cover all categories. Discrimination against women or men who freely choose to assist those who cannot look after themselves, or to bring up future generations, is now anachronistic and old fashioned.

I therefore agree with the rapporteur when she affirms the essential need to make the concept of work sustainable and to acknowledge the unpaid work carried out by women and men towards inter-generational solidarity.

A report on non-discrimination based on gender and inter-generational solidarity was adopted today during the European Parliament's plenary in Strasbourg.

Inter-generational solidarity is one of the structural and key solutions of the European social model. The Member States are committed to taking action in order to eliminate the barriers impeding women from accessing the labour market on the same terms as men. In cooperation with the Member States and social partners, the European Commission should undertake a review of the political strategies aimed at reconciling family and professional life.

Female employment indicators confirm that in many aspects of work, significant differences remain between women and men as regards reconciling private and professional life. Pursuant to the aims of the Lisbon Strategy, the Member States are committed to finding employment for 60% of women capable of working.

The Commission should present its views on the new directive concerning specific rights and protection regarding the reconciliation of family and professional life in families where certain members require care. I have in mind for example, families with children, older persons or disabled persons.

The own-initiative report speaks of improving the existing situation as regards valuing women's role in inter-generational solidarity - caring for children, older people and dependents in the family. The report which I presented was truly revolutionary, because it was the first time that a Parliamentary initiative called for recognition of women's 'invisible' contribution to the financial system and GDP.

The report was unanimously approved in the Committee on Women's Rights. Even the Green group did not vote against it. Today, these same MEPs have submitted an alternative resolution without proposing any consultation beforehand. The entire left-wing spectrum in the European Parliament voted for the alternative resolution. I draw two conclusions from this. Firstly, the left has shown that it does not respect the work of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, although it ostensibly recognises its importance. Secondly, the left has raised doubts on the issue of equality and non-discrimination between men and women, creating a suspicion that for the left, this issue serves only as a media eye-catcher.

I voted against the resolution. It was definitely a step in the wrong direction. Although it contains paragraphs from my original report, it shows that the left does not respect the work of millions of women throughout the EU. The authors of the resolution have shown that they are still entrenched in old ideologies that have now lost their validity. Furthermore, the resolution, in an unprecedented way, calls the Czech Presidency into question simply for having proposed some discussion of the Barcelona targets.

Thank you, Mr President. I voted in favour. I am very worried that child pornography on the Internet is a phenomenon that is spreading at a growing rate and, in particular, that it is involving ever younger children. The sexual exploitation of minors and child pornography are a grave violation of human rights.

I therefore regard it as important, in the framework of international cooperation, to intensify the steps being taken to filter out and close down the websites containing child pornography, so that Internet service providers are obliged to block such criminal websites.

However, despite the fact that the legal systems of Member States provide for penalties and a fairly high level of protection against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and child pornography, we need to increase the level of protection for children, also in view of the constant development of new technologies, in particular, the Internet, and the use of new forms of online grooming of children by paedophiles.

In short, we need to develop awareness campaigns for parents and adolescents concerning the dangers of child pornography on the Internet, in particular, the risk of sexual exploitation in chat rooms and Internet forums.

I voted in favour of the report discussed and would like to congratulate Mrs Angelilli for tackling such a difficult but also important subject. Child pornography is an ever-increasing global problem. Every effort should therefore be made to combat it at international level. The police forces of the various Member States should exchange information and cooperate so as to prevent as many crimes of this sort as possible. I should also like to underline the need to develop effective methods of helping children who have been the victims of paedophilia.

In my opinion, all EU countries should make sexual relations with minors up to 18 years, where there is use of force, rape or threats, a criminal offence. Obvious exploitation of children's trust, using a position of authority against them or influence on them, including within families, and abuse violating a child's situation, especially a psychological or physical disability, should also be made criminal offences.

EU countries should demand that Internet service providers block access to websites promoting sex with children, while bank and other credit card companies should block payments on child pornography websites.

I voted in favour of this report because I agree that Member States need to 'criminalise all types of sexual abuse of children', including online grooming.

Convicted sex offenders must be prevented from gaining access to children through employment or voluntary activities involving regular contact with children. Member States are obliged to ensure that applicants for certain jobs working with children undergo criminal records checks, which includes setting out clear rules or guidelines for employers on their obligations in this regard.

in writing. - Often, the EU seeks to take common action where things are better left to Member States. In this case, however, I believe we can make a difference acting together.

The scourge of child pornography and child sex abuse is a serious blight on our society, wrecking the lives of those most vulnerable and worthy of protection.

Given the nature of the EU and the free movement of people, it is vital that we use the various means at our disposal to combat these sickening crimes wherever they occur. In particular, it is important that information about offenders is coordinated and updated regularly.

We must also improve cooperation with third countries so that EU citizens travelling outside the EU to commit sex crimes against children can be identified, stopped, prosecuted and extradited as required. The EU's global role offers an important opportunity to promote our values in countries and regions where children's rights are less well protected.

I therefore voted in favour of this report.

in writing. - (SV) The delegation of Swedish Conservatives in the European Parliament have today voted on Mrs Angelilli's (Union for Europe of the Nations Group, Italy) report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The fight against the dissemination of child pornography must be prioritised. In this regard, European cooperation has a very important part to play in various roles. We Conservatives therefore voted in favour of the report.

However, at the same time, we would like to point out that we did not share the rapporteur's view with regard to two of the many proposals that were presented. Unlike the rapporteur, we do not believe that we should compromise the strict professional secrecy by which certain professions, such as lawyers, priests and psychologists, are bound.

We also believe that we can hardly hold the owner of an Internet site strictly responsible for all discussions that are held on a website, including in private conversations in closed rooms. In spite of the objective, it is disproportionate to require all owners of Internet sites to monitor all of the private conversations that are conducted there in order to be able to guarantee the lawfulness of the site in accordance with this proposal. Instead, we must focus on other, more effective methods of combating networks that disseminate child pornography that do not have such serious consequences for the integrity of ordinary Internet users.

I voted in favour of the Angelilli report because I believe that the protection of children's rights must be a priority for the EU and its Member States. Legislation combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography must be updated to take into account the development of new technologies, especially the Internet, as well as the use of some new forms of online grooming of children by paedophiles.

I feel that the institutions of the EU and Member States must focus, in particular, on increasing institutional capacity to combat these offences.

As these offences respect no borders, the EU must develop a transnational network to combat this crime. In this regard, I support the idea of EUROPOL setting up a specific unit tasked with combating child pornography and child prostitution, comprising experts trained in specific issues. This unit must cooperate effectively with the police authorities in Member States and in third countries, with the relevant expertise.

in writing. - I fully support MEP Angelilli's own-initiative report and the recommendation to the Council on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Previous common positions have not yet been implemented in all Member States, while the threat posed to children's safety by greater technological progress continues to mount. This report would update and strengthen existing measures for combating these abhorrent behaviours, and define them as criminal offences, punishable by law. The implementation of Ms Angelilli's report means that the protection of children from these abusive practices will increase in response to technological developments, targeting, in particular, the sinister practice of 'grooming'.

Other important proposals include cross-border checking of persons convicted of sexual abuse, to prevent them from obtaining employment where they would have direct contact with children in other Member States, and increased victim protection during investigations and trials.

The Internet is a vital part of our interconnected information society. Children are more computer literate than ever but, with this increased literacy and confidence, the dangers posed by unscrupulous persons are not clearly apparent to them or to their less literate parents. These common sense proposals aim to protect the most vulnerable members of our societies.

in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Angelilli report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography because I consider it essential to update the means of fighting all forms of exploitation of children, so as to ensure a high level of child protection within the European Union.

That is why I support the recommendations of the present report, specifically the proposal to criminalise in all Member States all sexual crimes against children, increased vigilance and monitoring of new forms of grooming of minors, particularly on the Internet, and the creation of the Missing Child Alert System to improve cooperation at European level.

The sexual abuse of children and child pornography are especially odious crimes which require, in an age of the Internet and sex tourism, stronger legislation, increased cooperation between the police and legal systems and improved victim support. Mrs Angelilli's report is worthy of our support.

I should, however, point out that, apart from the developments in technology that are giving the perverts many more opportunities to satisfy their cravings, we should also look at moral decadence and the lowering of values as further reasons for the large increase in this type of crime.

Just about 30 years ago, in the name of a so-called liberalisation of morals, unbridled pleasure seeking for all and the pseudo-personal growth of the individual from the earliest years, a certain political tendency promoted the sexual activity of minors, even in the columns of that mouthpiece of the trendy left, the French newspaper Le Monde. Whilst this undignified argument has, it is to be hoped, been rejected, its authors continue to preach and their political tendency continues to hand down lessons without ever having admitted its culpability.

Finally, I wish to know why the only right not afforded to children in most of our states is their right to be born.

As mentioned in the present proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (the CoE Convention) - already signed by 20 European Union countries, is the first international legal instrument to classify as crimes the various forms of sexual abuse of children, including abuse committed, inter alia, using force, coercion or threats, even within the family.

In this context, Parliament calls on all Member States which have not already done so to sign, ratify and apply all relevant international conventions, starting with the CoE Convention. Amongst other recommendations, Parliament calls on Member States to improve their legislation and cooperation on this area, to ensure that sexual crimes against children under the age of 18 are always classified throughout the EU as exploitation of minors and to criminalise all types of sexual abuse of children.

Irrespective of the necessary analysis and sovereign decision of each country regarding each of Parliament's decisions, we are in agreement with the main thrust of the resolution aimed at protecting and safeguarding the rights of children.

in writing. - The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are abominable crimes and international cooperation is necessary to put a stop to them. Therefore, we voted in favour of the Angelilli report today. However, there are aspects of the report that we do not support, such as creating uniform, extraterritorial criminal legislation applicable throughout the EU, as well as defining at EU level what should be considered a crime and aggravating circumstances.

I am voting in favour of the Angelilli report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

Nowadays, it is more important than ever for children's development and integrity to be protected in every possible way. Since, in most families, both parents work, the grandparents are not available to look after the children and the Internet is often the only form of entertainment, the extent of the risk is undeniable.

in writing. - The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are abominable crimes and international cooperation is necessary to put a stop to them. I therefore voted in favour of the Angelilli report today. However, there are aspects of the report that I do not support, such as creating a uniform extraterritorial criminal legislation applicable throughout the EU and defining at EU level what should be considered a crime and aggravating circumstances.

in writing. - (SV) Sexual crimes against children and child pornography are among the most abhorrent crimes that people are guilty of. These are crimes that should have tough criminal penalties or extensive reliable care if the perpetrator is mentally ill.

The report proposes many constructive measures to improve the handling of these horrendous social problems. Member States are urged to ratify and implement all international conventions in this area, they should receive help to improve their legislation in this area and child sex tourism should be criminalised in all Member States. This is wholly in accord with my view of the EU as a union of values. I support a lot of what the report contains and have voted in favour in many individual votes.

However, the report also seeks to harmonise criminal legislation within the EU and to establish a system of preventative measures to be financed from EU funds, despite the fact that this is a global problem that should be regulated by means of conventions and agreements at UN level. It is difficult to avoid the impression that, once again, we are faced with an example of the cynical use of a terrible social problem to boost the EU's position at the expense of the independence of the Member States. Criminal law is an absolutely crucial part of a sovereign state's competence. I have therefore voted against the report as a whole.

I voted in favour of Mrs Angelilli's report on the sexual exploitation of children because this issue concerns one of the most sordid inhumane acts, which must be punished by measures adopted by all Member States.

In Romania, there is still a great deal unknown about this issue. We have little data about how extensive it is. This is why I feel that adopting this report will help expand the campaigns providing information, focusing attention and warning about child sex abuse, increase the number and scope of actions aimed at detecting minors who are being sexually exploited, set up rehabilitation services and then carry out regular checks on their situation, as well as improve the system for registering and monitoring child sex abuse cases.

Furthermore, I believe that underage victims of trafficking must be provided with specialist services within transit centres, including assistance and rehabilitation across all Member States.

in writing. - I support this report which calls on the remaining three countries which have not yet done so to implement the Council framework decision on combating sexual exploitation of children. I support the increase in the level of protection for children, in particular, on the Internet, and also on other developing new technologies.

While the European Parliament is discussing how children can be better protected, the Islamic world is moving in the opposite direction. The most senior Islamic cleric in Saudi Arabia has described girls aged 10 or 12 as 'marriageable' and has demanded the right for child marriages to take place. As a result of Islamic immigrants, this will also have an impact on Europe and we must prepare ourselves for this eventuality.

Our children must be given the best possible protection. As sex offenders who target children have a high reoffending rate, we must establish an EU-wide register of the names of potential sex offenders, paedophiles and people with relevant behavioural problems. We must combat violence against children and child abuse in all its forms more effectively and increase the penalties for sexual contact with children and the possession of child pornography. I have voted in favour of the Angelilli report because it will improve the protection for our children.

Information technology is growing and expanding in the European Union as we are now in the 'digital age'. Certainly, there are major advantages associated with this technology and with the facilities that go with it from the point of view of jobs, education, social life and research. This does not mean, however, that we should ignore the dangers associated with this technology.

There is a particular freedom associated with the Internet - a freedom without physical or practical limits. This freedom can be a good thing, as is the case the majority of the time, but it can also be used for the sexual exploitation of children and for child pornography.

Nothing is more important than the health, wellbeing and future of our children. We must do everything possible to protect them from harm. To this end, I was happy to give my support to Madam Angelilli's report, and I commend her for all the work she has done on this subject.

I voted in favour of the Angelilli report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, because it demands compliance, which should go without saying, by all the Member States with current international law and a review of the Council's framework decision, in order to improve the protection of children at European Level.

The United Nations statistics are dramatic. The large majority of victims of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation are children and adolescents. International cooperation in an integrated fight against these crimes is needed and all Member States should ensure that their perpetrators are taken to court.

I voted for the Angelilli report because we need RAPID, EFFECTIVE action to combat the causes and, above all, the effects of the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

Our children are finding themselves increasingly on their own as we are increasingly busy. This is how they fall prey to dangerous temptations. The EU's commitments, voiced by Commissioner Barrot, provide us with the guarantee that from March, we will have an excellent legal framework.

I voted for this report aimed at adapting and reinforcing the Framework Decision of 2004, the objective being to protect children from sexual exploitation and violence. Given, in particular, the developments in technologies (especially the Internet), it turns out that protection thresholds in the framework decision need to be raised. The solicitation of children for sexual purposes should be seen as a crime. Cooperation between Member States should be strengthened in terms of the exchange of information about criminal records related to convictions for sexual abuse, so that those convicted of such offences can be prevented from taking jobs involving direct contact with children. Victim protection, too, must be improved.

I voted in favour of the report initiated by Mrs Angelilli, which has tackled the issue of combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, placing the emphasis on the preventive measures that need to be considered by the Member States when they are drafting their legislative framework for combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

The report also sounds an alarm bell concerning the poor application of the existing framework decision, along with the relevant international instruments, particularly the Council of Europe's Convention for the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, to which Romania has been a party since 2007, while also requesting the incorporation of new sexual offences. Member States must encourage the victims of sexual exploitation to contact the police and relevant courts competent in criminal and civil matters. They must also make accountable and inform both the legal representatives of minors and the staff having direct contact with minors about the dangers relating to grooming children online.

All these dangers can be restricted through setting up national control bodies and cooperating with Internet service providers to block child pornography websites or materials.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting in favour of the report by Mrs Angelilli on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Condemning these practices is, in fact, not enough to eradicate this extremely serious violation of human rights.

It is worrying, however, that not all Member States have conformed to the prescriptions of Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003. This decision, among others, needs to be updated in order to increase the level of protection for children, also in view of the constant development of new technologies, in particular, the Internet, and the use of new forms of online grooming of children by paedophiles.

I entirely agree with the rapporteur, who has given us a detailed and constructive report that reflects excellent expert knowledge of the issues.

Child pornography is a delicate subject which should always be a main focus for European and national authorities. European Union Member States should severely punish any kind of child sex abuse and any kind of online grooming.

I welcome the European Parliament's decision to request Member States to make a firm commitment to combating child sex abuse, especially bearing in mind how vulnerable children using chat rooms and online forums are to abuse.

With this in mind, effective cooperation is essential between national authorities and Internet service providers in order not only to restrict access to pornographic websites by children, but also to block the access of children to websites which advertise the opportunity to commit sexual offences. There are also recommendations for creating national schemes for providing psychological rehabilitation to both sex offenders and the victims of sexual abuse.

I would like to stress the fact that every Member State must individually keep a child sex offender register and prevent such offenders from being employed in sectors which involve working with children.

in writing. - (NL) I emphatically voted in favour of the report combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. It is beyond dispute that grooming (approaching children for sexual purposes) and paedophile chat rooms should be liable to punishment. In addition, indecency offences involving children should fall within extra-territorial criminal legislation. The European Union should also be able to use the general budget to fund the EU's intervention programmes to prevent recidivism for sex offenders. I also support the proposal in which the Commission, together with the major credit card companies, will look into the technical scope for blocking or closing Internet payment systems of websites on which child pornography is sold.

Finally, I urge the seven EU Member States that have not yet signed the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse to do so soon. This also applies to the eight Member States that have not yet ratified the Optional Protocol from 2000 concerning child trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography to the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child.

in writing. - (EL) The political forces which support imperialist barbarity, war, the plundering of wealth-producing resources and the exploitation of peoples are jointly responsible for the daily crime being committed against millions of children in the world. They are responsible for the millions of children who are hungry, who are malnourished, who are forced to work and who live below the poverty line in the countries of the 'civilised West', for the millions of children who are victims of sexual exploitation and for the flourishing child pornography industry, which turns over and generates profits of over EUR 3 billion from the Internet alone.

The criminal measures proposed in the report will not be able to protect children, because they cannot and will not address the main cause which is giving rise to corruption and depravity at unprecedented rates: profit and the deeply rotten exploitative capitalist system. Nor do measures such as abolishing the principle of non bis in idem, monitoring communications and arbitrary intervention by the prosecuting authorities in the Internet make an effective contribution to child protection. On the contrary, experience has shown that, where such measures are adopted, usually by way of exception in the name of combating crimes which meet with a general outcry and repugnance, the aim is to get the grass roots to come to terms with them, so that later they can be used to restrict personal rights and democratic freedoms.

in writing. - (SV) I have voted against the report on the EU harmonisation of criminal legislation in connection with sexual crimes against children. I am in favour of strong cooperation within the EU to combat the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, but I believe that criminal law should be a national matter.

Protecting children and young people from sexual abuse is an important issue and, indeed, a problem of our times.

I have always been in favour of prior rights for parents in the upbringing of their children, but in this case the state, too, must protect children and adolescents. This protection does not apply only to the Internet. It also applies to media advertising, which should be decent and in keeping with moral values, and should not attack young people's right to innocence.

Parents play a special role in protecting their children against sexual abuse. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly says, in Article 26.3, that 'parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children'. The education given by parents includes education on responsible use of the media. However, parents cannot consistently perform their educational role if they do not have adequate time to devote to their family and their children. The state should allow parents this free time. The Internet can never replace time spent in dialogue between parents and children. A computer game cannot replace talking to one's grandmother. The joystick is no equivalent to an hour spent with one's grandfather in the garage.

The natural family is the space for protection of children, and parents are their first protectors. This is why I have started a project in Slovakia addressed primarily to parents: 'Do you know where your child is now?'

In a civilised society, we must put the safety of our children above everything. Sexual exploitation is a violation of a child's right to care and protection. Sexual exploitation leaves children with psychological scars and sometimes even physical ones, thereby diminishing their hopes of leading a life of dignity.

I would like to support the idea put forward by the rapporteur, Mrs Angelilli, that the framework decision currently in force since 2004 should be updated. We welcome the decision whereby this updating process must be carried out in order to increase the level of child protection, especially with regard to the new threats posed by the Internet and other new communication systems. Member States must ensure that the legislation will be amended so that websites with criminal content are blocked.

We must encourage cooperation between Member States to put an end to this type of crime and actively combat child pornography and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation of children. We need a comprehensive global strategy, along with diplomatic and administrative cooperation in order to ensure that this legislation is enforced for the benefit of children. We must offer protection to victims of abuse. We must also put an end to sex tourism.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes

Resettlement of Guantánamo prisoners - Alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (debate) 

The next point consists of the Council and Commission statements on the return and resettlement of Guantánamo inmates and the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I am certainly aware that the issue of Guantánamo has been a subject of great concern to this Parliament. I am also aware that this Parliament, through the various resolutions adopted since 2002, has consistently expressed its opinion on that particular problem. I therefore believe that you have welcomed, as has the Council, President Obama's decision to close Guantánamo within a year. The Presidency expressed this sentiment through a statement which was issued shortly after President Obama signed the Executive Orders. Ministers unequivocally welcomed this decision at the last General and External Affairs Council meeting, as you probably know.

President Obama has also announced his decision to suspend military commission trials, to reaffirm the Geneva Convention, to end the secret detentions programme and to put a stop to enhanced interrogations. These welcome developments will enable us to strengthen even more transatlantic cooperation in the area of countering terrorism.

The decision to close Guantánamo is, of course, primarily the responsibility of the United States. Nevertheless, given our shared interest in countering terrorism, and in upholding human rights and the rule of law, ministers at last week's Council discussed ways in which the Member States might be able to offer practical assistance to the US and, in particular, whether they might accept former detainees.

In his executive order to close Guantánamo, President Obama ordered a review of the status of all detainees. This is now under way. Resettlement of detainees would concern those cleared for release in the light of this review. The question of whether Member States might accept former detainees is a national decision. However, it was agreed last week that a common political response would be desirable and that the possibility of coordinated European action could be explored further.

This subject raises a number of political, legal and security issues which need further study and consultation and which - and this is also very important - will require the involvement of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in the Member States. This process has just begun, and the Council will return to this issue once some of these issues have been further clarified. This is a subject of ongoing work and COPS is discussing it today, for example.

I fully understand the continuing interest in this Parliament, as reflected in the draft resolution which has been tabled at this session, and which I have read. I would like to assure you that the Presidency will pay great attention to this issue and will keep you fully informed of the outcome of further discussions in the Council, as well as any other developments.

Mr President, I warmly welcome Mr Vondra and am glad to be able to echo what he has just said, since it is obvious that the Commission has to work closely with the Presidency on this difficult issue.

I would also particularly like to add my support to Mrs Ferrero-Waldner who, at the last moment, has been prevented from joining us this evening. I will therefore speak on her behalf and on my own.

The Commission has given a very favourable reception to the initiatives taken by President Obama since his inauguration. All of the components are now in place for a relaunch of US/European relations and the Commission will make major efforts to revitalise this partnership.

The most striking example of the change of direction by the United States is their intention to look at the issues of human rights in relation to the treatment of suspected terrorists. We welcome, of course, President Obama's haste to close the Guantánamo detention camp, to reach out to the Islamic world and confirm the United States' commitment to the Middle East peace process.

We also note with satisfaction other equally important features of the orders signed on 22 January, namely the closure of the secret CIA prisons, the total ban on the use of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and the suspension of trials by military tribunals.

The European Union maintains an active political dialogue with the United States in which, of course, we give priority to the promotion of human rights throughout the world. We are also active partners with the US in the fight against the terrorist threat, but always in accordance with our human rights obligations.

The detention without trial of prisoners at Guantánamo over several years has played into the hands of the terrorist groups who are trying to radicalise and recruit new members. The European Union has already shown its opposition to Guantánamo. Your Parliament, the European Parliament, has incessantly called for its closure, because the fight against terrorism has to be carried out in accordance with international law. In the fight against terrorism, it is important to respect human rights not only as a matter of principle, but also to counter radicalisation around the world. We believe that the rights conferred under international law to all detainees should be respected. Except in the case of armed conflict, individuals should not be detained arbitrarily and should have the right to a fair, legal trial. We have raised these issues in the framework of the political dialogue with the United States. The European Parliament has played an important role in raising awareness of this issue.

I would add, still echoing Mr Vondra, that the case of each of the Guantánamo detainees should be reviewed by the American authorities. A working group, chaired by the Attorney General and consisting of the Secretaries of State for Defence and Homeland Security and high level officials, has just started work.

President Obama has announced that new diplomatic efforts will be made to find a solution to the problem of Guantánamo.

At the last Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers of 26 January, as Mrs Ferrero-Waldner would have reported, there was a brief discussion about Guantánamo. Several Member States have expressed their desire to establish a common framework for a concerted European Union approach, even though in the first instance, Mr Vondra, it is up to the Member States to decide, on a case-by-case basis, on the response to any requests from the United States.

We have proposed, in close collaboration with the Council Secretariat, to investigate these issues more closely. We are examining the issues around how third countries might receive former detainees. Even if freed detainees ought, in principle, to return to their countries of origin, some of those likely to be released after review could not return to their home country for fear of persecution, torture or ill-treatment.

In conjunction with the United States, we wish closely to examine what the European Union could do to help to relocate these people in a safe place. However, these particular cases will raise delicate, complicated questions that have to be considered in advance. The principle never changes: we should do whatever is needed to guarantee absolute respect for human rights. In all cases, we want to take a positive and constructive attitude towards the new US administration. At the same time, we must take all measures to ensure that the European Union's approach complies with our obligations on human rights and our own legislation.

This approach will be neither easy nor quick. We will face complicated questions requiring coordination of the Member States' action to arrive at a coherent European Union response. We will do all we can to contribute to the debate on what practical measures should be taken at a Community level.

At present, the US has not made a formal request. As Mrs Ferrero-Waldner repeatedly says, positive cooperation is required. We have to work together with the Member States to put this in place.

At the next Justice and Home Affairs Council of 26 February, we will call on the Member States to take a concerted approach and we might also use the precedent of the solution used when the Palestinians were brought to Europe in the wake of the events at the Church of the Nativity in 2002.

The Commission wishes, of course, to assist those Member States who decide to receive former Guantánamo detainees on their territory. Obviously, though, it is up to those Member States to define the status of former detainees who are also citizens of third countries and who could potentially be transferred to their territory.

Each case will be considered individually, taking into account the situation of each individual, humanitarian considerations and security implications. The decision to receive and allocate a status falls, in the end, within the competence of each Member State. This approach must, however, be part of a joint framework as far as possible.

Mr President, that is what I have to say on my own and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner's behalf. I wonder if I should now make the statement about the transport and illegal detention of prisoners across the European area. I shall continue then and make a statement which, although fairly short, will answer a lot of Parliament's questions.

It concerns the CIA using European countries for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners. The line taken by the Commission from the beginning revolves around three ideas: first, the war against terrorism has to be carried out in full respect of fundamental rights; secondly, the truth, whatever it may be, must be established; thirdly and, for me, most importantly, such acts must be prevented in future.

The Commission has repeatedly expressed its view that the practices referred to as extraordinary rendition and secret detention are a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission has also stated that it is essential for the Member States involved to conduct comprehensive, independent, impartial investigations to establish the truth, whatever it may be. This is a positive obligation resulting from the European Convention on Human Rights. It has to be said that investigations have begun in several Member States.

As for the allegations of secret detentions in Poland, the Commission has written to the Polish authorities several times. As I have been entrusted with responsibility for 'justice, freedom and security' issues, I myself wrote to the Polish authorities on 28 May 2008 to stress the importance of conducting proper investigations.

Following this letter, in August 2008, the assistant attorney general informed me that a criminal investigation had finally begun and that he will inform me of its results. I believe that this is a major development.

I have also approached Romania about this issue of secret detentions. In June 2008, the Prime Minister of Romania sent me the report from the Romanian Senate's investigations committee. After further contacts, the Romanian authorities decided to carry out further investigations to examine the information included in the second report from Mr Marty, who himself has been chosen as rapporteur by the European Council.

Only such an approach, that puts the accent on the need to conduct proper investigations at a national level, will allow us to move forward. The Union and the Commission have neither the powers nor the resources to replace the Member States in this task of uncovering the truth. Only the investigative instruments and resources of the Member States will be sufficient for the task.

Obviously, the Commission, and here I am going to make a commitment to you, hopes that these investigations will be completed and will make it possible, where appropriate, to determine who was responsible and, where appropriate, ensure compensation for the victims.

In addition to the requests to the Member States to carry out investigations, one of the practical contributions made by the Commission, following the European Parliament resolution of 2 February 2007, was to clarify the definition of 'state aircraft' and, when I was Commissioner for Transport, I presented a communication on civil and business aviation that clarified matters.

Parliament has also requested an assessment of national anti-terrorist legislation. To get an overview of the current situation, the Commission has sent a questionnaire to the Member States on the effectiveness of the measures to combat terrorism and on their relationship with fundamental rights. The Commission has received replies from the 27 Member States and a document presenting these replies will be published in the next six months. There is now a need to throw real light on all these replies.

There you have it, Mr President; I have taken up quite some time, ladies and gentlemen, but it is true that, whilst this is an area in which the Union has limited powers, the Commission has endeavoured to encourage the truth to come to light and promote respect for fundamental rights. I can only say one thing, but in saying it I am making a personal commitment. I will, of course, continue to ensure that the whole truth is established, above all, so that we can be sure that such regrettable actions will not be repeated.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I was expecting two disconnected issues: Guantánamo, on the one hand, and the secret detentions and renditions on the other. As we are all aware, during his first days in office, President Obama in fact made three decisions. The first one I have already told you about, i.e. Guantánamo, but there were two other important ones as well.

Firstly, he ended the CIA secret detention programme. He ordered that in future, all detainees held by the US must be registered with the ICRC. With this decision, he addressed an issue which has been of concern to both the Council and the European Parliament. This is why the Council has also warmly welcomed this decision. I am sure that it is equally warmly welcomed by this Parliament.

President Obama also ended the use of 'enhanced' interrogation techniques by the CIA. The US investigators can no longer rely on the legal opinions concerning torture and other interrogation techniques written since 9/11. This decision is important. The European Union is committed to the absolute prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

As regards the third decision, President Obama has also ordered a review of transfer or rendition policies to ensure they are in line with US obligations under international law. In future, policies must not - I quote - 'result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the US to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody and control'.

We believe that these decisions, taken together with the decision to close Guantánamo, which I have already mentioned, will further strengthen cooperation with the US in countering terrorism. I think it can also restore a better climate in transatlantic relations and can respond to feelings which were articulated very strongly in this Parliament, as well as among a substantial part of public opinion in Europe.

I think here we can all agree on one point from the outset: that the context of today's discussion changed immeasurably. I am also aware that the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners has been a source of deep concern among many Members of this Parliament. You have been following these issues very closely, not least through the activities of the Temporary Committee.

The position of this Parliament was clearly expressed in your resolution of February 2007. I want to underline to you that the Council has always reiterated its commitment to combating terrorism effectively, using all legal means available, because terrorism itself is a threat to a system of values based on the rule of law.

The Council has also stated repeatedly that the existence of secret detention facilities, where detained persons are kept in a legal vacuum, is not in conformity with international humanitarian and human rights law. That remains our view today and we are committed to it, but the change of context with the current developments in the US means that I would also like to focus primarily on the future. Let us look forwards rather than backwards. The Council very much welcomes the recent decision by the US President on this issue.

The transatlantic community has been a community of shared values and must remain one if we are to be able to defend our interests in the global world. There is no doubt that human rights and support for the rule of law in the fight against terrorism belong to this shared heritage.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, should prisoners from Guantánamo be accepted in the European Union? This is the question which we must ask ourselves today. The answer will depend on the considerations which we choose to be guided by.

Some people allege that the prisoners have been tortured. This is a reason for accepting them, under the dictates of humanity. It is without doubt true that torture is the most inhumane and degrading practice. If these people have been tortured, then they have a right to our sympathy, regardless of the individual accusations made against them. However, is that the only aspect which we have to consider?

For example, many of the people who are or were imprisoned in Guantánamo went to training camps for terrorists in Afghanistan after 11 September. They were not tourists who wanted to experience the beauty of the country, but potential terrorists. We have a duty to protect European citizens against potential terrorists.

Unfortunately, torture takes place all over the world and we constantly condemn it. We have not yet gone as far as saying that anyone who has been tortured has a right to be accepted in Europe. We have not yet done this, for good reason. Instead we have weighed this consideration against the need for security in the European Union. We must also do that in this case. We must ensure that potential terrorists do not descend on Europe and, therefore, in evaluating this problem, I would like to see the need for security being given the highest priority above all other considerations.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my colleague Claudio Fava will speak on behalf of our group on questions relating to the CIA flights and that part of the discussion. I will focus on the issues relating to the closure of the Guantánamo camp and I will begin by responding to Hartmut Nassauer.

It is true that the security requirements of the people in the European Union represent a standard against which we must measure our actions. However, I would like to begin with the question: What causes more damage to our security? Is it the fear of accepting Guantánamo inmates here because they are considered to pose a security risk after their release? Or, more likely, is it the fact that the existence of this camp, which runs contrary to international law and infringes human rights, is the basic reason behind a wave of overwhelming anger felt by millions of people throughout the world? This is because the so-called Western world, which admittedly was provoked in an unprecedented way by the events of 11 September, was, to a certain extent, unable to influence what happened and therefore had to accept the fact that a president of the United States of America disregarded fundamental human rights because he considered this to be an appropriate response to this provocation.

I believe that this has made a more significant contribution to increasing insecurity in the world than if we were to state now, when another president wants to return his country to its former greatness, by making the United States of America a symbol for the preservation of fundamental rights throughout the world, if we Europeans were to say now, we want nothing to do with this, you must work out for yourself what to do about it.

We would give out the message that a confederation of states such as the European Union, which believes itself to be, and indeed is, a community ruled by law, wants to evade its responsibilities by using this argument at the moment when an illegal situation is being brought to an end. We cannot expect our citizens to accept that this is a security risk. This is the wrong message. It is disastrous, because our behaviour is worse than those people who, like Barack Obama, go there and say that despite all the risks that they themselves are taking, despite the opposition among the military, despite the opposition in the USA, because the people there are also saying 'leave them in Guantánamo, do not bring them here, here they represent a bigger risk', who say that despite all this opposition, there is a symbolic power which results from the fact that a new president is returning to a respect for human and fundamental rights, including the rights of those who themselves have not shown any regard for human and fundamental rights. A failure to help him in this situation would be wrong and would run contrary at least to my group's understanding of the task of the European Union, which is to ensure that the community ruled by law that we have created internally is exported as an aspect of international politics.

We can only do that when we contribute in a credible way within our own boundaries to ensuring that the fundamental rights of every individual have priority. Guantánamo is a place of shame. It is a place of torture. For this reason, it is also a symbol of the fact that the Western confederation of states cannot claim to practise what it preaches, which is that, most importantly of all, human dignity is inviolable. This is the first article in our Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter does not state that this inviolability can be reduced. Our sense of superiority over the terrorist philosophy has something to do with the fact that we say that we will even grant those people their fundamental rights who want to withhold those rights from others by means of their actions.

For this reason, I believe we can make a greater contribution to the security of the world by closing Guantánamo, by supporting Barack Obama and by playing an active role if the US Administration asks us to do so and if we can work with the government to put in place a process for accepting these people, than if we were to preach a false concept of security which, Mr Nassauer, could only be implemented if the police and the secret service were to do their job. It is not the case that when people come out of Guantánamo, they can move around here freely and unobserved. The security aspect is important, but fundamental rights must, in this instance, be given a higher priority.

(Applause)

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, when Senator Obama became President Obama, we all heaved a sigh of relief. The axis of evil, regime change, the war on terror: European citizens yearn to see those euphemisms consigned to history, along with the people who invented them.

But breaking with the past and reverting to the rule of law take guts and grit, so I congratulate the new President. He was right to condemn waterboarding as torture, right to call a halt to the flawed military trials at Guantánamo Bay, and right to signal his determination to close the camp completely within a year. I welcome the assurance of the Council Presidency today that the US has now disowned all the squalid practices that have tarnished its Government over recent years, including torture in third countries and extraordinary rendition, in order to put an end to the axis of illegality.

However, Europe cannot stand back, shrug its shoulders and say that these things are for America alone to sort out. We lack the open debate and the collective change of will which American democracy allows. Yet, too often, Member States from our Union were complicit in what the Bush Administration did. If the 43rd President taught us anything, it is this: that in the administration of international justice, the 'go it alone' mentality ends in a cul-de-sac of failure.

So the challenge of Guantánamo, the problem posed by 245 suspects floating outwith the justice system, is not an issue for America alone. It is a conundrum we must solve together. The United States must prosecute suspects, where sound evidence exists and in accordance with the rule of law. America must free those suspects against whom there is insufficient evidence and defend them if they are likely to face torture at home.

But what about those who are released, who pose no threat, but who have no wish to remain in a country that wrongly imprisoned them? If asked, should not Europe offer those few citizens the rights and freedoms that no other country will? We cannot forever balance the Council's assertion that it is for individual Member States to decide with the Council's stated desire for a coordinated European position. Europe has to speak with one voice and play its part in ending this affront to justice. Many of us have criticised America in the past for its failure to work with others. We were right to do so, but our help may now be sought and we would be wrong to say 'no'.

Mr President, standard conservative interpretation of international law requires Guantánamo to be closed immediately and unconditionally. After September 11, though, nothing is standard any longer. That is why even President Obama, who is so eager for change, is facing a serious problem in terms of what to do with the people who are currently held in Guantánamo. These are no ordinary inmates. Every ninth person of those released from Guantánamo has immediately resumed terrorist activities. I would therefore urge caution when offering advice to the United States and to Member States of the European Union.

Three things are absolutely certain regarding this matter. We are certainly bound to remove our citizens and residents from the camp. We are also required to effectively isolate individuals who represent a serious threat. In addition, we should review the Geneva Convention with a view to finding a suitable response to the problem of stateless terrorist armies. Unfortunately, none of these issues have been dealt with appropriately in the draft resolution.

Mr President, my group welcomes the remarks made by Minister Vondra about Guantánamo Bay. It appears that, in principle, the European Union is seeking a common response, and the Czech Presidency will help us in this. Where exactly inmates will be moved to is still a question of national agreement, but it is reported that Europe will, in principle, react positively to the request from the US. This will please Parliament, because we asked back in 2006 for the EU Member States to insist proactively on the resettlement of former inmates, including in the European Union.

My question to the Council is: are you prepared to do this in a proactive manner? Would you ask the US now who the inmates are? Will you ask about their backgrounds and what will happen to them, so that we can make the necessary arrangements? I am, however, pleased with this positive attitude, which will hopefully end the human rights violations to which these people have been exposed.

Mr President, whilst this is wonderful for Guantánamo Bay, which is a symbol, we should not forget that there are also other prisons we should voice an opinion about. Bagram, near Kabul, springs to mind, for example, where some 600 to 700 people are being held. I am asking the Council and Commission to ensure that those prisons will also be closed.

Although I was pleased with the remarks about Guantánamo Bay, I am a little dismayed at the CIA. I appreciate that above all, the Council wants to look ahead, not back. I can understand that very well, because when you look back, you see a huge mess. It would be too simplistic to say that since the US now has a new President, we can apply the same standards again for us all, and forget to look in our own hearts and overlook the aid that we have given to a government of which you now say that it has acted incorrectly.

Mr President, my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, has demanded the closure of the US prison camp in Guantánamo right from the start. Contrary to all the relevant fundamental legal principles and international agreements, people have been held captive and tortured over a period of years and denied a fair trial. Their fundamental human rights have been disregarded. The very power which tries to uphold human rights, democracy and freedom throughout the world has violated fundamental rights in this case and created its own unlegislated area for its war on terror. This is unacceptable!

It was important that the European Parliament constantly repeated its call for the closure of Guantánamo over a long period. However, now that a new government has said that it is changing its policy, we Europeans are now starting to cast doubt on what we ourselves have been calling for. We are hesitating and starting a shameful period of horse-trading. I regard this as a cynical approach.

What has happened to our call for the universality and indivisibility of human rights? We cannot really be saying that we want to preach one thing and do another. It cannot be true that, in some way, we want to justify and accept this shameful camp. We cannot only regard upholding human rights as an important principle when we demand it of others and do not do anything to promote it ourselves.

I call on the Member States to state their position clearly, but I also say on behalf of my group that the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo only represents the first step. The US military base at Guantánamo must also be removed.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) We probably all feel a strong sense of relief over what has happened in the United States. It is similar to the situation we had at the beginning of the 1950s when the American people and the American system demonstrated its ability to get rid of McCarthyism. It is now demonstrating the same ability by electing a new President, who, on his first day, declared that Guantánamo should be closed. Thank goodness for that.

What was wrong here, of course, was the detention of those suspected of terrorism or other crimes. They should be tried and acquitted or convicted, released or punished. Those who are not convicted should be treated as innocent. If we then still suspect them, it is the job of the security services to follow up on that at a later date. I find it difficult to understand why those whom it has not been possible to convict cannot stay in the United States, but European countries should themselves, of course, be prepared to receive those who have not ... Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

(NL) Anyone who manipulates the principles of rule of law uses the methods of those which the rule of law claims to fight. The closure of Guantánamo Bay prison, where the rights of defence, as we know them in our western world, were not guaranteed, is a good thing. There is no need to expand on this as this has been stressed by many before me. The fact that Mr Bush, through his tough policy, has managed to protect the American people against a second September 11 does not change matters much.

A democracy should respect the rule of law at all times and throughout the world, but democracy should also consider resolute ways in which it can protect itself against the religious extremists who wish to destroy our open society. This is an emphasis that I cannot find in the draft documents before us.

Finally, we should not be fixated on Guantánamo. Cuba itself, which is where the enclave of the American Guantánamo is, is one big prison where thousands of innocent political prisoners remain bereft of any prospect of a fair or swift trial. The same goes for our major trading partner China, which we spare time and again when it comes to human rights.

Mr President, I just wanted to ask why Mr Schulz was allowed to exceed his speaking time enormously - but not the rest of us? Why?

The President of the European Parliament, Mr Pöttering, was in the chair when Mr Schulz spoke, and so this is a question for Mr Pöttering. I do not see that it has any connection with my being in the chair. You should raise the matter again when Mr Pöttering is in the chair.

Mr President, what are we to do with the former inmates of Guantánamo Bay? How do we strike the right balance between ensuring the security of EU citizens and finding a place to settle former inmates?

Firstly, let me make it clear that I for one am not discussing inmates deemed to be dangerous but unsuitable for trial by the United States, and please remember that such a sizeable group still exists. But even those cleared of charges and deemed to be no risk at all still, in my opinion, pose a risk.

We have legitimate fears because, according to the Pentagon, 61 former inmates cleared of all charges and subsequently released are now reported to be engaged in terrorist activities. One is the deputy head of al-Qa'ida in Yemen, and one has blown himself up.

Yesterday, President Obama stated on public television that he cannot be sure whether inmates cleared and released will not pose a security threat. Can we be asked to take that risk in the EU? Well I think we can be asked, but we must have the right to decide whether that risk is acceptable to us or not.

Member States have shown different degrees of willingness to take former inmates. I stress that the decision to accept inmates must be the sovereign one of the Member State. It cannot be forced upon a Member State by the EU, but neither can it be made in isolation. Given the freedom of movement we enjoy in Europe, especially the border-free Europe of the Schengen zone, Member States' decisions to allow Guantánamo Bay inmates to settle in their country has security implications not only for that Member State, but also for its neighbours. Therefore I require, and we require, that such decisions are consulted with other EU members.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the closing of Guantánamo allows us to rectify a violation that has shamed international law and, above all, has done no service to the war on terrorism.

Today, however, it is not enough to welcome President Obama's decision. Now is the time to take responsibility, and responsibility also involves Europe and the Member States. Guantánamo is, in part, the consequence of Europe's silence and the collaboration of many of our governments in the system of rendition. In recent years, what has happened is that our governments were, on the one hand, saying that Guantánamo must be closed and, on the other, sending their police officers there to interrogate the detainees. We are talking about responsibilities which were denied when this Parliament investigated the matter, but which have been acknowledged and verified in the past two years.

February 2008: London apologises for the CIA flights; some aeroplanes have used British bases, said Foreign Secretary Miliband, contradicting what Tony Blair had said three years earlier, maintaining that nothing illegal had taken place on British soil. December 2008: the Spanish Government under Mr Aznar knew that many CIA flights had overflown Spanish air space and used Spanish airports. This emerged from a secret document published by El País that turned out to be true. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Josep Piqué, who acknowledged the use of Spanish airports, said that he did not know what happened afterwards in Guantánamo. Perhaps he thought that it was an amusement park. In October 2008, we learnt that in Portugal, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Amado, admitted that the former centreright government of Mr Barroso knowingly made Portuguese airports and air space available for illegal CIA flights. Mr Amado said: 'I did not talk about it so as not to disrupt the serenity of the European institutions'. We ask: and what about the citizens' right to know? Or are we to imagine that not even Mr Barroso knew what sort of civil and juridical obscenity Guantánamo was then and still is now?

This is the point, Mr President, and I am about to conclude: in recent years we have shown much good will and much hypocrisy, not least in what the Council has left unsaid during these years. Two years ago, Parliament addressed 46 recommendations to the Council. We would have expected that at least some of these recommendations would have been given due examination and due attention, that there would eventually have been replies to at least some of the recommendations. For this reason, we believe that providing some help in closing Guantánamo and assuming our collective responsibility, as Europe and the 27 Member States that it comprises, would be a contribution, however small, to atone for our collective silence.

Mr President, the main responsibility for closure of Guantánamo Bay and the resettlement of detainees undoubtedly lies with the US Government. However, Europe needs to recognise the political reality that the US cannot manage this alone. We have expressed a lot of goodwill towards President Obama and commitment to transatlantic relations. That must imply an offer of practical assistance.

There are also other reasons for EU Member States to cooperate in closing the prison. First of all, the humanitarian argument, which I hardly need to labour, to rescue these men from the hellhole in which some of them have suffered for seven years. Secondly, Europe's credibility: we have called on the US to close Guantánamo, now we have to help to make that true. Thirdly, our own self-interest in ending a potent symbol that acts as a pretext for terrorist recruitment and radicalisation and, lastly, the moral responsibility that Claudio Fava was talking about.

However, I think we will deal with rendition and the collusion by European governments in a second motion for a resolution in two weeks' time. So, I strongly welcome the joint resolution that we have agreed between the groups and across the political spectrum, and I really hope we will have a strong vote tomorrow. Assuming the ALDE Group accepts my advice, we will neither table nor support any amendments to this resolution.

I just want to deal with a couple of things. Firstly, the allegations about 61 released detainees having become involved in terrorism: we have heard from lawyers who know about these things that this is largely baseless. We know of two who have become involved in terrorism. Others include those, like the eight people in Albania, who gave interviews to the media; the so-called 'Tipton Three', British citizens who made a film criticising Guantánamo. That is not 'returning to terrorism'.

Lastly, concerning the security issues: we need to discuss those, but credible solutions are being put forward, and we can involve the lawyers in that.

(PL) Mr President, after Barack Obama's election as president of the United States of America, and his signature of the document on the forthcoming closure of the Guantánamo detention centre, an unhealthy excitement was felt in this House. Members of the now dissolved Temporary Committee on CIA Affairs took the floor. I would remind the House that the aforementioned Committee did not contrive to establish anything, although it was at pains to express its outrage and to condemn types of so-called extraordinary rendition.

We already know now that the new President appreciates the serious nature of the problem. He has modified his stance since the election campaign and shortly after being sworn, in he issued a regulation extending the period in which the methods used to date in dealing with terrorists may be employed.

We realise that for many Member States of the European Union, including Poland, it is impossible to accept arrested terrorists. Nonetheless, Member States of the Union and our Parliament, instead of criticising and weakening the front in the war on terror, should cooperate with the United States and take upon themselves part of the responsibility for combating this phenomenon. I must remind the House once more that terrorism is a global threat that also affects Union citizens.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the prison camp at Guantánamo has become a symbol of contempt for human rights and the rule of law. The new US president Barack Obama has given out an equally powerful and essential message by ordering the end of the military tribunals in Guantánamo and promising to close the camp within a year.

However, it is not only the United States of America which has lost credibility as a result of its contempt for human rights in the war against terror. Our European governments cannot disclaim responsibility, as the Temporary Committee of the European Parliament on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners established in its report in February 2007. This exposes the double standards of many countries in the European Union, who rightly demand that candidate states uphold human rights, but themselves trample on human rights within the European Union.

The European Union also has the responsibility of playing an active role in the process of finding a joint solution for all the prisoners who are no longer under suspicion and who cannot return to their home countries. This applies specifically to Germany which can, and should, help to make the acceptance of refugees a possibility. We must not repeat the mistake we made in the case of the German Turk from Bremen, Murat Kurnaz, who wrongly spent four years in Guantánamo Bay.

The new beginning in Washington is an opportunity for us to send a clear signal that human rights must not be eroded in the war against terror.

(ES) Mr President, it is my hope and wish that President Obama's statement on the closing of the Guantánamo detention centre will herald a change in US foreign policy.

I hope it will mean the rejection of a policy that repaid terror with terror and crime with crime, one that, ultimately, rode roughshod over international law.

My hope and wish is for this to be the case. The problem for the European Union is that many European states have been committed to Mr Bush's former policy of repaying crime with crime and torture with torture. And they have been accomplices in that policy. This is why the committee of inquiry into CIA flights could not finish its work: there were European governments that were hiding their shameful acts, the shameful acts of Mr Bush's foreign policy. And this is why we must insist they be held accountable. The American people have done so through the polls.

I also hope that President Obama shows courage and brings to justice those officials who have tortured and those officials who have detained people illegally, because, ladies and gentlemen, for the Guantánamo prisoners, there is only one solution as far as the law is concerned. If there is proof against any of them, they should be tried. If there is no proof, then they must be released. And US Administration officials must take responsibility for those people who have been detained illegally.

That is what happens in my country and that is what happens in any democracy that is fundamentally based on democratic rights. Thank you very much.

(FR) Mr President, I think it is not our role to act as an outlet for the arbitrary policy which the United States of America has unfortunately been deliberately pursuing in this area. The policy flies in the face of our common Western principles and is being conducted in a cynically chosen area which is a relic of colonial times. There is no rule of law there: neither Cuban law, which, as Mr Dillen rightly said, affords no protection to the individual, nor US law, nor our common heritage of international law.

In legal terms, I think the issue is clear. If there are criminal charges under common law against some of the prisoners, they should be judged by due process of law. If they are suspected, for example, of having organised the attacks of 11 September, they should have been told seven years ago of the charges they face, had access to lawyers and appeared before the American courts. There is no shortage of these in the United States of America.

If others are considered to be prisoners of war following the Allied intervention in Afghanistan, they should be held in the conditions set out in the law relating to war until hostilities officially end.

If there are detainees who fall into neither of these two categories, then they should be freed and sent home.

I am told that some are potentially dangerous, but if I personally were detained for seven years in complete isolation, whilst I might not have been potentially dangerous to begin with, I would certainly have become potentially dangerous by the end. I believe this is the case for most people here.

If some do not wish to go home, they can ask their gaolers for political asylum. That is all I have to say and, in passing, I wish to thank Mr Barrot for his investigative work. Time will show it to have been the best analysis of these illegal transfers of prisoners.

(PT) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, this House called for the closure of the prison at Guantánamo Bay several times. We were joined by the other two institutions: the Commission and the Council. Now that the decision has been made, let there be no mistake about our position. We heartily congratulate President Obama on this decision, one that he justified with the need to reinvest the United States with the moral authority which it previously enjoyed in the world.

Let us be clear: the Bush Administration's decision to open the prison at Guantánamo Bay, as well as the 'extraordinary renditions' programme, was a blow to that moral authority. The ends do not justify the means. It is not acceptable for international law to be violated, for torture to be carried out, for secret prisons to be opened or for prisoners to be made to disappear. In states governed by the rule of law, prisoners are brought to justice and have the right to defend themselves. The Bush Administration was wrong to commit these abuses, just as its accomplices, whether through conniving applause or ashamed silence, were also wrong.

If the United States requests the help of the European Union, it must not be refused - just, in fact, as Mr Barrot said - provided that we do not forego our citizens' safety, but without using that as a pretext for non-collaboration. We also need the collaboration of the United States in order to shed light on the abuses that were committed in Europe, to investigate who was responsible and to ensure that the same crimes will not be repeated in the future. We must also ask the Member States and European institutions what they have done to implement the recommendations that this Parliament adopted in February 2007 and, where applicable, what explanation they give for not having done so.

Since Mr Fava referred to President Barroso here, I believe that a word of thanks is owed to him because, unlike the Council, which resisted, lied to and hid information from this House, the European Commission behaved loyally and collaborated fully with our investigations.

(NL) President Obama has kept his word. One of his first policy actions was the closure of the prison in Guantánamo, which we are naturally delighted about. Or rather, it was the announcement of the closure of Guantánamo, because the new US Government is faced with the difficult task of finding a solution for the inmates who are still there.

First of all, their status should be identified, and it should be established whether they can all be released without risk. They have been locked up illegally by the Bush administration, which clearly violated international law. It is, therefore, first and foremost an American problem that needs to be solved by Washington. Whether the US will ask for help from the European countries and the European Union is currently not yet clear, and it would be somewhat speculative to run ahead of events too much.

I also beg to differ with those fellow Members who believe that we should already make pledges on the basis of the assumption that the European Union is morally obliged to do so, because some countries could possibly have been involved in the transport of inmates to Guantánamo. This is based purely on assumptions. We have never been able to prove that there was any truth in this, and neither do we know which countries would have been involved in such transport, so to base our argument for receiving inmates on this is somewhat weak, in my view, and I am pleased that this has not been done in the resolution.

We should, obviously, not rule out the possibility of the US still making this request, and I share my group chairman's opinion on this. If this request is made, we will certainly need to react positively on account of considerations of international law, but also on account of the need for the European Union to react in a humanitarian manner in a situation like this.

(ES) Mr President, Guantánamo is a problem that was not created by the European Union. It is a problem that, to be sure, would not exist if the European Union - as well as condemning it so many times - had truly rejected it, rather than passively and, at times, actively, collaborating in the very existence of that black hole of international law. Yet it is clear that we did not create it ourselves. However, we most certainly do have a duty to cooperate in order to put an end to this situation. This is a clear duty that we should carry out.

There is no doubt that each case must be dealt with individually. The prisoners of Guantánamo cannot be dealt with as if they were an undifferentiated herd. They are people with rights, but also with their own personal stories. Some of them are criminals who must be tried as such; some are innocent and some, no doubt, are potentially dangerous.

In line with its values and principles, as well as its generosity, the European Union can become involved, by drawing up a common response that will help to solve this problem while respecting our own rules.

(FR) Mr President, according to information from the CIA and NGOs, 728 prisoners passed through Portuguese territorial space between 2002 and 2006 on their way to Guantánamo. What are the figures for Spain, Italy or any other Member State?

Having failed to take the lead against the exemption from international law in the fight against terrorism, the Union is now attempting to go along with Mr Obama's commitments.

This explains why we have this still timid call from members encouraging Member States to receive those innocent detainees who cannot return to their own countries for fear of torture. This is done not out of solidarity, nor charity, nor even generosity, but purely to comply with our international commitments.

Beyond the message sent by Mr Obama, will Europe be able to raise itself up, will Europe not only be able to investigate, target and assume its responsibilities, but also bring an end to its illegal complicity in extraordinary rendition? Will Europe be able to reform the control of its own secret services? Will the Union be able to rehabilitate the victims via legal processes and compensation?

I welcome Mr Barrot's declaration of intent to this end. I have to say, however, that whilst we are finding out more and more about what the ex-prime minister of Portugal covered up between 2002 and 2004, the results of his initiatives as the head of the European Commission to get the Union out of this grey area of non-legality remain completely unknown to us.

(The President cut off the speaker)

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that the appropriateness of European countries accepting prisoners from Guantánamo has now been acknowledged, an idea that strangely was missing from my group's original resolution. I entirely agree with Messrs Schulz and Watson.

The first point of the resolution mentions the important changes in United States' policy concerning humanitarian laws. I see some changes, certainly in tone, but also considerable continuity with the politics of the 'detested' Bush, given that President Obama has not abandoned the programme of extraordinary renditions and CIA prisons in foreign countries. I say this for the attention of the Czech Presidency, which seems to have a different idea. I would not wish Obama enthusiasts to suffer any early disappointment.

Anti-US propaganda, already active in the CIA committee two years ago, has returned in the oral question on CIA flights in Europe. I shall give you just one example: in one recital, the existence of a secret CIA organisation in Poland is exposed. Now the fact that there is a CIA organisation in a country like Poland should not come as a shock - it would be strange if there were not - but I believe that the signatories to the question are annoyed that this organisation should be secret. They would always want secret services to act without secrecy, openly, and the CIA aeroplanes to have 'CIA' displayed on their aircraft as if they were British Airways or Air France. Here again, I fear that they are going to be disappointed: not even Obama would go that far.

(EL) Mr President, the inhumane prison at Guantánamo should never have been opened. At least it would appear that it is now being closed, but any congratulations to President Obama must, of course, be tempered if reports in the American press about the maintenance of the unacceptable practice of secret abductions, interrogation and imprisonment in third countries are true. As far as this is concerned, unfortunately, Europe also obviously bears responsibility as regards the fight against terrorism. One very serious cause for concern is the fact that the only national parliament which has invited the European Parliament to present the conclusions and recommendations of its committee on the CIA is the American Congress. Not one European government, not one national parliament, has invited us. Let them do so even now, so that this sort of illegal practice is never repeated.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the United States created the Guantánamo problem and a US President is getting ready to resolve it. We need to know whether the European Union will have the powers and the competency to play a role.

The European Union must collaborate. Our Member States must receive the prisoners, such as the Uighurs, without giving in to pressure from China. If we do not do this, we risk being irrelevant in the process of closing Guantánamo.

This could be the start of new work on revealing the truth, the responsibilities of our national governments - the Portuguese Government, for example, under President Barroso - and our responsibilities relating to the fact that the proposal of exile for Saddam Hussein was dropped. This proposal was the only alternative to the war and our governments, including the United States, dropped it.

(ES) Mr President, the existence of Guantánamo has, indeed, been made possible by, among other factors, the collusion and complicity of many European countries, Spain included. It is not acceptable to say now that this problem is not our business. It is even less acceptable to say that the closing of Guantánamo and the ensuing consequences are exclusively the US Government's problem.

For years, US secret service aircraft have been flying around Europe with impunity, transporting detainees, while we have turned a blind eye. We should, therefore, shoulder our responsibilities and not only demand the immediate closure of Guantánamo but also accept some of the prisoners who, unable to return to their own countries or, indeed, stay in the United States, demand that other countries, European countries included, be able to take them.

Portugal has already promised to do so, and I believe this is partly due to a certain feeling of responsibility and guilt. Spain's own guilt is just as great, at least, and I therefore take this opportunity to call on the Spanish Government to take in some of those people, to make that commitment, as Portugal has done and as many organisations have asked us to do. I stress that it is not only our moral duty but also our political responsibility.

(RO) Combating terrorism is the number one priority of modern society. However, mistakes have been committed and controversial decisions have been made in the name of this desired objective. The closure of the Guantánamo detention facility, which has been a blemish on the image of the civilised world during the last decade, is a just decision of paramount importance. The next normal step would be for this measure to be followed by the United States resolving the situation of the people currently being held in detention. The European Union and the United States have championed, and still do champion, respect for human rights and respect for human dignity, and they should therefore work together to correct the mistakes that have been made.

I believe that before raising the issue of accepting the inmates in Europe, it is absolutely necessary to make available all the information relating to possible terrorist activities which the latter were involved in or to possible membership of a terrorist group. A detailed check must be carried out on this information, along with an objective evaluation of the possible repercussions which allowing inmates to return to their country of residence could have. An official request from the United States is an absolute necessity and I believe that the decision to accept inmates in Europe must be up to Member States, while those which make this decision must also bear in mind that they are assuming these responsibilities on behalf of the European Union.

As regards Commissioner Barrot's reference to Romania, accusations have been made in the past without any basis. However, Romania has responded to all the enquiries from the European institutions, received the CIA committee and supplied all the relevant information. The Romanian parliament has carried out an investigation and supplied the results to the interested parties. I believe that this is totally adequate. I also believe that Romania has given adequate replies to the completely baseless accusations which have been levelled.

(DE) Mr President, there is no question that the responsibility for Guantánamo lies with the USA. However, it is an act of solidarity to help and support Barack Obama to return to the rule of international law when he asks us to do so. I am thinking, for example, about the Uighurs who cannot return to China. However, we also need to consider the people who have spent five or seven years in Guantánamo. We cannot decide whether or not they want to live in the USA. That is their choice. For example, the city of Munich and the Uighurs who live there would be ready to accept these Uighur people and to support and care for them so that they can come to terms with their traumatic experiences.

However, one thing must be made clear. It is not acceptable for the Bavarian Interior Minister, Joachim Hermann, to say: 'Everyone who is held in Guantánamo must have committed a crime'. The right to the presumption of innocence must apply in this case. As the head of a police authority, this minister should pack his bags and go. We are training the police in other countries to introduce precisely this right to the presumption of innocence into their work and not to give premature orders to shoot. We should think carefully about that.

(FI) Mr President, Guantánamo and its secret prisons should never have been established in the first place. It is the United States that has the main responsibility for closing the prison and the treatment of the prisoners afterwards, but humanitarian reasons and considerations of human rights speak for their reception in the Member States. Each Member State will decide on the basis of its own laws whether to receive them or not.

At the same time I would like to remind this House of the millions of refugees around the world and of the refugee camps where people have lived for years. We look away; we turn our back. Proactive thinking on human rights is regrettably selective in the EU.

(DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, President-in-Office of the Council, in May 2006 I visited Guantánamo with Mr Mann and Mr Elles. We made it very clear that the establishment of Guantánamo represents a breach of international law and a violation of human rights.

The then newly elected German Chancellor, Mrs Merkel, also said this in the presence of President Bush on her first visit to Washington and she also demanded the release of Mr Kurnaz. I believe that President Obama's decision is a good one and that it will help to restore the credibility of the United States of America and of the Western world as a whole. For this reason, we must make it clear that the question of credibility is of great political importance.

At the same time, we must establish that the prisoners there should not be regarded as peaceful human rights campaigners and that they must be judged on that basis. During the course of this debate, I have sometimes had a quite different impression. We must ensure that the United States of America takes primary responsibility in this case and that it explains why it cannot accept many of these prisoners. The home countries of these people must also explain why they do not want to accept them or the prisoners must prove that they cannot return to their home countries because they would be exposed to serious persecution.

When all this has taken place, we can begin to consider whether the European Union should accept some of the prisoners. However, this is only possible once we have investigated in every single case the extent of the risk posed by each person. This investigation must take place not only at a national level, because the open borders within the European Community mean that we must apply European standards to the evaluation of the security risk which these people may represent.

Someone today spoke about refugees. These are not refugees. They are prisoners and we have to prove that they are not dangerous, unless we want to take irresponsible risks. I think we should ensure that those people who have a link with our Member States should be accepted, such as Mr Kurnaz in Germany or the nine people, I believe, in Great Britain. In total, I think 60 people have already been taken in by the European Union and we should not forget this.

Mr President, Portugal urged an EU agreement on resettling persons from Guantánamo, and this is strategic for transatlantic solidarity as well as being a humanitarian gesture towards people cleared of suspicion who endured detention, torture and deprivation of justice. However, it is also a duty for 14 EU States which colluded with the Bush Administration in subcontracting torture to Guantánamo and secret prisons, as this Parliament pointed out. European responsibility for violations of the rule of law and human rights cannot be erased.

President Barroso has denied knowledge of the cooperation provided by his government in the transfer of prisoners to Guantánamo and secret prisons, yet no one believes that his military, police, intelligence and administration would be so incompetent as to allow Portuguese air, sea and land to be systematically abused by the USA.

In order to clarify this, will Mr Barroso make public the notes of the meetings between his diplomatic advisers and Ms Condoleezza Rice while he was Prime Minister? Will Mr Barroso make public the legal opinion he then asked from his legal adviser, Mr Carlos Blanco de Morais, in order to impose special navigation rules for ships approaching US military vessels carrying prisoners through Portuguese waters?

(EL) Mr President, the position of the European Parliament on Guantánamo was set out in a special resolution in 2006. Guantánamo should never have been created and it needed to be closed. The position of the European Parliament on terrorism is equally clear. We want to combat terrorism with all legal means; we do not want to combat terrorism by infringing human rights and international law. It is a fact that the United States has shouldered most of the burden in the fight against terrorism. However, they have also made huge mistakes. It was a huge mistake to create Guantánamo. It was a huge mistake to treat detainees as they did. It was a huge mistake to transport them as they did. This has been said in this Parliament. What is important today is that President Obama has made the right decision to close this prison of shame and this decision both speaks well of America and is true to the history of America and of the international community in general.

How is the European Union involved? The European Union is involved in that it wants to support and help with the implementation of this correct decision by President Obama. However, the European Union should do this on one condition: that it does not put the safety of its citizens at risk. This is a basic requirement and whatever is decided by any Member State should therefore be decided from this point of view.

(ES) Mr Romeva, do not be concerned: the Spanish Government will cooperate as it always has done. May I remind you that, on this matter, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, was the first to appear before the investigating committee and was the one who answered all the questions, including your own.

In this Parliament we have, for some time, denounced the torture and inhumane, humiliating treatment being used at the Guantánamo military base in the name of the fight against international terrorism. We therefore welcome President Obama's decision to suspend trials for four months and his intention to close the prison permanently within one year.

However, even though the responsibility lies with the US Government, the European Union cannot look the other way but should offer its assistance in order to guarantee closure of the detention centre.

We should also assess the possibility of taking in prisoners who are from countries where it is not certain that human rights are respected, if the United States should ask us to do so.

We will then have to present a common European response, of which the Spanish government will be part, whilst respecting the international legal framework and assessing, case by case, the legal situation of every citizen, every detainee - his origin, his detention and his situation.

(PL) Mr President, the terrorists have declared a cruel, bloody and uncompromising war on our civilisation. They wish to destroy our world, which is founded on respect for human rights and devotion to freedom. The attack on September 11 demonstrated that terrorists are prepared to use any means whatsoever. The United States undertook to defend the free world on behalf of us all. Close cooperation between Europe and the United States offers the only hope for success and destruction of the terrorist networks. Europe needs to feel responsible for the war on global terrorism.

It is right that human rights defenders drew attention to violation of these rights, and to the use of humiliating methods during interrogations at Guantánamo. Often, these methods amounted to torture. It is right, too, that attention was drawn to detention without trial, and without the right to defence counsel. No means deemed inadmissible under signed international conventions may be used.

The newly elected President of the United States has already issued a regulation banning the use of torture during hearings involving terrorist suspects. It is right and proper to interpret this as a victory for all those who raised the alarm on this matter. Pursuant to this same regulation, however, it will still be possible to kidnap terrorists and hold them for short periods in transit countries. In a nutshell, respect for prisoners' dignity is increased but, at the same time, the possibility of effectively paralysing terrorist activity must remain, otherwise we would be in danger of becoming helpless.

I should also like to draw the attention of the House that on the same island where the Guantánamo detention centre is located, political prisoners are being held in prison conditions that violate every conceivable standard. These people have been condemned to long years in prison because they dared to oppose the Communist propaganda of the tyrannous Fidel Castro.

The Chechen nation was murdered before our very eyes. So far as I am aware, the European Parliament did not set up a special committee to deal with that. The United States has recognised that the use of torture is inadmissible, as is the existence of secret prisons. That should put an end to the debate on secret prisons and transit flights.

(NL) Mr President, the fight against terrorism must be a joint effort to which all democracies should make a contribution. This means not just Europe, but also the United States, as well as others.

Guantánamo does not fit into a constitutional state, because in a constitutional state a suspect, even a terrorist, is entitled to protection and a fair trial on the basis of the values we share with each other.

I value President Obama's decision to close down Guantánamo Bay, but it cannot, and indeed should not, be the case that the problem is, in the first instance, placed at Europe's door. After all, the people in Guantánamo Bay are prisoners, and not people that can be trifled with. We can be helpful, but if we are helpful, if there is no other way, this is only possible on the basis of a European decision, European standards which we will need to establish jointly. We should clearly recognise that it remains an American problem in which we could prove helpful, if only for the fact that human rights are paramount to us.

(EL) Mr President, the decision by the new President of the United States to close the prison at Guantánamo was one of his first important and positive moves and I warmly welcome it. However, President Obama has not revoked the right of the CIA to arrest terrorist suspects on foreign soil and to take them to provisional detention centres. This is particularly worrying and this concern must be set out in a joint resolution. However, the joint resolution by the two major parties in the European Parliament says nothing about this and, as a result, I am forced to vote against this joint resolution.

(PL) Mr President, I am convinced that our deeply humanitarian resolution will help to reduce enmity between Europe and the Islamic world. I call for it to be adopted, bearing also in mind the situation of my fellow citizen who has become a victim of the war on terror, the war of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. I refer to a Polish citizen aged 42 who was kidnapped. He was seized in the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is a geologist who was working there. He has been held in the area ever since. His family have stated that they know Piotr is not an important figure in the world of top level politics, but they trust everything that can be done will be done to secure his release.

I hereby appeal for this improvement of relations with the Islamic world to be exploited also for the protection and defence of our citizens. Let us all demonstrate solidarity and act on behalf of European Union citizens who are ill-treated, detained, kidnapped, or held in camps.

(FR) Mr President, we have all fought for the closure of Guantánamo and we all welcome President Obama's decision to close this prison of shame.

Now, we should not have to be asked about accepting Guantánamo detainees. As Europeans, faithful to the values of defending human rights, we have to face up to our responsibilities, our duty to accept these ex-detainees.

There have been reports, and I am addressing the Council here, there have been reports in the press that some Member States are not keen on receiving them. I would therefore call on the Council and, in particular, on any reticent Member States, to accept the arrival of these detainees on their territories.

I would also say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the worst we could do would be to let the boost given by the closure of Guantánamo evaporate because Europe was not prepared to stand up and be counted.

Mr President, given that many EU Member States were complicit in the process of extraordinary rendition, I believe that EU countries, including Ireland, have a collective responsibility to accept a certain number of low-risk Guantánamo detainees from the US for resettlement within the EU.

Irish Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, has made such an acceptance conditional on getting EU approval, but it is not necessary for Ireland to wait for an EU directive to settle Guantánamo detainees. We can decide ourselves to sign a bilateral agreement with the US, as Portugal has done.

The Irish Government Ministers for Justice and Foreign Affairs have not been singing from the same hymn sheet on this matter, with Minister Ahern being seemingly unprepared to go as far as Minister Martin regarding detainee settlement. Cohesive leadership is now needed from the Irish Government in this regard. In a spirit of transatlantic cooperation and to participate in the fight against international terrorism, Ireland should play its part to assist the new US Administration in closing Guantánamo.

Mr President, the EU has been asking for the closure of Guantánamo for a long time. Today that decision has been taken by the new US Administration, and EU countries are expected to show solidarity by taking over those prisoners. However, some think that such solidarity should be demonstrated primarily by the countries mentioned before in the press as hosting secret CIA detention centres.

I would like to stress once more the fact that such allegations have not been supported by evidence, either when they were made or since then. That is also valid for Mr Mate, who failed to produce the evidence supporting his accusations in this very House. Moreover, internal investigations have not supported the accusations either. Exploiting people's potential lack of memory that such evidence was not produced then does not make it evidence today. At the most, it is simply cynical manipulation for obscure purposes.

(CS) Mr President, the whole world welcomes Barack Obama's plan to close Guantánamo, because it is a symbol of the merciless treatment of people - ruthless terrorists though they may be, or suspected of the gravest crimes. Some of them have not even been charged and duly tried. Obama made a popular gesture and is now deciding what to do with them. He should, above all, persuade Congress to change the law so that the prisoners can be transferred to US soil and some can be given a new identity. It is an extremely hot potato: after release, 60 Guantánamo prisoners returned to terrorist activity, and therefore each case should be examined individually. The Czech Presidency's negotiations on a solution for Guantánamo are an opportunity to emphasise that dialogue between the United States, Europe and Cuba on changes on the totalitarian 'island of freedom' begins with human rights, and not only the human rights of prisoners at the American base. Above all, this dialogue should entail the release of political prisoners in Cuba, and freedom of speech and movement for innocent Cuban citizens.

(PT) We find it obvious that we should applaud President Obama's decision: the decision to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, to ban torture and illegal interrogations, and to suspend the military trials.

I can, however, assure my fellow Member, who is no longer present, that Portugal and the Socialist Government of Portugal do not feel guilty. The Socialist Government of Portugal did not collaborate with the Bush Administration: quite the contrary. The Portuguese Administration - the Portuguese Government - through the initiative of Minister Amado, has right now opened up the possibility and obligation for the European Union and other democratic countries to accept and receive Guantánamo Bay prisoners who have not been charged. This is what is truly important and this is what must be highlighted as an example for other EU Member States to follow. It is also important for the resolution to be adopted tomorrow by all the parties that make up this House, so that unity might lend the decision more force.

Mr President, the prison at Guantánamo Bay was a necessary creation of the United States at the time. Its closure is now a matter for the United States. I oppose EU Member States entangling themselves in the inevitable legal complications and the burden imposed on our security services of taking non-EU national prisoners previously designated as enemy combatants.

I do not regret the detention of the most dangerous terrorists intent on destroying our way of life when they were proven to be so. However, one of Guantánamo's major drawbacks was that it forestalled any regular criminal proceedings against those held there. Ultimately, regular criminal trials are the only way to resolve the status of Guantánamo prisoners who are non-EU nationals.

Since the inmates of Guantánamo were captured by the United States, it is America's responsibility to prosecute them in its own courts, or return them to their countries of origin if innocent. If President Obama is serious about closing Guantánamo, which I welcome, and about protecting America and its allies, this should be his policy.

(RO) First and foremost, irrespective of the substance and outcome of the discussions on the CIA prisons, I would like to welcome the concern shown by Members of the European Parliament and by Europe's citizens with regard to the scrupulous respect of human rights, regardless of the context.

Torture is unacceptable and there are no exceptional circumstances to alter this truth. However, I feel the need to make some remarks as long as Romania continues to be referred to in this context. I would like to remind you that so far, accusations have been levelled at us without being backed up by proof. The Martin report is the best example of this approach. It contains accusations against Romania which are both controversial and unfounded.

I would like to point out this precedent for the way in which accusations have been levelled against Romania, because this can perhaps tarnish the image of other European states too. I would like to reiterate that it is unacceptable for the names of Member States like Romania to be freely and constantly bandied about in the context of this debate.

(DE) Mr President, I would like to agree with all those speakers who want to ensure that Europe does its humanitarian duty by supporting, in particular, those people who have been denounced, despite the fact that no evidence has been found against them. These are classic asylum cases.

However, I would like to ask the Member States not to attempt to go it alone and I would like to put particular emphasis on this. Europe must learn to speak with one voice and to take united action. This would allow us to meet the concerns of the new US administration and to live up to our own self-image as a European Union with joint values which oblige us to take joint action.

(FI) Mr President, we share a common desire to close the prison camp at Guantánamo, and now we have a splendid opportunity to do so, as the new President of the United States of America has shown he has the same wish.

The main responsibility obviously lies with the United States, but I hope that the EU can put up a united front and that the Member States will demonstrate solidarity and be flexible to the extent that they will take these prisoners into their own prisons, where that is possible and where that accords with their own conditions for so doing.

We joined the fight against terrorism to defend human rights. Now we need to be involved in helping the United States to defend human rights.

(PL) Ladies and gentlemen, there are two sides to this matter. One the one hand, there is the legal position. I believe that citizens of a country should be readmitted into their country of origin. Perhaps some kind of humanitarian programme could be provided for cases where some impediment exists, such as political persecution. I should also like to state quite clearly, that even if Portugal or another country consents to take in 20 such prisoners, that does not mean that those people will wish to remain in Portugal or in any other given country. The Union is now a unit, and this problem must therefore be considered. Finally, the appropriate procedures should be used so that such people are no longer stigmatised as suspects or as dangerous. Unless they are freed from such stigma, nobody will wish to accept them. This is a serious problem that merits consideration. I will conclude by saying that the problem mainly concerns the United States of America.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for this debate. I believe it was very useful. If you had listened to the debate in the last Council meeting during lunch, you would have seen a similar will to cope with the problem, but also an appreciation of the complexity of the problem we are discussing. It has a moral and political dimension, but also a security and legal dimension.

We all agree that President Obama's decision to close Guantánamo was an important and good one, which we all appreciate and which is applauded by practically all of you here. But now that we are discussing the consequences and what we can do to express solidarity - and our interest here is to act in transatlantic harmony - we, of course, see that the problem is a complex one. Martin Schulz has said that we cannot fight terrorism and, at the same time, get into a conflict over fundamental rights. He is perfectly right, but Hartmut Nassauer has said that there are two dimensions: one is the moral one and the other concerns security. He is also right, and that is exactly why the Ministers for Justice and home affairs have to discuss this as well. From the political perspective, it is not just a flexing of moral muscles, nor should we approach this problem just out of guilt. It is certainly more complex than that.

Graham Watson spoke of the need to approach this with one voice. Again, he is certainly right but, at the same time - because this also concerns the legal problem and the competence issue - we cannot force Member States to invite the detainees from Guantánamo on demand. If you had to solve this problem by deciding to invite those detainees to your homes - imagine taking on the responsibility of the Ministers for the Interior - you would certainly think twice about how this problem is to be handled. I certainly do not think it should be approached by the Council and the Member States as an issue of horse-trading - not at all. It is not about washing ourselves but not getting wet. At the core of the problem is simply the fact that the decision to close Guantánamo is, of course, the primary responsibility of the United States, the country which built the facility. But we have - and have to have - the goodwill to express solidarity and to be cooperative in solving the problem.

There is also the tactical debate. Should we offer this on a gold plate now, or should we wait until a request has been made? But if we do receive a request, we need to be prepared to react. Therefore, the Council started to discuss this seriously on the second day after President Obama's decision. I do not think we can underestimate the security issue - as you have pointed out - as it is a simple fact that some of the inmates who were released re-engaged in terrorist activity, and it is a simple matter of fact that one man, Mr Said al-Shihri, is now the deputy head of al-Qa'ida in Yemen. So the US has to start the serious work of clearing up who those people are, and we have to break with them.

Legally, I think we have to be aware that the decision on the admission of foreign nationals to EU Member States is the national competence of the Member States. This is one level. However, on a second level, there is the agreement that we should now work towards a European framework in which to embed the national decision. Both the Schengen and the Dublin Agreements call for a European approach because the security of all Schengen members will be affected in some way by the decision of the individual Member States. So there is an internal imperative for a coordinated approach.

Furthermore, the EU is looking into the possibility of assisting the US with the resettlement and rehabilitation of former detainees in third countries.

Some of you have raised the question of speed: can we act faster than we are doing now? I think we should be aware that the discussion has only just begun. It has only been one week. The questions that have to be addressed are really complex and will need some time, although President Obama himself has requested a review of the prisoners' files and has set a one-year deadline for the closure of Guantánamo. One should not expect the Council to be ready to fix all these complex problems in a matter of a few days.

Furthermore, it has to be kept in mind that the primary responsibility for Guantánamo rests with the US. Although the Member States express their readiness to work on a coordinated approach, the issue has a bilateral dimension as well as the multilateral one. A clear position of the respective Member States on the resettlement of detainees is not yet known. The meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, which is to take place later this month, will be very useful here. In the meantime, the anti-terrorist coordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, is also working on various option papers here.

So that is my summary on Guantánamo, which occupied most of the time. On the other issue of illegal detention, Mr Fava's favourite issue, I will just repeat what has been said several times by my predecessors: the allegation concerned the involvement of national intelligence agencies; the supervision of those agencies is the responsibility of individual Member States, and the Council has no power here to act beyond what was done.

Mr President, the Commission broadly shares the views expressed by Mr Vondra.

Even so, I would like to say that, after this long debate, we are at a major turning point. It is a key turning point in the fight against terrorism. We have to try, henceforth, to take on this fight with a restored moral authority for the entire Western community, fight whilst respecting fundamental values and fundamental rights.

Europe must then lead the entire international community towards a desire to fight terrorism in the spirit of those self-same fundamental values which gave rise to the fight in the first place. It is a key turning point and Parliament's declaration is, in this regard, extremely useful, as it assumes that all of the Member States have the will to participate in this major change.

It is true, however, that initial responsibility lies with the United States. They have to verify the status of each detainee before they make an official request for transfer to an EU Member State. This really is the essential condition. The United States must send us a clear and reasoned request for each individual case. That is absolutely essential.

In the end, it is, of course, up to each Member State to decide if they are willing to receive an ex-detainee from Guantánamo, but the debate has shown that cooperation at a European level is evidently very, very desirable.

Coordination will be beneficial in determining the legal status of ex-detainees and will also be necessary to protect Member States in the case of diplomatic or other requests from the countries of origin of these detainees. This coordination will be needed to reassure the Member States, in particular, and I am thinking about what Mr Nassauer said, those with worries about public order and security.

A coordinated European approach could finally give us greater leverage in negotiations with the United States over access to documents and transfer processes. We could then possibly add financial assistance to facilitate reception in some Member States.

I would say in Mr Vondra's presence that we will naturally work closely with the Czech Presidency. With Mr de Kerchove, we are also in the process of writing the study document which will serve as a basis for the discussion to take place at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 26 February.

I will also say here that we will no doubt use our visit to Washington with Mr Langer, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Interior, to raise all of the issues relating to and consequent upon the closure of Guantánamo with our US colleagues.

We now have to deal very seriously with this issue and make legal preparations to respond on a case-by-case basis to the US request. We have to take this very, very seriously, taking into account, of course this desire for positive cooperation in this new fight against terrorism, which will include compliance with the fundamental values which unite us and which have to unite the world community.

Thank you everyone.

Pursuant to Rule 103(3) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received three motions for resolutions on Guantánamo. The motion for a resolution on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for transport and illegal detention of prisoners will be notified later.

The debate is closed.

The vote on Guantánamo will take place on Wednesday, 4 February 2009, while the vote on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for transport and illegal detention of prisoners will take place during the next session.

The decision made by US President, Barack Obama, to close the Guantánamo detention centre is of symbolic significance to the whole democratic world. This gesture highlights that the war against terrorism which is being waged to defend the democratic values of the West must not ignore precisely these values.

Terrorism must be combated vigorously, but human rights must still be respected. Even those suspected of committing serious offences have the right to be judged according to the correct procedure, by an unbiased court, on a clear legal basis, and to receive a punishment commensurate with their crimes.

The speculation mentioning Romania in connection with the CIA's secret prisons is totally unfounded. No one has been able to prove their existence in Romania. Romania is a faithful ally of the US within NATO and is involved in the battle against terrorism, primarily in Afghanistan. Both the Romanian authorities and public opinion strongly uphold respect for human rights. Having suffered the abuses of Soviet occupation and Communist dictatorship, Romania's citizens disapprove of any violations of human rights.

in writing. - (PT) The recent decisions of the Government of the United States have simply confirmed - as if it were necessary - that which has long been denounced: the existence of a US-sponsored kidnapping, torture and illegal detention network.

These decisions must not serve as a whitewash for the responsibility of the United States and of the governments of European Union countries for systematic violations of international law and of the most basic human rights.

As before, we must demand a complete end to such ignoble practices and an investigation into the truth, including EU governments' culpability regarding the use of their airspace and territory to imprison and transfer illegally detained prisoners to, for example, the US military base at Guantánamo Bay. This is all the more necessary in light of reports that the clandestine US operations called 'extraordinary renditions' - in other words, the illegal detention and transportation of citizens - have not been called into question by the new US Administration.

Accordingly, we are opposed to any agreement between states or between the United States and the EU regarding the 'transfer of prisoners' detained in Guantánamo. This does not mean that decisions and requests freely expressed by individuals, specifically for asylum in Portugal, cannot be considered within a framework of respect for national sovereignty, the Portuguese Constitution and international law, including the right to asylum.

The European Union proved an incomprehensively lackadaisical community when it did not take any firm diplomatic action in the context of international organisations to condemn, on the basis of human rights, the illegal activity the United States of America was engaged in.

The action taken by the new President shows that that activity is regarded as illegal and intolerable on ethical and moral grounds. This is all about the EU's commitment to America's illicit behaviour while it tailed behind the old US President, and in the eyes of free EU citizens, that means that the EU lost face and respect. May the EU be ashamed of its failure to act.

Worrying situation in the retention centres for immigrants, especially in the islands of Mayotte and Lampedusa (debate) 

The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the worrying situation in the retention centres for immigrants, especially in the islands of Mayotte and Lampedusa.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you on the issue of the situation in the immigration and detention centres situated in the European Union, of which you have highlighted two in particular, i.e. Mayotte and Lampedusa. I am very aware of the close interest you have shown in these centres, of the various visits which some of you have made, and of the concerns you have expressed about the conditions in some of them.

I should like to begin by underlining two fundamental principles which lie at the heart of today's debate. The first is the need, in the case of third-country nationals requiring international protection, for full compliance with the commitments which we have given, as enshrined in various international instruments. The second is that we respect fully the human rights and the dignity of migrants and members of their families.

We are all very aware of the pressure resulting from migrants entering the European Union, as well as those seeking asylum here. This pressure is particularly great along the Union's southern and eastern borders.

We have responded by developing, over the last 10 years, an effective EU asylum and migration policy. However, the significant increase in the level of arrivals underlines the need for this policy to be strengthened and further developed.

We need to do this internally in order to establish our own common standards and rules in the area of asylum and migration, but we also need to act externally, in partnership with countries of origin and transit, in order to manage migration flows more efficiently.

All parties stand to gain by such an approach. The development and shaping of an EU asylum and migration policy depends on your input too. I am grateful to Parliament for its positive contribution and I am sure that we can work constructively on further developing this important policy area.

You have specifically raised the situation on the islands of Mayotte and Lampedusa. We should take care to distinguish between the two types of migratory flows in these two cases. The migratory flows affecting Lampedusa and Mayotte can be characterised as mixed ones: some of the third-country nationals concerned have claimed international protection, others certainly fall into the category of economic immigrants.

Regarding the first category - those who claim international protection - I would draw your attention to the existence of minimum standards for the protection of asylum seekers, set out in Directive 2003/9/EC, which was adopted in 2003. This Directive has already been transposed into the national law of the Member States and it is for the Commission to ensure that the provisions set out in this Directive are properly and fully applied.

In December 2008, the Commission presented to the European Parliament and to the Council a proposal to amend and update this directive. Since the codecision procedure applies here, the European Parliament will be fully involved in the negotiations on this new proposal. The Council will shortly begin consideration of this new proposal and looks forward to working closely with you.

Honourable Members will be aware that, in the specific case of the French overseas territory of Mayotte, Community law does not apply.

With regard to the second category - other third-country nationals who have unlawfully entered the territory of a Member State - the competent authorities of the Member States are entitled to detain those falling into this category prior to the adoption of a return decision, and/or with a view to facilitating its enforcement. Detention may prove to be the only option in cases where it is necessary to seek identification of third-country nationals without travel documents.

Until now, the legislation and practice regarding detention in the Member States has varied considerably. The recently adopted European Parliament and Council Directive on common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals has introduced specific principles and rules on detention, and so goes some way to establishing a common legal framework in this area.

This directive clearly states that detention for the purposes of removal may be used only where less coercive measures cannot be applied in a particular case and only on specific, very limited grounds. Furthermore, the directive provides that detention shall be for as short a period as possible, shall require a decision in writing with reasons in fact and law, and shall be subject to judicial review at regular intervals. It should also be stressed that the directive provides for clear upper limits of detention and the grounds on which - in limited specific cases - a detention period may be prolonged, but not longer than a maximum term.

On the conditions of detention, the directive makes clear that detention shall take place as a rule in specialised detention facilities - or, in any case, away from ordinary prisoners - and that the rights of the detainees - especially those of vulnerable status including minors and families - shall be observed.

As far as the return of illegal immigrants is concerned, the recently adopted European Parliament and Council Directive on common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals is already in force. Its provisions now have to be transposed by Member States into their national law within a deadline of two years.

This overall legal framework underlines our strong commitment to ensuring that third-country nationals who are held in detention for the purpose of removal are treated in a humane and dignified manner, and that their fundamental rights are fully respected. It also, through the most recent legislation, sets commonly agreed standards on return policy.

This framework is not only in line with the principles I set out at the beginning of my statement, but actually gives them legal force. Our asylum and migration policy is thus rooted in the rule of law. It ensures respect for human rights and for the dignity of the individual.

Mr President, as Mr Vondra has just pointed out, we now indeed have a legal framework which is beginning to assert itself. It has made its presence felt first by the Return Directive, which is the first horizontal document to harmonise return standards in the Member States. It brings into Community law the applicable provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and its implementation will allow the application of Community control mechanisms for checking compliance with the acquis.

I am well aware, however, that some of you find this directive insufficient. For me, though, it constitutes a Community control resource that can be used for checking compliance with the acquis. Of course, by monitoring its implementation, and let me remind you that the time limit for transposition is 24 December 2010, the Commission will ensure the strict observance of the fundamental principles as regards respect for the rights of migrants and it will assess, in particular, the impact of the provisions on detention.

I have myself said that I will monitor the transposition closely to ensure that no Member States use it as a pretext to extend the detention periods to which they currently adhere. Others, who had unlimited detention, will be expected to comply with the time limits set out in the directive.

The second text on which we will base our actions is that adopted by the Commissioners on 3 December 2008 on accommodation conditions for asylum seekers. I hope, Mr Deprez, that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs might examine this text in the near future so that we can make progress with this new policy on asylum.

I would point out that this text includes clear rules on detention, in full compliance with the fundamental rights, and limits detention to exceptional cases. We are, of course, talking here about asylum seekers. Secondly, it takes greater account of the needs of vulnerable asylum seekers and will make it easier for them to gain access to the jobs market. We therefore now have a legal framework and it must, of course, be put to use.

I now turn to the questions that Parliament wanted to raise in this debate. The Commission is aware of the difficult situation facing the Italian authorities with the mass arrivals of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers on that country's southern shores, in particular, on Lampedusa. Up to now, Italy has been able to give access to its territory, saving the lives of many migrants, whilst introducing a procedure which can be used to examine requests for asylum in appropriate conditions. The Commission also notes that Italy has recognised a need for international protection in half of all individual cases, thus showing that in these flows, there are asylum seekers alongside the illegal immigrants.

For several years, the Commission has been finding the financial resources to support some Member States, including Italy. This is the case with the Presidium project and the European Refugee Fund emergency measures. In addition, a few weeks ago, the Commission approved emergency aid of EUR 7 million.

If Italy thinks it necessary, the Commission is ready to examine a new request for emergency aid from the 2009 budget to improve the reception structures on Lampedusa, in Sicily and on the mainland, thus increasing the Italian authorities' ability to examine the individual situations of migrants in appropriate conditions. I will soon be going to Lampedusa, as well as to Malta, to examine the situation on the ground.

I am also well aware that one of the keys to the solution is the establishment of a solid framework for cooperation with Libya, the main country of transit on the migration routes from East Africa. I am relying on the efforts of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner to achieve a quick result in the current negotiations. That is indeed one of the keys and unless this negotiation is completed, it will be very difficult to confront all of the problems we face.

I now turn to Mayotte. Whilst the Return Directive includes specific rules on detention conditions, with the emphasis especially on minors and families, these Community rules do not presently apply on the territory of Mayotte. The European Union recognises the territory of Mayotte as French, but it has the status of an overseas country or territory, not an outermost region. Therefore, private law does not apply, although it is true that France has to take into account the remarks and requests of the Council of Europe and I believe that the French authorities are currently looking at other reception conditions in Mayotte. That said, it is true that European law is not properly applicable, as Union law is not directly applicable in a territory that is not an outermost region.

Those are the remarks I wished to make to you. Once again, let me say to Parliament that the conditions for receiving illegal immigrants, particularly asylum seekers, are receiving my full attention and they really are a priority for me. That is why I will be making these visits to see how things are working on the ground.

I would like, in any case, to thank Parliament for having opened this debate.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Vondra, ladies and gentlemen, our Parliament takes pride in its unceasing defence of the respect for human dignity in all circumstances, including, of course, the conditions in which illegal immigrants are held.

I will concentrate on the case of the administrative detention centre in Mayotte, with whose problems I am very familiar. The differences in the standards of living and economic and social development between the islands of this Indian Ocean archipelago incite many Comorans to cross the 70 kilometres that separate them from Mayotte, which is a French department as you said Mr Barrot and, as an OCT, is not a European territory.

People residing illegally on the island of Mayotte account for 30% of the population. Yes, you heard correctly, I said 30% of the population. This is a percentage which is unknown in our European countries, thank God. It obviously has a major impact on Mahorais society, and represents a source of serious difficulties for public infrastructures and services, crime and illegal working.

The French authorities are well aware of these difficulties. Work to renovate the current detention centre has just been completed to improve the living conditions of detainees significantly. Besides these temporary measures, the French Government has also decided to build a new detention centre with a more suitable capacity and in accordance with national standards. This should be open in June 2011.

Europe has just adopted common rules so that it can take its share of legal world immigration but we should not hide the fact that certain regions are faced with extreme situations. Stigmatising the Mayotte detention centre will not bring a quicker or more effective solution, as the pressure of migration is subjecting the island to such a tension.

As Mayotte is on the verge of taking historic decisions for its future, in order to become a French overseas department and then join the territory of the Community by gaining the status of an outermost region of the Union, I believe that the Mahorais have greater need of our assistance than our criticisms.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 'To thwart illegal immigration, one has to be unkind. Immigrants come because it is easy to get here and no one sends them away, but precisely for this reason we have decided on a change of tune': these are the words of the Italian Minister for the Interior, Mr Maroni. It seems a parody of a policy and yet it is the policy of the Italian Government. It seems clear to me that inherent in this policy is a profound contempt for what we are discussing here and for the rules that the European Union gives us.

Today, we have spoken about the closure of Guantánamo. I think that we need to speak urgently about the closure of Lampedusa: about the Centre for Temporary Stay and Assistance in Lampedusa, as it has been pictured in recent months, namely as an openair prison. The Presidency has rightly recalled the legal framework, referred to also by Mr Barrot - the use of coercion only in exceptional cases, detention only on absolutely clear grounds and for as short a period as possible - a legal framework that is substantively and formally violated every day in Lampedusa.

Most of those who are in Lampedusa are asylum seekers. The Council recalled the minimum standards envisaged by a Directive on asylum seekers adopted in 2003; these rules are being substantively and formally violated. We often have 180 days of detention, including for those who are fleeing from political persecution or war. All this, of course, constitutes acts of legal barbarism which, however, are measured by the numbers offered to us by newspapers. 1 200 people died in 2008 when trying to cross the Mediterranean. Of those who managed to survive, many went through the torments of Lampedusa.

Therefore, Mr Vice-President, I invite you to visit Lampedusa, as you yourself have promised, to go there soon, and (if I may make a suggestion) to announce at the last moment that you are going to Lampedusa. Otherwise they will smarten up the Centre like a ballroom for you and make you imagine that this is the detention centre that we are talking about this evening.

The reports about the tragedies unfolding at our external borders are as plain as day. The urgency is great, and has been for a while. This is also what the Council has noted time and again - but only on paper. With all due respect, President-in-Office of the Council, and we are, of course, grateful for your contribution, but we have been here before. It is all empty words and no action. It could almost be considered ironic that we are also voting on the Roure report this week. This report contains our findings further to our visits to all the hot spots, including Lampedusa. The European Union is falling short, and not just by a little.

What we would like to know, President-in-Office of the Council, is whether you have taken the trouble to read our interim reports at all? Tampere, the Hague programme, the French Pact on immigration and asylum and soon the Stockholm programme: all these fine words are in stark contrast with reality. It is, after all, this reality that demonstrates to us that the European Union is still a long way off when it comes to facing up to its responsibility. The lack of solidarity is shocking. Nobody, not one single person in this Parliament, is suggesting that this is a simple task. Of course it is difficult to face up to large waves of immigrants and asylum seekers adequately, but this is nothing new.

The review of existing instruments has now got underway, but I already have doubts as to whether this will yield the desired results. Experience has taught us that the Council tends to cry off at crucial moments. The fact is that while, in theory, the Member States are aiming for far-reaching harmonisation, in practice they take decisions that have exactly the opposite effect. The largest common denominator suddenly appears to be minimal then, or this is what my experience has been over the past five years. And this is quite apart from enforcement.

As I already stated earlier today in a different debate, it should be clear that neither the European Commission nor the European Parliament have magic wands at their disposal because, at the end of the day, it is the Council and the Member States that will have to take action in this area.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regret that for electoral reasons, Mr Fava has been compelled to say a series of things that are not true. After the electoral campaign, I shall bring them to his attention. However, he takes such an interest in the problem of Lampedusa that he has already left the House - a House that ought to express its gratitude for the generous welcome accorded in recent years by the citizens of Lampedusa.

Instead, we must emphasise the European Union's delay in solving the many problems linked to illegal immigration and in allocating support and aid to atrisk countries with external borders. Some countries have not shown the welcome given by Italy to thousands of desperate people who risked being drowned in the sea, thanks to people traffickers and the inertia of many nonEuropean governments who have not respected and signed the agreements for the control of illegal immigration. We call for specific financial assistance to go directly to the people who live in frontier zones and who are more exposed geographically to the arrival of illegal immigrants. Assistance could also be given by creating free zones which would lead to the investment of resources and fiscal relief, not to be taken into account in the agreements on the Stability Pact.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, it is clear from your speeches that international and Community law is being violated daily in Lampedusa. However, all your statements remain formal and reflect wishful thinking that will not be followed by action. I fear that this especially applies to your statement, Mr Vondra.

I am wondering whether the European Union has any means for bringing this situation to an end: there is unlawful detention, the aberrant retention conditions are obvious, and there is a risk that the right to asylum will be virtually eliminated. The European Union is the only organisation, and Mr Barrot knows this very well, that can get Italy and other countries out of this situation.

This is why, Commissioner, I am very worried by the announcement of new money for Italy without conditions. How will it be spent? Is the Commissioner aware that the much criticised monitoring - in other words, cataloguing - of the Roma last year had financial support from Europe? It is something that is included in your press releases. Therefore, what sort of trust can we have in action of this kind?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday Mr Maroni announced that one had to be unkind to illegal immigrants, but for days and months, Mr Maroni has been practising unkindness towards migrants whose position is irregular.

I say this because the Lampedusa emergency, the so-called Lampedusa emergency which has now lasted for 10 years - therefore it seems to me to be a bit of a pleonasm to go on calling it an emergency - was desired and created by the Italian Government. In fact, by choosing Mr Maroni, the government made a decision not to allow any more migrants to leave Lampedusa. The Centre for Temporary Stay has had at least 1 800 people shut up in there without the government arranging for any of them to be transferred. They are held in such inhumane and degrading conditions that the centre exploded into a true democratic emergency.

Now I believe that this is the true Lampedusa emergency, that is to say, the need to establish a sort of juridical free zone, a place where migrants would enter and be deported without each case being examined individually. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees states that at least 75% of those who arrive by sea in Italy and gain the right to asylum request it. Thus, if Mr Maroni's practices were put into effect, the migrants would probably not have the right to asylum since they would immediately be deported directly from Lampedusa in accordance with the wishes of the Italian Government.

Hence, there is a genuine emergency and the cause of it is Italian government policy. The citizens of Lampedusa have become aware of this, Mrs Muscardini. Indeed, they have carried out a general strike against the government, against its immigration policy, in order that the centre for immediate expulsion from that place - the centre for identification and expulsion - should not be opened. They have also asked the Italian Government to modify its position on the Centre for Temporary Stay.

It is good of Commissioner Barrot to go to Lampedusa in the next few days and I appreciate this. I have prepared a dossier and sent it to Mr Barrot. In the next few days, my group, too, will organise a delegation that will visit Lampedusa.

It is now a good two or three years ago, in 2005 and 2006, that a delegation from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs visited various refugee centres. After Lampedusa, visits were also made to places including the Canary Islands, the Netherlands and Poland. The reports on those visits resulted in heated debates, and this Parliament urged the Council and Commission to take action.

This morning, we discussed the proposal to tackle illegal employment in the absence of the Council. The period within which the Member States have to transpose these directives into legislation is two years. The issue of immigration is urgent, though, and a two-year period is too long. We have been debating Lampedusa for three years now, and each time, we discuss measures to drive back illegal immigration. After each measure, though, it turns out that, after a brief reduction, there is an increase in immigrants. It is shocking that the reception situation at Lampedusa should need to be discussed in this manner again. Parliament reports regarding the reception situation appear to be completely ineffective. I would therefore call on the Council Presidency to make this a priority.

I understand that, in 2007, more than 12 000 immigrants arrived at Lampedusa, and this figure rose to more than 30 000 in 2008. The detention centre was not built to cope with this capacity. We have known this for three years. The old NATO base is being rebuilt to house more immigrants, but this is not an adequate solution. I should like to hear from the Council what you will do to back the Italian initiatives for better reception facilities. Is this, perhaps, something Frontex could do, and are other Member States prepared to support Italy financially and equipment-wise?

Last night, on the 8 o'clock news, the whole of the Netherlands witnessed what the situation at Lampedusa is like, but the door has now been closed again to journalists and NGOs alike. I would call on Italy to be open and transparent about the treatment of immigrants on Lampedusa.

(NL) Everyone has been aware of the problems surrounding Lampedusa for years. Capsized ships with unfortunate asylum seekers before the European coasts were, in recent years, a regular occurrence. Tens of thousands of people try to reach Europe, enticed by unscrupulous human traffickers who are prepared to bring economic fortune hunters to Europe for huge sums of money.

I do not intend to mince my words, though, when I say that Lampedusa's plight is, first and foremost, the result of the failure of European immigration policy and should not be attributed to the Italian local authorities or the people of Lampedusa. Europe should dare to send clear messages, for desperate times call for desperate measures. We should come down hard on human traffickers, and their punishments cannot be severe enough. This should go hand in hand with a strict asylum policy, one that demonstrates to the rest of the world that Europe is serious about protecting its borders.

Europe should follow the example of the Swiss, who decided two years ago to tighten up legal conditions for immigration and asylum. It is the only way of sending human traffickers and economic fortune hunters a clear message that Europe is prepared to protect its borders to avoid social catastrophes. Only then will a debate such as the one we are holding today prove unnecessary in future.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, nothing in this House surprises me any more. However, someone who declared in July last year, concerning the same topic, that he was ashamed to be an Italian citizen would have no choice but to make the assertions that Mr Fava has now made. I am sorry that he is not here in the House. It would be interesting to know how many votes he gains in his city and how many constituents he represents.

Nevertheless, Mr President, some ignorant and stupid things have been said by some people on this occasion. I hope and believe that Commissioner Barrot will indeed pay an early visit to Malta, Lampedusa and so on and realise how wrong it is that the European Community lacks a policy on this matter, because the truth, Mr Barrot, Mr Vondra, is precisely this: there is no Community policy. What is the consequence of this? That some stupid ignorant people can be allowed to attack what are, in fact, the tragic realities experienced by citizens, individuals and, above all, national governments.

I believe that it is important to give you a few figures. In 2007, around 11 000 migrants arrived in Lampedusa. In 2008, three times as many arrived, about 31 000. It is not true that the number of asylum seekers corresponded to the total number; they made up about one tenth of the total. Two thousand migrants arrived in just the three days from 26 to 28 December, that is to say on St Stephen's Day and just after Christmas. 76 requests were examined in 3 days. Of these 76 requests for asylum, 36 had a positive outcome, 3 were suspended and the rest ... I have nearly finished, Mr President. After the assertions that have been made, be patient. Then Mrs Frassoni will reply when you wish, when it seems right to you and in any circumstances; there is no problem.

Now what counts are the true facts: Lampedusa and Malta and others are carrying a terrible burden. The citizens are not annoyed with the Italian Government. They are annoyed because they themselves can no longer endure this situation. Therefore, this Parliament, rather than accusing the lawful authorities who are doing as much as they can, should instead try to get the European Union to carry out its obligations.

(FR) Mr President, since 2005, we have been greatly moved by the catastrophic situation of the migrants held on the island of Lampedusa, whose numbers are well in excess of its real accommodation capacity.

The situation is difficult for this small island which, in 2008 alone, had to cope with the arrival of almost 31 700 immigrants. These massive flows have been brought under control in recent years as these migrants have been sent to other centres on the Italian mainland.

These transfers were interrupted following a decision taken by the Minister for the Interior and we are seeing a serious deterioration in the situation. However, the Presidium project, which is jointly managed by the Ministry of the Interior, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Italian Red Cross and part-funded by the Union, has become an example of good management of migrant reception. The decision to end the transfers to Italy is creating a real problem of access to asylum procedures.

As for Mayotte, since 2007, we have known that the nominal capacity of the Pamandzi centre has been exceeded. It became known that 204 people, generally minors, were being housed there, while the maximum capacity is for 60 people.

The current conditions are catastrophic: the men are sleeping on the floor; there is no distribution of any bedding or toiletries and men, women and children have to use the same lavatories. The detention conditions are degrading and an affront to human dignity.

The pressure of migration is indeed felt more strongly in these territories, but the dignity of each person must be ensured and each case should be investigated in accordance with the law. It has already been stated that we have an unavoidable need for a real European policy on asylum and immigration and for solidarity at the Union level.

We have been making this request to the European Parliament for several years and we are therefore making a fresh appeal to the Council.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, you are a thoroughly sensible person and I therefore invite you, and in so doing, associate myself with other Members, to go to Lampedusa and, I beg you, to go without prior warning, so that you find out in person how difficult it is to manage an emergency situation of this kind.

This is the situation of an island of only a few square kilometres where thousands and thousands of people have been continuously disembarking for many years - and during this period, left- and right-wing governments have come and gone. Some of these people die during the journey because of the inhumane conditions to which they are subjected by unscrupulous people traffickers. What therefore should be done: ignore the rules? In order to proceed to possible repatriation or to check whether they have political refugee status or need to be granted political asylum, these people have to be identified and this obviously takes time. Enough then of demagoguery! Italy is paying a price in terms of very heavy responsibility which is disproportionate to the support, both financial and legislative, that is given by the European Union.

(SV) Unfortunately, no country can have unrestricted immigration in this world. The differences between the different countries are too large, and that is why we have the problems that we are talking about now. Those who come normally present themselves as asylum seekers. When that happens, we must preserve the rule of law. We must treat these people as free citizens and with respect. We must protect their human rights pending examination of the question of whether they are asylum seekers or not. What we are talking about now seems very strange to me.

Why should those who arrive on the island of Lampedusa be forced to remain there forever? As the previous speaker said, if people pour into a small town in southern Sweden, for example, we do not expect them to remain there. They will, naturally, be relocated around the country pending legal examination of their case. The same must be done in Italy.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the struggle against illegal immigration, given its extent and consequences, is a problem that must be resolved at Community level, since only the European Union has the necessary political clout to identify effective solutions and control the phenomenon. No individual State, operating on its own, can achieve the required results.

While waiting for Europe to implement its strategies, the Italian Government is pressing ahead with work on both the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted by the European Council in October 2008, and the Return Directive of December 2008. This is important work at both domestic and international level.

At domestic level, there has been much criticism, unfair in my opinion, of Interior Minister Maroni's proposal for a Centre for Identification and Expulsion on the island to implement, for specific cases, a policy of direct repatriation. This option does not compromise the fundamental rights of illegal immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, as has been claimed by several parties. To prove this, I will cite just a few figures on Lampedusa that have already been given: 76 requests were examined in January 2009; of these, 36 were granted, three were deferred and 37 were refused. All asylum seekers, by contrast, were transferred from the island to the centres in Trapani, Bari and Crotone. That is to say, those who qualify are accepted.

At international level, the Italian Parliament is today ratifying the agreement with Libya, Article 19 of which expressly states that a more effective control system on Libya's land frontiers should be established to prevent illegal immigration. Furthermore, Ministers Maroni and Frattini met the Tunisian authorities last week to try to conclude an agreement on readmission with that country, an essential condition for sustainable repatriation. The concept that must be accepted here in Parliament, as Vice-President Barrot has also said, is that we must be absolutely firm towards illegal immigration but, at the same time, be welcoming and supportive towards those who become integrated and contribute to the social and economic development of our countries.

(DE) Mr President, Mr Barrot, I welcome the fact that you want to visit Lampedusa, but I recommend that you go there soon and without giving advance notice, otherwise you will find that you are presented with a mere sham. When we visited, the camp had been cleared and the detainees replaced by puppets. You should also go quickly before Mr Berlusconi and Mr Maroni turn Lampedusa into Europe's new Alcatraz and continue to keep the citizens there in captivity.

Of course, we in the European Union must show solidarity. We must establish quotas for refugees which are distributed across the different Member States and which also include the refugees who come across the 'green border'. These represent quite a significant number.

What is happening here - and we have visited many camps - is appalling and completely inhumane. Mr Berlusconi says that they can all go and have a beer whenever they want to. This shows the level of intelligence which this man has, in other words, none at all. I want to make this very clear.

It is people like Mr Maroni who say that we must be tough and apply the full force of the law and then go and kneel on the Vatican steps on Sunday and claim that they are good Catholics. This two-faced approach is no longer acceptable. We must support the other Member States, such as Malta, Greece and Italy, but not these hypocrites. We should not help them.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe has to decide: does it want regulated immigration or the invasion and criminal exploitation of illegal immigrants? The Italian Government has made the right choice: to detain the illegal immigrants in Lampedusa and, at the same time, renegotiate repatriation agreements with the countries from which they come.

However, this requires adequate means and Europe must not merely discuss, merely criticise, merely look at the problem through binoculars. Europe must certainly come to Lampedusa and help our country and those others who maintain the Maroni line on this problem. Today, 120 illegal immigrants are going back to Tunisia from Lampedusa, something not done by previous governments because the immigrants had to be taken back - thus drawing the teeth of the exploitative Mafia criminals who cause these journeys to be made and then exploit them for criminal trafficking.

An anti-Mafia professional like Mr Fava should be able to understand it, it is not difficult, he too should understand it. The Maroni line is approved by Malta, Greece and Cyprus, and by those who live near the southern frontier of our country. All asylum seekers and all minors have already been transferred to appropriate centres. What has been said is false. If Mrs Roure wants to go to Lampedusa tomorrow morning, she will not find a single minor, and if she reads the Italian newspapers, she will discover that it was Mr Maroni who exposed trafficking in organs: children used to disappear from Lampedusa when we had a Left government in our country. Maroni exposed this. Well, the message is clear: people must enter Europe only legally, not by means of Mafia boats and criminal traffickers.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must give priority to the careful treatment of refugees. In Europe, we are all familiar with the concept of compulsory school attendance. We should start by allowing the people who are stranded here to have a proper education. Language teaching and vocational training are both urgently needed, together with the opportunity to learn about European culture so that the time spent in these detention camps is not wasted, but instead we help people to help themselves. This should be our main objective.

Perhaps we can include a preparatory measure in the budget to allow us to offer these people educational opportunities. They have come to Europe in desperation and we should be able to give them a basic framework to enable them to be successful in their home countries and to play an active role in promoting democracy and freedom.

- (MT). I was pleased to hear Commissioner Barrot say that he even plans on visiting Malta, and I assure the Commissioner that he will have no problem finding the immigrants in centres in Malta, for the simple reason that Malta cannot simply take these immigrants and move or transfer them to some other place, and this is partly why the situation in my country is so difficult. Mr President, last Sunday, a boat carrying 260 immigrants landed on our shores. To make it more comprehensible to the Commissioner, this is equivalent to 39 000 immigrants arriving in France or in Italy in one day. To place it in a clearer context for Minister Vondra, this is the equivalent of 7 000 immigrants arriving in the Czech Republic in one day. The 2 000 arriving in Lampedusa over Christmas is nothing compared to this! What is needed therefore, in a case as sensitive as this, is not criticism towards the country's authorities but solidarity in order to put a stop to this flow and lighten the burden. Thank you.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to remind you what the Lampedusans want. At this moment, the Lampedusans are protesting and almost all of them marched the other day in the island's streets, because they want neither the Centre for Temporary Stay nor the Centre for Identification and Expulsion, which is the latest idea. The latter was to be created on an island which, let us remember, is eleven kilometres long and three kilometres wide: a ludicrous amount of space when faced with the thousands of immigrants who will arrive there in the next few months.

The other day, just when there was the sudden and unexpected escape of 1 000 immigrants from the Centre for Temporary Stay, I was on the island and observed the consternation and fear of the people who live there and no longer want to witness things of this kind. This is an island that has lived off fishing and tourism and sees its own economy being destroyed by a blind immigration policy.

(DE) Mr President, I have listened very carefully to this debate and have remained here from beginning to end, unlike many group spokesmen.

I have noticed one thing and that is that more than half of the debate was devoted to internal Italian politics. This is a legitimate concern, but I suggest that the debate should primarily take place in Rome and not here in the European Parliament. We are discussing a European issue here and we should include one additional point in the discussion. Hardly any of the speeches have referred to the fact that this issue concerns not only refugees, asylum seekers and economic immigrants to Europe, but it is also, to a large degree, about finally putting an end to organised crime.

None of the people who come to Lampedusa or Malta have organised a boat for themselves. They come because they have been enticed by organised crime organisations and have paid a great deal of money.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I should like to thank you for a very constructive and helpful debate. There are things the Council can do; there are other things which the Council is not obliged to do or which do not fall within its remit.

Let me start with the negatives - the limitations. As has already been stated, it does not fall within the Council's remit to monitor the implementation of Community law by the Member States; that falls to the Commission, and my colleague Commissioner Barrot talked about that, and we are certainly working closely with the Commission on many issues.

It also does not fall within the Council's remit to implement national provisions of the Member States. A lot has been said during this particular debate about the countries most involved: Italy and France. On the other hand, we certainly have the will and the instruments to act, and the Council is willing to act in the future. I think we all agree - I was listening to you carefully, because you were talking about the further need to improve EU action in the area of migration and asylum policy - that a lot was done last year and I think we are all grateful to the French Presidency for taking the initiative in promoting the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which specifically mentions some instruments of solidarity. Now is the time to gradually implement that step by step. Certainly Parliament, together with the Council and the Commission, will have the possibility to work together on that. I can just promise you that our Presidency, as well as the upcoming Presidency - because this issue will not be resolved within the next few weeks - will be working hard on that.

There are strategic issues. There are also issues that required more immediate reactions, such as reducing the risk of humanitarian crisis and the negative impact. I come from the Czech Republic, which is not under the media spotlight, but we have had our own experiences too: after the division of Czechoslovakia in 1992, there was a huge inflow - hundreds of thousands - of the Roma peoples from Slovakia into Czech territory. Perhaps it was not like the situation in Malta, where I understand the situation is particularly difficult, but I think everybody in the EU has some experience of that and, without a doubt, there is a need for us to work together.

Mr President, as Mr Vondra, the deputy Prime Minister has said, the Commission must ensure that the rules are applied. However, Mr Vondra, the Member States must also cooperate and I think that with the Pact on Immigration and Asylum and the dynamism of your Presidency, together we will be able to do a good job.

I have noted Members' impatience during this debate, but it has to be said that it is still early days in the implementation of the pact and, as I just said, the legal framework is beginning to take shape and can be used as a support. Now, obviously, we must use this to arrive at a Community policy on asylum and a Community policy on immigration.

Europe needs to show greater solidarity. I have just listened to Mr Busuttil and it is true that, faced with the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers, Member States like Malta find themselves in extremely difficult situations. Europe has to decide what solidarity is required. That is absolutely essential

I would also say that we are trying to give as much help as we can via the European Refugee Fund. I would, however, say to Mrs Frassoni that there is probably an error, as the European Return Fund cannot be used, in any case, for registration of the Roma. That is not possible. That is not the aim of this fund. In any case, when I go to Lampedusa and Malta, I will see how the financial aid that we are giving to the Member States is being used.

I would therefore say to you that we are now going to pay a great deal of attention. We finally have a solid legal framework that will allow us to act much more than previously on reception conditions. I also hope that a more united Europe will allow an improvement of the situation of these immigrants, especially these asylum seekers who are worthy of our full attention.

I would like to reply to Mrs Sudre, since she gave a very good explanation of the extremely worrying situation in Mayotte. What she said is correct: the French authorities have informed us that a new centre with 140 places will open in 2010. Above all, these same authorities are currently negotiating with the Comoran authorities to conclude an agreement on movement and migration, as a lasting reduction must be made to the migration pressures on that island.

In general terms, I must say that we need the policy of partnership with the countries of origin. Mr Vondra, that is the condition we have to meet if we are to reduce somewhat the very high migration pressure on some of the Member States, for some of whom it is causing problems. However, I think that if the European Union can be very united, we could find an answer to the need for a more concerted management of migration flows. This will obviously benefit these men and women, whom we should never forget, and who are in very painful situations.

The debate is closed.

Question Time (Commission) 

The next item is Question Time (B6-0006/09).

The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Part one



Subject: Award procedures for public works, public supply, and public service contracts in the field of defence and security

European arms markets are fragmented and have consequently suffered adverse economic effects since the 1990s. Within the last 20 years, defence spending in Europe has been halved, and sales, employment, and research- and technology-related investment have declined. However, even the large Member States are finding it difficult to shoulder the financial burdens imposed by the cost of developing new weapons systems. The reorganisation of armed forces since the end of the cold war has led to a numerical reduction in stocks of conventional defence equipment, but has also created new requirements in terms of quality.

Does the Commission not believe that countries which are essentially buyers, such as Portugal, are being placed at a disadvantage because the latest proposal fails to lay down a compensation system whereby Member States would be able to secure industrial returns, of a civil or military nature, on purchases of defence equipment? Is it willing to allow a compensation system?

Member of the Commission. - One month ago, Parliament adopted a resolution on the proposal for a directive on the procurement of defence and security equipment. This means that the proposal has successfully completed first reading and will shortly be adopted by the Council.

The new directive is a major step forward towards the establishment of a common European defence market. It will introduce fair and transparent procurement rules applicable throughout the Union. This will enhance the openness of defence markets between Member States to the benefit of all. European industries will get a much larger home market and become more competitive; our armed forces will get better value for money, which will help to improve Europe's defence capabilities; and last but not least, taxpayers will benefit from more efficiency in public spending.

One of the controversial issues during the debate on the directive were 'offsets' - that is, economic compensation for defence purchases from foreign suppliers. Some Member States proposed to include in the directive a compensation system which will allow them to secure such industrial returns on defence investments.

Offsets aim at fostering the industry of the Member State which purchases defence equipment abroad. As such, they can lead to distortion of the internal market and imply discrimination against companies from other Member States on the basis of the nationality of the supplier. The EC Treaty prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality, and a directive, as secondary law, has to abide by the Treaty.

The Legal Service of the Council confirmed in its opinion of 28 October 2008 that, and I quote, 'restrictive procurement measures designed to promote domestic industry do not comply with the general principles of the EC Treaty'. Consequently, offsets on defence procurement can only be permitted if they are necessary for the protection of essential security interests or justified on the basis of an overriding requirement of general interest. Economic interests, by contrast, are not sufficient. The vast majority of Member States and Parliament agreed with this assessment.

So there was not only a legal obligation, but also a political consensus not to accept in the directive compensations directed at fostering national industries. Accordingly, neither the Commission in its proposal, nor the colegislators, namely the Council and the European Parliament, included specific rules on offsets in the text of the Defence Directive.

The Defence Directive does, however, offer alternatives to offsets. Member States which are principally purchasers of defence equipment usually seek to justify their wish to have offsets either with security of supply needs or with the necessity to open up defence markets for their SMEs. The Defence Procurement Directive will satisfy these concerns. On the one hand, it allows the contracting authorities to ask tenderers for specific commitments to satisfy their security of supply requirements. On the other hand, it contains provisions on subcontracting which make it possible to require tenderers to open up their supply chains to EU-wide competition and facilitate access for SMEs, as this will contribute to reconciling the legitimate security and economic interests of Member States that are purchasers and avoid the need to have recourse to compensations or offsets.

(PT) I am grateful to the Commissioner for the very full answer that I have just received. However, I would like to underline my concern, which is also related both to the crisis situation in which we are living today, as we all know, and to the fact that we are in election year, which may, to a great extent, contribute to some cooling of interest and loss of enthusiasm in this area.

Nevertheless, Commissioner, I am obliged to tell you that we must not lose sight of the key issue from our point of view, and the key issue from our point of view is preventing purchaser countries, such as Portugal and others, from potentially being at a disadvantage.

Member of the Commission. - I certainly can recognise political consequences, and I recognised the phrase that we are in an election year. However, as the honourable Member will know, in this particular directive, which has gone through the system, these matters were considered and the consensus was for Member States and the European Parliament not to go down that particular route.

It was heavily debated in the various working groups, but the consensus, for the reasons I have outlined in my formal reply, was not to go down the route that the honourable Member suggested. For the reasons I outlined earlier, I would be very positive about what we have achieved in these compromises, and they are in the best interests of all the economies in Europe.

I take the opportunity to follow up on the first part of this question and to raise the issue about public contracts generally and the issue of restricted tenders, which a lot of people would suggest represent, or result in, poor value for money. Perhaps the Commission might at some time - perhaps not now - address this issue, particularly in the more straitened economic circumstances that many of our Member States face, and look again at the issue of contracts and tenders and, specifically, restricted tenders.

Member of the Commission. - As Mrs McGuinness would be aware, at the European Council meeting in December last, the European Heads of State agreed that a shorter period could be applied for getting tenders in 2009 and 2010. This is actually in conformity with the flexibility offered in the existing directives because, in the difficult economic circumstances in which all the economies of Europe find themselves, the Heads of State thought this was a proper way to go, and it is permissible under the existing directives.

I am aware of the issues that the Member raised regarding restricted tenders, but we review our public procurement directives periodically and I will make sure that Mrs McGuinness's comments are fed into the system.

Subject: EU-Israel trade relations

In light of the ongoing military action in Gaza, the excessive and disproportionate use of force by Israel and in light of the thousands of civilian casualties and the killing of innocent Palestinian citizens, in what way does the Commission plan to reconsider its trading relations with Israel?

Vice-President of the Commission. - The Commission has strongly condemned the violence in Gaza. This crisis proves once more that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have a military solution. Only negotiations with the full commitment of the parties can bring about a lasting solution.

The Commission welcomes the recent cessation of hostilities in Gaza. It is vital that all parties make the current ceasefire permanent through the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1860. A number of issues need to be addressed without delay, in particular, the reopening of all crossings into and out of Gaza, a sustained halt to rocket attacks against Israel and an effective means to prevent arms-smuggling to Gaza.

Now that the hostilities appear to have stopped, it will be important to resume talks aimed at comprehensive peace as soon as possible. The EU has called on its partners for help in driving the peace process forward. The immediate priority for the Commission is to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the population in Gaza. Trading relations between the EU and Israel will continue. Isolation, sanctions or any other forms of boycott would be harmful to talks and negotiations aimed at achieving a sustainable solution to the conflict. Furthermore, while targeting Israeli interests, they would also prove to be detrimental to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which is economically dependent on Israel as a main destination for its exports and employment of its labour force.

- I would like to thank the Commissioner for his response and to welcome the fact that he repeated the Commission's condemnation of Israel's action. But, Commissioner, all our trade agreements have a human rights clause in them. I, like many of my voters, fail to understand how, when a country admits it is using disproportionate military action against a civilian population - it deliberately targets schools, it deliberately targets the buildings of peaceful and neutral international organisations - we still do not believe it has breached its human rights clauses. When will a breach of human rights occur if not in these circumstances?

Vice-President of the Commission. - I must say that our whole policy towards this particular period of conflict in Israel/Palestine is that the Commission is now focusing on humanitarian relief and helping the people in Gaza, and all other questions will be considered later. There will be no change in our trade policy, and further developments depend on the circumstances.

I know, of course, that you can be provided with detailed information about the investigations which have been launched about the possible violation of human rights and crimes committed during this conflict. The Commission is closely following these investigations and will, after these investigations are finished, make its mind up and will follow up on the developments and take the next decisions.

A lot of people have asked for further supplementary questions on this question. I can take only two within our Rules and I am, therefore, bearing in mind who asked when, and political balance. I will, therefore, take supplementary questions from Mr Allister and Mr Rack.

Commissioner, could I welcome the assurance that trade relations will continue, and could I encourage you not to be intimidated by the deluge of anti-Israel propaganda and ask the Commission to remember that, with Israel being one of very few democracies in that region, it is important not to ostracise it or alienate it, which would not promote peace at all. Nor would such action sit comfortably with the tolerance that the EU has shown to many very despotic regimes right across the world.

(DE) I welcome the fact that the European Union is making a humanitarian commitment to help those who are suffering in the Gaza Strip. I also welcome the fact that we have condemned what is probably a disproportionate reaction on the part of Israel and have rightly indicated that this is not the way to secure peace because, on the contrary, it puts peace at risk. However, we should also take the time to explain on behalf of the European Union that people within the Gaza Strip have committed illegal violent acts which have a direct and fatal impact on the residents of Israel. I would be pleased if the European Union could provide a balanced response in this respect.

Vice-President of the Commission. - I can assure you that the Commission always tries to be balanced. Given that my colleagues, Commissioners Michel and Ferrero-Waldner, have also condemned the attacks on Israel, they have condemned both sides for the use of violent tools and violence. We try to be balanced and to consider all aspects of this very complex conflict.

Subject: Internet safety programme

Decision No 1351/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 established a multiannual Community programme on protecting children using the Internet and other communications technologies. In accordance with this decision, the Commission is required to draw up annual work programmes as part of the 'Safer Internet' programme, which is designed to promote safer use of the Internet and new communications technologies. Given the threats posed by unlimited access to all these technologies and data, special attention needs to be paid to children and young people. The programme, which is to run from 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2013, has a budget of EUR 55 million.

Will the Commission give precise details of the plan of action and the costs of implementing the 'Safer Internet' programme in the coming years? Who is eligible to apply to take part in the programme? How, and on what activities, will funds from the 'Safer Internet' programme be spent?

Vice-President of the Commission. - The Safer Internet Programme, a predecessor of the programme which is now being launched, was considered a real success. The Commission is convinced that the next one will also be a success.

The Safer Internet Programme is a unique pan-European initiative through which the EU helps combat illegal content and harmful conduct online and increase awareness of child safety online among the European public. It facilitates national actions and initiatives in a coordinated fashion.

As pointed out by the honourable Member, the new Safer Internet Programme, which will run for five years from 2009 to 2013, has a total budget of EUR 55 million and will be implemented through annual work programmes. The 2009 work programme is currently subject to Commission inter-service consultation. The Commission will then seek the Programme Management Committee's favourable opinion. Thereafter, this document will be uploaded to the comitology register in order to allow the European Parliament to exercise its 30-day right of scrutiny, which should take place between the end of March and the beginning of April. The work programme defines the content criteria and indicative budget of the call for proposals which will be launched in 2009.

The call for proposals will be open to all legal entities established in the Member States. It is also open to legal entities established in EFTA states that are contracting parties to the EEA Agreement - Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. It is, furthermore, open to legal entities established in other countries provided that a bilateral agreement is signed.

The 2009 work programme is the first of five, and so will be a building block for the activities to be carried out over the whole lifetime of the programme. According to the current draft, its priorities are to empower and protect children by introducing new actions and continuing actions started under the previous Safer Internet Plus Programme, ensuring coverage of awareness activities, help lines and hotlines throughout the Member States, strengthening coordination at European level, and also ensuring value for money by obtaining maximum impact with the financial resources available, namely EUR 11 million per year.

(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, I warmly welcome this important initiative. I would simply like to pose one question. The programme refers to the notion of creating special contact points in each country, to deal with coordination of the programme. Does the Commissioner have any information on this and what exactly is contemplated?

Vice-President of the Commission. - Unfortunately, I do not have any detailed information about the contact points, but I know in general that this is decided in the Member States and depends very much on the structure of the government and governance structures.

I know where this contact point will be in my own country, but at this moment, I do not have such an overview of where the contact points are in other countries.

It is, of course, possible to provide you with the necessary details if you are interested.

(DE) The dangers represented by the Internet are constantly changing and we have seen the Internet move from version 1.0 to version 2.0, so to speak. In essence, this means that everything has become much more interactive. There have been cases where young people have been driven to commit suicide by web platforms and web communities of this kind.

The question now is: Do you believe that overall, these developments are a good or a bad thing? Will the situation become more or less dangerous? If it is becoming more dangerous, what plans does the Commission have with particular regard to this change in the Internet?

(DE) It is a question of spending the EUR 55 million properly. Can you imagine giving the small and medium-sized businesses small amounts simply to make better programmes, establishing programme ratings for young people, so that they can decide whether they are interested in the programme or not and, in the same way as with films, publishing an age limit which indicates whether the content is desirable and that there is a specific age limit involved? Can you imagine allocating programme funding in the same way as with the Eurostars programme?

Vice-President of the Commission. - The dangers of the Internet and the development of the Internet constitute a huge issue. We all know how new the Internet is in our world and how it has developed exponentially over the last few years. As such, both the positive and dangerous sides are very new to society and governmental structures.

Of course, governmental structures, including European institutions, must adequately assess all the possible threats, and I am sure that they are doing so. The Safer Internet Programme is one response to threats already identified. Another threat already identified is cyber attacks and different attempts to attack and block via the Internet. Criminals are also using the Internet, and law-enforcement agencies are actively working on how to deal with these possible threats.

So I think that one of the main priorities for governments - and also European institutions - is to respond adequately; and in this sense, 'adequately' means that we should not restrict the enormous advantages which the Internet offers to all users.

However, while all the different aspects of development threats and possibilities - and adequate reactions thereto - are definitely more a question for the specialists in this area, they are also in the interest of all Internet users. I can assure you that the Commission and its relevant services are monitoring the situation intensely.

Concerning participation in this programme, the Commission's attitude is that applications can come from a large variety of possible applicants, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and that those enterprises are mostly the providers of these kinds of services. Therefore, I think it would also be good for those enterprises.

If I understood correctly about the possibility for the younger generations to participate in this programme, I cannot give you a concrete answer at this moment, but the Commission is very open to involving as many participants as possible to work with this programme. However, I cannot give a concrete answer today on the issue of young people's participation.

Subject: Special adviser Richard Boomer and the Heysel site

Since 1 April 2006 the Belgian real estate entrepreneur, Richard Boomer, has been working as a special adviser to Commissioner Kallas on issues relating to buildings. His contract has now been extended.

What led the Commissioner to extend this contract? Which decisions by the Commissioner has Mr Boomer influenced? Which internal meetings in the Commission has Mr Boomer attended since the extension?

It now seems that another Belgian real estate promoter is seeking to bring pressure to bear to have some Commission offices located on the Heysel site in Brussels. Will the Commission give its opinion on this site? What is the timetable for decision making? When will the results of the architects' competition for the Rue de la Loi be announced?

Vice-President of the Commission. - This question is very well known to me and has already been dealt with many times. I must say that, first of all, Mr Richard Boomer is not a property developer, as is stated in the question. All information about him is available on the website. He has been my special adviser since 1 April 2006 and his mandate was renewed in 2008 for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.

His mandate as special adviser is as follows: advise the Vice-President responsible for administration, audit and fraud prevention as regards property policy; improve relations with the competent authorities in Brussels and Luxembourg; optimise effectiveness of the investments to be made by the Commission.

I must say that he has really provided us with valuable expertise, knowing what is going on in the real estate field in Brussels or Belgium mostly, though not so much in Luxembourg. His advice has been valuable and I must say that also the lines of command in the matter of property policy at the Commission are very clear. The definition of property policy falls within the competence of the Personnel and Administration DG under the authority of the Vice-President in charge of administration. This policy is implemented by the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Brussels (for Brussels) and the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Luxembourg (for Luxembourg). In his capacity as special adviser, Mr Boomer, like all special advisers at the Commission, advises on the policy and perspectives on a long-term basis in the matters laid down in his mandate. He has no role in the process of decision making or in the underlying management procedures such as, for example, the acquisition of buildings or the suspension of a long-term lease.

On the third question, relating to an unnamed Belgian real estate entrepreneur, the Commission has no knowledge of the pressures suggested by the honourable Member.

On the last question - the big one - I am very happy to inform the honourable Member that the European Commission announced publicly, in a communication on its property policy on 5 September, its will to maintain a strong symbolic presence at the centre of the European area, while developing in parallel up to three additional sites outside this area. This policy makes it possible to ensure the best added value for use of public money and puts downward pressure on the high level of prices within the European area. In accordance with this policy, the Commission published in June 2008 a call for information addressed to the market in order to have better knowledge of the existing possibilities for the development of a site external to the European area from 2014. This call was made with full transparency, via publication in the Official Journal. The Commission received nine offers and is currently undertaking a technical examination of them.

The Commission would reassure honourable Members that the choice of the site to be made in 2009 will be based on careful examination of the merits of each offer, pursuant to clear procedures and in the best interests of the European Commission and the taxpayers' money. Until this decision is taken, the Commission will not express a view on any of the offers which have been examined.

On the question of when the results of the architects' competition for Rue de la Loi will be announced, the Commission can only state that this question does not fall within the competence of the European Commission but has to be submitted to the Brussels Capital Region, which launched this town planning competition. According to information available to the European Commission, the final result is expected in spring 2009.

I am sorry about the long answer but the details were also substantial.

(DE) Commissioner, it is always a great pleasure to listen to what you have to say and to discuss issues with you. I have produced a diagram which shows the career of your special advisor. I would like to ask you how you ensure that no conflicts of interest come about. One of the people who plays a role in your new offers appears on this diagram. This is someone who has had a business relationship with your special advisor for a long time. So how do you ensure that no conflicts of interest occur?

Vice-President of the Commission. - As I said, he must know a lot of people. I am absolutely sure that there is no conflict of interest. He has not expressed any kind of suggestion concerning our future policy decisions.

I am absolutely sure you will hear when this decision is taken. Nine sites have been suggested, but I do not know where these sites are. I have read in newspapers about some suggestions made. You can check it afterwards and then you will have a full picture why one or another decision was taken. So far, nothing is clear, so I am very interested to see all these proposals.

My adviser has scrutinised this matter from all angles, and I am absolutely sure that he has no conflict of interest and especially, of course, that he has no role in this kind of decision making.

(DE) I would like to query something again. We understand that a search is going on for property outside the European area. However, I think that European tax money is being used and that the European Parliament should be involved in a transparent process.

My question is as follows. As you yourself have said, Commissioner, nine parties have already shown interest in this call for information and are currently being evaluated. However, specific changes of use have been introduced at one site, the Heysel site. How does the information which you have just given us fit together with what is obviously already in preparation on this site? We would like some more specific information, in particular, about when we will be informed about the overall status and about the procedure.

Vice-President of the Commission. - You will be clearly informed about the full procedure and it can be scrutinised. It will be a very clear and transparent decision. The reason behind the idea of having so-called 'other sites' outside the European quarter is precisely because we want more efficient use of money.

If we concentrate all our services in the European Quarter, it gives real estate developers enormous opportunities to ask very high prices, which we have already seen in many cases. So, to have other sites as well is a necessity, especially to moderate the costs. That is the main idea.

We already have some buildings and some sites outside the European quarter. We have buildings in Beaulieu, we have buildings on the Rue de Genève and some others also. We are interested in looking. We have asked for 70 000 m2 to be proposed and we will then examine all the possibilities.

You mentioned Heysel. I read about it in the newspapers. I do not know anything about Heysel. Yes, since I read this, several Belgian politicians have approached me and talked both for and against the site, but it has never been considered as some kind of preferred option. Nothing has been decided. It is a process.

It is of big interest for Belgian and Brussels politicians, this location of the sites, and the Brussels Region is also interested in having our location outside the European Quarter, so we will make this decision. We have an assessment committee which is examining the proposal at the moment and then it will come before the OIB board and then later to the Commission. It will be a transparent process. I suggest, though, that we keep out of Belgian internal debates and interests.

Subject: Euro note and coin counterfeiting

Could the Commission provide information on the current situation with regard to the counterfeiting of euro bank notes and coins as well as an analysis of what the EU is doing to combat counterfeit fraud?

Vice-President of the Commission. - The European Community has developed a number of actions to protect the euro against counterfeiting, but in response to your question about the situation with regard to the fight against counterfeiting, it is as follows:

In 2008, according to figures published by the European Central Bank, a total of 666 000 counterfeit euro banknotes were removed from circulation - so, a little over 600 000 compared to 20 billion genuine euro banknotes: this number is not too alarming. Historically, the 50-euro note has been the most counterfeited banknote, but in the second half of 2008 - for the first time - the most counterfeited banknote was the 20-euro banknote.

For euro coins, a total of 100 095 counterfeits were removed from circulation in 2008, which represents a decrease of 7% compared to 2007, and the two-euro coin has always been by far the most counterfeited euro coin.

So it is closely monitored. The roles are divided. The European Central Bank is responsible for the coordination of the fight against counterfeiting of euro banknotes. The Commission, especially its OLAF service, deals with the counterfeiting of coins.

The real law enforcement happens at Member State level, but the coordination is carried out by the European Central Bank. We have a Technical and Scientific Centre, which carries out the analysis and classification of new stamped counterfeit coins.

It is important to mention that Europol is playing a substantial role in fighting counterfeiting. So this is the situation with regard to the counterfeiting of euro banknotes and coins.

Commissioner, while you might indicate in your reply that this is a very small problem in the overall context of things, nonetheless, I am receiving quite a number of complaints from small businesses that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them and that they are encountering more problems.

In order to address the issue of counterfeiting, I believe it is vitally important to have the maximum cooperation between the police, the European Central Bank, which you have already referred to, and the European Commission.

Could you outline to me the current situation regarding this level of cooperation, and if you are particularly satisfied that the level of cooperation is good enough and strong enough?

Vice-President of the Commission. - I am directly responsible for OLAF, and OLAF is dealing, as I mentioned, with counterfeit coins. I have no indication that there is bad cooperation between Member States and between European institutions, including Europol where I have been and where I have seen the technology of detecting counterfeit banknotes and coins.

Therefore, I think that the situation is more or less satisfactory, compared to several other areas where cooperation is not so good. But in the area of counterfeiting, the Commission has no indication that there is a problem in cooperation between Europol and national law-enforcement agencies. On the contrary, Europol has specialists from national law-enforcement agencies there, and they are working closely together to fight counterfeiting.

(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, with the euro celebrating its ten-year anniversary in this period of global economic crisis, I should like to ask the Commission if it intends to ask the Central European Bank to approve the issue of one- and two-euro bills, because these are the two main coins which we have seen counterfeited, the most recent case being the Turkish pound which, as you know, is similar in appearance to the two-euro coin and therefore keeps being forged.

I would like to thank the Commissioner for his replies and to ask him whether, if there were three counterfeiters - 'A' operating in Germany, 'B' operating in Ireland and 'C' operating in Slovakia - each of them would get the same sentence if they were caught counterfeiting.

Let me put it another way - is there an incentive, if you are a counterfeiter, to ply your trade in one state rather than another because the sentences there are less severe? In the United States, to counterfeit the currency is a serious crime. Do we take the same attitude in the European Union?

Vice-President of the Commission. - First, the Turkish lira is very well known to me. This is not a question for the European Central Bank, but I have myself, during a visit to Turkey, addressed this issue with members of the Turkish Government, and they promised to gradually phase out this coin and change it so it will not be so similar to European coins. So this has been promised at least. That was already a couple of years ago and this has not been raised any more, so probably this process is ongoing.

Regarding cooperation, in early 2009, there was a big operation against counterfeiters together with the Italian authorities, so cooperation is working.

About court sentences, this is, of course, a matter for national judiciaries and it is more of a question for my colleague Mr Barrot, but I have never heard of the European Union launching any initiative to harmonise these sentences. However, I know from the country I know best, and from other countries, that counterfeiting is a severe crime everywhere.

Of course, as I said, there is quite a lot of cooperation among the law-enforcement agencies in fighting the people who are involved in these activities but, as far as I know, there is no initiative to harmonise such legislation all over Europe.

Subject: Efficient spending of the EU budget

With the coming into force of the EU budget for 2009, how is the Commission continuing to ensure that the money of the EU taxpayer is used to its maximum efficiency and waste kept to an absolute minimum?

Vice-President of the Commission. - I could, of course, speak for at least one hour on these issues. Our doings in this area are reflected in the ongoing discharge process and in many communications from the Commission, in many discharge resolutions and in many speeches in the Budgetary Control Committee. So, firstly, I can assure you that we are dealing very seriously with these issues and the situation is improving.

The system is as follows. The budgetary authority, which means Parliament, authorises the Commission to use money and which money can be used to implement Community policies. There is a special spending programme, which has its own legal basis. Parliament also designs this legal basis, so the rules are decided by the budgetary authority relating to the budget.

Next comes implementation, where there are different layers. One of these is, of course, the Commission, which is the main actor responsible for implementing the budget. Our activities in improving financial governance are reflected in our annual activity reports, and the Court of Auditors has evaluated that they are getting better and better and more adequately reflect the situation.

This is one internal part. Another is the control and auditing systems, which have also been strengthened in recent years, for instance in internal policies in the research family, where we have increased the control and auditing staff. What is also important in this particular part is that there is shared management. Much also depends on the contribution of, and efforts made by, Member States to cut back their errors and to avoid the misuse of money. There is also improvement in this area. A completely new instrument has been introduced - the so-called annual summary of all reports of paying agencies. These were carefully analysed for the first time last year and this is now being done again.

So the situation is improving. The Court of Auditors' report, which also has been greatly changed from the beginning of our period, now quantifies the changes. This quantification of changes also shows that there has been an improvement. So European money is quite rigidly managed - even too rigidly in some areas. We can show what has been done. But we can also clearly say that this is far from perfect. This is a huge machine which must work smoothly. According to the Court of Auditors' estimations, in most areas, 98% of all transactions are carried out without errors. In the Structural Funds, this is almost 90%, so the vast majority of transactions will not include errors, and any errors will be corrected. The number of correction decisions relating to the Structural Funds has increased tremendously during this period. I can, of course, provide you with a lot of numbers if needed. These are some indications, but of course it is clear that this does not cover the whole of the answer to the simple question: 'How do you manage the European budget?'

Is the Commissioner aware that the Court of Auditors said there were unacceptable spending errors in all but two of the seven policy areas covered under the EUR 140 billion budget? And, yes, there have been improvements: the auditors estimated that at least 12% of the Cohesion Fund should not have been paid last year and it was down to 11% this year - that is an improvement. But 11% represented EUR 462 million. Does the Commissioner think that this is acceptable?

In other policy areas - agriculture, the environment, external aid, development and enlargement, research, energy and transport, education and citizenship - the error rate (I use the word 'error') was between 2% and 5% and the auditors observed that there was a 'disproportionately' (that is their word) large error rate for rural development, which now represents 20% of farm spending and is increasing.

This is a mess, Commissioner! Can we expect that this is going to be improved?

Vice-President of the Commission. - Of course it must be improved, but you must also understand that we are talking about errors. For instance, the 12% figure for last year is based on samples taken by the Court of Auditors, using absolutely correct methodology. These samples amount to EUR 63 million. All these samples have been corrected, recovered and the necessary documents provided. Therefore, the 12% issue from 2006 is resolved.

Errors are not a waste of money: errors are errors which are corrected. All the figures are available, from the Committee on Budgetary Control, for what is done to recover wrongly paid money.

For instance, this year the Regional Development Fund made decisions for the recovery of almost EUR 2.3 billion from the Member States - provided there are no other corrections, but this is a process where, last year, we were much tougher than previously; still, you must understand that we are talking about errors.

Meanwhile, the Court of Auditors has submitted this discharge, this report. Based on this report, they have submitted all of two cases to OLAF for further investigation - one case is closed and the other is under investigation. These are the possible fraud cases. I must say that this situation is not so bad, though we must of course ensure that the money is properly used everywhere.

Commissioner, as a result of the financial crisis, as a sign of solidarity, salaries for ministers, MPs and also for MEPs and other officials have been cut by 10%, 15% or 20% in some EU countries.

Would you support this idea? I know it is complicated to implement, but at least to theoretically implement such an idea in the European Commission?

(RO) Given that energy efficiency is one of the priority areas for the EU's economic recovery and for combating climate change, I feel that it is necessary to set up a European fund for energy efficiency and renewable energy to raise the public and private funds for implementing specific projects across the European Union. This would provide a model of efficiency for using European public money. I would like to ask the Commission what its point of view is on this.

Vice-President of the Commission. - I do not know what Parliament's position is on the issue of salaries. It is a question of opening the Staff Regulations, which is a very complicated issue. This Commission decided at the beginning not to open the Staff Regulations, but to make this machinery function smoothly. Nobody has so far, bearing in mind the complexity of opening the Staff Regulations, suggested opening them again.

Of course, if we go with such a proposal, we must negotiate with our social partners, the trade unions. We can negotiate about this or ask them these questions definitely, but there is very little chance of opening the Staff Regulations before the Parliament and Commission terms end.

Concerning the funds, I did not understand the question. Were you suggesting that all the funds should be merged? Could you repeat the question?

I propose the creation of a European fund dedicated to energy efficiency but for projects implemented within the European Union. I think it would be very useful for the sustainable economic development of the European Union.

Vice-President of the Commission. - That is a huge question. I can only pass this question to my colleagues.

We, together with Parliament, are asking the Member States whether this kind of money - this EUR 5 billion - can be made available solely for energy efficiency. So far, it has been a very heated debate in the Council.

There are some opportunities to support energy efficiency through the Cohesion Funds. But to establish some kind of new fund will probably create a lot of very long debates. I do not know how good an idea this is, because energy still does not fall within the mandate of the Community - it is strictly a national matter.

Seeing what is happening with this EUR 5 billion, I am not so enthusiastic about cooperation between the Member States in establishing different financing instruments. The idea, of course, I can only support.

Subject: Agreements with Andean Community countries

In view of the institutional problems the Andean Community is currently facing, does the Commission believe that a joint agreement with the Andean Community is still possible, or does it think that individual agreements with one or more CAN members would be more feasible?

Vice-President of the Commission. - Thank you for this opportunity to deal with the very interesting issue of our foreign policy on the Andean Community.

Region-to-region negotiations with the Andean Community entered an impasse last summer due to the Andean Community's inability to agree on common negotiation positions in certain trade-related areas. These differences reflect, to a certain extent, the differing approaches of the various countries in the region on economic and trade policies.

Despite the efforts undertaken by some Andean Community countries to overcome this impasse, the Commission could only note that a consensus on moving forward with negotiations no longer existed. Under these circumstances, and without abandoning the medium-term objective of building an association between the Andean Community and the European Union, the Commission proposed to the Council a new two-track negotiating format which was approved by the Council on 19 January.

First, and with the objective of preserving and strengthening relations between the European Union and the Andean Community, the Commission proposes to enrich and update the 2003 political dialogue and cooperation agreement.

Second, the Commission proposes to negotiate the multiparty trade agreement outside the Andean Community framework with those countries that are ready and able to commit to ambitious, comprehensive and WTO-compatible trade negotiations. All of them are invited, of course.

Taking into account the discrepancies among the Andean Community countries on the trade part of association agreements, the Commission believes that the proposed approach is the best suited to permit us to move forward in a pragmatic and constructive way, while continuing to support the Andean Community and Andean integration.

(ES) Mr President, I agree with your comment that this is the most appropriate way to proceed. I have spent these last few days in the Republic of Bolivia and I have followed events on a daily basis.

The specific question I wish to ask you is as follows: when I was there, the objection was raised that these agreements might go against the Cartagena Agreement - the agreement on which the Andean Community is based - and that that Agreement might need to be amended.

At present, can the Commission tell me whether the agreements can be made without an amendment to the Andean Community's fundamental text?

Vice-President of the Commission. - I think that this particular question is quite difficult. From what I have read in this briefing, I think that, based on this Andean Community agreement, it is possible to go ahead with this, but I would be very happy to provide more detailed information through our services.

(DE) The European Parliament has moved its relationship with Latin America onto a new level, because we now have mutual relationships between the European Parliament and almost all the Latin American parliaments, including the Andean Parliament, via EuroLat. Is this enforced, pragmatic return to bilateralism really the right approach or should we attempt to have an intensive dialogue with Latin America as a whole and only take specific requirements into consideration in the context of special arrangements?

Vice-President of the Commission. - Yes, I can definitely say that this is the Commission's approach. We have always been in favour of agreements between multilateral organisations, and we always see the dangers of bilateral dealing, which can easily end in confusion.

I am very pleased that I was required to go to Barbados to sign a Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and 14 countries in the Caribbean region. This was a really big achievement. It has encouraged and boosted the trade between these countries tremendously, and has been greeted as a very positive step. So we will try, of course, to have this multilateral approach.

Subject: The removal of the PMOI from the EU's Terrorist List

On 4 December 2008, the Court of First Instance (CFI) annulled the Council's 15 July 2008 Decision to maintain the People's Mujahedin (PMOI) on the EU terrorist list.

The verdict emphasised that the PMOI's right of defence and effective judicial protection had been violated by the Council which had also failed to prove that the PMOI was engaged in terrorism. The verdict added that the file submitted by the French Government was not based on 'serious and credible evidence' and that it was in respect of individuals suspected of being members of the PMOI and not the PMOI itself.

This verdict is the last of six rulings by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Britain, as well as the CFI, in favour of the PMOI, all of which emphasise that the PMOI is not involved in terrorism and does not plan to engage in terrorism.

What is the position of the Commission which should safeguard the rule of law in this respect?

What role has the Commission in ensuring due process and natural justice for any organisation which finds itself in this position?

Vice-President of the Commission. - As you all know, the European Union condemns terrorism in all its forms and firmly believes that the fight against terrorism must respect human rights in order to be effective and credible.

Sanctions against terrorists are taken in the context of the common foreign and security policy, and the Commission is associated with decisions taken unanimously by the Member States in the Council. So the Commission has taken good note of the fact that, in its judgment of 4 December 2008, the Court of First Instance annulled the Council Decision of 15 July 2008 that listed the People's Mujahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) as a terrorist organisation.

The Court argued that the PMOI's right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection had not been respected. In particular, the reasons for the listing had not been communicated in advance of the decision. The organisation was therefore not in a position to make its views known before a decision was taken. In application of that judgment, the Council adopted, on 26 January 2009, a new list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures applied to terrorist organisations, and the People's Mujahedin Organisation of Iran was not included in that list.

In that respect, it is also important to note that, in an attachment of 23 October 2008, the European Court of Justice confirmed that the current procedure for listing terrorist organisations, as applied by the Council in the case of sanctions that are not based on the United Nations sanctions, respects the human rights of the persons and organisations concerned. This includes a procedure in which both sides are heard, the reasons for listing are given in advance and the person or entity in question can make its views known.

I should like to thank the Commissioner. Indeed, when I tabled this question on 17 December 2008, I was not to know the good news that would come from the Foreign Ministers' meeting on 26 December.

Let me make it clear that I condemn terrorism in all its forms. But, at the same time, I must ask you whether it is acceptable that any Council of Ministers can consistently refuse to uphold the rule of law and can ignore the judgments of the Court of First Instance.

Finally, has the Commission had any reaction - official or otherwise - from the present Iranian regime since the European Foreign Ministers' decision on 26 January 2009?

Vice-President of the Commission. - As I said, it was a Council decision, and now the Court of Justice has shown what the deficiencies in this decision were. I assume the Council and other European institutions will follow the Court's decisions.

The Court of Justice said that the decision did not meet the substantive and procedural requirements, and the Council followed that decision. This was discussed in GAERC, and the Council decided not to keep this organisation on the new terrorist list adopted on 26 January 2009.

But I have not been informed that we have had any reaction from the Iranian Government. On the contrary, colleagues say that there has been no reaction from the Iranian Government.

I think that these procedures will also help to deal with all the nuances of listing organisations or people as terrorist organisations and create the possibility of giving counter-arguments. That seems to me to be a good step.

(DE) The terror list has obviously been produced on the basis of information which is not always reliable. Following the removal of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) from the terror list, are there any plans for a general review and update of the EU terror list?

Member of the Commission. - This list is, of course, constantly being revised. If a Member State suggests another approach, to remove an entity from the list or to add something, this is definitely a reason for revisiting this list. So this is a process which is dynamic: it is not fixed forever. There must be reasons for any new approach, but it can be revised if there are new reasons.

Subject: Future EU-Iceland relations

Iceland is a member of EFTA, most of EU-Iceland economic relations fall under the EEA, Iceland is an associate member of the Schengen agreement and has many other trade, economic and social ties to the EU. The impacts of the financial crisis triggered some talk of Iceland, while remaining outside the EU, joining the Eurozone. What impact would such a move have on EU-Iceland relations - notably in the fields of environmental and maritime/fisheries cooperation - and does the European Commission have in place provisions to deal with such a development? Is it possible that such a move, if it occurs, could be followed by similar agreements with other non-EU States?

Vice-President of the Commission. - This has definitely become a matter for very intensive discussions which we could not have imagined a year ago. We could not have imagined discussing the potential radical changes in EU-Iceland relations. The question is what impact an Icelandic adoption of the euro - without Iceland joining the EU - would have on EU-Iceland relations.

Let me first stress that currently, as we speak, there is an intense debate ongoing in Iceland on its relations with the EU, including the issue of European Union membership. The Commission is closely following this debate.

The question of Iceland applying for EU membership is entirely for the Icelandic people to decide and, should there be an application from Iceland, the Commission and the Member States will act according to the established procedures as laid down in the Treaty. I can assure you that we will handle the application as expediently as possible.

As regards the specific question of Iceland adopting the euro without joining the EU, of course Iceland can unilaterally take such a decision but it should be clearly stated that it is the Commission's firm view, as well as a view of the European Central Bank, that unilateral 'euro-isation' is not a desirable political option for Iceland. Such a move would not have a positive impact on EU-Iceland relations.

Iceland is a potential applicant for EU membership, thus Iceland should pursue long-term monetary integration with the euro area only in the context of an EU membership perspective. This means that Iceland should adopt the euro only after accession to the EU, after fulfilling the conditions set out by the Treaty.

- (GA) Commissioner, in relation to your comments about a request from Iceland for membership of the European Union, if such a request were to be made - in view of the current urgency of the economic situation - would the European Union have any fast-track system or fast-track procedure to implement such a request? How would the Union be able to deal with such a request quickly, if this could be done?

Vice-President of the Commission. - I do not think there can be any kind of special treatment for Iceland. In the past, we held negotiations with countries which are now Member States of the European Union, and now we are holding negotiations with countries which would like to join the European Union: the approach must be equal - it must be absolutely the same for everybody. The negotiations will be the same as with all other candidate countries. I do not see any possibility of having some kind of fast track for these negotiations.

Whether Iceland is, perhaps, quite well prepared for membership is another issue. I do not know to what extent it has already adopted legislation similar to that of the European Union, because this is a major issue.

At any rate, I am sure that Member States will be of the opinion that the position must be scrupulously fair and equal for all possible applicants. This is my opinion. There has never been any talk in the Commission of any special treatment or fast track.

(DE) If Iceland joins the EU or the euro area, how does the Commission intend to prevent the battered Icelandic economy and financial system from jeopardising the stability of the Euro or even rocking its foundations?

As vice-chair of the Committee on Fisheries, could I ask the Commissioner to expand his thoughts on how membership of the EU might impact on the Iceland-EU Fisheries Cooperation Agreement?

Vice-President of the Commission. - These are both quite specific questions. Again, I must underline the basic position that these negotiations must be the same as has been the case with other Member States.

But, of course, Iceland has a population just under 300 000, so it is small and would not be a big burden on the European economy. I think that the basic idea is that it would make a contribution, so it is an economy that can overcome the current difficulties.

I think that the Member States will watch it very carefully and will ask it first to put its house in order. That is the first requirement, and then there can be the question of the contribution Iceland can make to the Union's economy.

Concerning the fisheries agreement, again, this is a very specific question. However, I seem to remember that this issue was mentioned several times in previous enlargement negotiations.

I think that the fisheries question will be the most complicated in negotiating with Iceland, because it has quite big privileges which will definitely be contested by certain Member States. I think this will be the key element in future negotiations.

I do not know to what extent the existing agreement is applicable or suitable for future relations between Iceland and other EU Member States. Being on that committee, however, you will know that this was a very hot topic in negotiations between Norway and some Member States. However, I think that, at least today, nobody can say exactly what promises or preoccupations there will be in this particular area.

Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you for helping us this evening with so many questions.



Subject: Demography report

In November 2008 the European Commission published its Demography Report which outlined the challenges Europe will be facing in the coming decades as a result of an ageing population. The report recognised that such challenges will require a variety of policy responses, including the strengthening of solidarity between the generations in terms of long-term care, greater recognition of professional carers and, most importantly, greater support for family carers.

In December 2008, the Commission published its Restructuring in Europe Report which also outlined such demographic challenges and pointed out that Europe's potential growth rate could decline at a time when significant additional resources will be required to meet the needs of an increasing number of elderly people for whom adequate pensions and health and long-term care provision will have to be secured.

Given that family carers are, and will continue to be, an inherent and indispensable part of our social and healthcare provision, can the Commission comment on what steps it has specifically taken towards developing policy responses to such challenges, particularly with regard to greater support for family carers?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the renewed social agenda adopted in July 2008, the Commission undertook to attend to the needs of an ageing population. The issue of an ageing European society calls for a range of strategic measures, starting with an assessment of the necessary reforms to the health and pensions system in order to provide for the needs of an ageing population, and taking account of the sustainability of public funds for supporting research into ways in which information technology can contribute towards improving the health and living conditions of older people.

The Commission is now completing the draft Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2009, which will send a clear signal on the need to ensure long-term adequacy and sustainability of incomes, make the provision of healthcare more effective, and reduce inequalities in the field of health. It will also attend to the challenges which some Member States must tackle in the field of pensions, healthcare and long-term care. These are described in the attached surveys of individual countries.

Decision making lies within the authority of the Member States, when it comes to policy on support for those providing care informally for family members. However, the Commission may act as a catalyst for change, to support efforts of Member States. Within the scope of the open method of coordination in the field of social protection and social inclusion, the Commission is endeavouring to encourage Member States to create policies which support family members.

In the joint report for 2008, the Commission and the Member States emphasise the importance of policies on informal carers, including a set of measures such as opportunities for training and counselling, respite care, leave for care purposes, and suitable social protection for informal carers. In addition, the Commission supports the creation of these policies at national level through its contribution in the form of studies and conferences on this issue.

Thank you for your answer, Commissioner. You talk about the needs of an ageing population. Certainly care-giving is one of those. You mentioned pension scheme reforms, and I am pleased to hear that, because people who give up work, very often to care for children or older persons, do not pay adequate social security contributions, and it is often carers who do not have adequate pensions.

You mentioned that family carers come within the remit of the Member States, and I agree with that. You also mentioned in reply to me that the European Social Fund could be used for training. I would like you perhaps to elaborate more on that.

Finally, carers work: they are unpaid workers. I am interested in your views on how you regard carers from that perspective under the heading of employment and social affairs, which is your own DG.

In each case, in all Commission documents, we are working in the awareness that with an ageing population, increasing numbers of people will be engaged in caring for a dependent. Likewise, an absolutely clear policy of gender equality is being maintained, because one of the risks of unplanned development is that it is women who take responsibility, to a far greater extent, for ailing family members who, in many cases, are very old people. As for the funding for these people, that is a matter for the Member States. The Member States can develop the most varied schemes for supporting those caring for dependents and most Member States have some such scheme.

Since you have mentioned the European Social Fund, I would say that understandably, the European Social Fund cannot take on the financing of care for dependents, but it can develop and help to develop a whole range of important programmes for carers. Training, which I have mentioned, focuses especially on the fact that if we wish to care for someone who is perhaps close to us, and with whom we have an emotional bond, then despite all our efforts and goodwill, caring for another person is actually, in a sense, a specialised field. It is therefore a very good thing for these people to gain some basic knowledge and basic experience, because the results are beneficial for them, too: not only is the standard of care greatly improved, but their task becomes considerably easier. This is one of the reasons why we are aiming in this direction.

I would also like to emphasise something which has not been mentioned, but which we are also attending to, and that is the abuse or mistreatment of older people. In most cases, it again becomes clear that mistreatment is not due to some general character defect in the people responsible, but is due, very often, to a situational fault. The task is simply too difficult and they cannot cope. We wish to take action on this issue too, through the European Social Fund.

As the author is not present, Question 51 lapses.

We move to the next question, which was put by Mr Crowley, but Mr Ryan is going to substitute for him.



Subject: Poverty in the European Union

Solidarity is a hallmark of the European Union, of which the common values include investing in people, fostering equal opportunities, and combating poverty. To this end, can the Commission outline future ways to ensure that European-level plans to combat poverty can be integrated into national policies?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with the introduction of the Lisbon strategy, the European Union set itself an ambitious goal: to significantly reduce poverty by 2010. Since then, the Union has set up instruments for achieving that goal. The open method of coordination in the field of social protection and social inclusion has helped to strengthen the fight against poverty and social exclusion, and has supported the efforts of the Member States.

This cooperation between Member States has had very good results. I shall mention three examples: there are now 22 Member States that have set themselves a target figure for combating child poverty; citizens and companies are now very closely involved in the national strategies to combat poverty; and social inclusion strategies have been incorporated into many policy areas: employment, education and vocational training, health and housing. All the relevant policies have therefore been brought to bear in the fight against social exclusion.

The renewed social agenda which the Commission adopted on 2 July 2008 sets seven priority areas of activity, including the fight against poverty and social exclusion. The renewed social agenda also proposes strengthening the open method of coordination. The European plan to stimulate growth and employment, which was submitted to the heads of states and governments at the European Summit in December 2008, aims to address the impact of the financial and economic crisis and also to strengthen the reforms already under way within the scope of the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment.

The Commission has also undertaken to regularly monitor the social impact of the financial and economic crisis in the Member States and the measures taken at national level. This tool for monitoring the social impact of the crisis should be published quarterly, and understandably it would focus mainly on the most vulnerable groups.

The Commission will also continue to cooperate with the Member States to ensure effective implementation of its recommendations adopted in October 2008 on the active inclusion of people who are furthest removed from the job market. In particular, the aim of this recommendation is to increase the effectiveness of the minimum wage schemes, which are still insufficiently developed in many Member States. In other words, it is essential to enable every citizen to achieve a decent standard of living, especially during the current crisis.

I would also like to remind you that 2010 will be the European Year of the Fight against Poverty and Social Exclusion. It will focus on the following: support for observance of the rights and opportunities for socially excluded people to actively reintegrate themselves into society; emphasis on the responsibility of each member of society in the fight against poverty; broadening the tried and tested methods in the field of social inclusion; strengthening the commitment of the main political actors.

I think the measures I have mentioned testify to the fact that Europe is constantly trying, in a concrete way, to address the needs of the most vulnerable groups, especially in the current economic situation. I hope the Member States will respond positively to the Commission's call to resolve the social consequences of the crisis. For this purpose, they can make use of the Community instruments available to them, especially the European Social Fund and the European Fund for Adjustment to Globalisation.

author. - I would like to thank the Commissioner for his very comprehensive answer. In talking about one of the vulnerable groups, considering the economic situation that we now face and the increase in unemployment levels, obviously one vulnerable group is young people.

Very often, in economically difficult times, young people unfortunately get into drug abuse. Is it possible that the European Social Fund could be used in a targeted way to try and help young people, considering the problems that this causes not only to themselves as individuals, but to their families and to their communities, and given the very severe effect it can have on communities, adding to poverty and difficulties?

I was wondering whether it would be possible to target this vulnerable group under that Fund

The Commission strategy, even in this difficult economic situation, is to deal with any discrimination, any breaches of the principle of equal opportunities. Of course, you are well aware that European legislation allows positive action, which means action aimed at groups which are in a very difficult situation. Generally, the Commission, in its proposals before Parliament, is facilitating or - if the proposals are approved - wants to facilitate the use of the European Social Fund and the Globalisation Fund. Essentially, I can say that in terms of regulations, in terms of structure, there are no obstacles to directing a significant proportion of these resources towards young people. This depends on the decisions of individual project sponsors, local communities, and decisions at national level. It is still an open question but, in principle, there are no obstacles to the effective use of resources for the benefit of young people or other groups which are in a particularly difficult situation.

That concludes Question Time.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

(The sitting was suspended at 7.30 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

Protection of minorities in Europe (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the protection of traditional national, ethnic and immigrant minorities in Europe, by Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Hannes Swoboda, Jan Marinus Wiersma, Véronique De Keyser, Katrin Saks and Claude Moraes, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - B6-0005/2009).

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are more than 300 different national and ethnic minorities and linguistic communities living on the European continent. Of the citizens of the 27 EU Member States, some 15% are members of a traditional national minority or immigrant community. While the objective of the European Union is the preservation of cultural diversity, minority languages and groups face the threat of extinction or assimilation. The steadily growing immigrant communities are dealing with a crisis of integration; think only of the riots in the French suburbs, in the outskirts of Paris, the London terrorist attacks or the ethnic tensions in the Netherlands.

Is the European Union credible when it condemns violations of human and minority rights in third countries? Are the EU decision makers adequately addressing the problems of national and ethnic minorities in the potential candidate countries of the Western Balkans, when some Member States are incapable of doing so at home, and in fact their practices are diametrically opposed to this policy? Those who are unable and unwilling to face these questions, who stick their heads in the sand, are playing with the future of Europe.

Today's debate was preceded by voices of concern, with certain people claiming that this issue is too sensitive. Yes, this question is an extremely sensitive one. What would become of the European Union if we were to debate only those questions that do not offend any interests? We cannot sweep these problems under the carpet! The citizens of Europe expect us to provide genuine answers. The European Union must guarantee the rights, at the local, regional, national and EU levels, of indigenous and traditional minorities, the Roma, and the several million people who live in minority status and have no independent State, such as the Catalans, Basques, Scots, Bretons, Alsatians, Corsicans, Welsh, the Hungarian minorities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia and other national communities.

Subsidiarity and self-governance, power sharing and joint decision making are the fundamental values of the European Union. It is very important that forms of joint decision making, self-governance and autonomy be set up on the basis of agreements between majorities and minorities, while fully respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States. As regards persons who belong to immigrant minorities within a State, we must help them integrate as fully as possible, and the immigrant minorities in turn must show the highest possible respect for the language and customs of the State in question. If the European Parliament truly wishes to become a centre of power, then it must face these sensitive questions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Tabajdi, respect for minorities is an essential principle among the conditions to be met before a new country can accede to the Union. The Copenhagen criteria are aimed specifically at candidates for accession to the Union.

Respect for the rights of individuals belonging to minorities, including respect for the principle of non-discrimination, is one of the Union's founding principles. However, the Union does not have general powers in the area of the protection of minority rights. It is up to the national authorities to ensure such protection, in accordance with their constitutional arrangements and their international commitments.

In addition, issues of the institutional organisation or autonomy of minorities fall within the powers of the Member States. Similarly, it is up to each Member State to decide to sign or ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which are the two major instruments introduced by the Council of Europe.

The Union has therefore no powers to adopt, as the question suggests, general legislation setting standards for the protection of minorities and inspection mechanisms. The Union may, however, adopt measures on some issues within its powers which have a positive effect on the situation of individuals belonging to minorities.

For example, the Commission is pursuing a policy to fight discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic origin or religion. This will ensure the implementation of Community legislation in this area and the implementation of the directive that supplements this legislation.

The adoption of the Framework Decision against Racism and Xenophobia on 28 November is a further example. With this Framework Decision, the Union is contributing to improving the situation of individuals from minorities when they suffer certain types of behaviour. The Union has also acted concerning the situation of the Roma minority.

The integration of immigrants is an important and growing issue for the Member States of the European Union. In 2005, the Commission submitted a Common Programme for Integration that forms the framework directive for a common approach to integration in the European Union. In addition, the Union has allocated a budget of EUR 825 million for 2007-2013 to implement the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals.

Three new initiatives from the Commission will appear in 2009: The third edition of the Handbook on Integration, the European Integration Forum, that will further involve civil society in the pursuit of our work, and an integration website that will act as a single portal for information about integration and promote the exchange of best practice among stakeholders in the area of integration.

The role of the European Union in the area of multilinguism is not to replace the action of Member States but rather to support and supplement such action. The European Commission's policy on multilinguism includes regional languages as well as the languages spoken by minorities.

Respect for linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the cornerstones of the European Union. This respect for linguistic and cultural diversity is now part of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states, in Article 22: 'The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity'.

The latest Commission communication, adopted in September 2008, also states that each of the many languages, whether national, regional or spoken by minorities or immigrants, adds something extra to our common culture. The main tools available to the Union in this area are funding programmes, particularly the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013.

Finally, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is a very precious tool that we use to collect data useful in the development and implementation of all instruments and these Community policies. Following a request from the European Parliament to the Agency for Fundamental Rights, which I remind you is located in Vienna, the Agency's 2009 work programme includes the preparation of a comparative report on the situation concerning ethnic and racial discrimination in the European Union. This will allow us to update the report on racism which dealt with the year 2007.

That is what I can tell you. In other words, we do not have a legal basis for organising the protection of minorities. This issue really falls within the powers of the Member States, although the Union must evidently avoid any discrimination towards a citizen who belongs to a minority.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President. Mr Tabajdi has undertaken an enormous task - to try to formulate and classify communities of peoples that have formed in historically different ways who, in greater or lesser numbers, live in states which have at their heart a different ethnic or linguistic origin. As we know, over the centuries in Europe the borders and names of countries have often changed, both as a result of war and when states have joined together or split apart, when empires have formed or collapsed, and very often people, without changing the places where they live, have become subjects of a different king or residents of a different country. Likewise, migration has taken place both at the individual level and with the movement of entire ethnic communities. We have inherited the results of all this. Undoubtedly, today every resident in the European Union deserves a life worthy of a human being and equal opportunities. Just what can we really call a minority though, in today's sense, and can the states agree and draw up uniform criteria? That is important, for today new migration is taking shape: both internal migration within the European Union and migration from non-EU countries. It seems to me that first of all specialists, researchers, historians, ethnographers and linguists ought to work on this, and then perhaps the politicians can have the last word. If the politicians start things off, then we will instantly see considerable political subjectivity and selfishness, especially as the elections are approaching. Thank you.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, more than 45 million people belonging to 57 different minorities live in the European Union and in the other European countries. Today, when the ghost of racism is haunting Europe, when the chauvinism of the majority in nation states is visibly growing to frightening dimensions throughout Central and Eastern Europe, we can no longer sweep minority policies under the carpet. As we have heard - from the Commissioner as well - the EU does not yet have a set of regulations on the protection of the identity of minorities that applies to all Member States. The question of minorities falls within the competence of the Member States, and therefore these communities must, for the most part, be satisfied with whatever they can negotiate with their own governments. The total number of citizens in the Central and Eastern European Member States who belong to various national, minority communities is significantly greater than in Western Europe, and their problems are also more complex. In order not only for national minorities but also for everyone belonging to what are effectively minority EU nations to feel truly at home in Europe, European legislation must create a legal framework with comprehensive legal norms for the protection of minorities.

We need to create the kind of political structures that do not strive for exclusivity but share areas of competence. As this pattern becomes a reality throughout the European Union, so national minorities will gain in status and obtain new opportunities for the protection of their language and culture. In this regard, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is of key importance, for two of its articles, thanks to the work of the Hungarian Government, include the rights of persons belonging to minorities. Acceptance of the Treaty would be a great step forward in the history of the European Union. The current economic crisis is not advantageous to minorities, for it poisons conflicts and gives ground to far-right demagoguery. Europe cannot afford, particularly at this moment in time, to fail to listen to the voices of minorities. It cannot abandon minorities at this time of crisis.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SV) A debate at European level on the situation of various minority groups is very welcome. A common view of the rights and obligations that should apply to national, ethnic or linguistic minorities, immigrants and stateless persons would benefit these groups and the whole of the Union in many ways. Nearly a tenth of EU citizens currently belong to a national, linguistic or ethnic minority. Some, like myself, as a Swedish-speaking Finn, are treated well. Others are discriminated against or disavowed. It is important for the historical national minorities to be able to see themselves as full members of the Union. The EU needs the support of its minorities and must not neglect to give them the opportunity to participate actively in decision making and the work of ensuring a safe and harmonious common future.

It is clear that the same rules cannot apply to national minorities as apply, for example, to immigrant minorities. Immigrants require special support to help them integrate into their new homelands. Stateless people are a separate issue and should be encouraged, using all means available, to apply for citizenship in their host country.

The EU also needs a common view on minority issues in order to be able to defend itself and its Member States against outside pressures and provocations, where minority rights are used as weapons to sow division and create confusion. Russia's involvement and propaganda in Estonia and Latvia, for example, is a cautionary example. We must not put weapons in the hands of those who want to harm us.

Europe needs a representative minority forum that would act as an advisory body on issues dealt with by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. It would also be important for this parliamentary committee to be given explicit responsibility for issues relating to minorities. This Parliament should approve a statement on the rights of minorities.

Finally, I would like to ask a specific question: is the Commission prepared to take responsibility for initiating a European debate on minorities and is it prepared to actively promote the fair treatment of the Union's minorities and not simply linguistic diversity, which is often used as a way of ignoring the minority groups. (Applause)

Mr President, Commissioner, some minority groups have been present in the Member States for centuries, whilst others are relatively recent arrivals.

The Roma are one of the traditional minority groups that have been present in Union countries essentially as long as records exist. I am sorry to say that in my country, Poland, although the Roma are not discriminated against, the extent of their integration leaves much to be desired. They share this view. I believe that the Roma need more support from the state. In particular, they need assistance with vocational training and with education in general.

Member States should play the leading role regarding the integration of this and other minority groups. Common Union legislation would be very helpful to us in our endeavours, however. I have in mind, in particular, defining the rights and responsibilities of new arrivals from Islamic states who find it hard to integrate into Europe.

Mr President, I would like to express my profound gratitude for Mr Tabajdi's work in preparing and tabling this oral question that we are debating here today, and also for his tremendous work in drawing up the resolution which, regrettably, we are not debating but which we will no doubt be able to discuss in forthcoming plenary sittings.

This resolution is necessary because it is clear that we have to find a minimum level of protection for minority groups in the European Union, something that does not exist at the moment.

I do not share Commissioner Barrot's perception, in often hiding behind the European Union's lack of jurisdiction on this matter. It is a patent contradiction to mention the Copenhagen criteria, to mention another type of legislation and, at the same time, - when, perhaps, it is not of interest or when, perhaps, one is not brave enough - to hide behind the lack of jurisdiction in order not to, shall we say, make progress in the protection of minority groups, because we are, ultimately, facing an eternal dilemma. We are not facing a problem but, rather, a challenge that the European Union has to meet, and this issue should be seen as such.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, in every Member State of the EU there are groupings of people who are seen as different because of characteristics like ethnicity, language, how they dress, the music they play and how they worship. When the people in that country are committed to respect for the innate dignity of every human person, these differences are seen as enriching, and people are valued. In fact, when the dignity of the human person is valued, we do not view minorities in a negative way at all. However, in many countries, this respect is weak or non-existent. This leads to discrimination in which minorities are abused and relegated to the poorest of circumstances.

We insist in the Copenhagen Agreement that a country wishing to join the EU must have at least a minimally acceptable level of respect for everyone within its borders. This principle falls down when we ignore these criteria and allow membership to countries where people are being marginalised and mistreated.

In Ireland, for instance, many children and adults with disabilities were institutionalised in the worst of circumstances at the time of our accession and for years after our membership.

Today, in spite of the introduction of the Copenhagen criteria, there exist similar terrible circumstances for vulnerable minorities in countries which have recently joined the EU or which plan to. The Copenhagen criteria were clearly ignored in those cases, and the treatment of minorities was not considered an obstacle to membership. This negates the purpose of the agreement. If a country, in order to join the EU, must fulfil the Copenhagen criteria in respect of the treatment of its people, it should be possible to suspend membership when it does not.

(SK) We are dealing with the problem of ethnic minorities, but this means primarily the Hungarian ethnic minority, Mr Tabajdi. Hungary is indeed where ethnic minorities have been almost completely eliminated over the past decades. The words of the former ombudsman for minorities in Hungary, Jenö Kaltenbacha, confirm this. The number of Slovaks living in Hungary has fallen from more than 300 000 to 18 000 during the time in question. For the decimated Slovak minority, Hungarian is used exclusively as the language of instruction in the ethnic minority schools in Hungary. In those schools, Slovak is taught for four hours a week.

There is no vendetta under way in Slovakia, and for the Hungarian minority living in Slovakia, things are incomparably better. In the Hungarian minority schools, the language of instruction is exclusively Hungarian. Slovak is taught as a supplementary language for a few hours each week. Religious services are conducted only in Hungarian in all Slovak communities in Hungary, and they are conducted exclusively by Hungarian priests. On the other hand, only Hungarian priests officiate in Hungarian communities in Slovakia.

The European Parliament, however, is paradoxically not devoting any attention to the problems of the Slovak, German, Serbian and other beleaguered minorities in Hungary. There is repeated discussion of the peripheral problems of the Hungarian minority, which the Slovak government is, in any case, currently considering. Only today, as part of this process, it approved an amendment to the education act, guaranteeing that geographical names will be printed in Hungarian or Ukrainian in textbooks for minority schools. It is the Hungarian politicians and MPs who, under the guise of settling ethnic problems, are constantly foisting their ideas about autonomous solutions, including territorial autonomy. Most recently, the Hungarian President did so during a visit by his Romanian counterpart to Budapest, and met with a stern rejection. Such attitudes need to be unmasked and vigorously condemned within the European Parliament as well.

(HU) Whereas the interests of any other social minorities protected by anti-discrimination regulations are vigorously defended, European legal protection, not to mention political will, is reticent where traditional national minorities are concerned. Yet the existence of these minorities within the European Union is not a political question but a matter of fact - there are millions living within the EU who are not immigrants. They live within European Member States while never having moved from their ancestral lands. It was just that in the course of events in the twentieth century, the boundaries of their countries have shifted around them, leaving them behind ever since facing insoluble dilemmas. How are they to preserve their identity and community, how can they provide their children with a secure image of a twenty-first century future? We must at last admit that the problems of these communities cannot be resolved purely by means of universal human rights or anti-discrimination regulations. These communities rightfully demand all those things that, in the case of similar-sized populations, the European Union deems to be the right of those who are part of a majority. This is why EU regulation is necessary and why the assistance of the EU is necessary. Such communities are right in thinking, for instance, that autonomy, which has brought prosperity and development to the minorities of the South Tyrol in Italy, would also bring them a desirable solution.

Certainly, forms of autonomy - including perhaps territorial autonomy - could give a positive and manageable future to such communities. There should be no mystification surrounding such communities, but they should be discussed openly, since if such an option can be a positive solution in one Member State without harming the State's territorial integrity, it could similarly prove to be a solution in other Member States as well. The rightful demands of these minorities, which are based on fundamental principles and current practice in the European Union, cannot constitute taboo subjects in the EU in the twenty-first century!

(ES) Mr President, it is curious that in every parliamentary term, we have pointed out the non-existent or fragile legal and material protection of one or another minority group within Member States.

With the recent enlargement towards the east, the situation has, unavoidably, become far more complex.

The Europe of 27 has more than 100 groups, if we add its ethnic and linguistic minorities to those resulting from more recent immigration. Particular mention should be - and already has been - made of the Roma, an ethnic group that has lived among us for centuries. It has its own characteristics and suffers the greatest disadvantages of all minority groups of any kind.

Doubling our efforts to achieve gradual integration, if not assimilation, of these groups and making this unity in diversity a reality is a major challenge for Europe, Commissioner. It is not for nothing that the Treaty of Lisbon makes explicit reference, for the first time in European Union history, to the rights of people belonging to those minorities and to their own values.

Each social group is different. Member States' linguistic-historical minorities and their recognised and indisputable right to express themselves in their mother tongues have little or nothing to do with the new migration flows, which have their own identifying characteristics.

We are taking the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages as our starting point and asking the European Social Fund to grant attention and resources to minority groups.

We have just seen 2008 draw to a close as the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and I believe that this dialogue has only just got under way. I feel we should take advantage of such momentum and continue spreading this dialogue in order to create control mechanisms at European level with the aim of protecting minority groups.

I shall end on this note: we have an obligation in our Member States to protect and preserve the traditions and values of the multicultural Europe that is emerging, and the duty of this Parliament is to establish integration standards within a common European framework that facilitates peaceful coexistence.

(HU) Mr President, One out of every ten European citizens belongs to a national minority. Many of them feel that they are stepchildren within their own homeland. They look to the European Union to guarantee their rights and help improve their situation. In terms of human rights, the European Union's greatest debt is in relation to the protection of minorities. Although the legal grounds for effective protection of minorities exist, the political will to assert these is often insufficient. Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty could improve the situation, but in itself, it is no magic solution. It is important for existing institutions to work effectively and, in particular, for the minority profile of the Fundamental Rights Agency to be strengthened. The various minorities would consider it a positive sign if the new Commission had a commissioner whose responsibility was exclusively to deal with minority affairs. This would give a clear signal that the minorities are also full citizens of a unifying Europe. Europe cannot have stepchildren, since in one sense or another, all of us are minorities.

(HU) Mr President, I welcome with gratitude and appreciation the inclusion on the agenda of the protection of traditional national and ethnic minorities as well as of immigrants to Europe. I find it painful that in the absence of the necessary support from the political groups, our joint debate today is coming to an end without a decision, and that it is still not possible to adopt the EU framework agreement on minority protection. In the countries of the former Communist camp, the principle of non-intervention was supreme. I consider it unacceptable that the European Union is similarly leaving the solution of the problem of minorities within the area of competence of individual Member States. I consider President Traian Băsescu's declarations in Budapest rejecting the rightful demands of Transylvanian Hungarians for collective rights and autonomy to be reminiscent of the dictatorial standpoint during the National Communist era. The European Union is the joint home of national, ethnic and religious minorities as well, and precisely for this reason, the EU can no longer put off providing them with institutional, legally regulated protection.

(FR) Mr President, our cultures include the rule of law and individual rights and so it is right and proper to defend the rights of an individual member of a minority but it would be dangerous to legislate on the rights of non-national minorities as communities in their own right.

For non-national minorities, and I am only talking about them, the community approach has to be rejected because it will inevitably destroy the coherence of many European nations. Where there is rule of law, regulation of the way in which people live together must remain a national power. In this matter, if the majority were the enemy of the minority, then this would seriously call democracy into question.

Faced with poverty or danger, some people flee their country of origin to seek refuge. The right to asylum is a way for people to vote with their feet. Fortunately, it has become a fundamental right but, as with any right, there is a concomitant duty. In this instance, the duty is to accept the rules, languages and customs of the receiving countries.

The right of asylum is a precious right as it is a right inherent to the human being. Even if you belong to a minority, this does not legitimise the creation of a community right. Your ultimate allegiance must always be to the country in which you settle. It is an illusion to believe that the juxtaposition of transitory communities, with different memories, can create a country. Over time, this will only create either a field of indifference or a field for a battle.

You should either love your receiving country or get out. That is the duty which is born of the freedom to come and go.

(RO) I would like to express my support for the protection of minorities and respect for their culture, languages, traditions and customs. I believe that all Member States should include references to the protection of minorities in their national legislation in various areas.

In this respect, I feel that Romania's legislation in this area is particularly well drafted and can provide a model for other Member States. The proof of this statement is even borne out by a fellow Member of this Parliament, whom I have a great deal of respect for, who was born, grew up and studied within Transylvania's Hungarian community, and now successfully represents Hungary in this house. However, the protection of minorities must not result in excesses such as collective rights, the promotion of autonomy and self-determination, including territorial.

I do not think that it is helpful either to divide minorities into different categories as this may give the idea that these categories must be treated in different ways. All citizens must be treated equally and enjoy the same rights and obligations towards the communities among which they live. Decentralisation and local autonomy under national laws very much reflect all the aspirations that citizens have, whatever their nationality or ethnic background. It is not normal to raise for discussion concepts which are not yet enshrined in current international law and which are not accepted at Member State level. We do not need either to adopt the provisions of the Council of Europe.

A specific mention must be made about the Roma minority. I firmly believe that common EU programmes, especially in the area of education, would accelerate considerably the integration of the Roma.

Finally, I would like to remind you that any nation, no matter how big it might be, is a minority compared to Europe's 500 million citizens.

(SK) The protection of minorities is indisputably one of the most important principles, and in my country, the Slovak Republic, a really exceptionally high standard of protection is guaranteed for minorities. If we are going to talk about ethnic minorities, one can say that this standard is also guaranteed in the form of cultural and educational autonomy, because we have a university for our largest ethnic minority

However, I fundamentally oppose opening a discussion on territorial autonomy, because I consider it to be a very important political and legal issue, and also because I consider it to be, in humanistic terms, quite heartrending.. It could cause enormous human unhappiness. The opening of discussions on territorial autonomy would also fundamentally threaten the unity and successful progress of the European Union.

To conclude, Commissioner, since you have spoken of respect - yes, it is entirely appropriate that the majority society should harbour the greatest respect for its minorities, but I think the minorities in a healthily functioning society should have equal respect for that society.

Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Tabajdi for his excellent work. It is regrettable that we are not able to conclude our debates with a resolution.

I am firmly convinced that minority rights must become a part of the acquis communautaire. Unfortunately, the Commission is very reluctant to suggest any measures in this field. We should remember that minority rights are an integral part of human rights and therefore our standards must be as high as possible. Let us not forget that respect for, and protection of, minorities is one of the Copenhagen criteria. The Commission does not even apply the criteria properly during the accession process.

We are ready to make concessions hoping that the situation will improve afterwards, but since the accessions, there are still no tools to address the issue, as Commissioner Barrot pointed out last month. We have elaborated a common European Union standard in the field of minority rights, and this is an absolute must.

(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. There are few political territories within the European Union where a double standard is in effect. The Copenhagen criteria on minority rights apply to accession countries - as we have already heard today - but these same rights do not exist within Community law. If Europe's wealth lies in its diverse cultures, and no one wants to see the culture and language of small nations disappear, then ethnic minorities have an even greater need of protection, including legal protection. In the new Member States, the apparent protection afforded by socialist internationalism has disappeared, and national sentiments have intensified. In addition, various forms of oppressive nationalism often appear in the new Member States, especially since even the Copenhagen criteria are no longer binding. We often witnesses the strengthening of assimilationist efforts - allegedly in the minority's own interest. Unfortunately, this is a political tool often used by populist parties to turn the majority against the minority.

The establishment of internal legal standards to protect the legal status of minorities is unavoidable. These standards must follow European best practices, building on the various forms of self-governance that do not need to be unmasked as some sort of political crime, or rejected. Rather, the principle of subsidiarity should be extended to allow minorities to make decisions with regard to their own affairs. Perhaps the method of open coordination may be helpful in this regard, until a legal basis is created. I would put the following question to the Commissioner: would it not be possible to use this option, this method, for providing a solution to the legal status of minorities? Finally, I would like to thank Mr Tabajdi for his excellent work in this area.

(RO) We have, at European level, a coherent set of regulations, criteria and recommendations which guarantee protection for citizens belonging to national minorities and instances of their infringement are fairly rare within the European Union. Romania has allowed its minorities to enjoy national rights which extend beyond relevant European standards. Indeed, the presence in this Chamber of Romanian MEPs who are ethnic Hungarians is living proof of this.

It is vital for interethnic harmony in Europe that human rights are respected, but any separatist exploits triggered by the deterioration in ethnic rights must be halted. The European project is about integration and not about creating enclaves based on ethnic criteria.

I also feel that we should focus more attention on the situation of national minorities in the EU's neighbouring countries, all the more so when it involves citizens of the same nationality of some of the Member States. One example of this is the Romanians in Ukraine, Serbia and the Republic of Moldova, who are deprived of basic rights and are subject to an intensive process of denationalisation.

(ES) Mr President, in the EU there are several cases of languages spoken by historical European groups which cannot be used in debates in this Parliament since they are not recognised as state languages. This is a loss to representative democracy.

One of these cases is the Basque language, Euskera, which is not a minority language but an official one, at least in the southern area of the Basque Country, which, in administrative terms, is classed as part of the Spanish state. However, the same is not true - and please do not take this personally, Commissioner - in the northern part of the Basque Country, which is attached to the French state, whose President stated to the United Nations Assembly that to deny respect for national identities and languages is to sow the seeds of humiliation and that, without that respect, there will not be peace in the world. For all that, neither Euskera nor Corsican, Breton or Occitan are given the slightest official consideration, nor are they given support to ensure their use is respected and encouraged.

That is why I ask the Agency for Fundamental Rights to keep watch and to work to ensure that within Member States, there is no violation of any European people's right to use its mother tongue and no discrimination against its citizens, and that all native languages are considered official within their respective territories.

(The speaker continued in Basque)

Eskerrik asko jaun-andreok zuen laguntzagatik Europako hizkuntza guztien alde.

Mr President, I welcome this debate, the more so as European history shows that in times of crisis, ethnic tensions can inflame otherwise stable situations. I would like to believe that the intent of the initiators of this debate is to emphasise the generous core values and realities of the European project, because the realities of the European Union are indeed the best standards in the world for the treatment of minorities. Therefore, we should say out loud that this Assembly does not, and will not, accept any divisive actions or the lowering of the standards I have just mentioned.

As Commissioner Barrot has underlined, in each individual country of the Union, there is a clear and, more often than not, official legal framework that ensures the protection of our cultural diversity. Yet, for the sustainability of our multi-ethnic society, is there any alternative to higher education? Real-life examples show that solving issues related to education fuels strong Community development. Education is, by its own nature, unifying rather than divisive. In fact, it teaches us that we are all someone else's minority. The Babeş-Bolyai University in Romania, in the Transylvanian city of Cluj, is an example of a multicultural university that has been cited time and again by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe as a positive example of multicultural and inter-ethnic excellence.

Where the need arises, higher-degree education in the language of minorities is part of the national educational system. Let me give you the example of Sapientia University in Romania.

These positive examples, however, do not mean that we can take our eye off the ball, and we must be aware that maybe the most challenging issue lies ahead of us: solving the difficult situation of the Roma community throughout Europe. It is my belief that the most effective way of solving this tremendously difficult European problem in the long term is through education. I would very much like to see a very substantial debate on how Europe intends to take advantage of our unique educational system so that we remain united in our diversity.

(RO) The Council of Europe is the institution which deals with respect for human rights. The rights and protection of minorities come under the remit of Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Traditional and ethnic minorities, migrant minorities and immigrants must comply with the national legislation of the Member State where they reside.

I believe that the integration of new migrant minorities should not be part of the common policy on immigration which the EU is currently drafting. This policy can be defined only when the current barriers to the free movement of workers from the Member States which joined the European Union after 2004 disappear within the EU.

The protection of migrant minorities is part of the principles promoted by social Europe. Providing fair working conditions for all European citizens, no matter what their Member State of origin is, guarantees them a decent living. As a European socialist, I support the development of a European framework for legal immigration, but I actively advocate, first and foremost, observance of the European Union's basic principles for all European citizens.

(HU) Unfortunately, today this draft decision is being put to the Parliament only in the form of a question. Representatives of traditional national minorities and communities have been trying to persuade the majority through peaceful parliamentary means that what was good for the 14 Member States of the European Union will be good for the entire territory of the EU. The traditional national minorities found themselves in a new country through no fault of their own, without ever having moved from their centuries-old homelands. No one asked them whether they wanted to change nationalities or adopt a new official language. These traditional national minorities are the most loyal citizens of their respective countries. Despite wars, economic crises, internal political battles and assimilation, they did not abandon their ancestral, longstanding and yet new homeland. Their loyalty has been unbroken. It is precisely for this reason that it is incomprehensible that the several dozen million strong populations of large countries should fear a few hundred thousand or, at most, half a million members of a minority.

The various forms of self-governance found in the European Union, such as territorial and cultural autonomy, result from a policy of consensus on the part of the majority and minority, and have not weakened the economic, political or social power of the state in question, or that of the European Union. My country, Romania, has been in existence in its current form since 1920. In 1930, the population on this territory included 28% non-Romanians; today, this has fallen to 10%. There are several other Member States besides Romania that have similar concerns. There are laws and rights, but their implementation cannot be guaranteed, although linguistic, ethnic and regional diversity is a European value. Therefore, it is important for draft guidelines to be drawn up, based on existing, successful EU examples, that are acceptable to all and do not infringe on the states' territorial integrity.

(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to express my pleasure at welcoming Csaba Tabajdi's initiative intended to improve the situation of minorities living in the European Union. Although eminent examples prove that national minorities are regarded as a value and an opportunity in the European Union, such as in South Tyrol or the Åland Islands, unfortunately, in Eastern Europe, we come across the opposite attitude as well, sometimes even in presentations by statesmen. It is precisely for this reason that we urgently need to oppose declarations that would definitively and perpetually rule out the demands of national minorities for autonomy, by referring to the requirements set by the European Union. We therefore need to speak with determination and declare that national minorities are entitled to autonomy as an exercise of minority rights at Community level, and that we must guarantee these fundamental rights, as well, through the legal system of the European Union. I therefore fully support the elaboration of a comprehensive regulation for the protection of minority rights at European level. Thank you very much.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today is a very happy occasion and the credit for it, with my thanks, goes in particular to Mr Tabajdi, Chairman of the Intergroup and champion of minorities.

Today I am using the Italian language, which is the language of the State and not my mother tongue. I do this for a specific reason: a large number of ethnic minorities from various countries and ethnic groups live in Italy. Today, I want to use this demonstration - as well as the demonstration that an ethnic minority is not an ethnic minority merely for itself but has to experience solidarity - to give to these minorities a voice here in this House. I also want to tell the Italian minorities who live abroad that they would otherwise not have this possibility.

Mr Barrot spoke today about non-discrimination. I believe that nondiscrimination is not enough, because we must achieve equal rights and equal rights will come only when we have minority situations and give them considerable help in reaching a level equal to that of the majority. For this reason, we need positive discrimination in certain situations. This, I believe, is a new idea, an idea that needs to be pursued.

The European Union has competencies. By making use of Articles 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon - let us hope that these enter into force as soon as possible - together with the Copenhagen criteria, and a small amount of flexibility and legislative imagination, we would be able to achieve a great many things. I want to mention, in particular, Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon on the protection of the rights of individuals - and here, particular thanks go to the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Frattini, who made a decisive contribution to its inclusion.

We hope for protection of rights for groups: that is our goal. Since there are 168 minority groups in the European Union and about 330 on the continent of Europe, 100 million of our fellow citizens on this continent are experiencing this situation. We in South Tyrol have reached a level that can obviously be improved on, but which is very, very good nonetheless. When I hear from representatives in this House or Members from majority populations that their minorities are well treated, I am somewhat mistrustful. I would be happier if the representatives of these minorities said that they were well treated.

We in the European Union need to understand that minorities represent added value, a bridge between cultures, between peoples and countries. We must work towards unity in cultural diversity.

(ET) Ladies and gentlemen, the linguistic and cultural diversity that we value as an asset of the European Union often becomes a problem at the level of the Member States, especially in areas where borders have shifted due to the vicissitudes of history, or a minority has become the majority and the majority has become a minority, as in Estonia, my homeland. In such cases, it is indeed an immense challenge for a single country.

At European Union level, however, it is very important that double standards not be applied. The Copenhagen criteria, which the previous speakers have already mentioned in several speeches, and which the new acceding states were required to meet, have already been discussed, but we were also very well aware that those same criteria, those same requirements - for instance educational requirements - are not met in many of the old Member States. It is crucial that all countries be treated in the same manner, and that minimal standards apply to all.

(RO) First of all, I do not believe that the European Union needs a common policy for minorities. We owe equal rights to all European citizens, irrespective of their ethnic background. On the other hand, if those who asked the question being debated really want a European policy on this matter, we can assure them that Romanian legislation, for instance, may be considered as a model of good practice.

Romania perhaps has the most generous and up-to-date legislation on national minorities in Europe. They enjoy extensive political and social rights, identical to those enjoyed by all citizens. Minorities of significant size, such as the Hungarians, enjoy the right to education in their mother tongue at every level. Representatives of the minorities are entitled to seats in parliament, even if they have not obtained the necessary votes. In fact, the Hungarian minority party, which has been referred to this evening and during yesterday evening's debates, has formed part of the Romanian Government for 12 of the 19 years since Romania has been operating as a democratic state.

(RO) Minorities of any kind must be supported, not only in terms of preserving a unique identity, their values, traditions and language, but also for developing their culture. In my view, Romania, which is a unitary, sovereign state, is a model country in terms of respecting the individual rights of the members of any minority.

I welcome the progress which my fellow Members have made, as well as their constant concern for the protection of ethnic, traditional or national minorities. This is an obvious and welcome approach. However, in terms of relations between the majority and minority, I would like to advise you of two aspects: 1) I feel that not only members of a minority should be involved in measures of this kind, but majorities must also deal with issues relating to minorities, to the same extent, precisely in order to support and protect what we call 'unity in diversity', which is taking place in Romania. 2) I appreciate that minorities should equally be concerned about the status of the majorities as these two entities form, but only together, this unitary whole which contributes to the natural development of any society.

(RO) As part of this debate, I would like to make a comment stating that national minorities make a great deal of fuss because they do not have arguments to support all the rights which they claim. I would like to launch a slogan for this: 'making a fuss does no good and good makes no fuss'.

The European Union's laws cannot only protect minorities and put national communities at a disadvantage because we are allowing positive discrimination. I would like to give you an example where the reality contradicts the assertions being made. Some people have claimed that the rights of the Hungarian minorities are not respected in the area of education in Romania and, as my background is in education, I would like to give as an example Romania's universities, which adhere to European standards for treating minorities.

(RO) As part of this debate, I would like to highlight the deterioration in respect for the religious rights of the Romanians living in Timoc Valley in Serbia. We are talking here about a community of more than 100 000 Romanians.

I would like to take the opportunity to express my concern regarding the decision of the town council in the Serbian town of Negotin to demolish the foundations of a Romanian-language Orthodox church, even though the priest, Boian Alexandru, had obtained the necessary approvals. This would be the second church for Romanians living in Serbia. For his audacity in constructing the first one, Father Alexandru was given a two-month suspended sentence. I would like to emphasise that Serbia has undertaken, in accordance with Article 5 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, to respect human rights and protect ethnic and religious minorities.

I would like to end with an extract from a letter from Father Alexandru, where he expresses the hope that the Serbian authorities will not demolish this church where services will be held in Romanian. I quote: '... to help us, too, to obtain these rights in our country, where we live, Serbia, so that we can at least have our own church and school and be able to speak Romanian.'

Mr President, the European Union has no jurisdiction as far as the status of national minorities in the Member States is concerned. There is no problem, however, because all European Union Member States are also members of the Council of Europe, an organisation which is well-equipped and well-experienced to address that issue. To duplicate the activity of the Council of Europe would be detrimental to the scope of our work on minorities and would only create confusion and frustration.

Secondly, I am concerned to see that our approach on minorities places too much emphasis on solutions that were perhaps valid decades and centuries ago. I believe that in this field, as well, it would be better to develop our imagination more than our memory.

Finally, instead of revisiting fields already explored, the European Union would be better advised to develop a concept of transnational protection of cultural rights in a continent where each ethno-cultural community is a minority as well.

(RO) In the current worldwide climate of globalisation and freedom of movement, I think that the ideas being expressed here this evening about territorial authority do not make any sense. I think that there are more than one million Romanians living in Spain and Italy, but I do not see why they would ask for territorial autonomy in these countries.

I believe that setting up a committee or subcommittee at European Parliament level for monitoring the rights of minorities would be an excellent idea and would implement European policy at this level or, ultimately, certain procedures for respecting the rights of minorities. I do not think that Romania has ever refused a visit from any president from a European state and yet, once again, this is a rumour which has been going round here. I believe that Romania offers a model of good practice for very many countries in the European Union.

(HU) Thank you very much, Mr President, the national minorities living on the territory of the European Union enrich the EU. The European Parliament must take the lead in defending ethnic minorities, by initiating a serious debate on the legal status of minorities. Parliament must take responsibility for elaborating and adopting a framework regulation that is binding on all Member States. Such a framework regulation will truly serve the interests of minority communities only if - bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity - its provisions include the fact that the adoption of various forms of autonomy built on consensus between the majority and minorities is the way to endow minority communities with an appropriate status. Thank you.

(SK) Yes, minorities must be respected and their rights must be legislatively guaranteed by the EU Member States. Cultural and linguistic diversity must be preserved, as it is the basis for a healthily functioning Union. However, we will not allow political groups based on a minority position to push for autonomist interests which often challenge the principle of territorial integrity of states, and which, furthermore, often stem from a sense of injustice due to decisions made in the past.

Territorial autonomy on a national basis and, furthermore, not founded on homogeneity, but often politically abusing the minority status of the majority people in a certain micro-region or in a community, is a threat to peaceful life and coexistence in the European Union.

(FR) Mr President, I have two questions for the Commissioner.

During this debate, many Members and colleagues have spoken of double standards, of unequal obligations on the old and new Member States. What measures are you taking in respect of the old Members, in other words the 15 Member States who do not comply with the Copenhagen Agreement?

My second question is about religious minorities, the Jews and Muslims living on our continent, in our Union: what measures are being taken by the Commission to protect their faith, their law and their way of life?

Mr President, Commissioner, the first question that must be answered is whether or not the issue of national minorities falls exclusively within national powers.

I think not, because if the issue of human rights is not an internal issue for the Member States of the European Union, then neither is the issue of the rights of national minorities. This, of course, requires clarification. Yugoslavia was bombed because the rights of Kosovars were infringed, so why do we not make ourselves clear on this issue?

Secondly, why, prior to accession, was the situation in the new Member States better than it is at present?

Thirdly, Mr Beazley raised the question of double standards. It is true that, despite the problems, the situation of the Hungarian community in Romania is better. There are problems in Romania, but the situation is better than in Alsace or Brittany. Why are there double standards?

Fourthly, let us talk about territorial autonomy. In the Åland Islands of Finland and in South Tyrol in Italy, regional autonomy has really stabilised the country. In Spain, the system of autonomous regions is a very good example, despite a few Basque extremists who deserve our condemnation.

Finally, Mr President, it has to be said that non-discrimination and equal treatment are insufficient to compensate for the disadvantages of minorities. At the end of the day, satisfied minorities are factors for stability in the countries of Europe. As Henrik Lax always says, 'if a policy is carried out properly, it will always pay dividends'. That is the reality and I would like to thank you for the debate.

Mr President, I have listened very carefully to everybody's contributions, and I am touched by the passion that underlies some of these positions.

Mr Tabajdi has just listed a whole raft of problems. I am well aware that these problems do exist, but I must once again - regretfully, but there is nothing else I can do - remind you that the protection of groups, of national minorities as groups, does not fall within the EU's sphere of competence, nor even within that of the Agency for Fundamental Rights.

Nevertheless, at my urging, the Agency will look into ethnic and racial discrimination when it updates its 2007 report on racism, but I would reiterate that the treaties grant no jurisdiction in this field: not to the European Union, not to the Commission and not to the Agency.

The open method of coordination has been mentioned, but this method too requires us to have competence. It is quite clear that, were the Council to alter its position, that might open up other paths but, for the time being, we ourselves are paying special attention to the fight against the discrimination that can particularly affect people from minorities.

We need to make things quite clear here: we do have the tools, at Community level, to combat discrimination. Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community has formed the legal basis for two directives: the Directive of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, and the Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

From that point of view, therefore, there is indeed a will to combat all forms of discrimination against citizens from minority groups. On top of that, the Agency for Fundamental Rights is going, at my request, to undertake a very in-depth study into all of these forms of discrimination.

That is as much as I am able to say. I cannot go any further, because we do not have the legal tools. The Member States will not allow us to.

Having said that, the position of Roma in the European Union, for example, is indeed deplorable, and their integration is a top priority for both the Union and the Commission, as was reiterated at the first European Roma Summit on 16 September, in which I took part along with Mr Barroso and Mr Špidla. In the wake of this summit, Mr Špidla is going to establish a European platform on the Roma. This flexible structure will allow us to rise to the challenges at EU level. Nevertheless, we do also need to be careful, as, in the Commission's opinion, an ethnic approach would be counterproductive.

I would like to conclude by saying that I have been touched by what has been said here. It is quite clear that the real strength of the European Union lies in resolving this problem of conflict between minorities and majorities in a given state, but it is also true that the European Union is currently a federation of national states, which means that it is difficult for us to go any further.

That said, there is nothing to stop countries informally exchanging good practices or best practices. You have referred to the very good practices in certain of the newer Member States of the Union, and I do not doubt that such good practices can be taken as an inspiration for other similar examples.

That, Mr President, is what I have to say, and I regret that I cannot give you a better response, but I am, after all, obliged to toe the line of what the European Union actually is as it stands. Even so, I would stress once again that, in the event of discrimination against individuals belonging to a minority group, you can be sure that I will stand absolutely firm, because I have every intention of ensuring respect for this non-discrimination which, I hope, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will institutionalise very strongly following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

No country in contemporary Europe denies the rights of minorities. Under the EU's motto 'United in Diversity', we are building a multicultural Europe, a Europe in which national minorities coexist with large monolithic states and enjoy their full political rights and citizens' rights. It appears that Europe is of one mind on this. Nowadays, anyone who queries the rights of minorities will certainly not succeed in the world of politics. The rights of minorities are enshrined in the legal order of individual EU Member States, and also confirmed by many international agreements.

I was therefore amazed by the ruling handed down by the Supreme Administrative Court in Lithuania on 30 January of this year. According to the ruling, placing signs bearing street names in Polish alongside others bearing street names in Lithuanian contravened the law. The authorities in the Vilnius region were ordered to remove the signs in the Polish language within a month. The issue is particularly curious because ethnic Poles account for as much as 70% of the population in the Vilnius region, and street signs in Polish are to be found almost everywhere. This has happened despite the fact that Lithuania has committed itself to the European Charter for Local Self-Government and has ratified the 1995 European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Article 11 of the latter provides for the use of minority languages, including on street signs. It is hard to understand why Lithuania, which has now been a Member State of the EU for five years, is disregarding Union standards and failing to guarantee the rights of minorities on its territory.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I come from an area on the border between Hungary and Romania, in the county of Arad, where problems concerning minorities were overcome a long time ago.

In this area, colleagues and childhood friends who attended primary school and then went on to study at university through Hungarian are still now using Hungarian in the institutions where they work.

I have been chairman of Arad County Council and the Romania West Regional Authority. In this region, where we have the counties of Arad, Timiş and Bihor in Romania, and Csongrád and Békés in Hungary, Romanians and Hungarians have together completed dozens of joint projects and are currently working on others, all using a single European language to resolve common European problems.

I invite anyone who would like to find out first hand about the Romanian model for resolving minority problems to take a look at the real situation first hand before they express their views at various European forums.

The rights of national minorities in EU Member States constitute an important issue in terms of human rights. In practice, however, the issue is often exploited in actions aimed at spreading revisionism across Europe and calling borders into question.

The right to use one's native language and the right to preserve one's traditional culture and customs are undoubtedly two of the rights that must be protected.

In recent times, there have been frequent cases in Europe when certain minorities have expressed the wish to have specific territories returned to the country with which they have a national allegiance. This provokes a reaction by the majority. There have also been cases when minorities numbering several million persons have been ignored and have been refused the status of a minority. This has happened, for example, to Poles in Germany. Germany is thereby violating the fundamental rights of minorities.

The case of people who have arrived in our countries from outside Europe is quite different. Clearly, these individuals have the right to their own culture and language. They may not, however, create their own special areas to which they transfer the law of their countries of origin. If they wish to live amongst us, they must be prepared to integrate into our countries and become responsible citizens of the country where they settle.

Voting rights for non-citizens of Latvia in local elections (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on voting rights for 'non-citizens' of Latvia in local elections, by David Hammerstein, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Alexandra Dobolyi, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Willy Meyer Pleite, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, and Marian Harkin, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - B6-0007/2009).

Mr President, there is a Member State of the European Union that uses the concept of 'non-citizens' to designate hundreds of thousands of people living in that country. The vast majority were born in that country, work in that country but nevertheless are given the epithet 'non-citizens'. This is an aberration in the European Union.

This is an aberration because the European Union is based on the concept of non-discrimination, on the principle of equality, which today is being negated in that country: it is failing to recognise those people's rights and is subjecting a group to historical discrimination purely on account of its ethnic origin. This is not acceptable.

We have examined specific cases in the Committee on Petitions. The first case was that of a man who came and said 'the first time I was able to vote was when I was studying in Germany. I was able to vote in German local elections, but in my own country I have not been able to vote because they do not recognise me. I do not have another passport. I do not have another country. I only have this country and I cannot vote.' That is an aberration.

We have dealt with another case in the Committee on Petitions concerning a man who has passed the language examinations in Latvia, who knows all the laws and who, nonetheless, is not granted citizenship because the state considers that - and I repeat what the Ambassador said to us - 'this man is not loyal to the state'. How is that possible? How is it possible that this situation affects 20-25% of the population of a member country of the European Union?

We ask that people's fundamental rights be respected and that everyone be made aware of the situation, given that some countries have joined the European Union without fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria. We also ask that pressure be exerted on the Commission since, up to now, the European Commission has only shown weakness and a total lack of interest or concern.

author. - Mr President, it is sad to observe that today, almost five years after enlargement, there is little evidence of Latvia having demonstrated respect for its largest minority. The recommendations of the European Parliament and numerous other institutional organisations have been completely ignored.

A large part of Latvia's population has been alienated from the state and its institutions. No wonder the naturalisation rate is slow. Turning people into aliens and issuing them with an alien passport does not inspire in them feelings of being associated with the state. They do not participate. They do not take decisions. They do not vote, not even in those cities where they represent up to 40% of the population and where political decisions directly affect their lives.

Is this situation good or bad for the European Union? This is a question for the Commission and Council. Democracy cannot flourish without civil society, and there is no civil society without participation. Participation begins at local community level.

These people were born in the country or have spent most of their lives there, and we are talking about more than 15% of Latvia's population, or some 372 000 people. The EU must take action on their behalf. Why does the Commission not act on this? Citizens of other EU Member States residing in Latvia may vote and stand in municipal and European Parliament elections, but hundreds of thousands of people who were born in the country or have spent most of their lives there do not enjoy this right.

I would like to ask the Commission and the Council what they have done in order to address this issue with the Latvian authorities, and to take further action without any delay.

Mr President, my Group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, did not hesitate to submit this oral question to the Commission when, during several sessions in the Committee on Petitions, we became aware of the situation in which many citizens of Latvia find themselves.

Members of the Commission, Commissioner, it is unacceptable that we are seeing cases of segregated citizens in the European Union in the 21st century. This does not conform to the European Union, its principles or its values. In a state that has been part of the European Union since 2004, with a population of barely 2.5 million inhabitants, there is currently a law in force preventing half a million people, quite simply, from exercising their rights as citizens.

These people are called non-citizens. They have a black-coloured passport and for that reason, they are called 'blacks' or 'aubergines'. They are even referred to as such by the administration itself, by the State, the government, and they are citizens who do not enjoy their legitimate right to be able to vote or be elected.

We believe, therefore, that the European Commission should exert considerable pressure on the government in order to prevent its failure to observe many recommendations that have been made by various institutions, such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the very recommendation made by this Parliament in the debate on Latvia's accession, the Resolution of 11 March, in which it was clearly stated that a real solution had to be found to the segregation problem and the issue of those citizens who are required to prove whether they were born before 1940. This is, quite simply, unacceptable.

I do not believe it should be tolerated. We cannot coexist in the European Union while this situation continues and, therefore, we believe it is very important that the Commission, the European Union authorities and all of us put forward proposals in the same vein to put an end to this situation.

To that effect, our group expects the Commission to make concrete proposals on the questions that we raise in this debate. With regard to language, we are also concerned by the fact that, pursuant to new regulations - and there were student demonstrations last year - 60% of the curriculum must be taught in Latvian, thereby creating clear discrimination against the Russian language.

I seem to recall that during the Franco dictatorship in my home country of Spain, it was forbidden to speak in Basque, Catalan or Galician. Those languages were simply banned. Today, the reality is that they are co-official. I believe that this is a situation that should also be put in force so that, ultimately, no citizens of the European Union are prevented from expressing themselves in their mother tongue, in their own language, which should share equal official status with any other language that can be used in that state.

I therefore call on the Commission to act dynamically once and for all so as to prevent the segregation that is taking place in that member country of the European Union.

Mr President, on a point of order, Members of this House will have different points of view about the question being debated, but you, as our President, have the right, and indeed the duty, to advise colleagues as to how they may express those views which they have the right to express.

I believe that last statement contained elements which were very close to being defamatory of a government of the European Union. I take exception to that. I think, if we look at our Rules of Procedure, the proper conduct of debates in this House does not permit members to use the sort of language to which we have just been subjected.

As I did not interpret the Member's speech in the manner in which you have just claimed, I did not resort to the powers which are conferred on me under the Rules of Procedure.

(ES) Mr President, given that I have been mentioned, I stand by each and every one of the words I have spoken.

Mr President, the example of Spain was just raised, but it is, in fact, the Spanish State that has actually dealt with the problem.

The Commission is aware of the specific circumstances in which the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia find themselves. A great deal of effort was made as part of the pre-accession strategy to promote the naturalisation and integration of these people, in line with the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and of the Council of Europe.

The Commission has repeatedly emphasised that all the parties involved, including the minority themselves, need to contribute to this complex process and to come up with solutions.

With regard to the specific issue of the participation of non-Latvian citizens in local elections, all that the Treaty establishing the European Community guarantees, in terms of electoral rights, is the participation of EU citizens in European and municipal elections in their Member State of residence, even if they are not nationals of that state.

The participation in elections of people who are not nationals of an EU country, and are therefore not EU citizens, is not an issue covered by Community law.

The Commission therefore cannot talk to Latvia regarding the issue of these people's participation in local elections. It is up to the Member States to decide such issues.

I do understand the situation depicted by the co-authors of the oral question, but unfortunately, I cannot give them any other answer, so we need to leave it to Latvia itself to take care of this problem, which the Union is not in a legal position to resolve.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President, I must remind you that in my small country, Latvia, there are 2.3 million inhabitants, of whom approximately 1.6 million are of Latvian ethnic origin. Nonetheless, in Latvia, primary education is dispensed by the state and local government in eight minority languages, some of which, such as Romany and Estonian, are very small. When speaking about Russian-speaking non-citizens, one cannot use the concept of a 'traditional minority'. In the sense of Western European countries, they could be said to be newcomers or immigrants who, at the time of the Soviet occupation, arrived in Latvia and enjoyed many privileges. Firstly, they had the privilege of not learning the language of the land and people they had come to, but of speaking only Russian. My country has enacted one of the most generous naturalisation laws in Europe, precisely in order to meet those people halfway. Over the ten-year period that this law has been in force, approximately 50% of non-citizens have acquired citizenship rights. When a survey was conducted recently, however, in late 2008, among people who had not become naturalised, 74% did not wish to obtain Latvian citizenship. Secondly, only one third of non-citizens has made use of the right to register as Latvian citizens children born after Latvia regained its independence - just one third. Why that is, I do not know. Mrs Ždanoka, who was elected from Latvia and represents Latvian citizens of Russian origin, makes no secret of the fact that after obtaining voting rights for non-citizens, the next step would be to call for Russian to be given the status of a second state or official language. What does that mean? Firstly, it means the retention of privileged status for people who came to Latvia from Russia, and secondly, it would be the signing of a [death] sentence for the Latvian language and culture since, behind the Russian speakers, there are 140 million more in Russia, with increasing nationalistic ambitions. For the Latvian language, it is not possible, as small as we are, as few in number as we are. Finally, we joined the European Union not in order to retain the divided society created by the Soviet occupation, but in order to overcome it and to retain our own identity. Thank you.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, Commissioner Barrot's response was very disappointing. I would have expected a more positive response from him, despite the legal constraints that he operates under. I thought he might have said that he would do what he could to encourage change in Latvia in the spirit of the European Union's principle of diversity.

I am from Ireland; I speak English. English is my mother tongue, but I am not English: I am Irish. The reality is that the European Union is made up of many states. Virtually all our states have minorities and majorities who have histories relating to being part of an empire or to being an empire or a colony. We have had to deal with that.

If I moved to Latvia and lived and worked there for a while, I would be able to vote in local elections. However, there are hundreds of thousands of people in Latvia who were born in Latvia but who cannot vote in local elections. That is an injustice, but - I would tell Mr Pīks - it is also self-destructive because, in order to overcome the difficulties and the fears, we must make all of our people welcome in our states. We must encourage them to participate politically. Enabling people to vote in local elections would enable them to feel part of their community and part of the management of their own local communities and would help, as I say, to overcome barriers.

One of the largest migrant communities in Ireland is British. They can all vote in local elections in Ireland. They cannot all vote in national elections because they do not all hold Irish citizenship, but they all vote in Irish local elections and make a very important contribution to Irish political life. So I would appeal to those in this House who are from Latvia - and indeed from any other of our Member States that have minority, or even majority, problems - to bear in mind that, in order to overcome these difficulties and to overcome fear, we have to make people welcome and incorporate them into our political process, not keep them out of it.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all it must be remembered that after 1945, as the British, French, Belgians and Dutch streamed out of their colonies, the Russians started to stream into them. Also in 1949, when the Geneva Convention prohibited settling civilians in occupied territories, the Russification of Latvia was intensified, and a flow of two million immigrants was organised by the Soviet authorities.

It can therefore be said that, when the Republic of Latvia regained its independence in 1991, the Soviet-era newcomers were in Latvia illegally. So the Russians today are being granted citizenship via naturalisation as a humanitarian act by the Latvian Government, and not as a right.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, normally citizenship laws belong to a country's internal affairs and no other countries can meddle with them, not even the UN itself. Therefore, the position of the Latvian authorities with regard to the possibility of granting voting rights to non-citizens is firm and unchanged: the right to vote is an integral part of citizenship.

Such a position is also in line with international law and practice. At the same time, Latvia, with considerable financial help from other countries - with the exception of Russia - has made significant efforts to facilitate the naturalisation process and integration of non-citizens in Latvia, bringing the percentage of non-citizens down to 16% at the end of 2008.

Our aim is to ensure that all inhabitants of Latvia can apply for citizenship and enjoy their rights fully and effectively. Latvia aims to have citizens with full rights, instead of having non-citizens with many rights.

I understand that this position of Latvia contradicts the policy published in the Russian Diplomatic Herald by Mr Karaganov in 1992, as well as his supporters here in the European Parliament, but we will never give up protecting our country against these disinformation campaigns.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Latvia's liberal law has allowed anyone to testify to their loyalty to the Latvian state and Western democratic values. As a result, since 1993, the number of non-citizens has fallen by 59%. The majority of Latvia's businesses belong to Russian entrepreneurs. These are arguments that permit us to reject the complaints against the Latvian state. Additionally, it is worth pointing out the fact that there are people living in Latvia who, as members of the Interfront group, fought against Latvia's independence, called for the preservation of the evil empire that was the USSR, still deny the fact of Latvia's occupation, still excuse Soviet totalitarian crimes in the Baltic states, and voted against Latvia's membership of the European Union and NATO. It is possible that these convictions on their part are a significant obstacle to any wish to acquire Latvian citizenship. Let us not therefore prevent them from living in their world of past values!

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, we are discussing the Latvian case precisely because it is unique. The Latvian non-citizens are not nationals of any state and they have no right to participate in any elections. All adult bearers of the status of non-citizens of Latvia were permanent residents of the country in the early 1990s. The last time they had the opportunity to enjoy voting rights was 19 years ago, i.e. in March 1990, when the Supreme Council of Latvia was elected. One and a half years later, the very same Supreme Council deprived one third of its own voters of their voting rights. This is a unique case in parliamentary history.

The Commissioner spoke only of the integration of non-citizens into society and their naturalisation. However, such an approach puts things into reverse order: non-citizens are already a part of society - 32% were born locally - and for many, the procedure of applying for citizenship of their own country is humiliating and they do not go through naturalisation on principle.

For the Latvian political elite, depriving this essential part of the minority population of their basic rights is an instrument for preserving power. They are using the old method of divide and rule and, therefore, action on behalf of Latvia's non-citizens must be taken by the European Union.

I am convinced that fundamental values of the EU, such as non-discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin and participatory democracy, must take precedence over national competences.

Mr President, we have heard in this debate how Latvia's democracy, independence and all the decent norms of society were crushed by the two criminal dictators of the last century. Latvia was invaded by Stalin, then by Hitler, and then by Stalin again. The Latvian population was then subjected to imprisonment, deportations and executions. Stalin then imported not only Russian speakers, but Ukrainian speakers and Belarussian speakers.

All of us, including Mrs Ždanoka, would condemn Stalin and his works today, but what do we do about it, Commissioner? Would you now publicly affirm, not only that you have no juridical right to make an intervention, but that all Member States of the Union should respect their full legal requirements as far as electoral law is concerned? I think that is important, not just for Latvia, but for all our countries.

Surely the answer is that if you feel strongly about this, like those many Russian-speaking Latvians who have taken citizenship, you should take the citizenship of the country of which you are proud, where you were born and where you live. Do not reject it. Do not ask for privileges if you do not want to play your part. You can take citizenship.

There was a Palestinian exile who took Latvian citizenship. If he could learn the language, I am sure that those Russian-speaking Latvians can do the same. Of course we are reminded that the great majority have taken citizenship. If you are part of a country, I think you have rights and duties.

(HU) I wish to congratulate Alexandra Dobolyi and her fellow authors. This is one of the most serious human rights issues in the European Union today. I understand all the historical injuries of our Latvian friends, since they were subjected to terrible assimilation during the Stalinist Soviet era. I am well acquainted with the practice, but nothing can justify historical revenge. I would advise my Latvian friends to follow the example of Finland, which was oppressed by Sweden for centuries, and yet Finland never took revenge on Swedish-speaking Finnish citizens. It is impossible either to deport or to assimilate several hundred thousand people, and so they must be given their EU rights. I am very much saddened by Commissioner Barrot's words, because instead of the EU giving a clear sign that the situation is untenable and contrary to fundamental EU values, Mr Barrot throws up his hands and says that the European Union can do nothing. Well, that is quite sad. A historical compromise must be found between the Latvian majority and the Russian minority. This is the only solution, there is no other. Thank you for your attention.

(LV) Ladies and gentlemen, last autumn I put a written question to Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, expressing fears that the privilege given by Russia to non-citizens from Latvia and Estonia of entering Russia without visas had had a negative effect on their desire to become citizens. Mrs Ferrero-Waldner agreed with me, but today certain members - authors of questions - are displaying a total lack of understanding of Latvia's situation. If we add yet further to the rights of non-citizens, and include the right to vote in local elections, the number of non-citizens, which has halved since 1995, will, in all probability, not fall any more. Latvia's citizenship law is one of the most generous in Europe. Any non-citizen can acquire full rights, including the right to vote, by becoming a citizen. Latvia's non-citizens have come about as the direct result of the 50-year-long Soviet occupation. Certain political forces, which support the Kremlin's so-called compatriot protection policy, are still manoeuvring, through these people, for an increase in their own political capital. Thank you.

(LV) Mr President, Commissioner, the extent to which this debate interests the authors of the question can be seen from the fact that not one of them is in the Chamber any more, and so they will not have heard what Inese Vaidere has just said - that Russia's real visa policy was a weapon it used not to foster the naturalisation process in Latvia, but to achieve quite the opposite. Unfortunately, public opinion surveys confirm that the majority of these people will never become Latvian patriots, but the majority of them are already patriots of another country. If they were to obtain power in local government, the next step would be, of course, demands for autonomy and for official status for their language. We can already see what the next steps could be, as shown by the development of the long-term situation in such places as Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia - Russian passports would be handed out in these self-governing areas. Thank you.

(LT) Under normal circumstances, it would be possible to propose that permanent residents participate in local council elections, but we know all too well that the majority of Latvia's non-citizens could hardly be described as having arrived in the country under normal circumstances. Their arrival is a direct consequence of the occupation of Latvia implemented by the Soviet Union. It is also the result of the Russification process carried out over five decades, violating the norms of international law. We all have the right to choose - to be citizens or to be loyal to our state, do we not? However, every choice also has its consequences and for that reason we can only blame ourselves, not the state which granted that freedom of choice.

(SV) What are the consequences for the Latvian people of fifty years of Soviet occupation? Why does a large proportion of the Russian-speaking population not want to apply for citizenship? What is Russia's part in all this? Latvia needs our support, not our condemnation, in order to be able to encourage its non-citizens to apply for citizenship. To Mr Tabajdi, I would like to ask this question: why would Finland want revenge on Sweden and what does that have to do with this issue?

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is normal for people in Europe to undergo compulsory schooling. This involves becoming familiar with the customs and the culture of the country in which you live, so that you are able to live there. Compulsory schooling involves learning the language of the country and possibly other languages. It also forms the basis for vocational training and shows how the culture of the country has developed and where it is heading. In addition, students learn about history. Compulsory schooling, as we understand it, helps people to live together in harmony. If you live in a country, it is clear that you must also be able to understand the language of the country. This is the purpose served by a good compulsory schooling system. Against this background, I would like to say that many of the problems in Europe could be solved by the efficient provision of compulsory schooling for all the residents of a country.

Mr President, I have listened carefully to both sides.

It is very difficult, in this context, for the Commission to take over from the Latvian State to deal with this problem. All I can do in this situation is encourage them to undertake an internal dialogue, which I think would be desirable. Unfortunately, that is all I can say.

The debate is closed.

Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 10:55 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes

2050: The future begins today - Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change (debate) 

- The next item is the report by Mr Florenz on behalf of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change on 2050: the future begins today - recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change.

rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would, in particular, like to say good morning to my fellow Members who have been working for months on this climate report. I am very grateful to you for the fair and cooperative way in which you have worked with me to put together this report.

The procedure in a horizontal committee was new. We did not have discussions with experts in a group, but with people from the transport sector, and, quite rightly, with people from the economic sector and, of course, also with people from the energy sector. It was quite clear during this process that the first hours and days of the debate were somewhat tougher because this was new subject matter. At this point, I would like once again to thank our Chairman and my good friend, Mr Sacconi, who always presided in an excellent and fair manner.

Today's achievement, which we have noted, is essentially that this horizontal cooperation presents a great opportunity, and with the next composition of Parliament we ought to make sure that people talk to each other more and that we do not just have individual groups opposing each other.

That has been the greatest advantage of this committee. We had invited quite high-level experts such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, and experts in science, research and, of course, politics. Finally today we have an outcome in hand which shows us that the report has proved to be very positive.

We know very well that prohibitions, sanctions and doing without achieve very little. Instead, we must encourage changes in awareness as well as innovation and motivation. Our aim must be for the engineers of Europe to get up each morning and take pleasure in trying to build machines that work more efficiently in this world in order to utilise our children's raw materials better and considerably more efficiently.

The report is also honest. We have stated that we do not have any super weapons. There is no switch that we can flick, not in Brussels nor in Bali nor in Poland in December; instead we have a whole host of measures. This is precisely where the opportunity lies: the opportunity to make it clear to the people that they themselves are responsible for a third of this climate change, for example as a result of them heating their houses. As citizens, however, we are all responsible for a third, including as a result of mobility and all that entails, and industry is also responsible for a third. The report is therefore directed at us all. That is the wonderful thing about it. We do not need to look for a villain; we are all urged to take part in innovative discussions. I am particularly pleased about that.

It is also clear that this report is evenly balanced, and I would like to emphasise that once again, because it does not represent any party programmes. Nor does it disparage any area. Instead, we point out that in certain areas there are more opportunities, whereas in other areas we have fewer opportunities. For that reason, the report also states that it ultimately points the way and indicates the way forward - particularly for Europe, as in Europe we have a vast amount of environmental technology, the volume of which is comparable with the European car industry. The amount will increase, and we must work on this to bring about innovation.

I just said that we should involve our citizens so that they can do something in their own houses. In this connection, local politics, chambers of commerce and industry and trade associations can achieve a considerable amount in terms of motivation and the provision of information.

Let me conclude by saying that the many benefits that we have demonstrated in this report should make us realise that the opportunities lie in innovation and not in depression. If we understand that, then this task has been worthwhile.

- Thank you very much for the work that you have carried out Mr Florenz, and for your report.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, it is a pleasure to be here and share with you some thoughts on the important year ahead. Firstly, let me congratulate the Temporary Committee on Climate Change for all the work it has accomplished since its creation in April 2007: hearings, conferences, reports, resolutions, exchanges with third parties. Its tireless efforts have greatly contributed towards shaping the EU position on climate change.

The latest resolution, '2050: The future begins today - Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change', which was adopted by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change on 2 December 2008, and which you will adopt at this part-session, will again provide a very useful basis when discussing the options for a post-2012 climate agreement and for further deepening the EU's climate policies.

As you know, the work during the Presidency will focus on the international negotiation process. By the way, I am leaving Strasbourg today and flying to Delhi to have discussions with the Indian Government and Indian representatives. Two weeks later we have an EU-Africa meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, and we have already made contact with the US Administration, which I will mention later.

By adopting the climate and environment legislative package at the end of 2008, the EU is sending a very strong political signal to all our partners in the world. With the adoption of this package in a few months' time, the EU will demonstrate that its commitment, as well as its leadership, in the global fight against climate change is as strong as ever. Indeed, the EU will be the first region in the world to commit unilaterally to a reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

As you know, the climate and energy package will, as of 2013, enable the reform of the EU-ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme), set limits for the emissions outside the Emissions Trading Scheme, stimulate CO2 capture and storage technology, as well as boost the deployment of renewables.

As far as the ETS is concerned, a single EU cap with a linear downwards trajectory will be set, auctioning will be gradually introduced as the method of allocating allowances and monitoring reporting, and verification will be strengthened. But, of course, the EU has repeatedly said that it will not settle for 20% - we want to go for 30% - and, therefore, we hope for an ambitious global and comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen Conference is now only 10 months away. The December 2008 Poznań Climate Conference agreed on a work programme for 2009, with clearly identified steps towards Copenhagen. The decision in Poznań on the operationalisation of the Adaptation Fund represents an important step forward in the negotiations on the financing building block - one of the key elements of any comprehensive global agreement.

The ministerial round table in Poznań also confirmed the shared willingness of both the developed and the developing countries to find an effective globally agreed response to dangerous climate change for the post-2012 period. This encompasses further mitigation efforts, adaptation actions and finance and technology means to make that response operational.

Poznań has also sent the message that the current financial crisis is not to be seen as an obstacle to further action on climate change, but, instead, as yet another opportunity for profoundly transforming our economic system and moving firmly towards a low-carbon economy.

The Czech Presidency intends to build on such important achievements and to pursue efforts at international level towards a successful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.

On 2 March 2009, the Environment Council, and later the ECOFIN Council and the spring European Council, will be the first opportunities for further developing the EU position in this respect, on the basis of the Commission communication towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen, which we received a week ago, and on the basis of your input.

In addition to the shared vision for long-term action for mitigation technology and adaptation, the identification of appropriate means for financing effective and long-term climate policies will be key in future EU deliberations. In this context, I can only reiterate the Climate Change Committee's call on the Commission and the Member States 'to adopt, at bilateral level in the negotiations towards a post-2012 agreement, a mediating role between the positions of developed countries, in order to ensure by means of a balance of interest the success of the climate negotiations involving all major greenhouse gas emitters'.

The EU will also continue to engage in active outreach with key negotiating partners and main emerging economies, but also with a new US Administration. I have spoken on the phone to Carol Browner, the President's assistant for energy and climate change. I have made a preliminary proposal to her for a high-level meeting with US representatives and the EU Commission - Commissioner Dimas - the Czech Presidency and the upcoming Swedish Presidency (i.e. the Troika) in early March, probably 2 or 6 March.

I said that the EU would like to work as closely as possible with the United States on the evolution and linkage of carbon markets. We gather that Congressman Waxman has indicated that he will try to get the legislation from his committee on the cap-and-trade system to be implemented at the end of May. This is quite an encouraging response from the United States as a reaction to the activities of the European Union.

We also count on the European Parliament to ensure that the EU voice is more widely heard, and we appreciate very much the outreach efforts that you have made in the past. I can only encourage you to continue along this path and wish you all good luck for the year ahead.

Member of the Commission. - (EL) Mr President, honourable members of the European Parliament, the final report by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change for which Mr Florenz acted as rapporteur has ambitious targets and covers a broad spectrum of issues, thereby confirming the considerable importance that the European Parliament attaches to the question of climate change. I should like to congratulate the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on their exceptional work.

Last year, our priority was the package of measures on climate change and energy. Our efforts bore fruit and we can now be proud of this very important package of legislative acts. This year, we shall be focusing in particular within the European Union on preparing the implementation measures for this package. At international level, our priority will be negotiations on climate change, which will be stepped up in the run-up to the United Nations conference in Copenhagen and, as you have just heard, the Czech Presidency attaches great importance to these negotiations and has planned a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings and negotiations. Your report has therefore come along at the right time. In the run-up to Copenhagen we must muster all our forces and work together so that, given the particular role of Europe, we will achieve the best possible result.

I am delighted that your report, in keeping with the Commission's analysis, emphasises that the economic and financial crisis should not be used as an excuse to delay action to deal with climate change. We also agree that taking action to deal with climate change forms part of the solution to the economic crisis we face today.

With the package of measures on climate change and energy, Europe is now moving on the track of an economy of low carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, it will help to restrict Europe's dependency on imported energy, which is an equally important benefit, as we saw recently with the natural gas crisis. By implementing the target of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% or by 30%, and provided that the other developed countries accept such reductions within the framework of the international agreement, we shall without doubt be in the most ambitious position of any other country or group of countries. We are setting an example to the rest of the world, which will give a positive dynamic to the international negotiations.

Before we focus our debate on the international negotiations, I should like to comment briefly on an issue which was very rightly highlighted in the report. The report contains valuable proposals on what has to be done in order to make more efficient and effective use of natural resources, in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and save energy.

Last year, the Commission made an initial step in this direction by approving the action plan on sustainable production and consumption. More recently, with measures to complement the package of measures on climate change and energy, it strengthened action to save and make more efficient use of energy. Be that as it may, a great deal still needs to be done in the field of the sustainable use of natural resources and, of course, there is still huge potential for making more efficient use of energy. One illustrative example is the proposal which the Commission tabled recently on the energy efficiency of buildings. This is a sector for multiple targeting as it has significant benefits in terms both of energy savings and climate protection, while at the same time creating employment and contributing to the development of technological innovation.

Today, more than ever, we need to tone up and strengthen our economies by taking measures to speed up the adoption and use of clean technologies which will help to create clean jobs. At the same time, important opportunities will be created for our foreign trade as markets for clean technologies rapidly expand. With this in mind, last December the Commission proposed, among other things, specific actions within the framework of the European Economic Recovery Plan.

As far as international negotiations on climate change are concerned, the package of measures on climate change and energy has without doubt strengthened our arguments and efforts to persuade our international partners that taking effective measures is not only necessary but also feasible. Of course, there is no doubt that the international negotiations will be very difficult, due in part to the fact that they are so complex. Nonetheless, I believe that agreement will be reached in Copenhagen. We can and must reach an agreement. There is no time to lose. It is a question of political will and I think that the will exists.

Now, as the international negotiations start to intensify, last week the Commission adopted a communication which includes its positions on the most important points of the negotiations. First of all, it is the developed countries which are being called upon to continue to play a leading role. Positive messages are coming from the United States because, as the Czech minister mentioned earlier, President Obama has promised that the USA will be actively involved in the international negotiations. He has also announced that there will be a greenhouse gas trading scheme in the United States and that there will be reductions of 80% by 2050 compared with 1990.

All this is positive, but we want to see it put into practice quickly, in fact this year, because we need to reach an agreement in Copenhagen at the end of this year and the United States have a debt and, based on what President Obama has announced, they will need to make a decisive contribution, together with the European Union, so that we can all reach agreement in Copenhagen. Of course we welcome the debate under way within the United States, which will result in various other decisive measures being taken to combat climate change. One illustrative element is the measures announced recently for cars.

The communication by the European Commission confirms the target to reduce emissions by 30% collectively in the developed countries and defines the concept of comparability of effort. Comparability will be of decisive importance both in achieving the environmental targets and in safeguarding fair terms of competition. The Commission has proposed a series of criteria for defining comparability.

As far as developing countries are concerned, although efforts of similar type and scope to those of developed countries are not required, it is nonetheless important to ensure that they will continue to take action so that the economic development which they need will be less carbon dioxide-intensive. In order to achieve the objective of not exceeding 2 degrees Celsius in 2050, developing countries will need to limit the rate of increase in their emissions by 15% to 30% below those which they would otherwise have recorded had they made no effort to reduce up to 2020. Of course, the effort which will need to be made by each developing country separately will depend on their level of economic development and their resources. This means that we shall obviously be expecting more from the rapidly developing economies than from the others.

We all know that we shall not achieve the results we want in Copenhagen if we do not manage to increase investments and safeguard greater funding for reductions in emissions and adapt. Of course, one portion of the investments needed, even in developing countries, will come from the private sector within the various countries, while approximately one-third, according to the Commission's estimates, will come from the carbon dioxide market. Furthermore, one part needs to be public funding and we must examine ways of securing these public funds. Today, in the midst of a recession, this will not be an easy debate. We must nonetheless be prepared and must put forward arguments for this debate, bearing in mind that the cost of doing nothing will be much higher than the cost of any measures.

Finally, the Commission communication stresses the importance of a global carbon dioxide market and the creation, between the countries of the OECD, of compatible trading systems by 2015, while for the economically more advanced developing countries it is proposed that this should happen at a later date before 2020.

These are the main messages in the Commission communication and I shall be most interested to hear your views on them. International negotiations will proceed apace and intense diplomatic work will be needed on our part this year. I welcome your contribution to this major effort.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (SL) Climate change is a vast field and I would agree with the rapporteur when he says that we, members of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, had to find innovative means in order to encompass the full breadth and content of this field. However, now that our work is done, I can confirm that we have, indeed, had ample opportunity to exchange many different views and opinions and to put forward various proposals for future action. Our discussions were quite dynamic at times, precisely because of the diversity of the views expressed. As a result, the report represents a broad spectrum of opinion and offers many good proposals, but it also enables us to coordinate our continued work in the permanent committees, as regards formulating various sectoral policies. Personally, I think that it would be a good idea if we pursued this particular methodology.

Certainly, the fields we mentioned previously, such as energy, transport and industry, proved to offer the greatest opportunities for action, but other fields proved important, too, and here I allude to agriculture, cattle breeding, sustainable forestry, information and communication technologies and the EU's development policy concerning third countries.

Our transition to a low-carbon society will, of course, be possible if we continue to invest in research and to quicken the pace of development and innovation, and if we pursue the other objectives defined in the Lisbon Strategy. However, that alone will not be enough. We also have to change our lifestyles, but we will only be able to do so if people embrace environmental protection as a genuine value. In this regard, we need to achieve much more when it comes to information campaigns and awareness raising.

I also agree with the comments made about the correlation between the financial crisis and climate change. However, even this presents us with an opportunity and fears that climate change might have to take second place to the financial crisis are unjustified, because our measures for reviving the economy need to be designed in such a way as to promote sustainable development, not just consumer spending.

Since our objective is to limit global temperature increases, we also need to work internationally, of course. Here, Europe must establish and deepen its dialogue with the developed countries, because we have to reduce and eliminate the burden of our historic emissions together, while at the same time listening to developing nations and the poorest countries and enabling them to espouse sustainable development, even if it carries a higher price tag.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz, on the openness he has shown in our work.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) I should first of all like to offer Mr Florenz my heartfelt thanks for the sheer dedication and resolve with which he has written his report. It has, in my view, become an all-encompassing report with nearly 200 recommendations, and really worthwhile. It contains many sound recommendations that can be a source of inspiration to the next Parliament, the national parliaments and local authorities.

I would like to mention five core themes that are really essential for our group. First of all, this report recognises that climate change is comprehensive, affecting, as it does, all sectors, not just industry, transport and energy, for which we have already established rules, but also agriculture, health, science and technology, ICT, education, soil, water and land use. All these areas deserve our full attention and an effective solution.

Secondly, climate policy should also have a social dimension and should show solidarity. We need to address employment, income aspects and energy poverty. We need to know how new technology will be paid for, and who will bear that cost. We want to know how many jobs will be created and whether any jobs will be lost. We want retraining programmes for the new green poll workers. Without maximum social dedication, it is extremely difficult to maintain political support for climate policy.

Our third core theme is related to the economic crisis, where we once again need a comprehensive solution. The Green New Deal has now become a concept, and one that receives our wholehearted support. Considerable investments are needed. Interventions to support banks and businesses should at least have a sustainable component. Investments in houses and blocks of flats in Eastern Europe should be given greater priority, as these will be to the benefit of employment, energy security and the climate.

Our fourth core theme is agriculture. This is usually not something we discuss when we talk about the climate. Today, we demonstrate that it is, in fact, necessary, and it proved to be a controversial topic. We have long discussed the question of whether agriculture should have binding targets, and we are agreed that we should consider this seriously. What is also clear is that agriculture does not only pose a problem, it also offers solutions. Sound agriculture, effective land use and an appropriate use of biomass can help reduce greenhouse gases.

Our fifth core theme, finally, is about involving people. This requires the provision of information and transparency. If we want to change our consumption behaviour, we need to know exactly which products produce high levels of greenhouse gases and we may have to adapt our consumption patterns accordingly. This is not easy, of course, but the problem of climate change - as Mr Florenz pointed out a moment ago - cannot be solved with a few technical tricks. We will, at any rate, need to try our best to involve as many people as possible in the major challenges we are facing. Local initiatives are very valuable in this regard. Free energy audits for houses, better public transport and local and regional food production. Together, we can achieve a great deal.

With this set of measures, there is also reason for optimism. Greenhouse gases can be reduced, which contributes to innovation, economic growth, better energy supply, better food production, more employment and a more stable climate. I am indebted to all fellow Members who have made a contribution to this.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, an elephant lurks in the wings of this debate that we seem reluctant to identify. There is virtually no reference to it in this report and only a passing mention in the Commission's comprehensive strategy for achieving a climate change agreement in Copenhagen. It is the fact that human population is growing at unprecedented and unsustainable levels. In the lifetimes of many of us here, population on this planet will have trebled. It continues to grow at the rate of 200 000 every day: 80 million a year.

Why does China need a new coal-fired power station every week? Because its population has more than doubled in 50 years, it is continuing to grow fast, demand for energy grows with it, and Chinese people want what we have in the West, and they have every right to that. The Minister is flying to India today. Population growth is even faster there and again they are turning to coal for energy.

But this planet has finite resources. We need to slow and reverse our population growth. We must do so entirely through non-coercive means, and we must never arrogantly forget that those of us in the developed countries contribute vastly more to climate change than those in developing countries.

The UN population fund says that 380 women in the world become pregnant every minute of the day, and half of that number do not plan to do so. Contraception must be available for all. Women must have control over their reproductive lives: it is so preferable to the alternative of unsafe abortion.

Medical resources need improvements so that women can safely delay giving birth until a later age, but above all the issue must be on the political agenda. Our refusal to place it there is the greatest folly. Families everywhere should be talking about this. Governments should be setting targets for population stability or reduction. Admitting the central importance of population growth is key to addressing it, and we will not succeed in tackling climate change or achieving sustainable development if we fail to do so.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - Mr President, I would also like to compliment Mr Florenz on his effort and commitment in producing this report and, of course, on his ability to listen to, and understand, the many varied and different opinions.

As legislators, it is paramount, in the midst of a massive economic downturn, that we work on results for green energy technology. We can become world leaders in our diverse renewable energy fields, which should create a tight, effective and coordinated strategy - including governments, NGOs, academia, business, forward-thinkers - seeking not to talk but to solve. We need to reduce bureaucracy and support SMEs and technology developers.

The market is there. The regulatory framework is clear. We have set the targets for renewable energy. Although funding is scarce, it is crucial to technology development and to maintaining expertise. Banks and funders will have to take risks on green technology start-ups. There will be long-term gain if we step up to the mark. The jobs and wealth will flow. If, on the other hand, we dilly-dally during this precious time, we will lose out and other countries will be only too ready to fill the gap.

For example, Ireland could become to ocean wave technology what Finland is to mobile phone technology. We have the undisputed potential due to weather and location in the Atlantic. We have the technology patented. We have the expertise in situ and we have the legal target framework. The market is clear, so it is a magnificent opportunity for job creation, electricity price reduction, energy security and carbon emission reduction, not to mention patent revenues.

We now need to get behind our companies, who have been working for over a decade to come to this point. They have taken the risks, and we need to support them through increased funding. Delays at this point would be detrimental. Green technology is our future. We have the opportunity now, so let us use it.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I would also like to thank Mr Florenz, in particular for his patience in the negotiations. The length of the report is evidence of the huge number of issues there were to deal with.

However, I would also like to pose the question of how sustainable the agreement is that is now being signalled at the beginning of this year by this report. I remember the International Climate Conference in Poznań very well and the very weak role that the Europeans played there, because they were preoccupied with adjusting downwards their ambitious promises and ambitious statements from the international round of negotiations in Bali and, in view of the emerging financial and economic crisis, they were busy relegating climate policy to a lower priority.

I believe that the next year will be decisive as regards the question of whether we really are prepared, as we currently keep promising, to adjust the type of economy to which we in the industrial nations have become accustomed on the basis of our knowledge of climate change. I believe that the decision as to whether or not we will go down the road of sustainability has not yet been made.

In Poznań, Ban Ki-Moon and Achim Steiner recommended very strongly that all measures taken by the Member States in their economic stimulus plans and their bank rescue packages now be combined with programmes to combat poverty in developing countries and the dreadful consequences of climate change in developing countries, and also with measures for a really ambitious level of climate protection and a new energy policy.

I can see that any legislation at European level relating to this issue will be establishing new ground. It is by no means certain that Europe will find its way along the road to a modern society of energy efficiency and renewable energies. Now, as before, it all rests on the decision: do we carry on with the old mix of coal and nuclear energy or do we take ambitious new paths? I hope that we continue to address this issue as constructively as we have done in the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, although I am not certain that that will happen.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (SV) Finally, we are to take a decision on this climate resolution, after more than eighteen months of work. I would like to mention three things in particular.

The long-term reduction targets: in paragraph 3, we demand emissions reductions in the EU of between 25% and 40% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050. This is a good thing and it means that we are setting higher requirements than those in last year's EU climate package.

We are also demanding measures to be taken in respect of the meat industry. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report, Livestock's long shadow, the meat industry is responsible for 18% of the world's emissions. This is something we take note of in this report and we demand a reduction in the consumption of meat. This is a bold and, to an extent, historic decision by this Parliament, which usually prefers to support subsidies for this industry, but it is a shame that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, in particular, want to vote to remove these requirements. In the same way that we need to reduce motoring, we also ought to dare to say that the current soaring meat consumption is not sustainable.

Allow me also to remind you that the meat industry is, in fact, the primary cause of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest as a result of the creation both of grazing land for animals and land for the production of feed. A large proportion of this feed is exported to Europe as soya. This is not sustainable.

The car industry is another growing problem. Between 1990 and 2005, emissions from the European transport industry increased by 32%. A huge investment in public transport and other environmentally-friendly transport is needed. Cars using fossil fuels must be replaced by electric cars and perhaps, in future, also by hydrogen-powered vehicles. We need to ask ourselves whether the situation with all these forms of transport is sustainable. Should we not encourage local production and consumption instead?

Finally, I would like to issue a warning with regard to Amendments 12 and 28, which demand an increase in nuclear energy. If they are adopted, my group will be unable to support this resolution. Therefore, please vote against Amendments 12 and 28. Thank you very much.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Given that a large part of Western Europe is in the grip of a very cold spell right now, a debate on global warming is perhaps a little ill-timed. As the title of the report suggests, however, we are looking at the long term in this debate. We should not, therefore, get too bogged down by short-term events. Mr Florenz's final report has turned out to be well thought-out and sound, and sends out a strong message.

To reduce or prevent the negative effects of climate change, tough action is needed across a wide area. We need tough goals for the period between 2020 and 2050. Not one section of society should escape making efforts. In the run-up to the climate conference in Copenhagen, we will need to maintain our ambition, backed up by a wide range of measures. This report makes a particularly valuable contribution towards this.

- Mr President, 500 years ago there was a consensus amongst learned men that the world was flat. They were wrong. In the 1970s, after three decades of global cooling, there was a consensus amongst scientists that we were facing a new ice age. They were wrong. In 1999, everybody believed that the millennium bug would create a global disaster by closing down computer systems across the world. Weapon systems would fail, commerce would stop, aircraft would fall out of the sky. They were wrong. Nothing at all happened.

Today we are told there is a consensus around catastrophic man-made global warming. It, too, is wrong. Nor is it a consensus. The myth of consensus is a propaganda triumph for the alarmists, but repeated surveys both of the scientific literature and of working climate scientists show a wide range of views on both sides of the debate, with many believing that the jury is still out.

It is true that the world has warmed slightly, although slowly and intermittently, over the last 150 years, but this is entirely consistent with well-established long-term natural climate cycles that gave us the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. There is clear evidence that, while the world has warmed slightly, other bodies in the solar system have also warmed. Ice caps have shrunk on Mars, yet nobody imagines that industrial emissions or 4x4s are to blame.

We are now planning to spend unimaginable sums of money on mitigation measures which simply will not work and which, by damaging our economies, will deny us the funds we need to address real environmental problems. As a British journalist, Christopher Booker, has remarked, global warming alarmism is the greatest collective flight from reality in human history.

(ES) Mr President, firstly I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his work, and, of course, the chairman of the committee and all the coordinators and members of the committee as well.

This report is a further expression of what has become a permanent concern of the European Union, namely climate change and its consequences.

The latest set of measures was the recently approved energy package. The report that we are discussing today reflects that same approach to combating climate change and that same concern shown by the European Union.

The report that we have before us is, as has already been said, a set of recommendations. It is a comprehensive suite of different measures and recommendations which in turn contain different 'road maps' for various sectors, including fisheries, agriculture, water, forestry and so on. All of these 'road maps' lead in the same direction, but measures will have to be developed for each.

However, I shall confine myself to what I think is the basic principle required in order to have an effect. Faced with climate change, we have to improve efficiency; this, in my view, has to be the basic principle behind all the measures that are taken.

To make improvements in efficiency means giving priority to technological innovation; it means highlighting efficiency targets when awarding aid and subsidies; it means emphasising efficiency targets when granting certain fiscal advantages, and so on. The only way we can be really effective is to improve efficiency.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, those Members who have spoken before me have demonstrated well how we have managed to bring together very diverse opinions, which have been merged into a common draft.

The Florenz report, which deserves recognition for its success in achieving this consensus by listening carefully to all points of view, is ultimately about energy reconversion and general change in production systems, lifestyles and consumption. It is more than just a philosophical statement and we know that it will not be an easy ride, but it envisages rapprochement in stages. For example, there are indications in the legacy that we are leaving to the next Parliament of what we believe should be the priorities for action in the next parliamentary term, in the run-up to Copenhagen and beyond.

I would, however, like to focus on the content. I feel it is my duty first and foremost to thank the key player in this work, the secretariat. I have here some statistics on our work. To give you an idea of how important their job was, I need only say that they organised eight thematic sessions with sixty of the world's leading experts.

Now, most importantly, I should like to make an appeal, that is express my hopes, for the new Parliament. President Pöttering, you yourself demonstrated your belief that the gamble of this committee would pay off - even though, if the truth be told, it did not find favour with everyone in this Parliament when it was created 18 months ago. You appealed to the House on two separate occasions, illustrating your personal support for this subject and for our task, and so I will address you directly, if you will allow me. It would be a shame if the next Parliament did not create a similar instrument in the next parliamentary term, not least because in the meantime many national parliaments and governments have restructured their work, with climate change as a specific field. Therefore, I hope that the next Parliament will not go back to strict compartmentalisation, where connected areas are separated into different committees, but that, as we have recommended, it will prepare itself for the long ride to a lower carbon economy.

- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his work.

At last we are to vote on this report, which represents 18 months of work by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. I personally would argue that it is a success, if only a modest one. A success because Parliament has shown itself to be one of the most responsive institutions, equipping itself with an ad hoc instrument - the Temporary Committee - to gather data and ideas on a question that affects us all and the impact of which we must face together, both now and in the future. A modest one because, despite all our efforts and the quality of participation and studies carried out, the result still lacks the bite that a resolution on this topic ought to have.

Climate change, as I have said many times, is an urgent and serious matter and requires targeted and effective instruments. Our key reason for creating this committee was to obtain cross-over between policies that have always been handled too separately. I hope that this cross-over can continue in the next Parliament and that this House will also continue to be involved in the Copenhagen negotiations.

What we need is global consensus, and for this we must have something to offer, above all to developing countries. At present the equal conditions that will convince people in developing countries to espouse this policy are still lacking. It is somewhat too Eurocentric and somewhat too compartmentalised as well. We are looking at a lifestyle change. Politically we need to make proposals that are focused firstly on this policy and then on a progressive de-materialisation of our lifestyle, since otherwise it will not be sustainable.

- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to President Florenz. In calling him president, I do so out of esteem and consideration for the commitment he has always shown to our Parliament.

In adopting the climate and energy package, the European Union has equipped itself with a legislative framework that gives it the right credentials to take a leading role. The recent open-mindedness shown by the new US administration gives us cause to hope for a future shared commitment with the United States to halt the consequences of climate change.

However, the full success of the initiative will be determined by the involvement of the economies of all the developing countries, such as China and India. As the Chinese environment minister made clear when he met with the delegation from the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, this will only be possible with firm support from the richer countries in the form of adequate financial resources to encourage sustainable development.

Progress has been made in this area with the Poznań conference and the decision to put the adjustment fund into operation, as well as the EUR 50 million for research and technological development allocated to developing countries to support the evolution of green technologies at global level.

We must ensure that Copenhagen marks a turning point in terms of practical joint commitment by stronger economies to create a fund that will guarantee a continual flow of funding for sustainable development in emerging countries. Only through commitments agreed at international level with the involvement of emerging countries will we succeed in safeguarding the environment from irreversible effects, while at the same time protecting the competitiveness of European businesses from the effects and socio-economic costs of environmental dumping on the world market.

- Mr President, I add my thanks to Mr Florenz for his report but I think, amidst all the congratulations to the rapporteur and to the committee for its work, we need to face some cold facts: the EU is still doing too little, too late.

I do not expect to be popular for saying so, but we need to be measuring the EU's progress not against what other countries are doing, but against what needs to be done. Against that measure we are still failing.

We are failing in not bringing sufficient ambition to this debate. The latest science tells us we need to be reducing emissions by around 9% year on year. The targets set out in this report and in the EU's climate package are simply not ambitious enough.

We are failing in not bringing enough urgency to this debate. If we are not well on the way to a zero-carbon economy in the next eight to ten years we will have lost the opportunity to have halted the worst of climate change.

We are failing in not being consistent. Today, we speak of renewables and energy efficiency. Yesterday, a majority in this House adopted the Laperrouze report which proudly upheld the role of coal in Europe.

We are failing in giving the impression that the climate change debate is all about giving things up, about doing without things. We need to get much better at showing real political leadership and demonstrating that action on climate change will bring us a better quality of life. It is not about shivering around a candle in a cave: it is about a future that can be more positive and attractive than today's.

So I commend to you the idea of adopting a green new deal for Europe, a way of addressing both the economic crisis and the climate crisis, with a major investment in energy efficiency and renewables, to create millions of new green jobs in Europe.

But that is not about kick-starting economic growth in a 'business as usual' direction. It is about an urgently-needed transition not to a Europe based on the ever-increasing consumption of natural resources, but to a steady-state economy for Europe; not more aggregate quantitative growth, but real qualitative development. That debate urgently needs to be begun, and the EU is very well placed to start it.

- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Florenz on a job well done; this report is a tribute to his consistent presence, attention and contribution.

It reflects the input he has made to the work of the committee, which has been skilfully chaired by Mr Sacconi, and has looked at the issues in depth, debated, and above all contributed to the part this Parliament played in adopting the climate package. President Pöttering, I too would urge you to consider how our work can and should continue in the run-up to Copenhagen.

For now, as regards the Florenz report, I think it would be a mistake to unbalance it with what are, at this point, ideological amendments on the question of nuclear power. They are unreasonable, out of context anywhere other than in the minds of their proponents, and alter our joint position. I would, however, ask my fellow Members to consider the inclusion of an amendment that I have tabled on the relationship between climate change and water. I believe this to be a valuable field in light of the growing attention it is receiving from international organisations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Environment Programme, which have highlighted this area as decisive for the future, and also in view of the upcoming World Water Forum in Istanbul.

- Mr President, I want to raise a voice of concern and caution in this frenzied debate about climate change, particularly as it could affect food production. We are told that the world population will spiral to nine billion by 2050, thus food production must correspondingly increase. Yet within this proposed climate change package we have emission-reduction demands which, if met, would reduce food production when we need it most.

I refer in particular to the targets on methane and nitrous oxide, and the assault on meat and dairy consumption. These reduction targets cannot be met without serious diminution in food production. Faced with the choice of feeding the world or ticking climate change correction boxes, I am afraid I am on the side of common sense and necessity.

- Mr President, we head now to Copenhagen, and my honourable friend's excellent report is a good - if I dare say it - road map, or rail map, on how we should get there.

Twenty per cent by 2020 was a start - but only a start. The package of climate measures that we have taken perhaps could have been better, but they were a start - they were a step forward. Now, with the changes in administration in the United States, we can no longer hide behind the United States' refusal to cooperate. With the Obama presidency, we have the opportunity to stop exchanging words and start exchanging ideas. We hear that a meeting will take place on 6 March 2009. The following week we are back here and I hope we will have a statement from the Council on the result of its meetings in Washington. With the United States, we can now move to that 30% target and beyond.

We are moving on now to ecodesign, realising here, as elsewhere, that it means tremendous new opportunities in innovation and jobs. We need to move on to shipping and to agricultural emissions. The Commissioner has referred to the urgent need to talk to the low-income countries in the developing world. They will be devastated, but they did not cause this problem. Islands will sink beneath the waves; malaria, respiratory disease, skin cancer and eyesight problems are already happening. Devastation will come to agriculture. They must take action, but they need our help.

Scientists, of course, can be wrong and so can politicians, as we saw with Mbeki and AIDS. I may be wrong about the possible flu pandemic. I may be wrong about the probable impact of global warming. However, the majority of scientists may be right; the majority of politicians may be right. I and we will be culpable on both issues if I and we fail to take action to ensure that neither happens.

- (FI) Madam President, the initiative by the Social Democrats to set up the Temporary Committee on Climate Change in spring 2007 is now bearing fruit. The outcome of inter-group negotiations and discussions is an emerging, ambitious, long-term agenda for action to curb climate change. For this I would sincerely like to thank the rapporteur, Karl-Heinz Florenz, and the shadow rapporteurs from all the groups who have collaborated excellently on this.

Many are sceptical about whether the Committee on Climate Change will bring added value to Parliament's work. Today we can see the benefit of having Members of Parliament, who view matters from different perspectives, working and listening together to the world's top experts. That leads to credible results, as we can see.

I am also sure that the very existence of the Committee and its work separately contributed to the fact that the climate package was got through so smoothly and swiftly last December. I also strongly support the appeal made by Guido Sacconi, the Committee's chairman, that the post-election Parliament should address this issue and ensure that there is the most robust approach here to issues concerning climate change.

The mindset in the European Union has long been that we need action to prevent climate change. We have, however, lacked the financial instruments. The Climate Fund, which has now been proposed and for which money would be collected from the proceeds of emissions trading auctions, is an important initiative, and I wish it every success for the future. We need it to bring about change in our industrial structure and so that we can really get somewhere with this new green deal.

- (SV) This report promises a great deal. It contains virtually every issue that has been mentioned in the climate debate over the last two years or more. Nevertheless, I think this piece of work lacks the punch, drive and force that are actually needed to pursue the political line that we have initiated in Europe with regard to climate issues.

No measures are proposed with regard to the protection of land and soil. As regards water resources, there is a whole package of proposals in the World Water Forum that could have been included. When it comes to energy efficiency, there are options that have not been included in areas where we have the opportunity for decision-making in Parliament. Alternative fuels are also treated with far too much restraint. In the very important area of health, the report focuses on the collection of facts and the control of mosquito bites, where, instead, we need major strategic decisions in Europe to cope with the effects of climate change on human health.

There are options here, too. In this regard, we needed to come up with more with regard to growth and jobs. It is, of course, possible to create jobs in Europe. They are needed here.

We need to anchor the measures in economic policy. In a few weeks' time, the Council of Ministers will meet to discuss the funding of the decisions that are to be made in Copenhagen - extremely important decisions, which we in Parliament could have had a great deal of influence over. Without this anchoring in economic policy and in a policy for work and growth, there is a risk of this report becoming 'like a candle in the wind', a nice document, but one lacking the drive and decisiveness that we need when it comes to these issues.

- (PL) Madam President, I feel as if I am at the inaugural conference of a newly-founded religion, a false religion, teeming with false prophets and ideas.

The very political powers which are trying to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a move which has no scientific basis and comes at the price of restricted human development, are the ones responsible for this crisis. The blame for this situation lies with those who, along society's path towards progress, aim to build a global government which includes the very bodies which will make an enormous profit from carbon trading whilst simultaneously brainwashing the little people with threats of climate change.

We must create a basis for development in the field of energy. In order to survive and develop, mankind needs new, powerful sources of energy, and Europe needs balance and self-sufficiency in terms of its energy supplies. Do you not understand this? If you create that which has been approved today, you reduce Europe's chances of competing with the rest of the world.

- (EL) Madam President, the Florenz report backs up the evaluations made by scientists and, to a large extent, shares citizens' concerns. It is a step ahead of the energy package approved by the Council in December, but we need to go beyond evaluations to specific measures, to regulations, to timetables, because climate change and its consequences are here and there is no time for further delay.

We must be careful not to allow the issue of nuclear energy, which is irrelevant to this report, to get into the report through the back door with cunning amendments, which is what some governments are seeking. We must ensure that this report, without changes that alter its balance, convinces the Council and the Commission to go one step further and not to use the economic crisis as an excuse to undermine the efforts made so far. Economic crisis and environment policy can go hand in hand to give us a positive result both for the environment and in creating jobs.

- (PL) Madam President, the main aim of environmental protection policies, much like the package of energy and climate policies involving dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, is to control and change the national economies into what we recognise from past experience as a centrally planned economy. The abstract concept of human influence on our climate is set to restrict development, including the use of fossil fuels, and introduce dangerous CCS technology which, in Poland's case, will make it difficult to exploit our natural resources, including rich geothermal energy sources.

Now that Poland's industry has been shut down as part of its efforts to meet European Union requirements, attempts are being made to not only force Poles to emigrate, but also to ensure that those who remain become paupers by imposing the highest energy prices of all of the Member States. One rhetorical question remains: is the main aim of the European Union's policy to bankrupt my countrymen and wipe Poland from the map of Europe?

- (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur Mr Florenz for an excellent and extensive report. It covers all major areas of social life that have a bearing on the dramatic increase in climate change. It is high time for us to prepare necessary measures within an EU context.

As a doctor I am interested particularly in health-related changes such as increases in diseases typically associated with tropical areas. We should bear this fact in mind when supporting the pharmaceutical industry, planning hospitals and in-patient facilities, training health professionals and, above all, systematically raising public awareness. As these diseases are rare in our part of the world, we can presume that they will take a much more dramatic course.

The situation in agriculture and in securing sufficient food for human consumption will also become very serious. I firmly believe that this report is far more important than other own-initiative reports and that it will provide a good basis for future Parliaments which will have to tackle the actual impact of climate change.

- Madam President, the time for talking is over and we know what needs to be done - at least those of us who accept the peer-reviewed science on the causes of the unprecedented rate of global warming and its critical impacts on all aspects of biodiversity, particularly on the poorest and most populated regions of our world. To my climate-sceptic friends, could I say that the precautionary principle should be considered. I would recommend it to them.

I should like to thank Karl-Heinz Florenz for his report. It adds to our sum of knowledge, representing, as it does, the horizontal views across a range of committees in this House, with one serious omission - that of the Committee on Fisheries, given the critical importance of the increasing acidification of our seas and oceans from increased CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

I have one question for Commissioner Dimas: following our first-reading agreement on my report on the revised EU-ETS six weeks ago, could the Commissioner put on record today exactly what work programme is in train for preparing the comitology decisions, particularly the timing and involvement of this Parliament and the stakeholders?

In conclusion, our target must be at least a 30% decrease in CO2 emissions by 2020 as part of a post-2012 global agreement, with at least an 80% decrease by 2050 - and that is the more important target. The result of the next eight months of climate diplomacy will write the text of our history books for generations and, as political leaders in our own communities and collectively, we cannot renege on our responsibility.

Commissioner, our climate and energy package must be accompanied by realistic funds, and we look to the summit in March - in six weeks' time - for our 27 leaders of state and government to be on-message and not to let us, the citizens of the EU, and the poorest and most climate-vulnerable communities in our world, down.

- Madam President, as this is the end of the work by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, I want to thank, firstly, Karl-Heinz Florenz for his work, but also - from my own group, the Socialist Group - Riitta Myller, Dorette Corbey and our Chair, Guido Sacconi. They have all done an excellent job and provided a good basis for the work in the future Parliament.

The report before us is long; it makes many points. I would just like to highlight one point, which some people have already touched upon, and that is the important link that we need to make between jobs and tackling climate change, and between getting out of the economic crisis and tackling climate change. Because, if we do not make that link and we do not get the economic recovery programmes right, people will start to say - and they are already saying it - that this climate change stuff was all very well when there was economic growth but we cannot afford to make all these investments now.

We have to argue very strongly, as people have here, that we cannot afford not to make those investments. I think those who talked about bankrupting their countries by doing this are very wrong. Their countries will become bankrupt unless we invest in renewable energies and unless we reduce our energy dependency on insecure sources of fossil fuels. So we have to get this package of measures right.

President Obama has already made this link in his talk about the economic recovery programme for the United States, and we need to do it here. Dorette Corbey talked about what can be done in the way of energy efficiency measures. If I look around my own constituency, Yorkshire, I can already see considerable investments in renewable technologies, in energy-efficiency measures in different companies. Now we have plans to develop carbon capture and storage in many of our power plants and major industries. This will create jobs and it will also help us cut our emissions, which of course is the object of all the work we have been doing.

- (DA) Madam President, as also envisaged in the report, the prevention of climate change must permeate our whole way of thinking when we are working in relevant legislative areas such as agriculture, fisheries, construction, development and foreign policy. Climate policy cannot stand alone, but needs to be incorporated into all of our legislation.

The EU's Heads of State or Government decided nearly two years ago that the EU should take the lead in order to secure a global climate agreement in Copenhagen. There is not much time left. We have now adopted our climate package within the EU here in Parliament. It could have been more ambitious, but it is in place, and we must now support the European negotiators to enable them to achieve an ambitious goal in Copenhagen. The package takes us up to 2020, but in this report we emphasise the need to start planning now what will happen after 2020. This is something that the governments of the EU need to take note of. We need to think long term. The financial crisis is not making things any easier, but we must view this crisis as a dynamic challenge. Let us use the crisis as an opportunity to get the badly needed development of renewable energy and energy-saving technologies off the ground. Let us create new jobs in the green industries of the future, rather than protecting jobs in the old industries of the past.

Finally, I am pleased to see that the need to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon is emphasised, as the EU must make it a specific objective to tackle climate change at international level in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon.

- (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, drawing up a climate policy is very important both from the environmental viewpoint and also in view of the need to modernise the energy sector. We should welcome the way in which account has been taken of Kyoto progress for those countries that have reduced emissions by more than 20% since 1990, as well as the effect of the closure of Ignalina on Lithuania's and Latvia's energy supplies, by providing for the possibility of compensation, but each Member State must prepare a clear energy efficiency strategy. Extra quotas for industry, while fostering its competitiveness, nonetheless make it difficult to obtain funding. I welcome the plan to simplify the procedures for obtaining European Union funding, and to increase the extent of lending by the European Investment Bank, especially to small- and medium-sized enterprises. In order for the 2020 targets to be achieved, we must create an EU-wide effective incentive system, supporting businesses and individuals that use or introduce renewable energy resources. This could be done by centrally covering part of the costs of making the changes. The Commission must work actively to ensure that the rest of the world follows our example, and to make our technologies accessible to developing countries. Thank you.

- (GA) Madam President, I welcome the definitive and thorough report from Mr Florenz and from the Temporary Committee on Climate Change.

Climate change is challenging our views on transport, land use, waste management, building work and energy use. The developing world did not create the conditions that are leading us toward irreversible damage, but they are the ones suffering the most. Europe must act as a pioneer and take charge of realistic, necessary measures on an international basis.

Forces which are not so progressive have attempted to use the economic downturn as an excuse not to fulfil the necessary climate commitments. This is completely short-sighted.

Unfortunately, in my own constituency, the Minister of the Environment, Sammy Wilson, is one of these short-sighted politicians who does not understand the scientific and practical realities of climate change. I hope that the Minister will come to his senses and address the question, something which is already being prioritised by the rest of Europe.

- Madam President, we have here an ambitious plan. A plan to do nothing less than save the world: a big job at the best of times. When the draft report was first presented by Mr Florenz to the committee, its first call to action was that we bear in mind that we humans are protectors of creation. This simple statement was the first to be attacked and removed. What was so objectionable to the committee? The word 'creation'. Why? Because creation has a creator.

It does not matter to me how the universe was created, or in what time frame. What is important to me is that there is a God and that we are stewards who must, as Amendment 22 puts it, safeguard creation. So, as I say, we are here today setting ourselves the task of saving the world, setting a course of action that will require the cooperation and sacrifice of everyone everywhere, a task which, to be successful, will also require the cooperation of the winds, water and the sun. But, even knowing this, we are at the same time making it clear, as we have done in the past with other great challenges, that we think we can take on the enormous and urgent challenges that face mankind without help from above. Well, all I can say is: good luck with it, and may God spare us.

- (PL) Madam President, I would also like to congratulate and thank Mr Florenz for his excellent report. I do not want discuss the details of this report. In my opinion, it should simply be adopted.

I would just like to return to the subject of the package on climate change, which was adopted in December, and to stress that the European Union really does have a very well-balanced package, which poses no threat to the economy. During numerous months of discussions on the subject, far-reaching amendments were made to this package. This has been our great achievement. I would now like to state what, in my opinion, are the biggest challenges facing the European Union. The first task that lies before us is providing adequate funding for the package we have approved, as well as the funding mentioned in Mr Florenz's report.

I was the rapporteur for the SET-Plan last year and we primarily discussed the fact that new technologies, which could introduce innovation and a new economic stimulus to the European economy, first need to be funded at European Union level. That is why I wanted to sincerely congratulate Commissioner Dimas, on behalf of the Commission, on the decision to earmark EUR 3.5 billion from unused funds for investment in research in the field of energy technology, which would also help to protect the environment. Commissioner, it is an excellent decision. We must now speedily examine it in Parliament. I would now like to turn to Minister Bursik: the Council also needs to speedily examine this initial decision of the European Commission.

Another very important issue is the fact that we need to base our work on a global agreement. That is the assumption behind Mr Florenz's report. Bilateral negotiations between two countries - Poland and Denmark - the hosts of COP 14 and COP 15, are not enough. We all have to contribute, and this includes European diplomats as well as the representatives of the Czech Presidency. Our diplomats should be involved in negotiations throughout the world, as without this global agreement, our package and Mr Florenz's report will have little meaning. That is what is most important to us today.

- (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the report by our fellow member, Mr Florenz, perfectly sums up the results of our long deliberations on this major problem of global warming.

We all know that the plans to be implemented are huge and that, above all, we must give ourselves the means to change our culture of unbridled development by promoting changes in our economy.

The problem now is to find out how we can implement all the report's recommendations. We must urgently find means of fighting global warming. The European Union's current budget is insufficient to achieve the related objectives; neither will we be able to resolve this major funding problem by calling on national budgets or private funds.

The European Commission estimates that an annual investment of EUR 175 billion is required to fight global warming. With a budget of EUR 76 billion, we are wide of the mark. The Commission will therefore draw up an inventory of all the existing instruments, but drafting proposals for the future financial framework will be a considerable undertaking.

To optimise all our actions regarding this climate crisis, we need new resources to create a European Fund on Climate Change, which can be funded by the emission quota exchange system and which will be used to support adaptation, alleviation, sustainable consumption and energy efficiency, and therefore a large part must be devoted to the poorest countries.

That requires political courage on the part of the Council, the Commission and members of this Parliament, but it is a necessary condition, essential if the planet is to take up this challenge.

There will be no future for our civilisation if we, as Europeans, do not take measures to impose self-discipline in order to preserve our climate. It is a major political act, a political act which is vital to give our continent and others a stable future....

(The President cut off the speaker)

(DE) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Florenz very much for his report, which, unfortunately, has not been a great success, probably partly as a result of the fact that it has been discussed very much in the shadow of the legislative package on climate change.

We must face up to the consequences of climate change; there is no question about that. It is only the means for doing so chosen by the report that I cannot fully support. Firstly, it is right that the EU should take the first steps to protect the climate, but it is not beneficial to rush on ahead alone without the involvement of partners. Europe leading the way is not enough to convince the rest of the world. A more viable approach must involve the industrial nations and at least China, India and Brazil, otherwise Europe's economy will remain unfairly burdened without there being any measureable effects on global CO2 emissions. Secondly, with our current level of knowledge, renewable energies cannot completely replace fossil energy sources. It may be motivating on a political level to demand that, but it is not realistic. The political will, as great as that may be, will not nullify any physical laws. Thirdly, biofuels are hailed as environmentally-friendly alternatives. Their negative side effects on food prices, which are rising as a result of these biofuels, and rainforests, which are being deforested, are not as yet under control. Fourthly, a means of mobility that protects resources in the long term is a reasonable goal. Providing incentives may help to achieve this goal. However, we should consider at what point state intervention is going too far and at what stage we can claim to have knowledge that we do not have today.

No one currently knows which technologies will best meet the mobility needs of individuals in 50 years' time and politicians certainly do not have any better idea of this than engineers do.

Although it started with good intentions, what remains, unfortunately, is a report full of wishful thinking in written form, with moral appeals and pointing fingers. Unfortunately, the German liberals cannot give their support to this.

- (PL) Madam President, it will take a good while yet until the politicians understand that it is not the burning of coal, but solar activity, which causes the phenomenon of climate change. It will take even longer to convince societies, which have been brainwashed by aggressive environmental propaganda, of this truth.

In view of the fact that the earth's climate is influenced by events which take place in space, we have to agree that human attempts to influence the climate are doomed to fail. The earth has experienced periods of global warming, and an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, on numerous occasions. However, global warming has always started a dozen or so centuries before any increase in carbon dioxide levels. During a period involving dramatic drops in temperature, the cooling of the climate was never prevented by the fact that, at that point, the air contained up to 10%, or more, carbon dioxide, in comparison to today.

If we acknowledged this fact, mankind would save billions of dollars by giving up pointless activities. The money saved could be spent on the fight against poverty and on new technologies. If we do not know what the deal is, then the deal is money, and emissions trading. Bravo. What a climatic masterstroke.

- Madam President, a mystique bordering on a religious creed has grown up around this alleged global warming. The environmental scientist has had a field day, but the natural world obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, subjects which I taught for 39 years.

The global warming theory has cast CO2, a natural constituent of the atmosphere, as a demon gas. It does have the effect - slightly - of trapping heat around the world, but how? You need to draw a graph showing how CO2 perhaps causes warming.

Is it an arithmetic graph - I must become technical - where equal rises in CO2 cause equal rises in warming? Is it an exponential graph - a runaway - where CO2 in extra amounts causes an ever-increasing rise in global warming? Or is it a logarithmic graph, where extra amounts of CO2 cause less and less extra warming, eventually becoming a flat line?

I suspected it to be the last, and the Hadley Centre, the UK's leading authority on this subject, confirmed that it is the last graph. We are nearly on the flat line, if not already there. Extra CO2 will have no more effect. There is no problem.

Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Florenz. This is a rich report with a great number of concrete proposals. A specific call is made to use the stimulus packages all over the world to promote clean energy and green technologies, stressing thereby that the financial crisis and the climate crisis have the same roots - unsustainable use of resources.

While I support the report, like Caroline Lucas I would have liked to see more attention paid to the most recent signs, which tell us that climate change is both more rapid and serious than we thought just a couple of years ago - contrary to what some colleagues here have said, in particular Mr Helmer. By the way, a recent screening of more than 900 climate articles in scientific journals - peer review - showed that not one of them questioned the main thrust of the IPCC.

What I am particularly concerned about is not CO2 emissions per se, but the positive feedback mechanisms that are now happening in the planetary system, like the acidification of the oceans, reduced albedo and the possible leaking of methane from thawing tundra. All these factors will accelerate warming. We can control emissions but we cannot control these factors.

This is the main reason why, in my opinion, emission reductions have to be much more ambitious in the near future than what is currently being discussed in the EU and by the UN.

This means, by the way, that the 2°C target has to be revisited and that greenhouse gas concentrations have to be lowered, rather than continuing to increase. That is why some of us advocate very strongly the 350 ppm target. This dimension of the problem is referred to in the report but only in passing. I would have liked it to be at the core of the report. My guess is that, only a few years from now, the feedbacks I mentioned will be at the centre of the debate.

Finally, let me just endorse what Guido Sacconi said. In spite of its shortcomings, a temporary committee has been the right way to deal with a horizontal issue like this. I hope the next Parliament will build on our experience and deal with climate change and sustainability in a similar way.

- (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, we all agree that Copenhagen must be crowned with success, because both the credibility of the political world and the survival of future generations are at stake. Our proposals must be targeted on development, employment and solidarity: the three watchwords which will mark the future of coming generations. What is needed from us today? Responsibility and decisiveness are needed to ensure adequate funding for this major climate change development plan and new dynamic development agreements over and above and separately from restrictive trade agreements.

However, there is one concern about our tactics and we need, first of all, to convince society at large and then proceed dynamically to integrate certain productive sectors into the quantum leap by agriculture: that is why we need to remember that agriculture has already been included in the national commitments to reduce emissions by 10% by 2020, that there are already important proposals from the CAP for environmentally-friendly agricultural practices and that international agreements on agriculture must be reciprocal for all international partners.

Commissioner, the food model is directly connected to the climate model and all we have to do is conscientiously convince society itself. Climate change is bringing about broader democratic participation by society, a society which lives with different cultural values.

- (NL) It is with a great deal of pleasure that I worked with Mr Florenz and all the others in the temporary committee. We have laid the desperately needed foundation for a policy that will be more integrated and ambitious in future, and can count on widespread support, even here in Parliament in the framework of the 20-20-20 objective.

The answer lies in making the economy green and making businesses, households and the government sustainable. Entrepreneurs canvassing support for such an approach - the development of sustainable initiatives for this green technology - are still running into a huge number of obstacles. If they want qualifications for workers, they are up against policy that is very compartmentalised. This report calls for an integrated approach that also hangs together territorially. If you do not do this, you will lose out in the end.

Fortunately, my amendment on the use of regions and cities has been adopted. Next week, in the buildings of Parliament, 150 cities will be signing a mayors' covenant with the Commission. They will be following the conclusions of this report, close to the citizens and close to business. This is the right approach, in my view. As such, this approach can count on my backing. I am opposed to the over-simplified approach towards the agricultural sector in Paragraph 189, though. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is not against the consumption of meat, and rightly so. As such, we will oppose this paragraph.

Finally, I would ask the Commission, in future, to adopt a more integrated approach and reduce compartmentalisation to a minimum. In tandem with Parliament, a significant milestone could be achieved, in the combination of legislation, stimulating policy and activation at the decentralised level. A great deal can be done there.

(ES) Madam President, firstly I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his generosity and open-mindedness as well as all the groups that participated in this political exercise and debate on both background issues and the future. This has had the benefit of providing us with information and clarification and given us the necessary courage twinned with prudence to address other important, parallel legislative actions, also of high risk, such as the climate change package, the policy on vehicles, the Lisbon Strategy and sectors such as energy, transport, industry and tourism.

I think that this has been a good exercise and, more importantly, a way of irreversibly embracing the 21st century and, as the Commissioner said, of showing the example that we want to set for the future.

This exercise has been an example of comparison and generosity that has come at the right time, at a moment of crisis with significant social risks and the possibility of protectionism and a step backwards. There is also massive uncertainty which means that security is so important. However, we must also look to the future.

This is a new era for the United States, as has been said, and we hope for the European Union too after ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which we expect soon.

It is also a new era, and this is important, in which there are risks but also immense opportunities in huge new areas and policies. This is the case in Brazil, China and Russia, the great emerging powers, and also in major regions such as Latin America and developing countries, in Africa in particular.

I think that this is a decisive step towards a new model for development and economic and social growth, but there is a need for sustainability and reduction of impacts. However, Commissioner, Madam President, we still have the challenge of putting it across to our citizens.

I would just like to end by emphasising the advances made in introducing adaptations regarding water supply and drought as well as in sustainable mobility that I think we have ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(DE) Madam President, the Florenz report actually contains a lot of good suggestions. One good thing about the climate debate is that it will act as a catalyst for the transition into the age of renewable energies. This is shown very clearly in the report along with many opportunities for new technologies and economic development.

However, I think it is a shame that we have excluded large areas of science. Studies and scientists that approach the subject of climate change with less gloomy scenarios or perhaps even positively, have simply been ignored. Corresponding applications were rejected by the majority, and that was that. Science is only what fits into the political concept. This will not work, because science does not allow itself to be manipulated. Thus, the report will, unfortunately, hit rocky ground in the end.

Anyone who, on this basis, demands a reduction in CO2 of 80% or more is jeopardising the economy and social achievement. Anyone who, at the same time, demands the abandonment of nuclear power is consciously closing his eyes to reality. Anyone who demands accounting standards for all areas of human life is at odds with the fundamental idea of freedom. Anyone who demands new laws for soil and agriculture is abusing the climate debate for the purposes of implementing sanctions that he or she wanted to implement anyway but which have nothing to do with climate change. And anyone who demands protective clothing against the effects of the climate is deliberately stirring up anxiety.

I hope that these radical and misplaced ideologies will not be included in the report. I will then be able to support the report, as protection of the environment is very important to me, particularly when it can be combined with social achievement and economic competitiveness.

- (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Temporary Committee on Climate Change has done a very good job. Today we have in front of us the final report to be put to the vote. It indicates how we, as the European Parliament, envisage future climate policy and what measures need to be taken as regards adaptation to climate change.

I hope that, when the next legislative process is due, we in Parliament also reach such a high level of agreement so that what we have documented in this report will be put into practice. Through the committee's method of working, this report has also succeeded in achieving a horizontal viewpoint. I have to say that we ought to maintain this committee's method of working in the next parliamentary term, too, as Mr Sacconi has just suggested.

The fight against climate change cannot be waged by Europe alone. We must also get other continents and countries on board. The committee has also done a good job in this regard, because we, as Parliament, have for the first time become visible in matters of climate diplomacy and I would like to emphasise this once again in this House.

When we talk about adaptation measures then we are also talking about funding. In this regard, I would like, once again, to call on the other two institutions, the Commission and the Council, to give this matter top priority in the next Financial Perspective.

We can adopt the most wonderful reports here, but if there is no money available for the measures then the report will come to nothing. We should also look once more at the extent to which the financial measures that we are already taking are having an effect, and let us please have this summarised in an audit.

- (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, as the European Union has ambitions of becoming the leader in the international fight against global warming, it must not only formulate climate protection targets but it must also implement them through political measures. The cross-sectional report of Mr Florenz confirms that the fight against climate change must be based on a horizontal approach and it must be taken into account in all legal regulations.

Water plays a central role in climate change. We must realize that the consequences of climate change on the water regime may cause a domino effect and may impact on many sectors of the economy. The ever-increasing worldwide problems with water require a coordinated water management policy from the Member States and the introduction of environmental principles into an integrated management of water resources.

We must initiate programmes for creating surface storage facilities for rain water in forested, agricultural and urban areas through legislative instruments and through non-investment and investment measures which will make a fundamental contribution to rainwater storage in the countryside. Until now rainwater has been regarded as waste water which had to be disposed of as quickly as possible. The new approach for water is based on the principle that rainwater is the key to life. I am delighted that it will be introduced by an expert group of Czech and Slovak scientists. This is an interesting approach, Minister Bursík. I believe that it will win your support.

It is not possible to have a sustainable way of life without contributions from the economy, science, the media, voluntary sector and private citizens. It is important not to give up on such a complex problem. We face a challenge and we must act now because our actions today will determine our future. Our central aim must be not to deprive future generations of the basics of life which we have received from God.

We will prevail in global competition only if we can bring efficient, innovative and intelligent technologies to the market in a transparent manner and without bureaucratic obstacles. We will prevail only if we give the 'green light' to all progressive solutions in Europe.

- (LT) I congratulate the rapporteur and all like-minded people, who are challenging the threat posed by climate change. Residents of Lithuania and the other Baltic countries really thirst for a European electric energy network. If it is not created within a few years, talk of energy security will remain nothing more than talk. The call to increase Structural Fund money, used to heat multi-apartment dwellings, is very important. Miracles rarely happen. However, the extension of Ignalina NPP's working life, a miracle still hoped for in Lithuania, would reduce pollution and would allow GDP to remain at 4-5% annually, which is particularly necessary for a state affected and damaged so much by the economic crisis. Confronted with the crisis, an increasing number of EU citizens are thinking more about survival than about halting climate change, but if we are able to give up our wasteful way of life and become thriftier, not only will we save the environment and stop the planet from overheating, we will replenish our pockets. By making strict savings in everyday life, when using resources, and by giving up short car journeys, it is possible to save as much as EUR 1 000 a year.

- (FR) Madam President, one might have said that this report was redundant, following the vote on the energy and climate change package last December. However, this report has the merit that it is a very good summary of what we must consider for the fight against climate change, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, Karl-Heinz Florenz, who demonstrated such vision in drafting this report.

Let us go beyond discussion. Let us make sure that the Member States make a solid commitment. I agree with my fellow Members who pointed out the need for a budget which is in keeping with our ambitions. After the success story of the energy and climate change package, under the French Presidency, we must do all we can to reach a satisfactory international agreement in Copenhagen.

Yet, there is something we should be worried about. 2009 is a European election year, when the European Commission will change. We are most concerned when we read the statements by the President of the Czech Republic, who maintains that global warming does not exist.

Even if he is right, our whole plan to fight climate change is a response to the serious economic crisis we are now experiencing. The decline in energy resources, the need for energy security, deforestation, the suffocation of our great cities which are home to the majority of the population, the necessity, therefore, to use sustainable transport, the endless famine throughout the world and the need to nourish the planet; everything supports the solutions proposed to fight climate change.

We are entering the era of sustainable growth, this third industrial revolution which is a great asset for research, innovation, employment and competitiveness in our businesses. As for energy efficiency, it should already be part of all the recovery plans, because it relies on innovative technologies. It is a way of reducing energy bills, which will please consumers. By reducing fossil energy consumption, the European Union regains more independence and emits less carbon, and there are thousands of new jobs at stake.

Yes, the fight against climate change is one of the responses to the economic crisis. It will become this through the development of a low-carbon economy, with the support of local communities, business, scientists and all citizens.

(RO) The report presents both scientific data and recommendations for combating climate change, referring both to adaptation and the reduction in the causes of this problem. Combating climate change is not only an obligation so that we can guarantee the future for the generations to come, but it is also an opportunity for reviving the global economy.

I urge the importance of energy efficiency to be reflected in both the Community budget and in the financial instruments available. Making transport more efficient through the use of intelligent transport systems, promoting transport by rail and ship, ensuring intermodal development and investments in greener cars are measures which will help cut the emissions generated by this sector.

I have recommended the development of greener forms of tourism such as sports tourism or cultural tourism. I would also like to stress that the tourist destinations of excellence should be those which respect and protect the environment. I feel that we must consider creating an international fund for planting trees on unused landmass.

I would like to end by saying that we need to carry out research in the field of medical science and in the pharmaceutical industry aimed at producing medicines and vaccines which will be available to the entire population affected by certain illnesses at an affordable price.

- (HU) Madam President, today, climate change and transport are inseparable while, at the same time, our hard-won and closely guarded mobility, the free movement of people, goods and capital, can only be continued in future if we make changes and resolve to take firm steps in this regard. As theme leader for the fifth key theme, transport, on the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, I encourage the adoption and simultaneous implementation of a comprehensive package.

What is needed? First, the economic environment must be transformed, with a two-fold goal: first, to support eco-innovation by means of taxes and public procurement, and secondly, to actually apply the 'polluter pays' principle. Eco-innovation is needed in motor vehicle technology to develop alternative fuels for that sector, for intelligent transport solutions and logistics management systems. The 'polluter pays' principle must be applied to all vehicles as well as in emissions trading and the incorporation of external costs.

Every initiative we have launched must be speeded up. It is not enough to talk about these things: we must make them a reality. What sort of things, for example? A common European airspace, a single European sky and our management systems. These must be effectively implemented because we will be able to regulate industry and consumption successfully once we have completed our own tasks.

Above all, we must deal with our cities and other difficult areas. Ultimately, this is perhaps the most difficult task. We must foster a new transport culture and strive for a much more effective use of the tools currently at our disposal. We would like to thank Karl-Heinz Florenz because with this report we now have a credible, multi-layered roadmap, providing the basis on which we can begin implementing our goals and sit boldly at the negotiating table in Copenhagen, asking everyone to join us.

- (PL) Madam President, in the preamble to Mr Florenz's report, which we are discussing today, he refers to his earlier report on the scientific facts behind climate change. Unfortunately, I found no facts in that report, only a belief in the infallibility of IPCC reports. Neither the present resolution nor the one of May 2008 can thus, in any way, legitimise the political decisions of the European Commission, as they lack an objective, scientific approach. Only a cohesive model of climate change, which takes into account all variables, such as the impact of greenhouse gases, suspended particles and, above all, solar activity, could provide a justification for these decisions.

The report, which contains one-sided information highlighting the hypothetical mechanisms behind global warming, such as CO2 emissions, ignores the need for an international fight against the real impact of climate change. The Temporary Committee on Climate Change has focused, in a biased manner, on the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and has only mentioned in passing the fight against the real impact of climate change.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur, who has indeed tried to achieve as much as possible for all of us.

Agriculture is particularly affected by climate change, as its products are produced in the open air. We think of droughts and desertification, as we are seeing in southern Italy, for example, or of other extreme weather phenomena, such as unexpected rain and hail showers or floods, which often affect the livelihoods of our farmers.

Agriculture is often depicted as the big cause of climate change. Around 10% of global greenhouse gases are produced in agriculture, most of which, however, are gases of natural origin, such as methane.

In my opinion, agriculture is, on the contrary, leading the way in the fight against climate change. I would like to document the following with a study from Austria from 2008: through plants such as grass, maize and cereals and the soil, agriculture and forestry consume and bind considerably more greenhouse gases than they generate. According to the study from 2008, the emissions from agriculture and forestry of approximately 8 million tonnes CO2 equivalent per year compare in total with a binding effect of 58 million tonnes CO2 or CO2 equivalents. This shows that agriculture should not be depicted as an environmental villain. Quite the opposite. Here are some more figures: since 1990, agriculture in Austria has reduced its CO2 emissions by 1.3 million tonnes.

Energy is another important area in which agriculture contributes to the fight against climate change. For example, agriculture in Austria consumes approximately 2.2% of the energy generated. The proportion of renewable energy is 23%, a large share of which again belongs to agriculture.

Finally, I would like to say the following. Great importance must...

(The President cut off the speaker)

- (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Florenz sincerely for the excellent work he has done as rapporteur. Our greatest challenge now is to establish the next international climate treaty. The two most awkward issues for the treaty are the emission reduction targets of different countries and how the industrialised countries will contribute to the financing of investments in climate mitigation in the developing countries. In both these matters the EU needs to raise its sights, although in theory we can be proud of the fact that we have always been leading on global climate protection.

The latest research suggests that a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020 will not be enough - the targets need to be made more stringent. As for financing climate measures in the developing countries, I regret that in its new communication the Commission still made very general observations and did not propose sufficiently concrete models.

In different contexts, including the debate on the climate package, we in Parliament have shown we are prepared to contribute significantly to the effort to reduce emissions in the developing countries. This is one of those areas where the EU should also encourage the new President of the United States to adopt a new line. Up till now, the United States has not said anything about how prepared it is to support emission reduction targets in the developing countries. Climate protection can be accomplished, but the measures need to be swift and consistent.

- Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. I shall be very specific in relation to agriculture and to two paragraphs in the report which I think are not necessary. The report would perhaps be better without them. They are very specific in relation to meat consumption and I do not think there is a place for these paragraphs in the report.

The following paragraph on feed rations ignores the reality of research that has been going on for a long number of years in many Member States seeking to do exactly what it says in this paragraph, which is therefore out of date with reality.

One of the areas that I think needs to be enhanced is the communication of how farmers and those who use the land can farm in a way that is more 'climatically friendly'. I think there has been a failure of the researchers to work with the farmers, and we need more effort in relation to extension services to get the message across, to encourage and not to coerce.

- (BG) Ladies and gentlemen, obviously climate change is much the focus of European, and not just European, policy.

Neither one country, nor a union can separately and independently handle the challenges of climate change. Therefore we need to integrate policies on a horizontal and vertical plane. Policy, legislation and finances must work together. The report provides a fantastic platform for this.

I would like to shift focus to two facts, without which we are not able to do our work in benefit for the battle against climate change. Science: in the report special attention is made to new technologies, but we must talk more about science and target investments in science, through which solutions must be sought. Without this we are left to triviality and the mundane.

Scientific research is our basis. New technologies, developed by business and science in tandem, are our future. I appeal for investing in science and designating climate change as an important priority for all EU scientific programmes.

- (LT) In the fight against climate change we must attach great importance to the transport sector which at present emits almost a third of the EU's CO2 emissions. The transport sector must reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020. In striving for these goals it is essential to implement a stable package of transport policy measures, which would include ecological innovations, the taxing of CO2 emissions, changes in driving and car use habits and other measures. I would like to draw attention to the fact that in some Member States VAT is being increased due to the financial crisis and the economic recession, and a situation has arisen where people find it cheaper to travel by car because of high public transport fares. Therefore, I would like to urge states to apply tax incentives and encourage people to use public transport. It is also important to encourage the use of trains, by investing in the development of rail infrastructure. Let me remind you that over a kilometre a train emits on average 3 times less CO2 than a car and as much as 8 times less than a plane.

- (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we can congratulate ourselves on the broad consensus here, but we nevertheless remain in isolation: Commissioner for the Environment, Ministers for the Environment, how important is the environment for the Commission and for the Councils and governments? We know how important.

I myself was not at all in favour of setting up this committee because I think that nothing is better at isolating something than creating a new committee. In France, we speak of a 'Théodule committee'.

I wonder about the future of this report from the point of view of its integration into European policies. I would just like to remind those Members who were there in 1992 that there was an excellent report on sustainable development. No sooner had it been adopted - what is more, unanimously - this excellent report was buried completely. Perhaps if we had introduced it into European policies, we would not be here now.

I would like to speak to the rapporteur, who denies that he is presenting a political project. Mr Florenz, it is a political project you are presenting, because it is a complete reorientation of European policies, in terms of agriculture, fishing and transport. So, yes, we must be more ambitious and we await the results.

(DE) Madam President, taking the consequences of climate change seriously means listening to all of the various sides of the debate, including that of science. We had a lot of experts in the committee, that is true. Unfortunately, however, they represented only one view. We did not get the chance to hear all sides of the debate. I think this was a mistake.

We had an initial draft of Mr Florenz's report, which was considerably better than the one we have before us today on which we are to base our decision. Many of the suggestions that are currently included are fine, but, in my opinion, a lot of them are wrong. It makes no sense constantly to resort to new regulations and new measures. The only solution can be to say 'yes' to innovation and 'yes' to research. The solution lies in assuming individual responsibility and not in ever increasing state regulations. There are numerous nonsensical regulations, such as the accounting obligation, prevention of and sanctions on the consumption of meat, calumnies on agriculture and many others. In my opinion, this is the wrong way to go and I therefore find this report problematic as it currently stands.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, I have realised that the distinguished Members of the Parliament are using their native languages. I have no doubt that the interpreters speak one thousand per cent better English than me, so, if you will allow me, I will speak Czech and try to react to this debate in the European Parliament.

(CS) I would like to express my appreciation for the depth of the discussion in the European Parliament, for its businesslike approach and also for the responsible attitude of the MEPs. There are about seven points from the discussion which I would like to pick up on. Firstly, I would like to underline the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since in some of the speeches the IPCC findings have been called into question. In my opinion, it is to some extent a disadvantage that the quarterly reports issued by the IPCC on material facts relating to climate change and on adaptations and mitigations are around 1200 to 1400 pages long, comprising a highly detailed scientific work complete with references to relevant scientific literature. However, a summary is later compiled from these reports and it ends as a 'summary for policy makers' which is about 20 pages long and no longer includes any references. In my opinion, many misunderstandings arise from the fact that we, as policy makers, do not have the time - and I apologise if this does not apply to you - to read those 1200 or 1500 pages. It is important to emphasise that the IPCC has not only been awarded a Nobel Prize, but at the Bali climate conference it was agreed by the 192 participating states that this was the most comprehensive and highest quality scientific resource, the most consistent information at our disposal for deciding on whether and how to react to climate change. This was the view of the 192 national representatives and this is also my response to some of the suggestions of alarmism, an argument I have become used to in my own country.

In my opinion, we have a very good starting point in 2009. On the one hand, we are speaking with one voice again as the European Union. The enormous value of this was brought home to me in Bali. We managed to achieve considerable progress in the negotiations with our G77 partners and other economies and we were in fact the only major global economy to press for the adoption of a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 % by 2020. The second hope at the start of this year is the change in the United States as many of you here have mentioned. The way I see the problem is that somewhere in Copenhagen is a room with around 200 locks to its door. If we manage to open all those locks then we will conclude a new global agreement on climate protection to run from 2013. In my opinion, we have now opened the first lock, which is the European Union. The second lock in the series is the United States and that is why we are putting so much emphasis on making contact as quickly as possible with the new US administration and why we are planning a joint visit in the Troika together with the upcoming Swedish presidency and the Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas. And that is my response to the comment from Jerzy Buzek, in other words we are definitely not intending to lead the international negotiations by ourselves. Not at all. We intend to coordinate the negotiations. Denmark obviously has an enormous interest in the success of the Copenhagen conference. In the closed ministerial sessions of the informal Spring European Council we intend to report on the progress of bilateral negotiations over the international climate change agreement. We will also jointly try to define a future strategy on how to coordinate international negotiations with, of course, the involvement of diplomats. In addition to this, we will negotiate the adaptations, which will be the main theme of the informal Spring Council in Prague.

The next item in my response relates to the fact that we have arrived at an interesting juncture, as EU efforts towards an ambitious and active climate change policy have suddenly come up against the effects of the financial and economic crisis. In this context, I consider it very positive that the voices calling for a postponement of our long-term climate change targets are few and far between. On the contrary, the great majority of voices - here in the European Parliament too, for which I am very grateful - are calling for us to use this coincidence and treat it as an opportunity, since that would offer a 'six-win' strategy, in other words a 'win, win, win, win, win, win' strategy, because if individual economies are prepared to respond to the financial and economic crisis by investing - and even the most conservative economists are prepared to allow exceptions - then this represents an opportunity to transform our current economy into a low-carbon economy and to support modern environmental technologies. Why the six 'wins'? Because we will save money on energy through energy-saving measures. Because we will reduce our dependency on imported energy, because we will reduce our consumption of non-renewable natural resources, because we will create new jobs - and do not forget that the various plans within Europe for responding to the financial and economic crisis will create new employment opportunities right in the area of 'green jobs' and around new environmental technologies for renewable energy sources and energy saving - and at the same time we shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Czech Presidency therefore views this situation as an exceptional opportunity for changing paradigms of behaviour and for directing our economy towards greater sustainability. The greatest opportunity for changing the economy is in the global market for carbon. Compared to the environmental policy in the 1970s, when we relied on banning and injunctions and mainly employed a so-called 'end of pipe' policy, we find ourselves in 2009 making far greater use of financial instruments to help the environment. In my opinion, the fact that the climate-energy package includes a new emissions trading system based on auctions provides an excellent foundation for creating a global market in carbon. Let us consider the ambition. In 2013, electrical energy auctions will gradually take place and by 2015, we want to see a global market in carbon at an OECD level. We are therefore very closely monitoring developments in the US and how the process for adopting the 'Cap and Trade' system will look in the US Congress.

Another point I would like to mention is the role of renewable energy sources and also energy saving. In our negotiations with developing countries we must offer something, we must offer these countries economic development but at the same time we must offer the sort of development that will ensure the fulfilment of the targets identified by the IPCC and adopted by us as politicians. And here renewable energy sources will play an absolutely key role as we basically have two possible options. There are billions of people without access to electricity but with a desperate wish for electricity simply because it is such an attractive prospect for consumers and an aspiration nobody can be blamed for. The fact is that these people will either have to go to the cities for electricity that is distributed in the current conventional manner - large centralised sources, distribution grids, a burden on the environment - or electricity will come to them in the places where they have lived for generations and where they can continue their traditional way of life in harmony with nature. The second option will be possible only through decentralised renewable electricity. In other words, we who are developing the technology for renewable energy sources in Europe are doing so not only for the developed countries but also in order to increase the number of installations worldwide, to reduce investment and operating costs and to make these technologies accessible to people in developing countries. This is an enormous political task facing us in relation to developing countries.

I would like to end by assuring you that the Czech Presidency has truly extensive ambitions for achieving progress in the climate change negotiations. We will be taking a very intensive lead in international negotiations. I would also like to assure you about the consistency of the Czech Presidency and if the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic defended the Czech President Klaus here in the debate in the European Parliament, then in the area of climate change and climate change policy I must distance myself from these statements and the position of the Czech President. I want and to assure that the position of the Czech Presidency is determined by the Czech Government. I ask you to bear in mind that in spite of whatever statements you might still hear over the course of the Czech Presidency - as our president is also preparing to visit the US - that the climate policy is formulated by the Czech Government and we are united in our view and we are working together with the Commission and the upcoming Swedish Presidency in the Troika. This concludes my statement. I would like to thank you very much once again for a highly productive, businesslike and, above all, responsible discussion at this honourable assembly.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, we are also looking forward to continuing to work closely with the Czech Presidency, the Czech Government and specifically with Minister Martin Bursík. I am sure that during the first semester of 2009 we will advance the negotiations considerably.

I would like to thank all the speakers in today's discussion for their positive contributions.

As the title of your report indicates, what happens to the world's climate in 2015 and beyond will depend on what action the international community decides now. Building on the solid scientific advice at our disposal, and insisting that negotiations must be guided by science, remains vital. We need to communicate the scientific findings to a broader public, and enhance consumer awareness of greenhouse gas impacts on lifestyles and consumption patterns.

Such increased awareness, however, needs to be accompanied by strong economic incentives for business to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the goods and services they provide. A transition to a low-carbon economy is needed at a global scale, and can only be achieved through comprehensive and integrated action to address emissions in all sectors.

Only by being ambitious now can we keep the door open to stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gases at lower levels, should the IPCC in future indicate that this is necessary. Together with the Commission, I am convinced that you also have an important role in echoing these important messages.

2009 will be a crucial year for the global climate change negotiations. For the Commission, 2009 will be a year of implementation: we are working on an implementation road map. There are about 15 measures that we need to take through comitology; there is a list of deadlines in the revised ETS that we are going to meet: for example, the list of sectors for carbon leakage should be ready by December 2009. There will be a big stakeholders' meeting on 30 March 2009. The bulk of the work will be done during the summer and, by the end of 2009, we shall have this list dealt with.

The harmonised rules on auctioning should be ready by June 2010. There will be a big stakeholders' meeting in February, and all these deadlines and work programmes are available to you. But 2009, as I said, is going to be a crucial year for the global climate change negotiations.

The world is expected to agree on further international action to tackle climate change at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December. However, a deal in Copenhagen is by no means a given: much work remains to be done.

The climate change and energy package gave us a head start in this transition and provided an excellent basis to prove that ambitious climate policy is not only possible but also broadly beneficial to our economies and societies. The Copenhagen Communication is the basis for further elaborating the European Union's positions on those key elements, enabling us to maintain our leadership and help lead the negotiations to a success in Copenhagen.

It is clear that the climate change challenge cannot be solved without significantly stepping up the financing of, and investment in, clean technology, as well as measures to adapt to the inevitable climate change impacts. Required amounts for developing countries are estimated to go up to EUR 120-150 billion annually in 2020.

Until 2020, this financing can, for a large part, come from the private-sector households in developing countries. For instance, the major part of reductions in the energy sector will come from efficiency improvements that will pay for themselves. These may partly be supported by international loan arrangements in order to mobilise international private finance.

Another significant part of additional financing and investment will be mobilised through the carbon market, both from the proceeds of the future auctioning of carbon allowances and via carbon credits under the CDM. The European Union in its climate and energy package has created significant demand for CDM credits until 2020. This is likely to spur the deployment of clean technologies in developing countries.

However, the poorer the developing countries are, the more they will require further public financial assistance from developed countries. Without this assistance they will not be able to sufficiently reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Without this assistance the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer the consequences of climate change. Without this assistance there will be no deal in Copenhagen.

The question is: how can we make sure that these additional public financial flows will be predictable, be spent transparently and effectively, and that the contributions to those flows will be shared internationally?

In addition to our contributions to the United Nations negotiations, we see that, following the success of the European Union's emissions trading system, carbon markets are being established in many parts of the world. Australia has announced the core elements of its system. In autumn 2008, shortly after his election, US President Obama reaffirmed his goal to create a US-wide carbon market.

Together, these trading systems could form the nucleus of an evolving future global carbon market. As I have already stressed, the European Union's challenge now is to facilitate the development of such linked carbon markets, in particular among OECD countries by 2015.

In the Copenhagen Communication, the Commission has addressed these questions by putting forward concrete proposals - proposals that are not only ambitious but also realistic, and will make a significant contribution to the success in Copenhagen that our planet so desperately needs.

Let me conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, Mr Florenz and Parliament for their strong support for our proposals and for the seriousness and speed with which they have handled the package.

(Applause)

rapporteur. - (DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, I am very pleased that, in the closing stages of this Temporary Committee, this issue has been met with such strong interest, and for that I am most warmly appreciative. I would also like to thank all those who have contributed to this debate and all those who have worked with us. We have produced a roadmap to take us to Copenhagen, which naturally contains signposts as well as stop signs and unrestricted travel signs, but also signs that indicate that there are difficult roads ahead. We have discussed this here today.

I am pleased that there have been critical comments, some of which we can take on board. The suggestion from Mr Holm for the citizens of Europe to stop eating meat is, I am sorry to say, quite ludicrous, but we all have our own opinions. There will be a successful outcome in the end and everyone will have contributed to this. Once again, you have my sincere thanks.

- The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Ladies and gentlemen, during the last few months we have seen what the credit crunch means, as the global economy is affected by an unprecedented crisis. However, climate, food and social crises are also making their impact felt just as much.

In Romania, we have faced falls in production in recent years due to external causes such as floods, drought and bird flu, with problems of an economic nature coming on top of this over the last few months. During the current financial crisis, it is going to be increasingly difficult for us to cover losses triggered by floods and drought using the state budget. During the whole time I have been on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have supported the idea of creating standalone intervention mechanisms at Community level, regardless of the value of the national ceilings.

I also believe that, faced with a challenge of this magnitude, we need to give priority to investments in clean technologies and renewable energy. These provide a solution to the climate crisis, while also revitalising the economy through creating new jobs. As part of our European mandate, it is our duty to persuade our governments to invest more in innovation and new environment-related technologies.

in writing. - Tackling climate change at this moment of deep financial turmoil and decreased confidence in economic systems may seem for many a mistake in terms of priorities. Going 'green' is costly, and the efforts necessary for the fundamental restructuring of many sectors in order to achieve ambitious targets are tremendous.

Nevertheless, there are many opportunities to be seized in 'green' investments and policies as elements favouring economic recovery and stability. The development of a low-emission economy is a genuine challenge we cannot afford not to deal with. We need ambitious but still feasible targets and we need not be afraid to walk the path of an inevitable industrial revolution. In order to secure economic recovery and better living conditions for our citizens, a complex and ambitious approach is required, fostering innovation and the development of new jobs and businesses in the framework of 'green' technologies.

Finally, sufficient financial means are of course necessary to make the required investments in 'green' innovation and, obviously, these costs cannot simply be made at the expense of other vital Community policies which cannot bear the burden of climate change without additional financial resources.

One of the most serious long-term consequences of climate change is the decrease in fresh water sources and the increasing scarcity of clean drinking water. It is no exaggeration to say that water will be the most important strategic asset of the 21st century. Europe's environmental protection policy must therefore be applied more rigorously than it has been until now to protect water tables, prevent water and soil pollution and support appropriate handling of natural and artificial water habitats.

Alternating periods of flood and drought, as well as extreme weather conditions, demand better management of rainwater. There is no such thing as superfluous water, only poorly managed water. In the next parliamentary cycle and the new budget, the European Union must ensure that significant funds are available for flood prevention, protection of water tables, increasing urban bodies of fresh water and waste water treatment programmes. Hungary's water resources are excellent and Hungarian hydraulic engineers have been doing a wonderful job for nearly 200 years. Therefore, I am certain that our country will play an active and constructive role in drafting a unified European water policy.

in writing. - (PL) In taking the floor during this debate on climate protection policy up to 2050, I would like to draw your attention to the following points.

Firstly, if the United States and the South-East Asian countries do not join the programme aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, showing as much commitment as the European Union, then the enormous financial effort involved and the inevitable consequence of a slower rate of economic growth in the European Union will be a very high price to pay for a slight reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The European Union is responsible for barely 14% of global emissions, while the USA and the countries of South-East Asia produce nearly 80%.

Secondly, the commitments of individuals countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020, along with the need to buy emission permits, will result in a significant increase in the price of electricity and heating for individuals and even higher costs for the industrial sector, especially in the new Member States, such as Poland, where the energy sector relies on coal. As a result, many industrial sectors which have a high level of energy consumption may be shut down in those countries, entailing a range of negative social repercussions.

Finally, the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions achieved by the new Member States, and by Poland in particular, should be taken into account. In Poland, the far-reaching restructuring of the economy between 1990 and 2005, resulted in reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of around 30%. This came at a very high social cost and unemployment remained at over 20% for many years during this period.

I think that Mr Florenz's report '2050: The future begins today - Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change' was timely and necessary, given the effects already observed and those expected as a result of climate change.

Romania was one of the first countries in Europe to have signed the Kyoto Protocol, which meant that it assumed its commitment to support the battle against climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8% by 2012.

I am convinced that we need these measures, although, compared with many other European countries, Romania's level of greenhouse gas emissions is low. Agriculture and Romanian forestry can play an important role in combating climate change, whose impact has been strongly felt in recent years, especially through flooding, high temperatures and prolonged droughts. These natural phenomena affect not only agricultural and forest productivity, but also precious habitats and ecosystems.

Agriculture and forestry are expected to continue making an important contribution to the battle against the effects caused by climate change through forestation, with the aim of absorbing and retaining greenhouse gases, and the use of biomass as a renewable source of energy.

The European Union has taken on a major role in the effort to find a compromise for adopting a global post-Kyoto agreement. It is possible that cooperation with the new US administration will enable it to come up with a specific way to implement this agreement.

Specific measures for combating the effects of climate change also offer opportunities for sustainable socio-economic development and for creating new jobs. They are targeted in particular at the new, dynamic sectors, offering major growth potential, where the level of investment made so far has been inadequate. These measures will have, apart from the beneficial effect of combating climate change, a positive impact and alleviate the effects of the economic and financial crisis and may contribute, in the long term, to reducing the European Union's dependency on energy imports.

We are talking in this instance about new, intensive investments in transport infrastructures, renewable energy sources, biotechnologies, waste collection and recycling, nuclear energy and the renovation of residential heating systems.

Reforestation and measures preventing desertification can also produce spectacular results in the medium term.

in writing. - I welcome the Florenz Report on climate change which aims to formulate policies for keeping global warming below 2° compared to pre-industrial times. I particularly welcome the call for a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, the call for binding targets for agriculture and the demand for the creation of a European Climate Fund.

These proposals plus the measures already adopted by the EU put us in a strong position to argue for global action on climate change at the Copenhagen summit.

I wish to congratulate Mr Florenz on his report, which is excellent material in preparation for the Copenhagen Conference to be held at the end of the year.

I consider very important the observation that the economic and financial crisis and the climate change crisis have the same roots. Therefore, the way out of these crises is also the same. To mitigate and halt the consequences of these crises, comprehensive innovation and a paradigm shift are needed in all areas of life.

I agree with Commissioner Dimas that the costs must be covered first of all from carbon dioxide trading, secondly from investments by private companies and thirdly from state incentives.

Everyone is looking for breakthroughs, for ways of stimulating employment, kick-starting the engine of the global economy as soon as possible and halting climate change. The concept known as the 'Green New Deal' was articulated by the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon. What it means, in essence, is that global economic incentives must become part of the investment in environmentally-friendly technologies. The new logic of economic organisation based on innovations in environmental technology, which has the support of international capital markets, is also a fundamental feature of the US President Barack Obama's programme.

Innovations in green and future industrial technology would boost the effectiveness of the state and economy, heighten the interest of economic players, and increase consumers' price and cost sensitivity with regard to the products and services being offered.

The 12 points set out in the report provide a clear action plan for the future. However, to be able to implement it at a local, national, regional and global level, we need the support of well-informed citizens.

According to a special Eurobarometer survey in spring 2008 on 'climate change', approximately 41% of Europeans stated that they were poorly informed about the causes, consequences and ways to combat climate change. In Romania, over 65% of citizens said they had no information about this.

Raising the profile of this issue among the public through education and awareness campaigns implemented in areas of everyday life is a vital step in this direction. The Commission and Member States must finance public awareness campaigns and create conditions for training people for new careers adapted to the specific challenges of the labour market brought about by structural economic changes, which are accelerated by climate change and its effects.

In the current economic crisis, the EU must commit itself politically and financially in the key areas of maintaining and developing 'clean' technologies for combating climate change, supporting cross-border adaptation measures, boosting energy efficiency and providing assistance in the event of disasters, according to the EU's principle of solidarity. The upshot of all this is the creation of 'green' jobs in new, competitive enterprises.

Ladies and gentlemen, any debate about climate, ecosystems and energy is vitally important because any major change to these can affect life on this planet. Regardless of the types of causes or the scientific arguments put forward by various groups of researchers, one thing for certain is that we are facing global warming. This comprehensive, well-written report, apart from all the useful, valuable information it provides us with, also encourages us to ask the following question: What are we going to do for ourselves and for future generations?

Against this background of climate change, I feel that there are three kinds of projects which EU Member States should be working on and supporting, as a priority:

1. Projects involving standard policies for managing energy resources as efficiently as possible and finding solutions aimed at reducing pollution, especially in industrial areas and business parks.

2. Projects involving funding for scientific research aimed at developing clean technologies.

3. Projects which support immediate specific action aimed at recreating the ecosystem at both European level and in any other region of the world.

The European Union has assumed the leading role in the battle against climate change. Devising a long-term strategy for the effective management of the world's natural resources will help achieve a global economy with reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

This strategy must be based on the principle of solidarity aimed at reaching a balance between rich countries and developing countries, which need assistance in reducing their vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change. The signs of global warming are evident in poverty, shortages of food products and limited energy resources. It is a well-known fact that oil is no longer a sufficiently powerful source of energy to meet the level of demand, which is estimated to grow by at least 60% by 2030. Finding alternative sources and using existing resources sensibly are challenges which will face the EU in the future. Agriculture is one of the areas most vulnerable to climate change because of its dependency on meteorological conditions.

Bearing in mind that this sector provides the food resources for the world's population, sustainable management of soil and water resources, combined with protection of forests and biodiversity, will need to feature on the agenda of the long-term strategy for tackling the effects of global warming.

in writing. - (DE) Europe and the world are currently facing considerable challenges. The capital market crisis is not the only pressing problem. We must also initiate a sustainable programme to combat climate change as quickly as possible. As large an economic and political association as the European Union is able to establish itself as the leading partner in the fight against climate change.

The first step has already been taken in this regard - the Union has agreed binding climate targets and, with the adoption of the climate change package in December 2008, it has got many appropriate measures for protecting the climate underway. The top priority must now be the conclusion of the international agreement in Copenhagen, whilst avoiding de-industrialisation and unnecessary burdens on the European economy. We should instead increase our investment in, and research into, green technology. In this way, Europe can move forward, not only in the area of the environment, but also in the area of the economy.

The European Union has become the main actor taking specific measures by adopting policies which tackle head on the global challenge triggered by climate change.

European policy in this area can become more effective at a global level and within the EU if: a) the European effort is supported by the efforts of the other powerful industrialised countries outside the EU, along with countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and so on; b) the development of nuclear energy is encouraged and not discouraged, at least in the next 30-40 years, until technology capable of using renewable resources has been developed and the costs make it affordable to market without providing grants; c) the European Commission will give stronger support to projects aimed at saving energy and extracting energy from biomass, including the transfer of technology, in less developed EU Member States with a high agricultural potential.

Romania will continue to develop its nuclear programme for generating electricity. At the same time, it will modernise its coal-powered plants and will step up its efforts to produce energy from biomass. With this in mind, we need partnerships with Member States and we urge the European Commission to speed up the process of simplifying the procedures for committing European funds.

in writing. - (HU) Green investments must play a key role in state economic stimulus packages intended to counteract the negative effects of the international economic crisis. These investments, which will be used to exploit renewable energy sources more effectively, moderate energy consumption and reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases offer not only economic advantages but significant social benefits as well. It is in Hungary's interest for EU Member States to coordinate and mutually reinforce their efforts in this regard. When setting environmental goals, we also need to be attentive to the economic and social capacities of EU Member States. We must set only attainable goals, taking into consideration their effects on the economic crisis. These goals can only be attained if society shows solidarity. Government activity is not enough for this to happen; a gradual shift in attitude is necessary within society as well. The concrete recommendations for action in the Florenz report, such as support for the construction of zero energy, 'passive' houses, the creation of a European fund to support research into renewable energy sources, linking up energy networks at European level and raising awareness among EU citizens and children in particular, all contribute to this shift in social attitude.

Moreover, we need to strive to ensure that that we preserve Europe's technological edge in environmental protection developments in the 21st century and that we turn this into an economic and social advantage. Given Hungary's outstanding agricultural assets, serious opportunities may open up in energy generation from biomass or in the reuse of plant and animal by-products, waste products unsuited to other commercial uses, in the form of biogas.

Priorities in the fight against Alzheimer's disease (written declaration): see Minutes



- (SV) I hope now that the whole of Parliament will listen. During the part-session in January, we unanimously adopted a resolution on the Horn of Africa. It contained a specific paragraph stating that Dawit Isaak should be released. Dawit Isaak is now extremely sick and I would like to ask the President to write to the Eritrean authorities.

The news of his illness has been confirmed by several sources and has been mentioned in the Swedish media today. The situation is extremely serious and desperate and I would just like to remind you that Dawit Isaak is a Swedish-Eritrean journalist who has been imprisoned without trial since 2001. His health problems are so serious now that he is being kept in a military hospital, and I fear for his life.

I would appeal for support for the release of Dawit Isaak.

(Applause)

- Mrs Svensson, I can confirm that the President will write accordingly.

1. 2050: The future begins today - Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change (

Voting time

- The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes.)

Formal sitting - Palestinian Authority

Ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased and moved to welcome here today Mahmud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian National Authority. A very warm welcome to the European Parliament, Mr President.

(Applause)

We also invited the Israeli President, Shimon Peres. Unfortunately, due to Israel's celebrations marking 60 years as a nation, the agreed appointment could not be kept. We hope that the visit by President Peres can take place soon.

Mr President, this is not the first time that you have visited the European Parliament. As I welcome you here in Strasbourg at an extremely difficult time for the Middle East and in particular for your people, the Palestinian people, I remember our last meeting in the Middle East, which took place almost two years ago - at the end of May 2007 - in Gaza. You received me at the official headquarters of the Palestinian National Authority. I will never forget our meeting, as the situation was extremely tense. At that time, you were leading delicate talks with the aim of rescuing the government of national unity, which you had formed with energy and foresight. Ten days later, an inglorious coup regrettably put an end to these efforts.

Today, you have come direct from Cairo following a stopover in Paris to meet the French President. In the last few days, some very promising talks have been held in Cairo on the formation of a Palestinian Government of national consensus.

With regard to the tragedy in the Gaza Strip, it is not without concern that the European Parliament has observed the suffering of the Palestinian people. The European Parliament has not remained silent. We demanded an immediate ceasefire. We denounced the disproportionate response taken, not only by the armed forces of Hamas, but also by civilians and international humanitarian organisations. We also decided to denounce the provocations and the rocket fire by Hamas, which regrettably - and we denounce that - continued to be aimed at Israel despite the ceasefire. This has to stop.

(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to pay tribute to the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for the exemplary courage and sacrifice with which they have carried out their task and with which they continue to do so. On behalf of the European Parliament, we thank these men and women of the United Nations most sincerely.

(Applause)

We are calling for the peace negotiations to be resumed as soon as possible, as we are convinced that there cannot merely be a military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a political actor, we are now under obligation and have a responsibility to do everything we can to enable the people in the Middle East to live together in peace. A prerequisite for peace between Israel and Palestine is intra-Palestinian reconciliation. The European Parliament unreservedly supports the ongoing talks, led in particular by Egypt, to smooth the way to the formation of a Palestinian government of national consensus. Only this type of government will be in a position to ensure the required unity of the Palestinian people.

(Applause)

We urge and expect such a government to observe the fundamental principles of the peace process, to refrain from violence and to conduct peace negotiations with Israel with commitment. The European Union is prepared to work together with such a government.

The commitment of the new US President, Barack Obama, and the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East are positive signs. The determination of the European Union - and I am pleased that the competent Commissioner, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, is with us here, together with her colleague - to place all of its political and economic weight in the balance as well as the political will of numerous Arab partners indicate that a resumption and successful conclusion of the peace process on the basis of the resolutions of the United Nations and the Arab peace initiative should be possible.

President Abbas, we are grateful to you for being here today, and I say this on behalf of the European Parliament, but more particularly for myself. We have a great deal of respect and recognition for what you are doing under the most difficult of circumstances. We trust you, because you are a man of mediation, reconciliation and therefore also of peace. We wish you success.

I now invite you to take the floor and give your message to the European Parliament. A very warm welcome to the European Parliament, President Mahmud Abbas.

(Applause)

President of the Palestinian Authority (transcription of the English interpretation from the original Arabic). - In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful. Your Excellency, Mr Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament, first and foremost I should like to extend my thanks to His Excellency Mr Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, and to you for giving me this opportunity to speak before this august Assembly.

I have come to you from Palestine, whose people are suffering from one of the longest military occupations in modern history. Palestine has been deeply wounded by the most violent, dire and horrific military aggression, an aggression that has targeted the lives of children, women and the elderly, as well as their houses, livelihoods, farms, plants and schools. It has targeted drinking water, sewage systems and electricity, as well as hospitals, facilities, roads and bridges.

Yes, the Israeli war has targeted first and foremost the livelihoods of my people, its infrastructure and its future, as well as the future of its Palestinian state for which we have long worked together and for the establishment of which we are still working.

You have witnessed, along with the rest of the world, the burnt and scattered remains of children. You have heard the calls of men, the appeals of children and women who lost most of their family members. Yes, you have seen the mother who was murdered while holding her babies in her arms. You have seen the father who lost the lives of his five children because of rocket attacks, and the girl Balousha who slept next to her sisters and woke to the sound of explosions that killed them all, and the hundreds of children whose houses collapsed and fell on their heads.

You have also seen the Al-Fahura school, which was considered to be safe by the people of Jabalia, who took refuge in it, and how bombshells claimed the lives of those innocent refugees, with the result that over 40 people perished. These people had families, they had names, they had stories, ambitions and hopes. In addition, over 100 people were wounded.

Along with those innocent victims fell the values of human conscience, the principles of the United Nations and its duties to protect international peace and security. You may also recall that the headquarters of the United Nations, its schools, clinics, food and medical warehouses were not spared this insane war against our peaceful and resilient people in Gaza.

I have come to you, ladies and gentlemen, from Palestine bearing a question by a boy named Luay who lost his eyesight because of bombs. He asked me who would give back to his eyes the light of hope, the light of life and to his people the light of freedom and peace.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, those were terrible scenes and pictures. This was the aftermath of this war which led to the deaths of over 1 400 martyrs, with over 5 000 injured, the majority of whom were innocent civilians, and a high percentage of whom were children, women and the elderly. About 500 of the wounded are still in a critical condition and are dying by the day, in addition to a total destruction of over 4 000 homes, buildings, and about 20 000 other homes.

This means that about 90 000 people became homeless and were displaced. In addition to wide-ranging destruction of electricity systems, water systems, sewage systems, in addition to roads and vital facilities, public and private buildings, this Israeli war has claimed the fruit of the blood and sweat of our Palestinian people, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people who worked all their lives and lost the fruit of this work. It has also destroyed what the Palestinian National Authority has established over 15 years.

Much of this infrastructure and many of these facilities were thanks to the contributions of your countries and other friendly countries.

This is the scene of the aftermath of this war. This is in parallel to another type of aggression against our lands, our farmers and our national economy that happens on a daily basis in the West Bank.

The Israeli settlement has not stopped at all. The policies of settlement led to the continuation in building the wall of separation, as well as to an increase in roadblocks, checkpoints and barriers besieging the cities, villages and little towns and refugee camps in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

On the contrary, bids for settlement units have increased 17-fold in the last year in comparison with the year that preceded Anapolis. The checkpoints have increased from 580 to 660.

Military incursions have not stopped, nor have the daily arrests and sometimes assassinations of citizens; the bullying by settlers and their armed incursions and burning of homes which happened in Hebron, Nablus and other areas; and the terrorist attacks conducted by settlers against farmers in the olive season, which is considered by our people the symbol of peace and life, and not just the livelihood for tens of thousands of Palestinian families.

This tragic scene of Israeli incursions and aggressions in the West Bank, including Eastern Jerusalem, confirms to us and to the world that what is going on is an aggression against the entire Palestinian people, its future and its legitimate national rights. It is an aggression and a war against the future of peace and dedicated international efforts that have been deployed for its establishment.

This unjust embargo on our people in Gaza and the war against it was but an episode in a continuous series of measures aiming at separating Gaza from the rest of the Occupied Palestinian lands, and also at marginalising Gaza and marginalising all of our people, and preventing our people from attaining their ultimate goal: an end to occupation, gaining freedom and the right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the lands that were occupied in 1967, with Eastern Jerusalem as its capital.

This is confirmed by the escalating settlement policies, despite all the efforts and agreements, including the George Mitchell report in 2001, the last of which was the Anapolis Agreement, which promised the Palestinian people a state at the end of 2008. However, the culmination of this Anapolis Agreement was a destructive war in Gaza and a settlement war in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

The world declared in Anapolis the failure of unilateral and military solutions. We also declared that Israel should be committed to putting an end to settlement activities in order to pave the way towards a political process that will put an end to occupation and will be the fulfilment of the right of a two-state solution - a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. However, reality proves to us that Israel is still governed by a military and settlement mentality, even though its leaders speak about the two-state solution.

We must not deal with Israel as if it were a state above accountability, above international law. We must put an end to such practices and we must hold the leaders of Israel accountable for their violations of international and humanitarian law.

(Applause)

At the same time, we should like to stress that the success of relief and aid operations, as well as resettling families whose homes were destroyed, necessitates the lifting of embargoes, opening checkpoints and crossings, as well as holding Israel accountable to its commitment in the Agreement on Movement and Crossing of 2005, which would lead to the flow of aid, equipment and materials necessary for reconstruction and the normal movement of goods and individuals. This applies to all crossings in Gaza - not just the Rafah crossing - and also applies to the freedom of movement in the West Bank and the security corridors between the West Bank and Gaza to stress the unity of the Palestinian land and its economy.

Here I should like to commend the efforts of UNRWA for its continuous work, in spite of all obstructions and obstacles, to help our people. I call upon your organisation and other organisations to support its efforts in all fields.

National reconciliation and the establishment of a national reconciliation government constitute one of our priorities. We have opened the door for this reconciliation that will put an end to divisions and upheaval, and also to calls for separation between Gaza and the West Bank. We warned against falling into this trap that Israel wants us to fall into.

Therefore, at the beginning of June we called for an unconditional dialogue. We accepted the Egyptian working paper. Our doors are still open; we will not allow the division of our people and of its geographical unity; we shall continue our dedicated efforts to deal with any attempt at separation.

We know the intentions and the plans of the regional forces and tendencies which support separation and encourage it. These forces obstruct the Egyptian solution that will put an end to internal disputes and divisions. This solution is seconded at an Arab level by the Arab League and by Security Council resolution 1860, in the drafting of which I personally participated, together with Arab and European ministers.

I should like to stress that we shall continue deploying our efforts towards reaching our most noble aim, which is to find a solution for the Arab-Palestinian cause, because the status quo leaves the future unknown and leaves our people victims of the policies of war, aggression and extremism.

Once we achieve a government of national reconciliation, based on a programme that is supported by Arab and international parties, that will allow us to oversee crossings, as well as reconstruction efforts, to the benefit of our people and of preparations for presidential and legislative elections.

I hope that will receive your support, and I also hope you will help us in organising such elections and overseeing them, as was the case in 1996 and 2006. We also hope to be able to count on your support in order to release the President of the Palestinian Legislative Council and all MPs who were arrested and are still prisoners of Israel.

(Applause)

The essence of the conflict in our region is the Israeli occupation. It is a conflict between the hopes and aspirations of our people to rid themselves of this occupation and the attempt by Israel to destroy these aspirations, as well as obstructing international efforts that aim towards establishing a Palestinian state by peaceful means.

Our people look to you and to all peace- and justice-loving nations and call upon you: the time has come for the international community to assume its legal, political and moral responsibilities in order to provide adequate international protection for it and enable it to get rid of this occupation and to live in peace and freedom. Here I should like to stress again our request and your request to send international forces in order to protect our people.

We have heard about international and Arab efforts to reconstruct Gaza. It is true that these efforts should be deployed as soon as possible in order for our people to regain hope and trust, but we wonder how long Israel will be given a free hand to destroy the assets and infrastructure of Arab people.

Therefore the international community must prevent the repetition of those past events, and should also call on Israel to stop its destructive policies. I should like to repeat my thanks to the European Commission for its help in reconstructing the establishments and the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. I should like to stress that serious and comprehensive negotiations cannot be continued without a complete halt to settlement - including what is known as natural extension - and to all settlement blocks and all types of embargo.

I should like to confirm to you that the achievements of the Palestinian Government with regard to strengthening peace, public order and stability cannot be ignored by any party. Israel should be committed to its deadlines and also should stop undermining the efforts of the Palestinian Government by means of incursions and arrests. It should also respect the legal and security status of the Palestinian authority, in addition to enabling the Government to implement its vital economic projects, without using pretexts such as the G areas and other examples.

We can no longer negotiate about the end of occupation. What we need is a complete end to occupation - i.e. of the land that has been occupied since 5 June 1967, as was stated by the road map. We cannot go back to negotiating over partial and ancillary issues, while a solution to the main cause - the end of occupation - remains absent and there is an escalation in settlement seeking to strengthen and deepen this occupation, as well as the arrest of 11 000 Palestinians prisoners. This, and only this, will enable the peace process to regain its credibility with regard to our people and the people of the area as a whole.

What we need, ladies and gentlemen, is the reconstruction of Gaza, but also the reconstruction of the peace process. This is our collective responsibility. Europe, which upheld in the past - and is still upholding - the principles of security and justice in our region and in the world, must stress today, more than at any time, its role in a comprehensive and clear partnership with President Obama's Administration, the Quartet and the international community. The election of President Obama and his declared stances, in addition to his initiative in appointing Mr George Mitchell as his special envoy, are encouraging initiatives that will smooth the path of negotiations and the entire political process.

I should like to say, in all honesty, that our Arab decision is to implement the Arab peace initiative - the Arab peace initiative which is part of the road map, and has become an Islamic peace initiative including 57 Muslim countries. This initiative should be fully complemented.

As I said before, this initiative is part of the road map that was adopted in the Security Council, according to resolution 1515. We cannot pick and choose and negotiate about its foundations that are based on international law. This is the last opportunity we have for true and just peace in our region. All parties, especially Israel, and the Quartet, should be loud and honest about this.

We must point out that the Arab peace initiative has become an Islamic initiative as well. It is an initiative that calls for land for peace. As soon as Israel withdraws from all occupied territories, 57 Arab and Muslim countries will be willing to normalise their relationships with Israel. This is an historic opportunity that must not be wasted.

Ladies and gentlemen, the scenes of death and destruction shook the conscience and the feelings of millions of people around the world, including European friendly countries. Our people appreciate this lively human conscience, but we must stress in this regard that the people of Palestine will not lose its will for freedom and life. They look forward to your support in their struggle to achieve their right to freedom and independence, to be able to build their future and to be able to give to their children their right to a safe life, a developed school and a bright future in their homeland - this homeland that deserves life and security.

Ladies and gentlemen, our great Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, said time and again, 'This land is worth living for'. In this regard, I should like to extend my deep thanks and gratitude to you, on behalf of the people of this great poet, for hosting the activities of his commemoration. This poet is the symbol of Palestinian patriotism. He is the poet of humanity.

To Mahmoud Darwish I say: 'Your poem, that has yet to be written, about the children of Gaza, their suffering and their hopes, will be written by a poet from among those children who upheld your spirit, just as you upheld their cause and their little dreams'. Thank you for listening.

(Sustained applause)

President Abbas, I would like to thank you very much on behalf of the European Parliament for coming here to Strasbourg and speaking to us. We now have the joint task of working for peace. We in the European Union and the European Parliament want to be honest brokers of peace. We want the people of Israel to live within secure borders and we want the people of Palestine to live within secure borders. Our starting point is human dignity. Palestinian girls work just as hard in school as Israeli girls. Israeli boys love playing football just as much as Palestinian boys. The time must come for peaceful co-existence of the kind which we have in Europe. That is our wish for the Middle East.

We wish you, President Abbas, every success in all your efforts to bring about peace. A secure Palestinian state and also a secure Israeli state, and this comment is addressed to Israel, must not remain a future vision. This must become reality and it must happen within our lifetime. If we really want this to come about, then we will be able to achieve it.

(Applause)

Mr President, I would like to thank you. If circumstances permit, we will meet again on 23 and 24 February. The Bureau of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly has asked me to visit Palestine and Israel. I will head a delegation which will travel to Gaza and we will also visit areas of southern Israel. If your diary allows, and I hope that this will be possible, we will meet in Ramallah. I will, of course, also be visiting Jerusalem.

We want to help - and this comes both from our head and from our heart - to make peace possible between Israel and Palestine, between Palestine and Israel in the Middle East.

President Abbas, we would like to thank you for your hard work and to encourage you to continue on the road of reconciliation, compromise and peace. We would like to thank you for your visit to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

- Madam President, four months ago a Polish engineer was kidnapped in Pakistan. He is being held by his Taliban captors, who threaten to execute him today if their demands are not met. I appeal to this House to support the Governments of Poland and Pakistan in their efforts to secure the release of my countryman.

1. Sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (

Before the vote:

Madam President, with your permission I would like to ask the Council, with support from the other groups, to annex the following formal declaration to the directive and therefore to postpone the vote on the legislative resolution. I shall read the declaration that I hope will be annexed:

'The European Parliament and the Council state that the rules on subcontracting agreed upon in Article 9 of this Directive shall be without prejudice to other provisions on this issue to be adopted in future legislative instruments.'

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, the Presidency takes note of the proposed declaration. However, it has to inform the Members of the European Parliament that it cannot make commitments on behalf of the Council without consulting it.

Madam President, I understand that the Council must meet formally with the Permanent Representatives Committee. I ask the Presidency to propose officially that this declaration be added and for this reason I am requesting that the vote on the resolution be postponed until the next plenary session, in order to give the Council time to carry out its formal consultation.

2. Challenge of energy efficiency through information and communications technologies (vote) 

3. Resettlement of Guantánamo prisoners (vote) 

Voting time (continuation) 

Explanations of vote



(DE) Madam President, during the last formal sitting, I asked if the use of the camera could not be made easier by leaving one seat empty. Today that was once again not the case. The camera was not on me, but on General Morillon and then on Mr Grosch. Perhaps it would be possible to ensure that both the cameraman's job and our job are made easier.

- Thank you Mr. Rack, we will remind the services.

Oral explanations of vote

- Madam President, I did, in the end, vote for this report because, as a whole, we are all in favour of preserving our environment. That is a noble tradition of my party - the Conservative Party in Britain - but I think I have to put two riders to it.

The first rider is that we can only have a proper policy on climate change if everybody joins in. It is simply a waste of time for the European Union, or an individual country, to have a policy. So we have to involve the countries of Asia.

The second rider is that, in the uncertain times in which we live, a policy of climate change has to be tempered with the need for energy security. We face a situation in the world today where all of our countries need a ready supply of energy. That must be predominant because, without it, the economies and the welfare and the well-being of our people will not be sustained.

- (PL) Madam President, I would also like to speak on the subject of this directive. I voted against the directive, as I am utterly convinced that it is extremely dangerous and poses a threat to Europe's development. It combines the obvious issue of the need to sensibly protect the environment with an utterly hypocritical idea, namely that humans can influence the cyclical changes in our climate.

It is precisely this part, that is, the issue of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, that makes up the most important section of this document. The enormous sums of money, estimated at hundreds of billions, that are to be spent on this objective, will be utterly wasted, when they could be used to create real environmental and energy security in the European Union instead. This is a very poor and tragically unfortunate solution.

- Madam President, several paragraphs and sections of the Florenz report, especially paragraph 190, relate to agriculture's contribution to climate change. While low or conservation tillage is an option in most EU states and has economic as well as climate change benefits - and deserves far more support, in my view - the agricultural debate and research concentrate largely on the methane and nitrous oxide contributions of ruminant livestock.

While progress is being made, I do not support Member States having to meet their non-trading sectors' targets for emissions reductions by the compulsory reduction of Europe's cattle herds. Let us not forget that what we do not produce here in Europe we will import. One kilo of beef produced in Brazil results in six times the carbon dioxide emissions of one kilo of beef produced in Ireland.

(PL) Madam President, the European economy is the largest importer of fossil fuels. An increase in the price of these fuels, due to greater demand and higher extraction costs, may have a significant, negative impact on the quality of life of our citizens and make the European Union's economy less competitive.

Efforts to save energy and introduce clean energy sources, which produce energy at a stable and relatively low price, could counteract this trend. Making use of scientific research and using it to develop technological solutions will automatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, spreading controversial theories and scaring us with information on carbon dioxide has no added value and makes the technical and material process of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and restricting the use of fossil fuels to produce energy, more difficult.

I support all technical and scientific activities aimed at reducing the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree with the theories expressed in Mr Florenz's report. I do not support the report.

- (CS) Madam President, I would like to thank Karl Florenz for his efforts and for the democratic way in which he has managed the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. Although his original report was better than this compromise I have voted for it none-the-less. A very wide range of views was expressed in today's matter-of-fact businesslike discussion, some of them critical but all sharing the view that climate change is now under way and there is no doubt that with today's level of civilisation we can manage to influence it and our responsibility to future generations is to reach agreement on effective measures. None of them are panaceas and all of them must apply to all continents. I believe that the Czech Presidency, despite the extreme views of the Czech president, will manage to extract fresh undertakings from the US.

- (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted against the Florenz report. The adoption of this report is bad news for EU citizens. The Earth's climate has changed, is changing and will change regardless of whether or not we want it to. This will not be influenced in any way by the absurd undertakings which the EU is imposing on itself in this area. The Florenz report asserts that the climate undertakings adopted by the EU in 2007 are insufficient and that they must be increased. I do not agree with this. As long as the EU is the only part of the world reducing its emissions then the target of reducing global emissions will never be achieved. All we will achieve will be that a large proportion of European businesses will relocate and jobs will be lost. The report's authors want to change everything in Europe, from food menus to tourism, where social tourism is to become the official aim. Even Mao-Tse-Tung would feel proud of such a cultural revolution where everything old is chucked out and replaced with the new. No rational man could agree to such an approach and I have therefore voted against it.

- (PL) Madam President, although 70% of the earth's surface is made up of water, our water reserves, especially of drinking water, are shrinking at a frightening rate. Ever greater areas of our planet face the threat of water poverty. The faster the rate of development, the greater the demand for water. Research has shown that, as societies become wealthier, the demand for water increases. There is no progress without water.

Many regions of the world are teetering on the brink of disaster. Maintaining the status quo in terms of water management could lead to a situation where access to water will not only cause disputes, but will lead to wars. The material situation of countries, rather than the military capabilities they might possess, will determine their success. Water shortages will, in a very short space of time, lead to a food crisis.

We need a suitable, integrated policy, which will help to preserve and rebuild our water reserves. We need to rationalise water usage.

- Madam President, allow me to explain why I voted against the Florenz report on climate change.

Policies relating to climate change are based to a large extent on alarmist ideologies. The evidence for climate change is controversial. Hypotheses blaming man for this change are also, to say the least, disputable. Man is seen as a creature who is harmful to the environment without making a beneficial contribution. I do not share this view.

The content of the report is a direct consequence of an ongoing fashionable green ideology stating that we must put nature and the planet first, that we cannot take care of people, their needs and interests.

The few amendments to the report calling for further progress on nuclear energy, and supporting headway on nuclear fusion, can hardly mitigate its negative impact on the whole European economy and agriculture.

I voted against the report because it is a blueprint for substantial political problems. Instead of bringing forward ideas that nobody is interested in, we should take care of people and their needs.

- Madam President, I supported this report mainly because the paragraphs I had some concern about were either deleted or modified in a way which I felt was appropriate. They related specifically to agriculture livestock production. I would reinforce the point that the European Union has considerably reduced its livestock production due to CAP reforms in the past, that we are now net importers of beef and that beef is produced elsewhere with the climate change concerns attached to it.

This really shows us how important it is that there is global consensus on it and that, while Europe might lead the way, we must try to insist that others follow us because we will only do ourselves harm if we are seen to be the only ones stepping up to the mark.

Finally I support the idea in this report of a specific year targeted towards providing information and dealing with the issue of climate change in a way which brings people along with us. There is already good work being done in this area.

- Madam President, I voted for this report because I feel, for the first time, that the European Union is in synchronisation with the United States. President Obama has been elected to office saying that he is going to put the environment first in his programmes.

But I do not know whether my constituents will accept that we are actually going to make any difference. Even if the United States and the European Union act in concert to limit the emission of carbon, we must consider what will happen if we do not do enough to encourage the emerging India and China to do the same - by transfer of technology and by helping the Chinese and the Indians to find the most modern low-carbon technology that we can export and help them to partner. The fact is that, as we speak, China is making the production of carbon-intensive coal-fired power stations come on stream every two weeks. So how are we helping ourselves limit this thing without helping the transfer of technology?

Madam President, once again we see the European Union inhabiting a virtual world - a world that exists only in Parliament resolutions, in Commission communiqués and in Council press releases.

We condemn global warming, yet our monthly peregrination between Brussels and Strasbourg generates hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gases. We cant about sustainable land use, yet the common agricultural policy encourages the felling of hedgerows, the use of chemical-based fertilisers and the dumping of surpluses on vulnerable Third World markets. We preach conservation, yet the common fisheries policy has created an ecological calamity, wiping out what ought to have been a great, renewable resource.

Colleagues, do you not think our voters have noticed? Do you imagine that, like Descartes's malicious demon, you can manipulate their reality by controlling their perception? The fact is that our voters saw through us long ago, which is why, at every opportunity, they vote 'no'. If you think I am wrong, prove me wrong. Put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum: Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est.

- (CS) Although I have voted for the Fava report, I have fundamental reservations over the title of the directive providing for sanctions against employers of illegally-staying third-country nationals. This is hypocritical when the black economy also includes millions of European workers, tradesmen, domestic servants and others and the harmonisation of sanctions must apply to work on the black market irrespective of where the employee comes from.

- (NL) The delegation from the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) supports this directive's objective, namely to penalise the employment of illegal immigrants with a view to discouraging working illegally as one of the factors attracting illegal migrants, whilst at the same time aiming to prevent and control the exploitation of migrants.

Despite a number of positive elements in this compromise, we felt compelled to vote against it for a number of reasons. Initially, there was liability covering the entire chain right up to the main contractor. Unfortunately, this clause did not make it into the compromise between the Council and Parliament, which is now restricted to the first stage in outsourcing or subcontracting. This is counterproductive and encourages more outsourcing in order to avoid social liability.

Furthermore, there are insufficient guarantees that migrants will be protected and employers punished for breaking the rules. Migrants will not be entitled to receive any outstanding wages before they are deported, nor will they be allowed to wait for their pay in the European Union. The chances of them getting their money after they have been deported are non-existent. This means that illegal immigrants who become the victims of exploitation and want to fight for their rights hardly stand any chance at all.

Madam President, I abstained on this important vote in this Parliament. I am, of course, not in favour of illegal immigrants coming into our countries and taking the jobs of those who have paid their taxes and paid their way over time, but I think the responsibility here should rest not principally with employers but with the national governments of the individual countries.

It gives me the chance, by that abstention, to put on record my view that our present British Government has failed lamentably to have a proper immigration policy in our country - an immigration policy that tracks those coming in as well as those going out, that ensures there is fairness between those who are entitled to come in and those who are not, and, above all, a policy which will maintain good race and community relations, based on the fact that the people of Britain feel there is a right and proper balance between those who come in, those who are here and those who go out.

(IT) Madam President, I wanted to raise a point of order, because as far as I understand, we have not voted on the Fava report. I do not see how we can give explanations of vote when the vote has not taken place.

We voted on the report, we did not take the final vote, so people may well wish to express themselves on the earlier votes.



- (PL) Madam President, the demographic crisis is one of the most important challenges facing the European Union in the near future. A low birth rate and longer average life expectancy mean that our society is ageing. In the meantime, an ever smaller group of citizens will have to pay the associated costs.

A shortage of applicants for certain jobs means that illegal immigrants are being employed, as the cost of their labour is significantly lower. Illegal employment should be punished, and its negative consequences should, first and foremost, be felt by employers, and only later affect the workers themselves.

The Directive sets out appropriate administrative requirements to be met by employers. However, these requirements should not be excessive, as they might have a negative impact on the situation of people who have entered the European Union legally and hold valid work permits. Being obliged to examine the applicants' papers might discourage employers from employing foreigners and, as a result, lead to a drop in the employment rate and undermine the labour market.

- (NL) I am going to vote in favour of the Fava report, though it is, of course, far from perfect. I would in any event like to express my support for the directive, which seeks to address the employment of illegal immigrants.

This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, because we should also address human traffickers, networks that provide support to illegal immigrants and also, of course, Member State governments that legalise illegal aliens on a massive scale. After all, it is precisely this impunity that is one of the major draws in this whole issue of illegal immigration. Illegal aliens can organise whatever protests they please, make demands, set up petitions, without running the risk of being caught or of being returned to their countries of origin. A return policy should be adopted that is effective and that does exactly what it says on the tin.

Madam President, the right to determine who may cross your borders and settle on your territory is a defining attribute of statehood. For years this Parliament has been seeking to bestow that attribute of statehood on the European Union, doing so without the consent of the voters and, in so far as one can judge from the results of the French, Dutch and Irish referendums, in the face of active opposition from the voters. The question of illicit migration ought to be a national prerogative and the question of sanctions against employers of illicit entrants ought certainly to be reserved to the Member States.

If the European Union wants to extend its jurisdiction into this field it ought first to secure the wholehearted consent of the people for the legal basis on which it intends to do so. That means putting the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est.

- Madam President, this is a dreadful piece of legislation. It is dreadful, because it criminalises the employer and does not criminalise the illicit immigrant. It is nonsense. This will create a sense of foreboding among all employers whenever they have to employ somebody. Can you imagine what will happen when a potential employer looks at a potential employee and starts asking questions which are of a very intrusive nature?

In addition, this has nothing at all to do with the European Union. This ought to be a matter for national legislation and national governments - for the national parliaments of individual Member States to decide whom they want and do not want in their countries. To criminalise national employers at a time of deepening recession is absurd. This piece of legislation should never see the light of day.

- (CS) The European Union can now see the first results of the common energy policy. The ETS auctions will begin in 2015 and the renewable energy programmes have started. Only the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty will enable the more effective management of European priorities in the energy sphere and these are now changing. Most important of all is political independence. Energy supply must not be a source of political blackmail. The second priority is to increase the share of clean energy and renewable energy. This is the reason why these technologies, as well as nuclear energy and its operational safety and waste issues must also be targeted in research funding. The most fundamental thing this discussion has shown is that we must also look for ways to limit consumption and show respect for natural resources. However, this starts with the education of our children.

- Madam President, I remember a lecturer once saying to me, when I was a young master's student, that technology offers many solutions, but, if you want to achieve things, you often need political and managerial will to achieve your goals.

Here it is once again in the European Parliament. We talk about climate change. We talk about energy efficiency. Yet, let us remember that 12 times a year we move this House from Brussels to Strasbourg, not to mention the extra buildings that we have in Luxembourg. Not only does that cost the taxpayers of Europe an extra EUR 200 million a year, but it emits 192 000 tonnes of CO2 - equivalent to 49 000 hot air balloons. So it is time for politicians in this Chamber to stop emitting their own hot air over energy efficiency and climate change, cut out the hypocrisy and close down the Strasbourg Parliament.

(IT) Madam President, I drive a car, and as a driver I am constantly fed up with all the persecution we face. Some of the proposals made in this report are typical examples of this, which is why I voted against it.

Madam President, I reluctantly supported this, though I would have preferred not to have voted for it. The reason is that we cannot create efficiency without competition. Competition is the prime driver of efficiency in any market - energy or whatever - and here we are using a tool - technology - across the European Union to drive an energy efficiency market.

Surely we should drive energy efficiency through competition in the European Union. Had we done so and had we looked at how we can compete with each other to increase our energy efficiency, we would have the best efficient energy market in the world. That is why I said I voted for this reluctantly.

- Madam President, before we bid goodbye to Guantánamo by a combination of a resolution of this Parliament and the executive decision of the President of the United States - a wicked combination of naked power - let me just put on record two facts.

First of all, Guantánamo was set up in order to protect all of our citizens. As far as the United States was concerned, it worked. Since 9/11 there has not been one single act of terrorism on the United States mainland. As he goes into retirement, let us salute the record of President George W. Bush as far as that is concerned. I realise I have spoken the ultimate heresy in this House by saying it, but it is true.

Secondly, let us remember too that, although we have been pretty free with our advice to the Americans, let us see what Europe does now to take the burden-sharing of some of these prisoners and protecting our people from future terrorist attack. I will not be holding my breath.

Madam President, ever eager to jump on any passing bandwagon, today the European Parliament demanded that Member States throw open their doors to Guantánamo detainees, on the very day when security services reveal that Mullah Sakir, who was released last year, is now in the high command of al-Qaeda and directing attacks on British and NATO troops in Afghanistan. On that very day, we declare the EU is an open house for such terrorist activists. Are we mad? Remember, once admitted and regularised as citizens, such people can move freely through every Member State in the EU. I trust those who voted for this madness will stand over it when it all goes wrong.

- (CS) Madam President, allow me to explain why I abstained from voting on the resolution concerning the closure of the Guantánamo prison. Yesterday's discussion showed that everyone welcomes this popular or populist plan of the US President, but that is all we can do. The resolution contains assessments for which we do not have sufficient verified evaluations or verified data. We devoted three hours of heated debate yesterday to the question of where to put the prisoners and those whose crimes have not been proven. Of course, the solution lies with the US Congress and with the individual governments of some European countries, but not with the European Parliament. Therefore I did not vote for the resolution.

- (NL) Whilst the resolution on Guantánamo contains a number of elements that confirm the very foundations of the rule of law, I am not happy, of course, with the underlying tenor of this text, namely that the detainees of Guantánamo would be victims of some sort that deserve our sympathy. They are not exactly squeaky clean. They are people who are suspected of committing acts of terrorism but for whom conclusive evidence is lacking.

The Member States should make the necessary arrangements for the acceptance of Guantánamo inmates, or so the resolution claims. This is problematic, to say the least. The problem of radical Islamic fundamentalism is, in my view, considerable enough in Europe, and it bears witness to a certain level of short-sightedness to want to fight terrorism but at the same time open the floodgates to people who are suspected of having ties with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and related groupings.

- Madam President, for years this House has criticised the United States over the suspension of civic freedoms inherent in the maintenance of the secure facility at Guantánamo. Mine was among the voices raised in concern.

I accepted - unlike some in this Chamber - that these were difficult and sensitive issues. A number of detainees were released only to be recaptured on the battlefields of Afghanistan. One blew himself up in a market in Iraq, killing dozens of people. Nonetheless, some principles are absolute and ought not to be sacrificed to expediency. One such is the principle that no one should be detained without being accused of an offence.

Colleagues, we prefaced each of our resolutions on Guantánamo with protestations of goodwill. We spoke, we insisted, as friends of the United States. Well, here is our chance to vindicate that boast. The US Administration, in doing what we have long urged, asks our assistance. Not to tender it would be mean, inconsistent, hypocritical and self-defeating.

- Madam President, those of us who believe in freedom, individual liberty and the rule of law have for years sought to persuade our American friends to close Guantánamo Bay, or the detention there. So the country that calls itself the leader of the free world cannot put aside those values for its convenience, albeit understandable security concerns.

Now that President Obama has announced the closure of Guantánamo Bay, we should be helpful in any way we can. However, it is not for the European Union to determine who enters the European Union countries. It should be for Member States, and let us call upon the Member States of the European Union to do their bit to help our American friends at this time. They have shown the will. They have listened to us. It is about time we listened to them, just as the European political élite should listen to the voters when, in referendum after referendum, they have rejected the Lisbon Treaty. It is time for us to listen to the voices that count.

- Madam President, Magna Carta and habeas corpus are the bedrocks upon which the American Constitution was written. They are also the bedrock upon which the laws of my country have been written. You cannot charge someone and lock him up without accusing him and having a trial. However, year after year in this Parliament, we condemned President Bush for what he did with Guantánamo Bay. Now we have a situation where President Obama has, quite correctly, decided to do away with it.

When the American executive President has listened to what we have had to say, surely it is up to us to encourage Member States to take on the burden of our American allies. However, that is not a matter that this Parliament can dictate to other parliaments. It is for the national parliaments to decide that it is in their interests to help the Americans in their time of need.

Written explanations of vote

in writing. - (LT) Europe needs a single strategic energy policy, which would ensure the efficient use of resources and minimize environmental impact.

The EU and Member States must ensure the development of Europe's energy infrastructure, which is imperative as we strive to diversify the EU's energy sources and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

Today in the EU, the heating of buildings accounts for the highest amount of energy used and the most CO2 emitted - about 40% of all CO2 emitted. In this area in particular there are many opportunities to save energy.

I agree with the rapporteur's proposal to organise an information campaign for citizens at a national level, aimed at increasing efficient energy use, during which home and flat owners would have thermal images taken of their property and would be given information on their energy efficiency and offered recommendations on the funding of possible modernization works by requesting microcredits. Poor energy efficiency is a sore point with post-Soviet era buildings and many owners do not know how and by what means they can save energy. I believe it is necessary to increase aid from the Structural Funds by up to 15% (currently 3%) for dwelling renovation.

in writing. - British Conservatives welcome the broad thrust of the report of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. We believe that the report offers a significant contribution to the debate, which will lead to an effective international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen in 2009. We support in particular the aim of ambitious medium and long-term emission reduction targets, the promotion of renewable energy and increased energy efficiency, and the call for a sustainable approach to forestry, rainforests and deforestation. We also believe that a low-carbon economy will trigger greater innovation, which will create new and competitive businesses and new jobs in the fields of clean technology, renewable energies and green enterprises.

However, we cannot support the concept that the European Security Strategy and the European Security and Defence Policy have a role to play in tackling the effects of climate change.

We also strongly oppose references to the Lisbon Treaty, in particular those which suggest that the competences of the European Union in the field of climate change are not already sufficient. We believe that the EU has all the powers that it needs to help the peoples of Europe work together to succeed and lead by example on climate change.

I voted in favour of the Florenz report because I agree with the recommendations made with regard to the future integrated policy on climate change.

This report calls on the Commission to monitor closely and analyse the very latest scientific research findings in order to assess in particular whether the EU's 2ºC target would really achieve the aim of preventing dangerous climate change effects.

At the same time, it emphasises the importance of the EU and other industrialised nations setting, as a group, a medium-term target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% by 2020, as well as a long-term target for cutting emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990, while continuing to focus on the target of limiting the rise in the average global temperature to 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, thereby giving a 50% probability of achieving this objective.

in writing. - This is a report that shows the way forward and sends a clear message to all to take action now, before it is too late. We cannot take risks where the prevention of nature and humanity is concerned. We need an integrated police so as to avoid overlaps in work and we need to harmonize our aims and strategies. The European Union should take the leading role in the battle against climate change and this report is a huge step towards that direction. The rights to life, security, health, education and environmental protection are fundamental and it is our duty to safeguard them for the generations to come. We are already aware of the huge damage that climate change is causing and we are duty bound to minimize this damage as much as possible.

in writing. - (SV) We have, today, voted in favour of the report on the EU's future integrated policy on climate change. In this connection, we would, however, like to emphasise that the revenues from the trade in emissions allowances should accrue to the Member States.

I voted in favour of the report '2050: The future begins today - Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change' because climate change may result in irreversible disasters and the era of cheap fossil energy is about to come to an end.

This is why the EU needs to join forces with its strategic partners in making every effort to reduce its current dependency on fossil fuels and increase significantly the proportion of renewable energy used.

With the appropriate investments, the European economy's energy efficiency must grow, while polluting greenhouse gases must be cut by more than 25% in the next 12 years.

The EU must take the necessary firm action to achieve the following objectives by 2050: a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 60% level of renewable energy use and energy efficiency.

The European Year of Creativity and Innovation can be a major benchmark in this respect, highlighting the fundamental importance of investments in scientific research and new technologies.

in writing. - (EL) Climate change is the result of the irresponsible exploitation of natural resources by capital for the sake of profit.

The EU considers the workers, their way of life and their consumption habits to be at fault. It wants to put the wolf to guard the sheep, by placing responsibility for moderating climate change with precisely those who are causing it: the monopolies and the multinationals. Energy, water, forests, waste and agricultural production are being privatised and concentrated in the hands of a few multinationals, now in the name of the environment. The unimpeded operation of the 'free market', the liberalisation of markets and capitalist restructurings form the core of the measures proposed in the European Parliament report.

EU agreements with third countries demand the liberalisation of markets and public services in all these sectors. Targets are included such as, for example, for biofuels, which destroy huge forests. Mutations are being promoted and support is given to single crops, thereby destroying biodiversity.

Environmental protection is even being used as a pretext for imperialist interventions in accordance with the 'Solana doctrine'.

The green economy being promoted by the EU and the USA offers a way out for the purpose of over-accumulating capital, safeguarding profits for the monopolies and increasing the exploitation of workers and natural resources. Not only does it not solve anything; on the contrary, it exacerbates the problem of climate change.

in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the Florenz report on the subject '2050: The future begins today - Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change' because it presents the European Union, the Member States and their citizens with a number of proposals for meeting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets in the European Union.

I would like to stress that the climate change issue requires a cross-cutting approach at all levels of public policy making, and that investment in 'green' technologies is also a requirement of the current economic crisis, in that it will help create more jobs.

I believe the final report by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, of which I was a member, is a highly positive contribution to the fight against climate change and clearly demonstrates the need to reach international agreement at the Copenhagen conference at the end of the year.

The report does not tackle the core issue regarding the causes of environmental abuse, which is the predatory nature of capitalism. It just tries to share out the responsibility among all parties so as to justify proposals that are essentially based on the liberalisation of markets, with users and workers bearing the costs.

Although the final text approved in plenary is more restrained than the original proposal and does have some positive aspects, we do not agree with other points, namely when environmental protection is used as an excuse for yet another opportunity to step up the ideological offensive, to lay the responsibility on ordinary people and workers, and to commercialise all environmental activity and make it profitable.

Thus we voted for certain proposals, including those tabled by our group, which sought to improve the report's content, but we had to show our disagreement with the attempts to commercialise everything that is essential to human life, including the air we breathe.

in writing. - Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world today. I am in favour of energy-efficient light bulbs, but frankly it is not enough. We will all have to make and put up with changes to our lifestyle and lives that are far more drastic and dramatic.

I was recently asked at a public meeting in Cheltenham in my constituency what I thought was the most important thing that could be done to combat global warming and climate change. My response was clear: ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Without a strong powerful EU with competence in Common Foreign and Security Policy I do not believe we will get the US and Japan, China and India, to take the necessary measures.

The backing and encouragement of a powerful EU speaking with a single voice will do more to combat climate change than millions of energy-efficient light bulbs.

This report brings together the positions of several political groups and sectoral interests on the basis of the most recent and reliable scientific data. This document is therefore undeniably thorough, wide-reaching, up to the minute and relevant.

I agree with the report overall, but I voted against the more direct references to the impact of livestock farming on climate change, since I felt they were excessive Agriculture must not be ostracised. Instead, the production and consumption of local products must be emphasised, since transporting them results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

On the other hand, I voted in favour of the references to the problems faced by agriculture as a result of climate change, as I believe that the most severely affected regions should be duly compensated. Still on the subject of adapting to climate change, I agree that there is an urgent need to implement the new framework directive on soil protection, and that cohesion policy, water protection policy and the Natura 2000 network need to be adapted to cope with the expected impacts.

Lastly, I voted in favour of the references to the need to avoid overusing the Kyoto Protocol flexibility mechanisms, since Europe must actually reduce its emissions if it wants to retain its leading role in international negotiations and secure a global agreement in Copenhagen.

Climate change is a fact. Some scientists nevertheless express qualified doubts over it. Similarly, the effect of human activities, considered even by this report to be the main cause for climate change, is also questioned by some scientists. Either way, the 22 chapters of the report provide a good problem summary from the perspective of the majority opinion of experts worldwide. As far as the individual chapters are concerned, the Energy chapter is rather incomplete. It states quite correctly that fossil fuels are a finite resource while completely failing to deal with the key question of securing sufficient amounts of energy in the event that by the year 2030 the global consumption does indeed increase by 60 %.

It is therefore clear that an intensive effort to construct nuclear power stations will be necessitated in the very near future. At present this is the only recognised source of clean energy producible on a large-scale but it has its ideological opponents even in the EP. Until thermo-nuclear fusion has been mastered there will be no alternative to nuclear energy when seeking a clean energy source. With this provision I agree with the report.

The Florenz report establishes a very detailed list of the actions to be taken to combat climate change and to develop support policies. However, it suffers from structural weaknesses with regard to the vital and desirable reorientation of the European Union.

The major defects are financial.

Although the creation of a carbon tax is envisaged, the analysis and implementation of this and also of the systematic carbon offset per product are not included in the 2009-2014 Action Plan. Nevertheless, this is an essential element.

No budgetary figure has been mentioned for the definitive targeted activities and projects, for public infrastructure or innovative industrial policies, for regional development, for aid to local authorities or for research and development.

With regard to industry, the reference to 'legislative instruments' will not suffice.

Likewise, the setting-up of a European Climate Fund is subject to the requirement 'of allowing the market to determine which technologies should be used...'

Therefore, it will favour neither a long-term vision nor the general interest. This is absurd.

Therefore, it is imperative that the EU very quickly looks into the question of a carbon tax, public aid to support a green New Deal and the Community budget for the prevention of climate change.

in writing. - (SV) There is no doubt that the climate is changing. However, it not clear whether this is mainly or largely due to human activity or if it is mainly or largely part of a natural process. There is considerable uncertainty with regard to what is happening and as regards what should be done about it. Yet it is precisely this uncertainty that indicates, for example, that we should take the first steps towards slowing down our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. That explains why, on a previous occasion, I voted in favour of the proposal to reduce these by 20% by 2020.

The European Parliament's Temporary Committee on Climate Change has now submitted a report on how the EU should act in connection with climate change. The report is very sprawling. It seems as if the Members involved are engaged in appeasing particular interests, such as agriculture and tourism. At the same time, the report demands more funding and new mechanisms, and in practice is proposing major steps towards a centralised planned economy with propaganda campaigns in schools and after-school recreation centres controlled from Brussels.

The report is so far removed from the key issues that I found myself forced to vote against it. We cannot carry on saying 'yes' to everything that is tabled in order to demonstrate our justified concern, uncertainty and willingness to act with regard to the issue of climate change.

in writing. - I support this report which reinstates the EU's short-term commitment of reducing emissions by 30% by 2020 if there is an international agreement. It also reinstates the target included in the Bali roadmap, that industrialised countries should reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. I welcome this report which urges the Commission and Council to adopt a leadership role in the upcoming post-Kyoto talks in Copenhagen and calls for minimum EU energy-efficiency standards for new and refurbished buildings. The report calls on ECONFIN to introduce reduced VAT rates for renewable energy and energy-saving products.

I support the call for economic incentives such as a carbon trading system for countries to protect their tropic rainforests, and a call for energy efficiency measures to be adopted at local and regional level to combat energy poverty.

The European Union's adoption of this report proves that it is actively involved in combating the adverse effects triggered by climate change. Global warming is one of the most complicated issues which the whole planet is facing. This is why a joint effort is required involving all countries. The more than 150 recommendations included in this report cover most of the areas where improvements can be made to achieve the European objective of reducing the rise in temperature to 2ºC.

To ensure that this objective is achieved, every single person needs to be actively involved and properly informed about how to protect the environment and assume their responsibility towards future generations.

The European Economic Recovery Plan supports the battle against global warming not only by allocating funds for the development of innovative technology, but also by using ways which will boost energy efficiency. Investment in research and innovation will enable the development of clean technologies in response to the challenges posed by climate change.

I feel that the measures being proposed are achievable and can be implemented in the medium and long term. Even though most countries are facing a number of economic and financial problems, particular attention must be focused on halting the adverse effects of climate change.

in writing. - I was happy to support the final report from the Temporary Committee on Climate Change.

Today's report from Mr Florenz is based on scientific principles and maps out the challenges that face our society in various fields like transport, land-use, energy and waste management. The current economic crisis should not be used as an excuse to row back on our climate commitments. Some less progressive forces have tried to use the economic downturn as an excuse to renege on the necessary climate commitments. This should be seen not only as the cynical ploy it is, coming from forces not in the least bit interested in facing up to the realities of climate change, but also as short-sighted in the extreme.

I specifically reject the notion that nuclear power has any role to play in the green economy of tomorrow and beyond. Ireland must remain a nuclear-free island. Clean and renewable energy sources should be the basis of our energy supply, not the dangerous short-term folly of nuclear power.

I wish you all a good day. I give my full backing to the report and I would like to thank you, Mr Florenz, for a detailed report on the European Union's future policy on climate change. It is terrible that global climate change is influencing and will influence our environment and thereby our health and our society. We therefore have a duty to progress towards agreement on a policy that will help reduce the factors contributing to a future catastrophe.

Since the decision of Parliament in April to set up the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, the negotiations on assistance in integrating European responses within a global context have been successful. However, we must continually reassess our concerns with respect to reduction targets, energy consumption and the role of agriculture. Through cooperation we will perhaps be able to reduce carbon emissions and slow down the process of global warming in Europe and throughout the world.

As Mr Florenz has said, there is more than one way to tackle climate change but we know that it is right to begin with improvements in efficiency and in the management of resources. Global climate change is damaging to our environment, to our current way of life and to the opportunities of future generations. We must do our best to slow down this process if not to halt it. I thank you all.

in writing. - (NL) Although this report received my backing during the final vote, this does not stop me from expressing serious objections to certain sections of it. I do not think that the cultivation of feed crops for intense livestock breeding adversely affects the climate. Nor do I believe that a European soil directive should be introduced to address the problem of climate change.

In the current economic climate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance investments in clean technology and green energy, which are so necessary in the battle against global warming. This is why I would like to join with my fellow Members who support this report and propose measures aimed at increasing 'intelligent' investments, which is a solution not only for the climate crisis, but also for the credit crunch because it has the potential to generate new jobs.

One such measure is the Commission's draft regulation, being debated in Parliament, which stipulates that Member States may finance, from structural and cohesion funds, large-scale public work programmes for residential renovation. This can bring numerous benefits. For instance, low-income families can receive financial assistance to help them modernise their heating systems and can enjoy substantial savings on their maintenance bills. In addition, this measure will also help reduce Europe's energy dependency, which is a priority in light of the recent energy crisis Europe experienced.

in writing. - This report tackles key issues relating to climate change, such as a call to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy sources and improve energy efficiency.

We are currently facing a situation where the effects of climate change and global warming are creeping up on us faster than we had previously imagined. For this reason, it is imperative that environmental policy remains a top priority for the EU and individual Member States.

Along with the Climate and Energy Package adopted in December, the EU clearly now leads the way in terms of environmental legislation and is in a position to encourage countries outside of Europe to follow suit and promote policies which seek to tackle climate change.

We simply cannot afford to ignore this issue and wait fifty years to see what the consequences may be.

I voted in favour of this report because it provides a 'roadmap in 12 action points' of the future integrated policy on climate change.

The report emphasises the importance of the EU and other industrialised nations setting, as a group, a medium-term target for cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 25-40% by 2020, as well as a long-term target of an 80% cut by 2050, compared to 1990.

In order to achieve these objectives and adapt to climate change, funds amounting to approximately EUR 175 million per annum must be provided at EU level. This involves the creation of a climate fund, financed by the revenue from the emission trading scheme and/or equivalent private funds in Member States, in order to provide the investments and solidarity required for financing a future climate policy.

Particular attention must be focused on research to ensure scientific support for the development and implementation of 'clean' technologies. The environmental policy must be used as an opportunity for the strategy to adapt to the effects of climate change. It must also be applied correctly and across sectors in tackling the effects of the crisis through creating new 'green' jobs in competitive enterprises.

in writing. - (PL) So far, during various legislative periods, thirteen European Parliament resolutions have been tabled on the subject of climate change. In spite of the efforts of both the Commission and Parliament, this matter continues to spark controversy. Mr Florenz's report does not change the position of those who are not convinced of the decisive influence of human activity on climate change which has, for millions of years, only ever been subject to the laws of nature.

A further problem involves the very idea of an integrated policy for all European countries. Bearing in mind that the report makes no reference to the specific circumstances of the new Member States or, more importantly, to the efforts they have made since 1989 to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, there can be no talk of an integrated approach. Different countries have the right to set different objectives. Countries must have the right to choose the technology they use to obtain energy. With regard to the recommendations to the Commission on establishing a binding 20% target for improving energy efficiency, it seems that the suspicion that expensive, foreign energy technology is being surreptitiously promoted is not unfounded.

I voted for the Florenz Report. It is an excellent piece of work because this report details a wide range of measures to be taken in areas as diverse as energy, biofuels, energy efficiency, mobility, tourism, agriculture and livestock breeding, soil protection and water management, and also waste and resource management, future themes, education and training.

The excellent work of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change set up on 25 April 2007 is visionary and its proposals against climate change deserve to be supported by all those involved in political, economic and social life.

A huge range of subjects is covered in the debate on Europe's future integrated policy on climate change and should guide us in the search for reasonable, feasible, science-based solutions. A bigoted debate, rejecting any science other than the official version, ignoring the need for research and forgoing the uncertainties of scientific research, turns science into dogma, and dogma is of little use to political decision makers.

Our priority must therefore be to focus on diversified and efficient energy production and consumption that can reduce our dependency and guarantee the quality of life that we want for everyone, Europeans and non-Europeans alike.

We are therefore faced with a huge scientific challenge, in which the public authorities have a duty to prioritise investment in research and development and also, in particular, insofar as they are market operators themselves, to foster the creation of profitable markets for more energy-efficient products. Climate change calls for us to take a step forward in development, not a step back. Let us make the effort.

in writing. - The targets set by the EU to reach a coordinated reduction are vital if there is to be corresponding change for the better in our environment.

I voted to improve the structure of this coordination by use of a variety of sources - including the beneficial effects of safe nuclear energy production - all of which needs to be reviewed in the light of advice from national inspectorates and changes in technology.

Given that funding is necessary I voted too in favour of ETS auctioning revenue to be used to meet the costs of any changes needed. This includes investment in new technology.

An Emissions Trading Scheme for aviation, whilst it may have only a marginal effect, is still an appropriate way ahead.

in writing. - The debate on an integrated policy on climate change is vital if we want a 50% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

I voted to adopt Mr Florenz's report entitled '2050: the future begins today - Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change'. This report was drawn up by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, which was appointed in June 2007.

The report is a specific list of recommendations concerning reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, to be implemented by the Community bodies (mainly the European Commission) and the Member States. In order to achieve these objectives, it will also be necessary to take action at local level.

Changes in our climate are sudden and have serious negative consequences. The EU and the industrialised nations should adopt the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020 and, in the long term, aim to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, in comparison to 1990 levels.

The remaining recommendations contained in the report include partnership and cooperation, in the field of solar energy production, with third countries in the Mediterranean basin, achieving zero net energy consumption in new residential buildings by 2015, and in all new buildings by 2020, with the option of expanding this target in the long term and including renovated buildings. The plans also include the creation of a European renewable energy community, with the aim of supporting research and development activities to develop groundbreaking new technologies.

in writing. - (DE) I have abstained from voting on the climate change report. This does not mean that I believe the entire report to be bad. However, it did combine correct scientific data and false polemics. All the work done by the committee was one-sided and the wide range of scientific opinion was not reflected. It is not possible to produce a balanced report on this basis. Unfortunately this type of approach has become more common in the run-up to the European elections.

in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of the Fava report on the draft directive on sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants.

According to the Commission's figures, between 4.5 and 8 million third-party nationals are living illegally within the European Union and are therefore the favoured targets of unscrupulous employers benefiting from illegal labour.

It is imperative for us to highlight these practices, which are unworthy of a Europe where respect for basic human rights should apply to everyone. The time has finally come to emphasise the responsibility of those who profit from these particularly vulnerable people. We must stop criminalising these victims by stigmatising illegal immigrants. With regard to the measures we are advocating here, it is not only a question of penalising dishonest bosses but also of defending a specific number of social rights such as the right to be represented by a trade union.

However, we should not cry victory too soon because the threat of sanctions is not enough, rather we must have the necessary legal control instruments in place. Only then will we be able to implement an effective common immigration policy.

in writing. - (SV) The European Parliament has today voted on the report by Mr Fava (Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Italy) relating to the consequences for employers of illegally staying third-country nationals in the EU.

Since the report charges Member States with the responsibility of imposing sanctions under criminal law, we Swedish Conservatives have chosen not to give it our support.

I support the Fava report, which we will use to impose harsher punishments on employers using illegal labour.

Fines should henceforth include costs of returning workers to their country of origin and payment of arrears (salaries, taxes and social security contributions). Other proposed sanctions range from exclusion from public grants to temporary or permanent closure.

Let us emphasise three key points in the system: firstly, the signal sent to unscrupulous or dishonest employers by imposing criminal sanctions in the most serious cases of exploitation of illegal labour, such as the employment of minors in particularly unsuitable working conditions or where the worker is a victim of people trafficking. Next, the possibility of less stringent provisions for private individuals if the private employment conditions are in order. Finally, the liability of companies involved in the subcontracting chain, if it can be proven that they knew about the employment of illegal immigrants by the subcontractor.

Finally, let us not forget that it is a matter of minimum standards (every State is free to increase sanctions against employers and protection for illegal immigrants) and that there is a clause for revision every three years enabling us to adjust our aim based on experience.

The report drafted by our fellow Member is a first step towards combating illegal employment and reducing one of the most serious aspects of cross-border crime. Whereas until now, countries' policies have focused more on how to prevent illegal immigrants gaining access to the labour market, from now on, we are tackling the problem at its root by punishing employers who profit from the vulnerability of illegal immigrants.

The majority of these employees work in the agricultural sector and there are countless cases where the conditions that these people have to put up with are inhumane, very often without being paid. The regulations we are proposing will not only punish the employers, but will also ensure that workers receive any pay owing to them. We needed provisions of this kind to set out standard regulations at Community level for punishing employers as, in the majority of cases, a steady stream of people is supplied by transnational human trafficking networks.

We must not interpret this report as meaning that the EU's borders are going to be closed, but as a reinforcement of the Community preference principle. Bearing in mind the demographic profile of the majority of Member States, we need to keep the labour market borders open, but with the proviso that the flow of workers is legal and suited to the Community's needs.

in writing. - (FR) I am delighted with the adoption, by a very large majority, of the draft directive, which is of fundamental importance in the fight against illegal immigration and is essential for the implementation of a common global immigration policy.

Illegal employment is the principal source of attraction for those thousands of men and women crossing our borders every day imagining they will find a decent job to feed their families. In reality, they only become the slaves of certain employers who use and abuse their situation of vulnerability and ignorance of their rights in order to exploit them and use them as cheap labour.

This directive sends a double signal: one with regard to fraudulent employers who will no longer be able to abuse the situation with impunity, and the other with regard to potential illegal immigrants who will be discouraged by stricter conditions of access to legal employment.

The compromise negotiated with the Council is satisfactory and we can only hope for the rapid implementation of this directive by the Member States in order to put an end to this situation of vulnerability suffered by thousands of people in Europe.

We can only endorse the general ban on the employment of illegal workers to discourage illegal immigration. In the same way, we can only endorse sanctions against employers who resort to this type of labour, often to abuse it, and who are nothing other than modern-day slave traders.

However, I have some reservations. Once again the European Union is benefiting from a case based on Community law (first pillar) in order to extend its competences with regard to the harmonisation of the criminal law of the Member States, with the notable exception of Ireland and the United Kingdom however, who have exercised their opt out recognised by the treaties.

I then recall what happened in France following strike action in a fashionable restaurant in Neuilly favoured by President Sarkozy: bosses claimed to be victims of a too rigid labour market or protectors of a workforce to whom they paid the legal minimum, and it became easy for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status through working - a situation that this directive will further reinforce by promising regularisation for those who report their employer.

I am afraid that in reality, in countries as lax as France in this regard, all this will not limit the influx of illegal immigration.

This report has various merits.

The first is that it has an educational objective. It establishes the alarming fact of the increase in illegal immigration in Europe, immigration estimated at between 4.5 and 8 million according to the Commission's own figures, and it specifies the sectors of the economy where illegal labour is most concentrated: construction, agriculture, cleaning, hotels and restaurants.

The second is that it intensifies the fight against moonlighting, in particular by introducing financial and criminal penalties for employers of illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately, the limits to this report are also numerous. There is nothing about measures to stop these intermittent floods of illegal immigration. The re-establishment of internal border controls is not even being considered.

Furthermore, in times of social and economic crisis and sharply rising unemployment, the prime necessity for the countries of the European Union is to protect their jobs, and so it is essential to implement national and European policies of social protectionism. We must reserve jobs for French people in France and for Europeans in Europe. It is a question of applying the principles of national and European preference and protection as essential conditions for the economic and social recovery of the countries of the European Union.

in writing. - (DE) I am voting in favour of Claudio Fava's report on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-party nationals.

We must put a stop to the employment of illegal immigrants, both in order to protect them from exploitation and to prevent the economy of the country in question from being damaged.

The most important issue is not to punish the illegal workers from third-party states, but to penalise the employers, who are in a much stronger position.

in writing. - I support the introduction and enforcement of sanctions against employers of illegally resident immigrants. This report includes minimum rules for criminal sanctions against employers, and inspections are to be made in the sectors of activity most open to abuse, though in Scotland we are already protected by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality act 2006.

I voted for the draft directive, which tackles the widespread menace of illegal immigration which often gives rise to exploitation. There are in fact between 4.5 and 8 million illegal immigrants in the European Union working in construction, agriculture, hotels and other sectors. We must strengthen the fight against illegal immigration by introducing various types of sanctions against the employers of these illegal immigrants at European level.

It is in fact a matter of giving companies a sense of responsibility and thus contributing to the strengthening of the fight against illegal immigration.

in writing. - (FR) I am pleased that the European Parliament has today adopted, by a large majority, the draft directive seeking to impose sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants.

This 'sanctions' directive fits into the EU's strategy to combat illegal immigration, which includes the 'blue card' promoting selective immigration and the 'return' directive.

Moonlighting is a menace to the European economy, all the more so within the context of the current economic crisis.

The EU still seems to be an eldorado in the eyes of many illegal immigrants; they often find work and a quality of life here which they cannot find in their own country.

It is estimated that there are between 4.5 and 8 million third-country nationals living illegally in the EU, generally finding work in the construction, agriculture, domestic work and hotel sectors. They do poorly paid jobs, often bordering on exploitation.

Unscrupulous employers benefit from these illegal workers who are prepared to work for very poor rates and in dangerous conditions.

Thanks to today's vote, employing illegal workers will henceforth cost employers dear and may even put them in prison.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Fava's report providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. I share the concern expressed by the rapporteur over the social consequences of this phenomenon and the conditions of exploitation in which these migrants work.

Unscrupulous employers take advantage of illegal immigrants to fill poorly paid, unskilled jobs that no one else wants to take on. Furthermore, illegal work should be considered as nothing less than a social evil, since it can depress wages and working conditions, as well as distorting competition between businesses. I therefore applaud Mr Fava's initiative, aimed at protecting the rights of these vulnerable people.

in writing. - (EL) The Commission proposal for a directive and the related report by the European Parliament on the imposition of sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals are a monument to hypocrisy and deceit. The real objective is not to impose sanctions against employers who barbarically exploit immigrant workers; on the contrary, it is to punish, arrest and violently deport immigrants to their countries of origin. It is one of a set of measures in the EU's anti-immigration policy, as expressed in the 'Immigration Pact', and follows on from the notorious 'directive of shame' providing for 18 months' detention of 'illegal' immigrants, their deportation and a ban on their entering EU territory for 5 years.

In fact, the proposal for a directive and the European Parliament report, which goes in precisely the same direction, intensify the repressive measures against immigrants, methodise their social exclusion and essentially facilitate their even more savage exploitation by capital.

The Communist Party of Greece votes against both the report and the Commission's proposal for a directive.

It supports the just demands of immigrants, their legalisation, the abolition of black and undeclared employment, an increase in wages and salaries, equal pay for an equal day's work and the full safeguarding of social and civil rights.

in writing. - (PT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on addressing the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies (ICTs) because I believe ICTs play a crucial role in improving energy efficiency and may result in an estimated saving of over 50 million tonnes of CO2 each year.

The Member States need to make full use of the potential provided by ICTs in order to meet the targets set by the climate and energy package of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20%, increasing the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources to 20% and achieving a 20% improvement in energy efficiency in the European Union by 2020.

We voted in favour of this report by a Czech Member of this House from our political group because we believe it addresses a subject of the greatest importance: addressing the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies (ICTs). These technologies can be the driving forces behind greater productivity, growth and cost reductions that make for competitiveness, sustainable development and the improvement of EU citizens' quality of life. That is why we agree with the proposal to suggest to forthcoming Council presidencies that they make the topic of ICTs and their importance in combating and adapting to climate change one of their priorities.

We also think it important for more efforts to be made at every level of decision-making to use all available financial instruments for the deployment and take-up of new ICT-based technological solutions that enhance energy efficiency.

Similarly, given the delay in adopting a systematic approach to intelligent ICT solutions, it is important to raise awareness of these, placing particular emphasis on lower emissions in connection with the development of towns and cities, in particular through the development of intelligent buildings, street lighting and transmission and distribution networks and through the organisation of public transport.

I supported the motion for a resolution on the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies.

ICT should become the solution of the future for practically all energy-consuming equipment, helping to achieve significant savings in terms of energy consumption. Failing to undertake such action could lead to a significant increase in energy demand, as soon as within the next few years (around 25% in the space of four years).

The greatest savings might be possible in the sector dealing with the production and transmission of electricity. Efficiency should be increased by around 40% in the field of energy production and by around 10% in the field of energy distribution. ICT also contributes to better management of the energy grid, as well as facilitating the integration of renewable sources of energy. Thanks to the application of ICT, significant savings will be possible in terms of the heating, air conditioning and lighting of buildings. This will all contribute to a real reduction in CO2 emissions, both in terms of energy units and on a global scale.

These technologies, including the components themselves, as well as micro- and nanoelectronic systems, and many modern technological approaches (for example, photonics), increase competitiveness and create new opportunities for businesses and the labour market.

Increasing energy efficiency involves reducing energy consumption during the production, transmission and distribution phases, as well as for the end consumer. Bearing in mind that this is achieved by means of technological and behavioural changes, as well as economic changes, aimed at ensuring that the same level of comfort and service is maintained, modern ITC technology should be implemented as widely as possible.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on addressing the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies.

I would argue, in fact, that alongside the target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, we must also undertake to improve energy efficiency by 20% over the same period. For this reason, I support the motion tabled, which aims to increase awareness, for example through demonstration projects, of the importance of information and communication technologies for improving energy efficiency in the EU economy. These technologies are a driving force behind increased productivity and growth, as well as cost reductions that make for competitiveness, sustainable development and the improvement of EU citizens' quality of life.

I voted for the European Parliament's motion for a resolution on solving the problem of energy efficiency through information and communications technologies as I firmly believe that these technologies can offer viable solutions to this problem.

Energy efficiency is an extremely important topic because we are well aware that the natural reserves from which we obtain our energy are dwindling all the time and will run out at some point. Consequently, I feel that any technology which can be used to achieve energy efficiency is a benefit which society as a whole can enjoy.

in writing. - (PL) The issue of the European Union's energy security has been raised many times in this Parliament, especially by representatives of the new Member States.

The crisis which has, in recent weeks, affected many Member States, has clearly shown how real the danger of having our gas supplies cut off is, and how ill-prepared we are to deal with the consequences.

Europe must finally start to show solidarity in the way it thinks and acts. We must build a suitable transmission infrastructure, create support mechanisms for countries which will lack supplies of raw materials and diversify the sources from which we obtain them. We must seek to find alternative sources of gas and create a system for saving energy and making our consumption of gas more efficient.

I am aware that all of these points have already been raised on numerous occasions in the past, but what good is that if we are still stuck at the drawing board?

in writing. - The importance of energy efficiency and its contribution to meeting our climate change targets cannot be underestimated. Energy efficiency programmes have the potential to create jobs.

I voted in favour of this resolution on the return and reintegration of detainees from the Guantánamo detention centre.

It seems to me that Europe can only congratulate President Obama on his decision to close the detention centre, something that many of us have been demanding for several years. Therefore, this seems to me to be a good opportunity to respond to the request of the USA by putting forward a common position in line with the values of the European Union.

It is essential that we are also able to put our own house in order within our own borders and that the European countries that have allowed the CIA to covertly transfer prisoners are in turn made aware of their responsibilities.

in writing. - (DA) The Danish Liberal Party's MEPs voted against paragraph 4 of the motion for a resolution on the return and resettlement of the Guantánamo detention facility inmates, as we believe that it is the sovereign right of individual Member States to decide whether to accept inmates from Guantánamo should the US administration so request.

We are, of course, in favour of Member States consulting each other regarding possible effects on public security throughout the EU in the event that Member States wish to accept inmates.

in writing. - For many MEPs the existence of the Guantánamo Bay prison became a stick with which to beat America. Personally, I am grateful that the United States yet again took on a disproportionate responsibility for protecting Europe from terrorism.

Nevertheless, I accept that Guantánamo Bay prison should close. That's not because I think that violent terrorists don't need to be locked up; quite the opposite, in fact. But clearly the legal issues surrounding the detention of enemy combatants need to be resolved, and the best way of doing so is by closing Camp X-Ray.

Much as I admire and support America, it must be said that the inmates of Guantánamo are essentially America's responsibility, not ours. They were captured or arrested under American command and should therefore be prosecuted for and detained for alleged offences against America, under American law and on American territory.

I do not support the idea of EU Member States taking responsibility for these extremely dangerous terrorists. However, nor do I think the EU should tell Member States what to do in this regard.

I therefore voted to abstain on this resolution.

in writing. - We have to be very careful when taking decisions like those proposed in this resolution. We cannot just open our arms and welcome everyone released from Guantánamo. Whilst assuring that the ex-detainees are treated with dignity we have to ensure that they are innocent beyond reasonable doubt before taking any decisions. Any haphazard decisions may be fatal if we do not pay the utmost attention.

in writing. - While welcoming the decision to close Guantánamo, I am concerned by the willingness of European countries to admit former detainees who may maintain terrorist links. Given the policy of free movement of people within the EU, the actions of one European country may have repercussions for others at a time when we already face complex terrorist problems. Furthermore, our ability to deport a terrorist suspect is constrained by international conventions (such as ECHR) whose revision is overdue.

in writing. - I support this resolution which welcomes President Obama's closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay and his other important and related executive orders; Recalls that the United States must bear the primary responsibility for the closure of these facilities including the future of its inmates; However, calls on EU Member States, in the spirit of providing fair and humane treatment for all and reinforcing international law, to respond positively to any request from the United States to aid the resettlement of Guantánamo Bay inmates within the European Union.

However, I am deeply concerned by reports that the Obama administration is to retain the practice of rendition.

We voted in favour of the European Parliament's joint motion for a resolution on the possibility of receiving Guantánamo inmates who have not been charged with offences, since we believe that EU cooperation is essential to reinforce international law and respect for human rights, and to ensure that Guantánamo inmates receive fair, impartial treatment.

We therefore regard the Portuguese Government's initiative and willingness to collaborate with the US Administration in the process of closing the Guantánamo detention facility as an example to be followed by other Member States, in order to support the United States in resolving this complex problem within a framework of respect for human rights and the rules of international law.

in writing. - (PT) I voted against this joint motion for a resolution. In view of its recitals D (third item) and F, I consider it unacceptable that the EU should encourage its Member States to be prepared to take in prisoners released from Guantánamo in response to an ill-advised, demagogic suggestion by the Portuguese Foreign Minister.

In fact, we should not under any circumstances agree to EU Member States accepting detainees believed to be 'potential threats' (recital D); nor should we forget the precedent of the 61 former inmates who have been involved in terrorism since their release (recital F).

Since it is impossible to safely distinguish between those who pose a potential threat and those who do not, it is obvious that the precautionary principle should apply not just in the context of REACH.

Although the joint motion for a resolution includes certain points that we consider positive, particularly where it says that 'the main responsibility for the whole process of closing the Guantánamo Bay detention facility and for the future of its inmates rests with the United States', it does not clarify the terms in which we should regard the extremely serious humanitarian situation in question.

As we have emphasised previously, we oppose any agreement between countries or between the United States and the European Union on the transfer of prisoners detained in Guantánamo. That does not mean that decisions and requests freely expressed by individuals, namely for asylum in Portugal, should not be considered within a framework of respect for national sovereignty, for the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and for international law.

The resolution, however:

fails to denounce the fact that the detention and illegal transport of citizens have not been questioned by the new US Administration; and

completely ignores the need to discover the whole truth about the violations of international law and human rights committed as part of the so-called 'war on terror', including the responsibilities of the governments of several EU countries regarding the use of their countries' air space and territory for the rendition and transport of illegally detained prisoners.

I warmly congratulate and support the decision of US President Barack Obama to begin the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre. This is an important step towards a new beginning in US policy. I am sure that all EU Member States will support such US policies and will answer President Obama's appeal for cooperation, or help in solving the question of released prisoners, if he asks for this. However, I voted against the resolution article, which urges Member States, 'to be ready to accept Guantánamo prisoners', as I believe this question should be decided independently by each country in the Community. I have no doubt that each one of them, once faced with a concrete case, will respond positively and offer support to the US administration. However, that will represent their own choice and good will and respect for humanitarian and international legal norms.

in writing. - (EL) The Greek Communist Party MEPs voted against the joint motion for a resolution by the political parties in the European Parliament, calling for the immediate release of all detainees arbitrarily arrested and held by the USA at the base in Guantánamo and the immediate and definitive closure of the base which they also illegally maintain on Cuban soil, against the will of the Cuban people and its government.

Rather than this, the resolution calls for a 'fair trial' for anyone the USA considers it has evidence against, calling on the Member States of the EU to accept detainees in their prisons, within the framework of the joint fight against terrorism by the EU and the USA. It is an absolute mockery and complicity to agree to the trial and sentencing of detainees, when we all know the mediaeval torture which they suffered and hence the credibility of any such evidence following years of inhumane imprisonment.

The celebrations and salutations surrounding President Obama are making people delude themselves about the policy of imperialism. As far as this specific issue is concerned, the order for Guantánamo maintains the facility for the CIA to 'abduct terrorist suspects' and take them to secret prisons.

in writing. - (DE) I have voted in favour of the European Parliament's joint motion for a resolution on the return and resettlement of the Guantánamo detention facility inmates, because I welcome the acceptance of Guantánamo prisoners by the countries of the EU. Many EU Member States are jointly culpable when it comes to Guantánamo because, for example, they granted overflying rights for the illegal transport of prisoners.

However, the report contains a few points which make it difficult to vote in its favour.

The torture practices in Guantánamo and, in particular, waterboarding are not explicitly referred to as torture, but instead as 'harsh interrogation techniques which amount to torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment'.

In addition, the amendments tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance asking for all secret prison camps to be closed, the right of compensation for the victims and an investigation of violations of human rights in relation to Guantánamo were all rejected.

Europe's difficulty in dealing with the decision to close Guantánamo clearly illustrates the gap between intentions based on valid principles and reality, which is replete with difficulties.

The closure of Guantánamo is good news both in itself and symbolically. Closure, however, does not solve the problem for which the facility was created - and which it too failed to resolve - which is how to deal with a threat to national and international security that is marked by entirely different characteristics from those of traditional enemy combatants, for whom international law was designed and is prepared.

Rather than just cooperating in possibly accepting former Guantánamo inmates - a measure that may be necessary but must take account of a number of limitations - Europe, the United States and the international community must cooperate in seeking a stable and lasting legal solution to the challenge posed by international terrorist combatants. Without that, Guantánamo will be followed by another poor solution.

As for our taking in former detainees, not only should there be coordination at European level, but it would be advisable not to take in those who, in other circumstances, would not be granted visas on security grounds. Willingness and caution should be the criteria adopted.

in writing. - (IT) I voted against the joint motion for a resolution on the return and resettlement of the Guantánamo detention facility inmates. In particular, I am firmly convinced that the responsibility for the entire process of closing the Guantánamo detention facility and the future of its inmates rests solely and exclusively with the United States of America.

Moreover, I do not agree with the assertion made in the resolution that the responsibility for respect for international law and fundamental rights rests with all democratic countries, particularly the European Union. We cannot interfere in a matter in which the United States' Government has sole competence. In short, for the reasons cited above, I am opposed to the possible admission of Guantánamo inmates to the EU.

in writing. - All EU Member States must play their part in making possible the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison. It is no good calling on the Americans to close the place, which the new President is doing, if we cannot shoulder some responsibility.

I welcomed the news of Barack Obama's decision concerning the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison. During his election campaign, Mr Obama had already underlined that closing this notorious prison would be a priority.

The matter of the return and transfer of the Guantánamo inmates may be a sign of an important shift in US policy in the right direction, namely towards respect for fundamental rights, as well as humanitarian and international law. Now, each prisoner should stand trial. If they are found guilty, they should serve their sentence in a prison in the United States. Those who have not been charged and who voluntarily agree to be repatriated, should be sent back to their countries of origin as soon as possible. Prisoners who cannot be sent back to their country of origin due to a risk of torture or persecution should be allowed to remain in the United States, where they should receive humanitarian protection and compensation. There are currently around 242 prisoners held at Guantánamo. Some of them are there only because there is no safe country to which they can return. These people have not been charged with any crime.

The fight against terrorism is, and remains, a foreign policy priority for both the European Union and the United States. However, we must strongly emphasise that it must always go hand in hand with respect for fundamental rights and the principles of the rule of law.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

(The Minutes of the previous sitting were approved)

- Madam President, on a point of order, I refer to Rule 142(2)(a) and (b) on the allocation of speaking time. Yesterday when we were discussing the Guantánamo prison, here in the Chamber, I and several other speakers were interrupted without mercy when we had exceeded our speaking time by a few seconds. That harsh treatment was meted out by Mr Pöttering and Mr Siwiec, the Vice-President replacing him later in the afternoon.

Mr Schulz, the Socialist Group leader, on the other hand, was permitted by Mr Pöttering to exceed his time limit by far more than a minute. Now, I would not dream of insinuating that this was because Mr Pöttering and Mr Schulz are buddies - alte Kameraden as one might put it in German - but I do spot a recurring pattern here. Colleagues from big groups elaborating the political message the Chair wants to hear are treated with great generosity. Colleagues from smaller groups elaborating the political message the Chair does not want to hear are treated with great meanness. Now that is in breach of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clearly stated how speaking time should be allocated.

I want to remind Mr Pöttering and all his Vice-Presidents -

(The President informed the speaker that he had exceeded his speaking time)

I was sent here to defend subsidiarity and the sovereignty of member countries and the President and the Vice-Presidents of this Parliament have no right whatsoever to try and silence the voice of 15% of the Swedish electorate.

Mr Lundgren, I am now cutting you off. You have exceeded your speaking time by more than half. I have taken note of what you have said. I believe that it is clear to everyone.

- Madam President, can I remind you that this would not have happened to Mr Schulz. He would not have been interrupted by you. This is the great difference. But you prove my point - thank you very much.

- Mr Lundgren, I am sure that you are mistaken. I will record what you have said and it will appear in the Minutes. It would certainly also be appropriate to discuss in the Bureau the question of differing behaviour, which is partly dependent on the amount of time available.

Kosovo (debate) 

- The next item is the Council and Commission statements on Kosovo.

(DE) Madam President, we are discussing Kosovo today against the background of a very detailed report by Mr Lagendijk, the rapporteur, which is, of course, linked to statements from the Commission and the Council.

In this case the rapporteur has no official speaking time, which I believe is an appalling situation. If the rapporteur were only to present the initiative report on Monday evening, he would have four minutes. I think that this is unfair. I would therefore ask the Bureau to consider whether someone who has worked for months as the rapporteur of the Committee on Foreign Affairs should not also be given official speaking time.

Now Mrs Kallenbach has given him her minute of time out of a sense of solidarity with a colleague from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. Perhaps it would be possible, Madam President, if this is within your power, to give Mrs Kallenbach one minute under the 'catch-the-eye''procedure. However, I would like to ask you to think about this carefully. We need to find a different arrangement in this type of case.

- It is certainly correct that the fundamental problem should be dealt with. As far as this specific situation is concerned, I recommend Mrs Kallenbach to request the minute under the 'catch-the-eye' procedure because that would make things significantly simpler.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, I am grateful for this opportunity to take stock of the latest developments in Kosovo. In two weeks' time - on 17 February 2009 - Kosovo will celebrate the first anniversary of its declaration of independence, and this debate is certainly timely. Since then, Kosovo has adopted a constitution and a completely new legal and institutional framework. The declaration of independence created a new situation and new challenges for the international community and for the EU in particular.

The differing views of the Member States in reaction to the declaration of independence in no way undermine the Union's overall policy objectives. We remain committed to assisting in the economic and political development of Kosovo within the overall objective of ensuring long-term stability for the Balkans as a whole.

In the case of Kosovo, that means contributing in particular to strengthening of the rule of law, respect for human rights and the protection of minorities, as well as encouraging economic development and working for the protection of Kosovo's rich cultural and religious heritage.

It also means continuing to see Kosovo within the wider framework set for the Western Balkans at the Thessaloniki Summit in 2003. The policy of supporting a European perspective for all the Western Balkan countries, agreed on that occasion, has since been reaffirmed, most recently by the Council at its meeting of 8 December 2008.

Proof of our continued commitment lies in the rapid appointment early last year of Pieter Feith as EU Special Representative, who is based in Priština, and you will have a chance to meet him in the Committee on Foreign Affairs very soon. His task, and that of his team, is to provide valuable support on the ground in order to help us collectively meet all our political objectives.

More recently, EULEX, the most ambitious civilian ESDP mission to date, began its mandate in early December 2008. Its main aim is to assist and support the Kosovo authorities in the area of the rule of law, specifically in developing the police, judiciary and customs administration.

Our main challenge over the coming months will be to intensify our engagement in Kosovo, most importantly by moving to full deployment of EULEX. We are realistic enough to know that 2009 will present its fair share of difficulties and obstacles.

Kosovo institutions will also face many challenges in the implementation of their commitments to develop a stable multi-ethnic and democratic Kosovo. The international community's assistance is crucial if Kosovo is to succeed in integrating fully with the rest of the region.

The Commission has announced that later this year it will present a study examining ways of furthering Kosovo's political and socio-economic development. This has been welcomed by the Council. It should offer new opportunities and build on what has already been achieved, adjusted in the light of our experience over the next few months.

The situation in the north of Kosovo will certainly continue to be difficult over the months to come, and will require particular attention. The most recent outbreaks of ethnic violence in Mitrovica in early January this year were potentially serious but were contained. It is particularly encouraging that the authorities in Priština acted with reasonable restraint. However, these incidents are a constant reminder of the constant risk of destabilisation there. We will continue to monitor closely the situation in the north of the country in particular.

The Presidency is grateful for the continuing interest of Members of Parliament and for your support for the role of the Union in the region. I particularly welcome the proposed resolution which has been tabled at this part-session. It is encouraging that Parliament is able to give its broad support to our efforts in the region, and to the Union's commitment to the stability of Kosovo within the wider region.

This Presidency is committed to keeping you informed, both through regular discussions here in the plenary, as well as more detailed briefings through the committees. We are planning various activities this spring, inter alia to dedicate the Gymnich meeting in late March to the Western Balkans. I also know that Pieter Feith will be meeting with the AFET Committee next week, and he will be able to provide a comprehensive update on the latest developments on the ground.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, just one year after the declaration of independence, the situation in Kosovo, and in the whole Western Balkans region, is overall stable and under control, in spite of some incidents.

The European Union presence in Kosovo is progressively materialising, taking over from the United Nations. The EU special representative is residing in Priština, and the EU's Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) is deployed throughout Kosovo and will be fully operational at the end of March.

A stable and multi-ethnic Kosovo is a key priority for the European Union. The best way for Kosovo to move towards European integration is by creating a democratic and multi-ethnic society, with full respect for the rule of law, cooperating peacefully with its neighbours and contributing to regional and European stability. This includes extensive measures to safeguard the future of all communities in Kosovo, thereby creating a basis for sustainable economic and political development.

The Commission's progress report of November 2008 was considered by the authorities to be an objective and fair assessment of what was achieved and of the challenges ahead. The Kosovo authorities have committed themselves to working and cooperating with the Commission in meeting these challenges. We allocate significant funding to Kosovo under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (EPA), as part of the overall pledge of EUR 1.2 billion reached at the July 2008 donors' conference.

In 2008, the Instrument for Pre-Accession supported projects worth EUR 185 million in Kosovo, a three-fold increase compared to the previous year. We will allocate a further EUR 106 million in 2009. The management of this funding is the exclusive responsibility of our Commission Liaison Office in Priština, which is now fully operational with all relevant control systems in place, and takes over from the European Agency for Reconstruction.

The Commission welcomes the draft resolution being discussed here today in the European Parliament. It touches on many issues that we agree are of crucial importance, such as the preservation of Kosovo's cultural heritage, the improvement of its public administration capacity, better integration among its communities, the importance of multi-ethnic education, and the plight of Roma families in lead-contaminated refugee camps in the north.

The Commission takes all these issues very seriously. Perhaps I can say a few words on each of them in turn.

Since 2004, the Commission has financed the reconstruction of religious and cultural heritage sites - its programme with a budget of EUR 10 million - with the close involvement of the Council of Europe. In 2008 and 2009 funding is continuing, with EUR 2.5 million more for further projects. We consider this a very important aspect of reconciliation and have supported the establishment of Kosovo's cultural heritage database. Graveyards could also be included in this debate so as to ensure their proper restoration and preservation.

I would like to express our gratitude to the European Parliament for the additional amount of EUR 3 million, within the 2008 EU budget, for cultural heritage reconstruction in the war-affected areas in the Western Balkans. The Commission has allocated half of this amount - EUR 1.5 million - to Kosovo, in a joint project with the Ministry of Culture, in the multi-ethnic town of Prizren.

We are grateful for the additional amount under this heading which is also allocated in this year's budget. Under the 2007 Instrument for Pre-Accession, the Commission is implementing projects to facilitate the return and reintegration of internally displaced people and refugees in Kosovo, for a total of amount of EUR 3.3 million. We have envisaged further funding -EUR 4 million under the 2008 Instrument for Pre-Accession, and EUR 2 million under the 2009 Instrument for Pre-Accession. This money will also contribute to improving the local capacity to reintegrate returnees into the local social and economic environment.

Gender equality is high on our agenda as well. The Commission has provided technical assistance to the Kosovo Gender Equality Agency. It has also supported the activities of several local NGOs working in the field of gender equality and women's rights through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.

As regards public administration capacity, the Commission monitors the implementation of Kosovo's public administration reform strategy and action plan. We have stressed with the authorities the urgency of adopting the Civil Service Law. Through our involvement in setting up the regional school for public administration we also cooperate with the Kosovo Institute for Public Administration. Special attention is paid to the Ministry of Local Government and Administration, with a support project for almost EUR 1 million.

The Commission is making significant efforts to help reform the education system in Kosovo. Our financial assistance is comprehensive. It aims at improving both material conditions and the quality of teaching at primary, secondary and tertiary levels and in the vocational sector, as well as strengthening the multicultural aspects as a basic condition for reconciliation.

Following the July donors' conference, a multi-donor trust fund was set up by the World Bank for the broader social sector, including education. With EUR 5 million, the Commission is among the main contributors to the fund. Altogether, EU assistance to education in Kosovo, over the period 2006-2010, amounts to EUR 30.5 million. The opening of a multi-ethnic European university college will receive our support once all local stakeholders reach an agreement to make this effort a sustainable project.

The plight of Roma families in lead-contaminated refugee camps in the north is an issue of serious concern. The Commission is actively assisting in finding a swift and sustainable solution acceptable to all. We have repeatedly called on all parties to refrain from politicising the issue, and to act only with the best interests of the Roma families in mind.

Finally, Kosovo also benefits from our multi-beneficiary programmes, covering the Western Balkans and Turkey, which fund the process of civil registration of Roma people. Our support for Roma in Kosovo also includes education. Together with the Council of Europe, we support quality education for Roma children, including in their mother tongue.

In my view, all this is very much in line with your proposals. I thank all honourable Members of this Parliament very much for their attention and look forward to your questions.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur, because I believe that together we have produced a very good resolution.

This resolution calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that joint action is taken in Kosovo, that EULEX acts together with the High Representative of the EU and that synergies are created in the interest of the economic and social life of Kosovo which is in need of improvement.

The EULEX mission must also ensure that the court cases which have been going on there for years are finally addressed and brought to an end. There are still many atrocities which have not yet been exposed and brought before a court. Combating corruption in Kosovo is also important, as there are still many criminals at large who remain unpunished.

In addition to what we have already heard, the European Union should consider not only taking action on a large scale, but also focusing more closely on the daily life of the people there and the opportunities for local projects involving local people. This work is very important.

We must call on the government of Kosovo finally to begin the practical implementation of its constitution, which includes the Martti Ahtisaari plan. The people of Kosovo must become aware in their everyday lives that they all live together. In addition, Serbs, Albanians and all the other minorities in Kosovo must be regarded as citizens with equal rights.

The government of Kosovo must also push ahead with its decentralisation programme. I am, of course, very much in favour of establishing a multi-ethnic European college, which would be another joint institution alongside the University of Priština and the University of Mitrovica that focuses on a shared future.

In addition, I would like Serbia to realise at last that the Serbs in Kosovo do not want to be encouraged not to take part in the government. They must be allowed to take part in the government, in parliamentary work and in civilian life. This is the only way in which Kosovo will flourish.

Madam President, I am speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. We can confirm that the situation in Kosovo is improving. We are grateful to the Czech Presidency and to the Commission for their good cooperation. I am completely in agreement with Mrs Pack in confirming that the EULEX Mission is a very great challenge for the European Security and Defence Policy, one of the greatest challenges in the entire history of the European Union as a Community based on the rule of law.

It is a good thing that there is already a legal basis following the statement by the President of the Security Council, which has been welcomed by the Serbian Government. There was tacit agreement on the part of China and Russia, who had previously rejected any settlement of the conflict.

It is essential that EULEX cooperates well with the parties concerned in Kosovo. We must not repeat the mistakes made by MINUK, which wasted a lot of money and alienated the people of Kosovo. Mrs Pack has also touched on this subject. It is very important to clarify the division of competences between the Government and the Parliament of Kosovo, on the one hand, and EULEX, on the other.

We cannot take responsibility for the development of Kosovo. The presence of EULEX in the north of Kosovo is very important in order to avoid partition of this territory. Finally, the complete implementation of the provisions of the constitution in line with the Ahtisaari Plan is an essential matter for minorities.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DA) Madam President, first of all I would like to express my deep satisfaction with this motion for a resolution and to thank Mr Lagendijk for his sterling work. The result is a text that is well-balanced and to the point, while at the same time managing to deal with all of the important problems. With this resolution, we in the European Parliament are first and foremost sending out a signal to the people of Kosovo and to the peoples of the other countries in the Western Balkans that says 'you have not been forgotten, you are part of Europe'. These are not merely empty words with no real meaning. The EULEX mission, the largest mission under the common European Security and Defence Policy to date, is already underway. It is gratifying that the mission is supported by the UN and that it covers the whole country.

With our resolution, we in the European Parliament are supporting Kosovo in this mission. We also point out the areas in which the EU Member States can assist Kosovo. This relates to special aid for establishing the public administration, strengthening civil society and for educational projects. When we point out areas in which Kosovo's leaders need to improve, for example with regard to the protection of minorities, this is because we are serious when we say that we will stand by Kosovo in its efforts to create a democratic society. A democratic society with respect for minorities, coexisting peacefully with its neighbouring countries. This is not only about Kosovo's future, but about the future of the entire Balkans region and of Europe as a whole. The road ahead is a long one, and it will be difficult. There is only one way, and that is towards the EU and full and complete integration of Kosovo, as well as the rest of the Western Balkans, into the framework of European cooperation.

Madam President, the original sin committed when this new country, namely Kosovo, was born involved the feeling, prevalent amongst the Serbian minority in Kosovo and Metochia, as well as in Serbia itself, that the new state, and the entire Muslim majority, were set against the Serbs. This must have had an impact on relations between Belgrade and Priština, and certainly also on relations between the people of Kosovo and the Serbs living in ethnic Serb enclaves.

If the cultural, educational and religious rights of the Serbian minority are not respected, not only will bilateral relations between Kosovo and Serbia, as well as in other parts of the Balkans, become more difficult, it will also make Priština's road to European Union membership longer.

I agree with what the honourable Mr Lebech, who spoke before me, stated. The government of Kosovo has to understand that respect for the rights of minorities is a European standard. We have to strictly adhere to these principles and, in this regard, keep a careful eye on our partners in Kosovo.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) It took EULEX nearly a year before it was able to carry out its original mandate. It is good to briefly remind ourselves today what this original mandate involved.

EULEX, the largest European mission to date - as someone already pointed out - was to develop, and be active all over, Kosovo, both north and south of the river Ibar. EULEX was also to take charge in three areas: customs, police and jurisdiction and crucially, there was to be no - and I mean no - ambiguous relationship between EULEX on the one hand and UNMIK, the UN organisation, on the other. Let alone that EULEX's activities would result in that country being split into north and south. That was absolutely not what was intended.

For a very long time, it looked as if it was impossible to carry out the original mandate on account of the notorious blockade in the Security Council. It is only since November last year, in fact, that it looks as if things will work out after all. It is good - two, three months on from the activities actually getting underway - to take stock and to see whether things are working out or, let me couch this in more cautious terms, things appear to be working out.

The Kosovar police are delighted with the excellent cooperation they are enjoying with EULEX. Customs offices are finally up and running again, also, and particularly in the northern part of Kosovo, after they were burnt down last year by Kosovan Serbs. Finally, a start has been made on the huge backlog of lawsuits in the fields of inter-ethnic violence and corruption, which demonstrates once more that EULEX's activities are in the interests of all the communities, not just the Albanians or the Serbs.

What I really hope is that EULEX's progress over the last couple of months will be sustained in a positive manner. I also sincerely hope that Belgrade realises that its current approach of constructively working with the European Union is far and away more effective than trying to re-write history all the time. Above all, I hope that the Kosovar authorities manage to solve this huge stack of problems that they still face. At long last, corruption will be tackled, as well as organised crime, which is still far too prevalent in Kosovo. At long last, Kosovo will have a durable energy supply, based on EU legislation, and at long last, the Kosovan economy will take off.

Kosovo is an independent state and, whether this Parliament likes it or not, there is no going back. We, the European Union, stand to gain from Kosovo developing into a viable state. This is why we are there and why we need to remain there.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, rejects the resolution that has been tabled on Kosovo. The majority of the Member States, but not all, have recognised Kosovo in contravention of international law. My group insists that all the regulations concerning Kosovo must be in line with international law and must be agreed with all the parties involved, including Serbia. The recognition of Kosovo has created a disastrous precedent, which is now being followed by other regions, such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The EU has launched the EULEX mission in Kosovo. The GUE/NGL Group rejects this mission as it is based on the recognition of Kosovo in contravention of international law and therefore creates something similar to an EU protectorate. EULEX has, and I quote, 'certain executive responsibilities'. This means that EULEX officials can annul simple resolutions made by the Kosovan authorities. The EULEX mission also includes 500 policemen to combat insurrection. On 26 January EULEX and KFOR held a joint exercise on combating insurrection. This unfortunately indicates the close cooperation that exists between the EU and NATO in Kosovo.

At the same time, the EU and other organisations are promoting neo-liberal economic reconstruction in Kosovo, but this is not what the local people want. For this reason, we are calling for solutions which are in line with international law and a clear vote against the EU EULEX mission. If we really want to support the local people, the EULEX mission will not allow us to do so.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) When I paid Kosovo a working visit two months ago, I could see why many find it difficult to fathom the international presence in that country. Moreover, I got the impression that the different levels did not always work together that well.

The European institutions should not simply shrug their shoulders. We are caught up in this. Via the EULEX mission, Europe is responsible for the situation on the ground. EULEX should adopt a more assertive stance and should assist the Kosovar authorities wherever it can, whether this is solicited or not.

I should like to underline two things. First of all, I urge the Member States that have not yet recognised Kosovo to reconsider their stance. There is no way back for Kosovo within Serbia's borders. Secondly, I call for a master plan for the Western Balkans, which should work at a tangible level with all the countries involved to help them get ready to join the European Union. This is Europe's commitment with regard to the Western Balkans.

(DE) Madam President, as shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I would like to congratulate Mr Lagendijk on his excellent text. We support the reform programme in Serbia and we respect, of course, the tiny minority of EU Member States which have not recognised Kosovo under international law.

However, we want to discourage people from believing that this development can be reversed. Three-quarters of the Members of this House voted in favour of recognising Kosovo. The Commission has also declared itself in favour, together with 23 out of 27 Member States, all the G7 countries, four of the six former Yugoslavian republics and three of Kosovo's four neighbouring countries.

This demonstrates that this development is irreversible. This is why it is important to look to the future, which involves a number of risks. The first major risk is the division of Kosovo. Until now the former Yugoslavia has been divided along the borders of the old republics or along the old internal borders of the autonomous regions. If the map is to be redrawn, for example in Mitrovica, the result would be that, for example, the Albanians in the Preševo valley in Serbia, the people in Sandžak of Novi Pazar and others would begin to question where the borders should lie. This would give rise to a highly dangerous situation.

For this reason, it makes sense to follow the Ahtisaari plan, which respects the old internal borders of Yugoslavia while providing mutual and extensive protection for minorities. The protection for minorities offered by the former Ahtisaari plan, which now forms part of the Kosovan constitution, is the most comprehensive programme of protection in the world. The Serbs in Kosovo should take this opportunity and make use of this minority protection.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you know that I myself come from a minority which was once abused to suit the purposes of others. The Serbs in Kosovo must ensure that they avoid this type of situation. The other danger which threatens Kosovo is that of chaos and corruption. In this case I can only say that we must make EULEX stronger, because UNMIK was not the solution, but, in fact, part of the problem.

(DE) Madam President, my fellow member Joost Lagendijk is in the same situation as Kosovo. He exists, but he is not recognised by everyone as a rapporteur, although, in fact, he is one. In this context I would like to thank him very much, together with Mr Tabajdi, for his report.

Of course, we have not made as much progress with the recognition of Kosovo as many people, including those in Kosovo, would have liked. We must acknowledge that this has been a painful situation for Serbia. We should not add fuel to the fire. Instead we should make every effort to ensure that the process is a peaceful one. I am very pleased that the leaders of Serbia, despite their many harsh words at the beginning, have attempted to legalise and neutralise the situation in order to give the EULEX mission a chance. I would ask everyone who is opposed to the EULEX mission what situation the Serbian and other minorities in the country would be in if the EULEX mission did not exist?

It is nonsensical from the standpoint of the Serbian minority or of Serbia to condemn the EULEX mission. I believe that the fact that someone here in Parliament who supports Serbia has condemned the EULEX mission is simply grotesque. However, it is true that there are some questions which remain unanswered. The political leaders in Kosovo must make an effort to get things done. One of our main tasks and demands is to implement all the aspects of the Ahtisaari plan, which we will vote on tomorrow as part of this resolution.

Finally, we should promote the integration of the entire region. Of course, all the countries will have to do their homework. However, the more progress which Serbia and Macedonia make in the integration process, the sooner we will be able to resolve the Kosovo question and the other related open questions. Only the integration of all the countries in the region will create the conditions needed by Kosovo for peaceful development.

- (NL) Since all those who have taken the floor are familiar to very familiar or exceptionally familiar with the situation in Kosovo, there is no need to expand on this any further in an attempt to convince ourselves how familiar we are with the situation.

We should, first of all, rejoice at the fact that the first year of Kosovo's independence turned out quite well in the end, and better than many had feared. I should also like to express my delight and satisfaction at the fact that the EULEX mission finally got fully underway, thanks to the good will of many and the skill within the UN Security Council. A great deal will depend on the success of this EULEX mission, because Kosovo was a protectorate for ten years prior to its independence. What matters now is for all of us to guide Kosovo towards maturity.

- (PL) Madam President, a unilateral decision taken by the Albanian community resulted in the Serbian province of Kosovo being separated from Serbia. Personally, I view this move as an unprecedented violation of international law. Furthermore, this decision has had further repercussions, as events in the Caucasus last year have shown.

I would like to remind you that the United Nations did not recognise the decision taken by the Kosovar Albanians. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 remains in force. That is why I would warn against making any decisions before the International Criminal Court in The Hague rules on this matter. Only then will we know the real legal status of a province which, under international law, is still an integral part of the Republic of Serbia.

I would like to draw your attention to the dramatic situation still facing the Serbian community in the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo. Let us openly admit that the decision taken by certain European Union Member States to recognise that country was a fatal mistake. It is quite simple: Kosovo belongs to Serbia.

- (NL) Since Kosovo announced its independence nearly a year ago, the European Union has been hopelessly divided on this. Greece is undecided, while Spain, Romania, Slovakia and Cyprus reject this independence for domestic reasons. The joint EULEX project with which the European Union is hoping to gain influence within Kosovo seems more like an instrument to conceal this internal division than anything else.

EULEX might be beneficial to the European Union, but could this also be said of Kosovo? The people of Kosovo are keen to join the European Union soon and become an equal Member State. After nearly a century of subjugation by Serbia, they certainly do not want any new interference from outside. A project such as EULEX could perhaps have been useful for a short while, in the first few months of 2008, in order to avoid any chaos. That phase is over, however. EULEX's late arrival now very much creates the impression that the European Union would like to turn Kosovo into a protectorate, with a military presence and administrative influence, as was previously the case in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where this policy had little success.

To secure a peaceful and harmonious future for Kosovo, it is necessary to involve not only the present government and the governing parties. Important forces are the movement for self-determination Vetëvendosje in the south, who consider the EU's initiative to be pointless colonialism, and the representatives of the Serbs in the municipalities north of the river Ibar, who do everything they can to maintain a permanent link with Serbia. Without these critics of EULEX, we will not have a long-term solution. Kosovo's future is better served by widely accepted domestic compromises than a demonstrative display of power by the European Union.

- (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ten years ago NATO bombed Belgrade, no doubt in order to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary and to redefine its area of competence, which is restricted by the Washington Convention. These bombings were carried out in violation of international law, that is to say, without any prior UN agreement.

One year ago, the independence of Kosovo was declared unilaterally by Priština in blatant contempt of the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity had however been reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Today, the European EULEX mission, in association with US experts, hopes that Kosovo can become a state based on the rule of law. If the situation were not so dreadful, it would be amusing to wonder how such a fruit can be obtained from such origins.

In the meantime, we ask this mission to ensure that the national Serbian minority is respected and valued on the land of their ancestors. This seems to us to be a good beginning for the re-establishment of the rule of law.

- (SV) I was born in the Balkans. I followed the troubles in Kosovo at close quarters at the end of the 1980s. I saw Slovenia and Croatia become independent states and experience war at the beginning of the 1990s. I, personally, experienced the war in Bosnia and finally left the country as a refugee. I know that it is extremely easy to start a war, but I also know that it is a lot harder to establish peace and restore people's trust in one another.

Kosovo is currently in a situation that will be decisive for the future generations of that region precisely with regard to this matter of restoring trust between different ethnic groups. I am pleased that Mr Lagendijk has been so clear in his resolution about the fact that we should put discussions about Kosovo's independence and the conflicts surrounding that behind us.

Our time and energy should now be put into discussions on how we are to strengthen the equal rights of all people to live in peace, to work to create a better future for Kosovo. We need to concentrate on the effective protection of minorities and on improving the economic situation and combating the widespread corruption and organised crime.

Everyone in Kosovo should make it a personal task to help to stop the violence between ethnic groups. The courts should ensure that war crimes are addressed. Some of the Members of this Parliament regret the EU's presence and involvement in Kosovo, but those of us who experienced the wars in the Balkans regret the fact that the EU did not involve itself both more clearly and more extensively.

There is an enormous amount of work still to be done and it will take time, but ultimately it is about restoring trust between people so that subsequent generations will have the chance to be educated and to live and work together, in peace, with respect for each other's differences. This is what the whole European idea is about.

(Applause)

- (CS) I would like to mention briefly the role of Serbia in particular. Despite a difficult domestic situation the Serbian Government has adopted a very constructive and responsible approach to the deployment of the EULEX mission in Kosovo. In an agreement with the UN it has also facilitated the appointment of a senior police official of Serbian nationality to the police force in Kosovo. I firmly believe that this is the way to achieve the gradual inclusion of Kosovo Serbs and also other minorities in the political, economic and social life of Kosovo. In this context I would also like to invite the High Representative of the European Union to ensure that the Kosovo authorities devote sufficient attention to multilateral development in the Mitrovica area. And I share the view of Anna Ibrisagic that there is now a need to devote much more attention than before to the security and economic situation as well as to the economic development of Kosovo.

- Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Lagendijk, whose great political skills have produced a wonderful resolution for us to work from.

I thank him particularly for accepting paragraph 26, to which I wish to draw the Minister's and the Commission's attention. Here we note the exceptional ill-health of 1 500 Roma people, who are sitting on the edge of a lead mine and have been there through UN misjudgement for nine years. I fully accept that, as Minister Vondra has said, this is perhaps not quite the mission of the European Union. Nonetheless, I thank the Commission team for picking up this topic immediately I raised it and for visiting and for seeing the damage that the lead levels have caused. These people have monstrous lead levels in their blood, irreversible damage, and need immediate and urgent relocation and medical treatment.

Minister Vondra, you promised that you would keep this Parliament fully briefed. May I ask you, as President-in-Office, to give this matter your profoundest attention and to tell me what you do.

- (SL) I offer my sincere compliments to the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs on an excellent report. Its purpose is to contribute to the further stabilisation and normalisation of Kosovo.

Kosovo's successes over the past year have reinforced our hopes that multiethnic and multicultural coexistence is possible in Kosovo. The European aspirations of not only Kosovo, but also of the entire Western Balkans, can only become a reality if this prerequisite is met.

We have made progress, significant progress at that, and now we need to take that further. I welcome, in particular, the fact that the efforts of EULEX are also helping the situation in Kosovo to normalise. I welcome the recent establishment of Kosovan security forces and the participation of a section of the Serbian community in Kosovo's police force. If we are to make more rapid progress, we need to act on political, economic, security, social and other fronts and we need to pay particular attention to what is happening at a local level, where the issue of coexistence is most sensitive. We need to support projects which strengthen interethnic coexistence and cooperation. In that spirit, I welcome the European Commission's intention to employ all means at its disposal to achieve progress. That is exactly what Kosovo needs.

- Madam President, I welcome today's debate and resolution as the next step in the normalisation of relations between the European Union and Kosovo one year after independence.

It is important to stress that those, like Mr Van Orden and Mr Tannock of the British Conservatives, who oppose the move, have been proved wrong, with now 54 countries - including 22 of our own European Member States - offering legal recognition, and our own EU Rule of Law Mission has been deployed with the assent of Serbia. Indeed, all along we have argued that a resolved Kosovo helps Serbia's EU aspirations, and today we repeat that we want them to succeed.

Yesterday, the EU Justice Mission opened its first war crimes trial in Kosovo. Today, Her Royal Highness Princess Anne of Britain is visiting a school for disabled children in Gjilan, Kosovo. Surely, both together demonstrate Europe's commitment never to forget past injustices but to work today towards a better future for all.

- (NL) I should first of all like to congratulate Mr Lagendijk on this very even-handed resolution, and take this opportunity to thank Mrs Pack, as she and her delegation have done a considerable amount of useful work in this area.

The EU's objectives are clear: Kosovo must not become a black hole. The primary responsibility for this lies with the Kosovar authorities. The population must gain confidence not only in the government, but also in the legal system. Corruption and crime undermine the state. Women and minorities must also be fully involved.

A second responsibility lies, to my mind, with the neighbouring countries, particularly the Serb authorities. A constructive dialogue and regional cooperation are in everybody's interest in that region.

Finally, the European Union also has a large responsibility to bear. With EULEX, the European Union has set its aspirations high. It is good that the real work has now begun. The next two years will bear out whether EULEX can really continue to make a difference in the long run. I very much hope so.

Stability, reconciliation and the development of the rule of law in Kosovo are of major importance for the Kosovars and all the ethnic minorities in Kosovo, but they are also in the interests of the European Union. The effectiveness of aid must be paramount in this. Mrs Pack and I visited Kosovo not so long ago. There is no lack of aid, but it probably could be coordinated even more and even more effectively.

Madam President, how many recognitions are necessary for a state to be independent? This is not the question, since the quality of the recognitions matters more than the quantity. A declaration of self-determination does not lead to independence if the state in question is not recognised by those from which it wants to self-determine.

The independence of a state is not real as long as the United Nations Security Council does not accept it. Moreover, a state is not independent if it is not able to offer to all communities living on its territory a fair prospect of organic integration into a civic and multicultural society, and if it is not self-sustainable and self-governable.

For all these reasons, the Athisaari Plan failed. Asking for the status quo ante is not a solution either - one should move further. To this end, the European Union and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council must convene an international conference which should find a sustainable solution for democratic security, geo-strategic equilibrium and social economic stability in the Western Balkans. Within this framework Kosovo should be put back on the track of international legality, and the region should receive a clear road map for its EU integration.

Unfortunately, the Lagendijk report does not explore such ways thus abandoning any realistic drive towards a better future. Therefore, Romanian Social Democrats will be obliged to vote against this report.

(RO) According to the provisions of international law and having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1244 adopted in 1999, Kosovo cannot be considered a state. There are five EU Member States which have not recognised the act of unilateral independence declared by Kosovo. However, Kosovo is a reality and we must therefore deal with it.

Stability in the Western Balkans, the region with the most chance of joining the EU in the near future, is essential. This is why the EU must play the main role in managing the delicate situation in the area. The EULEX mission, which has already reached its initial operational capability, is an important first step in this direction as assistance and coordination are required to ensure, first of all, a climate of interethnic cooperation, making it possible to return to a normal way of life.

The protection of all minorities in Kosovo must be safeguarded, including that of the Serb minority. Institutions must be strengthened to avoid chaos and ensure stable development. Properties must be given back and refugees' right to return must be guaranteed. The financial instruments which the EU has, in particular the pre-accession assistance instrument, must be used to facilitate social and economic development, increase transparency and promote reconciliation between ethnic communities. Kosovo must not be isolated from the European processes in any way. It must enjoy the European perspective in a regional context. We need to apply the same standards in every region. Whatever is being asked of other countries in the region must also be applied to Serbia and Kosovo.

The European Union must insist on a resumption of dialogue between Priština and Belgrade. I feel that the resolution as it currently stands does not reflect the whole gamut of positions on Kosovo from the European Union's 27 Member States. This is why the Romanian delegation from the PPE-DE Group, apart from the MEPs of Hungarian origin, is going to vote against this resolution.

- (HU) Serbia had to be bombed to make it understand: the rights of minorities must be respected. It was a harsh lesson. Instead of granting autonomy to Kosovo, it has had to accept Kosovo's independence. Kosovo stands as a warning to EU Member States as well. Every Member State must ensure that the traditional ethnic minorities within its territory can live in security and feel at home. Satisfied minorities are the firmest foundation for a country's security, sovereignty and economic development. On 17 February 2008, I participated personally in the official celebrations in Priština marking the declaration of Kosovo's independence. I hope that I was able to ascertain as well that the cultural and territorial autonomy of the Serb minority is being recognised within Kosovo's territory. The Kosovo Albanians were given the opportunity for a European-style solution. Serbia has one more chance: Vojvodina. EU Member States can also make efforts to grant cultural or territorial autonomy to the ethnic minorities living within their territories. It would be embarrassing if certain EU Member States were to lag behind Kosovo and Serbia in this respect.

(RO) As an MEP and member of the Delegation for South-East Europe, I expect to hear, on behalf of our common values, which we call with pride 'European values', that the European Parliament and European Commission are requesting, with all their power and authority, the political parties in Kosovo to become open to multiethnic representation, and that any future progress in relations between Kosovo and the European Union depends on such a development.

I expected this report to tell us that the model which the EU intends to build in Kosovo, with European taxpayers' money, as it happens, is truly multiethnic, multicultural and multi-denominational, and not based on segregation. In our discussions with MPs from Kosovo, they told us that this kind of model cannot be implemented for the time being.

I would like to end with the following question: if this model cannot be applied in Kosovo and if our European values do not have any place in Kosovo, what model then can the European Commission apply?

- (DE) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Lagendijk, as well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for having ensured, through this resolution and this debate, that the subject of Kosovo remains on our agenda. It is my opinion that the people of Kosovo have certainly earned this, after the European Union's failure there in the 1990s.

We have a debt to pay there, namely that we owe it to the people of Kosovo and of the entire region to provide them with quite intensive help them along their route into the EU. In this respect, the absolute number one priority is the preconditions for improved economic development, as without these, social unrest cannot be ruled out.

I would like to ask the Commission to bring its influence to bear to ensure that the CEFTA agreement is actually implemented by all the signatory States. I would also ask the Council to please ensure that the Member States handle the matter of the forced repatriation of asylum seekers in a sensitive manner.

(RO) EULEX is the biggest civilian operation ever launched via the European security and defence policy. I would like to highlight that the 1 900-strong international contingent includes 200 military and ordinary police from Romania. Romania is therefore participating in EULEX because it is Bucharest's duty to support its partners in the European Union, even though it does not always agree with the decisions made by a majority of them.

Romania has not recognised the independence of the state of Kosovo, one of the reasons being that it wants to avoid legitimising any separatist unrest. A negotiated solution between Belgrade and Priština, possibly of a confederative nature, would have been preferable to the current situation. However, in the given circumstances, what is important is that the European Union successfully completes the mission. However, situations need to be avoided where the EU's involvement is prolonged ad infinitum. Kosovo must not become a European Union protectorate, but needs help to run its own affairs.

This aspect is important for both Kosovo and the European Union, especially in the current economic crisis and with the limited resources we have.

(RO) I agree with many of the ideas that have been expressed in the house, but this problem is much more complex. Romania is right when it expresses the view that the legal basis for Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence is highly dubious as, under international law, minorities do not have collective rights and do not enjoy the right to self-determination and secession either. What I would like to emphasise is that people belonging to ethnic minorities have rights.

Kosovo's secession and its recognition as a state by other countries have set a dangerous precedent, which has been followed, just a few months later, by Russia's unilateral recognition of the independence of the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In both these cases, President Putin clearly referred to the Kosovo model. Separatist movements in regions such as Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabah, Transnistria, Crimea, Northern Cyprus and so on have immediately stated that these regions are just as entitled to independence as Kosovo.

I feel that in the future the European Union and its Member States will have to consistently support the principle of territorial integrity for all states and actively discourage separatist tendencies. The European Union must make special efforts to maintain stability in the entire region of the Western Balkans and give substance to their European perspectives.

- (SK) Kosovo exists here as a fact accepted by some and not by others. Even if a majority of Member States are in favour of its independence or have recognised its independence there are five Member States which have not done so - not to mention the UN Security Council.

If we want the resolution to influence the foreign policy of the European Union then it must have a unifying effect. If we show that our common foreign policy has been forced through by majority, whether in the Council or in the European Parliament, then it will be counterproductive for the unity of the Union. Let us seek a unified solution and let us not push through decisions which are at best ambiguous or even confusing and sloppy in their wording.

Mr President, the international rush to recognise Kosovo was, in my view, hard to understand. There were plenty of older disputes to resolve that were worthier of the EU's efforts: Kashmir, for example, or Taiwan, or even Somaliland in the Horn of Africa.

Kosovo's declaration of independence has also exposed a schism amongst Member States. There is no way Kosovo can be part of the European Union or the United Nations while some Member States do not recognise its sovereignty. The precedent of Kosovo also provoked Russia's indignation and recognition of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as states last summer.

The people of the various parts of former Yugoslavia clearly have a right to live in peace and prosperity. We in the European Union have a moral duty to help, but this assistance should never be open-ended. We need to see real reform in Kosovo, genuine efforts to combat organised crime and people-trafficking, and proper protection and equality for minorities, such as the Serbs.

The Commission and the Council must remain vigilant and insistent on tangible progress.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Budgetary Control is allowing itself to say a few words on high-level foreign policy. We have established that in Kosovo - the third state that receives the most aid from the European Union - there are extremely worrying cases of corruption with grave consequences for the certainty of our budget and the financial interests of the Community.

There is a final report from a United Nations task force, the Commission's anti-fraud office and the Guarda di Finanza. This final report has not yet been implemented. It dates from the end of June 2008 and exposes serious cases of corruption involving EU funds. We await an explanation.

This final report really is a final report. There is no follow-up organisation. There is currently no one representing our interests on this matter. In this respect, too, I would call on the Commission to finally appoint someone. EULEX itself cannot do this job. I am also opposed to us continuing to make excuses for the uncertain status of this State.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I would like first of all to thank you for initiating this debate. I think it was the right move, to use the momentum of the upcoming first anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo. I think it is a timely move, especially with regard to the current economic crisis, because there is the potential danger that it will somehow disappear off our radar screen, while we still bear a lot of responsibility for completing the work: not just in Kosovo, but also in the broader area of the Western Balkans. I guess that what has been said here by many of you - like Hannes Swoboda and others - deserves a lot of attention. I think that the position of the Council is exactly the same.

We have a lot of challenges ahead of us. I would like to stress the three most important pillars of our policy towards Kosovo. The first is the indivisibility and stability of Kosovo. The second is decentralisation and equal opportunities for all minorities there. The third - and probably the most important and the most challenging - is the involvement of Kosovo in regional and European mainstreaming: regional cooperation in the Western Balkans. Certainly, one day we should bring Kosovo closer to the stabilisation and association process, but still a lot of work remains to be done, and it is no secret that on certain issues, unity in the Council will be difficult to attain.

I think our goal should be to concentrate on the future rather than on the past, and I really appreciate the statements of those who did so. Of course, dialogue with Serbia on the outstanding practical issues must be conducted with full transparency and a lot of intensity, but I think that realism should be the guiding principle for us.

The economic situation and its improvement is of paramount importance for achieving stability, so the effective management and mobilisation of Kosovo's own resources is a condition sine qua non there, as is sound administration and mobilisation of international resources. Also, fighting corruption and having transparent privatisation is an important element.

I think that Parliament's support for EULEX is very important here. Let me congratulate Joost Lagendijk on the work which he did. It was excellent. When I read the text, I personally had no complaints about it, though I would probably be a bit careful: we all know the economic situation in Kosovo and the energy shortages in Kosovo, as well as in the Balkans in general. Lignite and power generation is one of the few opportunities for them somehow to build a sustainable economy and to integrate this economy into the region. Yes, environmental concerns are important, but the booming of future economic stability is no less important.

Some of you mentioned the situation of the Roma families in the Trebca mines. We all know that this is a disastrous situation, and you are certainly aware of the Commission of work on this subject. There was a delegation led by Pierre Morel which visited the area in December, and they offered to meet with the Roma camp leaders in Trebca. There is no easy solution. We know there is an offer for them to move outside this area, but for the time being they are not ready to do that. In fact they are declining to do that, so a lot of work also remains to be done here. I think the meeting next week with Pieter Feith, who is also involved in this, will be an opportunity to discuss this further.

Once again, thank you very much. I think we had a very fruitful debate, and I hope that Parliament will continue to support all our efforts in Kosovo, as well as in the region.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission congratulates Mr Lagendijk and welcomes his resolution: it provides for the further involvement of Kosovo in the ongoing process of bringing the region closer to Europe.

The Commission has established an effective mode of cooperation with all local actors working in Kosovo, including EULEX and the EU's Special Representative. We will continue this cooperation. It is the only way our work in Kosovo can bear fruit. Good cooperation so far has proved essential to maintain peace in this area.

The Commission financed a EUR 7 million project on the rule of law, including a component of EUR 1 million to fight corruption. To be more specific, in December 2008 we provided detailed and comprehensive answers to all the questions raised, both orally and in writing, to Mr Bösch, Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control. They clarified the issues raised regarding EU funding and the way this has been managed in Kosovo. They also informed members on the financial management and control systems that the Commission has currently in place.

Since then, we have received no further requests for information. We can provide Members with copies of the material sent to the Committee on Budgetary Control, should they be interested.

I would like to refer to the remark of Ms Kallenbach concerning the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). We hope that an improvement in relations between Serbia and Kosovo may permit the integration of Kosovo in CEFTA. The Commission will do its best to facilitate it.

There are many important issues outlined in the resolution, such as the preservation of Kosovo's cultural heritage, the improvement of public administration capacity, the better integration of all communities in Kosovo, the necessity for multi-ethnic education and the plight of Roma families in lead-contaminated refugee camps in the north. The Commission intends to follow up these issues through existing instruments and in cooperation with other donors.

We will issue our study on Kosovo as part of our enlargement package in the autumn. I am confident it will include plenty of ideas to ensure that Kosovo remains firmly anchored in the European outlook it shares with the Western Balkans as a whole.

I have received one motion for a resolution pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 5 February 2009.

Impact of the financial crisis on the car industry (debate) 

The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the impact of the financial crisis on the car industry.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I think that we are now moving into a really important issue. Under the current circumstances, this is something that must be discussed. Once again, we are grateful for this timely opportunity to discuss the effect of the current economic and financial crisis on the automobile industry.

As many of you are following very closely in your constituencies, the automobile industry is a key factor for the whole of the European economy. Over the years, we have promoted the competitiveness of the sector by establishing a single European automobile market and calling for fairer competition in trade with third countries. More recently, we have focused on reducing car emissions in order to combat air pollution and climate change. In all these areas this Parliament has given us its consistent support.

Thanks to these efforts, and in particular to the resilience and adaptability of the European automobile industry, European cars are today among the best, the most innovative and the most competitive, as well as the safest, most fuel-efficient and environmentally sustainable in the world. We should be proud of Europe's record.

Nevertheless, despite its resilience, and as a result of factors largely outside its control, the European automotive sector has been particularly badly hit by the global economic crisis. These difficulties were already apparent in November last year, when the Council agreed on an approach based on promoting even more sustainable and fuel-efficient cars, realistic targets for manufacturers, and effective incentives for stimulating demand.

In the short time since then, the situation has become more serious. The industry has reported that 8% fewer cars were sold in the Union last year than in the previous year, to compare 2008 with 2007. The situation is likely to remain as bad - if it does not get worse - in 2009, hitting not just the automotive constructors, but also the whole automotive industry supply chain.

Ministers met my friend, Günter Verheugen, the Commissioner and the Vice-President of the Commission, on 16 January to discuss the specific problems facing the automobile industry. They expressed particular concern that the current difficulties would put at risk a significant number of jobs and underlined the importance they attached to the future of the industry.

Of course, the primary responsibility for responding to these challenges rests with the industry itself. The industry must be encouraged to take all necessary steps to address structural problems such as overcapacity and lack of investment in new technologies.

However, the importance of this industry for the European economy, and the fact that the sector is hit particularly hard by the current crisis, means that some sort of public support is required. This is reflected in the European Economic Recovery Plan agreed by the European Council last December, as well as in the Member States' national programmes. Of course, we cannot allow short-term support for the industry to undermine its long-term competitiveness. This means focusing clearly on innovation.

Member States agree that public support for the automotive industry needs to be both targeted and coordinated. It also needs to respect some key principles, such as fair competition and open markets. It should not be about a race for subsidies, and it should not result in market distortions. In order to achieve this, Member States have confirmed their willingness to cooperate closely with the Commission on both supply-side and demand-side measures taken nationally. The Commission has, in turn, undertaken to provide a swift response in cases where it is required to react.

More generally, the Council's Presidency fully supports the Commission on the need to advance rapidly with the implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan. The Commission has also been invited to explore, together with the European Investment Bank, how the utilisation of the loans envisaged for this sector can be further improved in terms of rapid availability, project financing and frontloading of the loans, without discriminating between manufacturers and Member States.

With regard to the global environment, we clearly need to engage in an early dialogue with the new US Administration as well as with our other global partners.

The Czech Presidency is determined to push forward with this overall policy of support for the industry, whilst respecting the principles and parameters to which I have referred. There is already a wide range of Community instruments which can play their part in providing support, not least in the area of new technology, for example in the development of clean cars. The full potential of innovative and environmentally sustainable propulsion technologies - fuel cells, hybrid, electrical, solar power - needs to be fully explored and put into operation.

On the other hand, there are also more ready-made and rapidly available instruments, such as, for example, the scrapping scheme for old cars. These instruments could combine the demand impulse for new cars with positive externalities in terms of transport security, reduction of emissions and others. There are now several Member States which already use this instrument. Therefore, the Presidency would like to ask the Commission immediately to put forward a proposal on how to encourage, in a coordinated manner, European car fleet renewal in the area of vehicle recovery and recycling, based on the analysis of the impact of these schemes in different Member States. Our aim is to have a proposal from the Commission some time ahead of the Spring European Council, in the context of the evaluation of the Recovery Plan, and to be able to discuss the issue during the Competitiveness Council in March. This will be headed by my colleague Martin Říman and Vice-President of the Commission, Günter Verheugen. Such schemes may provide an important demand stimulus for the automotive industry at Community level and should also ensure a level playing field within the internal market. I would like to underline the second half of the sentence, also in the current context.

To summarise: this is not just about supporting a key sector of our economy but is an approach from which we all stand to benefit in the long run.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vondra has just informed you all of the outcome of the discussions that I held with the Ministers responsible for the motor industry on 16 January. I can but confirm everything that was said, although I would also counsel caution at the same time. We must be careful, now, not to raise hopes or expectations that we just cannot live up to. Allow me to go into some further detail about the position of the European motor industry at this time.

Experience shows that cars are an early indicator of economic trends. It was therefore no surprise that the heavy fall in demand in vehicles that we experienced last summer was then followed by an economic downturn in all the other sectors of the economy. Why is this the case?

Thedrop in demand is a symptom of a lack of confidence in the way the economy is heading. Consumers behave no differently to enterprises in this respect. In uncertain economic times, when people do not know what is going to happen to them, they cling on to their money. In a private household, the purchase of a new car is the largest investment, over a number of years. It is something that can be put off, however, as, of course, a European car can always last another year.

Everybody knows that the situation will only fundamentally improve when the general confidence and belief in the overall trends in the economy have returned. This means that the measures that we put in place together in Europe in order to combat this crisis overall are absolutely the most important thing.

I would like to give a few more figures in order to demonstrate how important this is. The European motor industry employs 12 million people directly and indirectly. That represents 6% of all the jobs in the European Union. It is the most important sector of the economy as far as European exports are concerned. Our biggest export surplus is in motor vehicles.

In 2007, we produced 19.6 million motor vehicles in Europe. Last year, this figure was nearly one million lower and it will fall again significantly in 2009. There are currently stockpiles of 2 million unsold vehicles. The motor industry is the industry in Europe that invests the highest proportion of its turnover in research and development. On average, carmakers invest 4% in research and development. This compares with an average of just 2% for European companies as a whole. In simple terms, then, it is a key industry for Europe.

The economic crisis has hit this industry in every sector at the same time. This has never happened before - it is a first - and I have to tell you that the public only think of the situation as regards passenger cars. The plight of commercial vehicles is much more dramatic. Here, new orders in the whole of the European Union have fallen to practically zero, and that when there is a production capacity of almost 40 000 commercial vehicles a month.

The negative impact on the employment situation is unavoidable, and for two main reasons. We have a decided overcapacity in motor vehicles in the European Union. The industry itself concedes an overcapacity of 20%. There are people who say it is much higher still. Twenty per cent, however, is still a very high figure, and when you compare this with the numbers of people employed by this industry, we are talking about more than 400 000 jobs. There is absolutely no doubt that European carmakers will be engaging in an accelerated implementation, during this year of economic crisis, of the re-structuring measures that have been planned for some time. This point I will make quite clearly: there is no guarantee that, at the end of this year, we will still have all the production sites in Europe that we have at the moment. There is a high probability that, by the end of the year, a whole series of those production sites will no longer be in operation. There is not even a guarantee that, by the end of the year, all the European manufacturers will still be in the market.

The pressure of international competition in the motor industry is very strong. As European legislators, we have heightened this competition still further by making considerable demands of the European motor industry over the coming years. The industry is required to make considerable strides in terms of innovation. So that Mrs Harms does not criticise me again straight away, I would like to make clear to her that I am not criticising this fact - I believe it is right and proper. Do not reproach me for describing the facts as they are. This is not criticism on my part; it is merely an observation. Our legislation has made European cars considerably more expensive and, in the coming years, they are to get much more expensive still. The primary effects of this are to increase the pressure of competition, to increase cost pressure and to increase the necessity for the companies in question to achieve higher productivity. That is the only way to survive this competitive situation.

We all know what greater productivity means in the motor industry. In any event, it does not have a positive impact on the job figures. That is the reality of the current situation.

Our policy now is pursuing two goals at the same time. Firstly, it seeks to get the European industry through this crisis - and I will stress each individual word here - with the aim of losing not a single European manufacturer where possible. Not one. The second goal is to increase the competitiveness of the European motor industry in the long term and to durably establish Europe as the world's leading car-producing region.

As far as the measures relating to the first of these goals are concerned, we have done everything that could be done. We have provided the European motor industry, especially badly hit by the credit crunch as it was, with access to financing. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is making EUR 9 billion available for this industry alone this year, and I have to tell you that there is no point in asking for more in this House today. Given the EIB's capital base, no more money can be forthcoming. Nine billion euro is already on the table.

Thanks to the hard work of my fellow Commissioner Mrs Kroes, State aid control now takes such a flexible form, and we have changed the rules to such an extent, that the Member States have considerably greater abilities to react quickly and in a targeted manner where assistance is needed in individual cases. The Commission is thereby taking on the role that it has acquired through legislation, which is to say that of ensuring that these measures do not give rise to any distortions of competition and that they do not jeopardise our policy goals. I would like to mention just one example in this regard. It is patently obvious that aid to the European subsidiaries of US companies can only be authorised where it is clear that the aid in question serves exclusively to retain European jobs.

We have implemented a range of measures to push forward the modernisation of the stock of cars on Europe's roads, by means of which we were, at the same time, pursuing the objective of having a positive impact on the environment. Not all the Member States are going to use the system of paying scrapping premiums, but those that do will be following the agreed principles, which is to say that these measures must not discriminate against other manufacturers. To mention one more example, Member States cannot say, 'I will give you a premium if you scrap your old car, but only if your new car is a German one', if you live in Germany, or a French one or a Czech one. It is just not possible to do this.

One thing that is possible, however - and I would welcome this warmly - is for such scrapping premiums to be linked to environmental targets. In other words, for instance, they would only be paid if the new car bought met certain emissions standards. As far as we can see, this system of premiums is working well and is having the positive effect desired.

There is only one way to get the commercial vehicles market going again. Scrapping premiums, as you can imagine, are not possible in this sector. What is needed most of all here is to give small- and medium-sized enterprises in this sector access to finance. We are doing that. It is also necessary to ensure, where public money is being invested, that preference is given to the procurement of environmentally-friendly commercial vehicles, for example in the case of public transport or other public services for which vehicles are needed. We have already done all of this.

In the long term - something of which we have often spoken in this House - what is needed is to implement the recommendations of the Cars 21 process, namely to ensure the future of the European motor industry through greater efforts in relation to innovation, research and development so that the European car of the future is the world's leading car not only in terms of the standard of its technology, its finishing and its safety, but also in relation to fuel-efficiency - meaning low consumption - and environmental friendliness - meaning low emissions. The European industry is going with us on this, and we are supporting the associated projects as part of the European economic stimulus package, as you all know.

Allow me, finally, to say that the most important outcome of the discussions with the Member States was that we all pledged to prevent the occurrence of any race to protectionism in Europe. Such a race to protectionism would result in the financially weaker Member States losing out and would very seriously damage the provision of social solidarity in Europe.

Another thing that we can do to stimulate demand and to help and lead the motor industry through this crisis is to ensure that the conditions of international competition, too, are also not violated. That is a question that must be directed at the United States, in particular. We will see what measures President Obama puts in place to counter the crisis in the US motor industry. In this respect, I would like to point out that it is not in Europe's interest for the American carmakers to go under. The consequences for Europe would be catastrophic if that happened. However, it is likewise not in our interest for the US to institute a policy that would favour its motor industry at the expense of competitors from other parts of the world. I hope that we will get the opportunity to discuss this calmly with our American friends.

The European motor industry is not staring into an abyss. It is in a difficult situation, but it is our firm belief that the industry is capable and strong enough to get through this difficult situation and continue, in future, to play an important role in creating and securing jobs and prosperity in Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I fear, unfortunately that the message just delivered cannot surely be a message of hope intended to restore confidence. Commissioner, I approved your last but one paragraph on what the car industry should be. Unfortunately, I fear that the proposals made are not up to the mark and in particular they encourage some Member States to manage all alone when Europe is unable to coordinate.

What are our fellow citizens expecting today? They are expecting a great deal from Europe, certainly much too much, but they are expecting us to do something else. The car industry, as you said, employs 12 million people in the European Union and is equal to 10% of GDP. In France, that means 2.5 million jobs or 10% of wage and salary earners, and 15% of expenditure on research and development.

The car industry today is experiencing an unprecedented crisis characterised by a drop in demand, by a need for finance for manufacturers and subcontractors but also consumers, and by a structural competitive challenge for companies facing ever-increasing competition worldwide. If I did not fear being politically incorrect, I would add that the requirements placed on the car industry and the encouragement not to use vehicles are also contributing to this situation.

A coordinated response at European level is essential and urgent to take over and enhance the actions already taken by various governments. It is essential, in the first instance, that the banking system lends normally to the car industry, that is to say at normal rates and conditions and at volumes corresponding to the needs of that industry. Despite the efforts of the EIB, we know that credit still has not started to flow again. Therefore, Europe should make a significant response.

Secondly, it is not only a matter of limiting the impact of the crisis but also of providing the car industry with a new future. A genuine industrial policy is essential. We must enter tomorrow's world and speed up the necessary developments with regard to the protection of the environment and the requirements of sustainable development in particular. We must develop a science-fiction culture. It is imperative that the drive for innovation is not made to the detriment of the crisis and that public aid enables action in this domain.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Vondra and Mr Verheugen for their promptness in making these statements. I have to say that for the most part I share their concern and agree with the realistic approach they propose.

After all, we are all aware of the situation. I have seen one estimate saying that 2 million jobs could potentially be lost in the course of the year in the car industry as a whole, the majority of which would be in the parts sector. We are witnessing an extraordinary contradiction. On the one hand, we have a fleet of public and private vehicles - as you have rightly said - that is very obsolete and has high emission levels, while, on the other hand, demand has slowed down dramatically, if not collapsed entirely.

I therefore very much welcome the recovery plan decided on by the Commission, which has sought to use all the tools at its disposal, although we know that they are limited, and we understand the reasons why. There is a real need for a genuinely counter-cyclical move to stimulate demand and provide it with strong support, in line with the environmental targets that we have worked so hard on over the last few months.

And what happens? What happens is that each country acts independently. Some intervene while others do nothing; for example, my country has done nothing so far. Some do one thing, others do another. I agree with you, however, that we should make an effort ahead of the Competition Council next spring to maximise coordination, at least on principles, for example linking scrapping schemes to specific emissions targets. I think that France has come up with a good solution of varying the bonus awarded to purchasers according to the emissions level of the car purchased. This would, I believe, make for a 'win-win' situation in terms of employment, innovation, competitiveness and the environment.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis in the motor industry has spread throughout the entire sector, to ancillary industries, other associated sectors, commercial networks and thus services, and has terrible prospects in terms of employment.

In my view, the appalling drop in the latest registrations - in some Member States this month they are down 33%, or 20%, and so on - shows that the crisis is not in a technologically obsolete sector, nor is it an internal crisis caused by managerial errors in this or that company. It is a systemic crisis, and as such must be tackled urgently and decisively by the European institutions.

Some solutions have been proposed, but the important thing is how, and with what resources and what prospects for innovation, they can be achieved. Of course we must support demand; consumption is the only route to recovery. However, while this consumption support measure is implemented, which is a medium-term measure, I think we have to say that we need immediate credit support to recommence production, pay for materials and retain employees despite the fall in orders and demand.

Credit, then, is the answer, but as we were saying, the important thing is how. I too call for Europe to take a stronger lead; it is important for the European institutions to send out a clear message. The United States are taking action, as are some European countries, and I hope that my country will move on from generic proposals to practical measures, but I hope for stronger European action both within and outside the recovery plan, because I believe, and have explained to the Commissioner at length, that the fate of the great European firms is our shared fate. Large European manufacturers should not encounter competition within the common market in the form of various kinds of State aid or special terms, but should see a response from a strong, decisive and coordinated Europe, since the fortune of the European car market will be measured by our ability to face global competition together.

There is also the other matter, which Mr Sacconi mentioned and I would like to point out once more: this support is not aid, or worse, relief, that maintains the status quo, but it is an incentive for the future competitiveness of the sector, in terms of innovation, environmentally-friendly manufacturing and technologies that better respect the environment and the safety of passengers and transport.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President. In car manufacturing, just as in the construction sector, resources have been focused on rapid future growth, but development in this area has been in the past and continues to be closely linked to the availability of credit. The financial crisis has therefore hit car manufacturing particularly hard. Stabilisation in the sector will be possible only once bank lending has normalised, and this in turn is linked with surmounting the financial crisis. I have no doubt that the financial crisis will give rise to significant corrections in the future structure of the car market. Our task at the moment is not to preserve existing jobs, but to preserve the future competitiveness of Europe's automotive sector, and so public support for the automotive sector should be linked to two main goals: reducing dependence on oil and the price fluctuations connected with it, and significantly improving environmental indicators and emissions reductions. These tasks overlap with one another. They are also, on principle, important for the European economy as a whole, in order to reduce the risk that an increase in oil prices once the crisis has been surmounted, partly as a result of renewed car buying, might stand in the way of a joint economic recovery process. Thank you.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, in my opinion, the first priority should be to link the crisis management of the economic crisis with the global challenge that is the climate crisis. We would be making a big mistake if, with our economic measures, we were to pursue goals relating to climate protection and energy security as unambitious as those we have laid down in the regulation of CO2 for cars.

We must not repeat the mistake of paying any attention to the inaccurate whisperings of the motor industry. The mistake made in that regard last winter can now be seen everywhere you look. The same groups that held us back from implementing the ambitious regulation of CO2 for cars are now stuck with their stockpiles of huge gas-guzzlers which they are no longer able to sell. It is my belief that we really must aim to make it clear to the carmakers that the future of cars lies in small, efficient and climate-friendly models and that every effort must be made, in connection with incentive measures, to promote such models. It must also be made clear to what extent innovations such as electric engines are actually covered. However, this is only possible in conjunction with a coordinated plan involving energy policy.

What I would very much like to highlight in what a previous speaker from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats said, and it is something I absolutely agree with, is that I am completely convinced that, if we concentrate solely on cars without being aware, at the same time, of how we need to restructure the transport sector and of how the public transport sector will look in ten years' time, we will fall far short of what we need to deliver. This, too, can lead to securing and creating a large number of jobs. By hinting that it is not only cars, but also buses and railways, and so on that are produced, Commissioner Verheugen gave an important hint.

So, then, we must think beyond today and plan and promote future-oriented transport systems now.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has become clear that the financial crisis has deteriorated into a terrible economic and now social crisis.

We can see this from the car sector, where, I agree with Mr Sacconi, we can presume that more than 2 million jobs are at risk. There is a danger that the crisis will result in redundancies, especially among the most vulnerable, that is to say older workers and those who lack permanent contracts. Swift, firm action is needed. Assistance is available, but we have to decide - and I say this quite frankly to the Commissioner - whether it should be coordinated at European level or otherwise, as certain larger states seem to be proposing.

I would argue that European coordination is required, and that it should be directed towards two areas: innovation, in relation to the climate change package and, if I may mention it again, to the Sacconi emissions regulation, and the social sphere. It is my belief that no worker, from the old to the temporary contractor, should be laid off. Innovation cannot be achieved by getting rid of the workers.

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should also be adapted in this light; likewise the European Social Fund - why not? - which currently speaks of creating new jobs but should also seek to avoid redundancies. Labour must then be restored to its central place in Europe, to play its due role as the founder of democracy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are aware of the structural causes of the crisis in the automotive sector and its subcontractors. This sector, as was the case for agriculture and textiles, is suffering social, environmental and tax relocations and dumping.

What are we going to do when the Americans, as the dollar is falling, sell their gas-guzzling, subsidised and highly promoted 4x4s on our market, which is also under siege from bottom-of-the-range vehicles from Turkey, India and China?

There is a solution. We must re-establish the common external tariffs abolished by the Maastricht Agreements. Only compensatory duties at the borders of the European Union can re-establish a genuine and fair international exchange. Let us dare to do what common sense dictates before it is too late. However, as you know, Protocol 27 and Article 63 of the Treaty of Lisbon strictly prohibit any customs protection of the European market.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us be consistent. Let us no longer cherish causes which are so detrimental to us. Let us finally bury this damaging treaty and stop playing at pyromaniac firefighters.

(DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Presidency, but also the Commission, for their very clear statements on this situation. I share Commissioner Verheugen's optimism that the motor industry has recognised the signs of the times and will find future-oriented solutions for many areas.

Of course, we live in the real world, however, and following a 5% fall in vehicle production over the last year, the industry is expecting a further 15% fall in 2009. That is the biggest fall in the European Union since 1993 and will mean 3.8 million fewer vehicles than in 2007. It is important to realise that for every job that is held in the motor industry itself there are another five in associated areas and industries that depend on it. That means that the financial crisis, clearly, has a particularly heavy impact on the automotive sector, as it affects both the manufacturers themselves and their customers. Both groups very much need better access to credit. The point has been made that the motor industry has access to EUR 9 billion from the European Investment Bank. However, both manufacturers and suppliers do need further credit in order to finance their businesses and so, too, do customers if they are to finance the purchase of cars. We therefore need to put our foot on the accelerator in order to shore up demand, as European passenger car registrations fell by 19% in quarter 4 of 2008, while those for commercial vehicles fell by 24%.

So far in this crisis, the banks have been backed to the tune of billions of euro in order to save the entire system. By and large, however, the motor industry's banks have been left out. As yet, these institutions have no access to State aid. Across Europe, as in the United States before it, the motor industry has had to reserve billions of euro for the residual balances on leasing accounts that are not covered. These losses - especially in the light of the 2 million stockpiled vehicles - are based on significant falls in the book value of leasing vehicles which then lead to problems in this respect, too. In other words, there is a need for very rapid action here in order to throw a lifeline to these banks, just as has already been done for the other banks within the system.

- Mr President, Nissan has announced the loss of 1 200 jobs at its Sunderland plant in my North-East England constituency. That is about a quarter of its workforce, and to that will be added an as yet unknown number of jobs in its supply chain.

Nissan's Sunderland plant is widely acknowledged as the most productive in Europe. If the plant with the highest productivity in Europe needs to lay off a quarter of its workforce, then heaven help us when this crunch fully hits the less productive.

A recovery task force has been set up in my area involving all major regional actors. The measures they are planning - assisting job search, training and retraining, starting small companies, assisting self-employment - are all ideally suited for support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. I welcome the Commission proposals to simplify that fund. It needs to be urgently simplified and mobilised on a massive scale as part of a coordinated European response to the crisis in the car industry.

Only a tiny fraction of that fund was used last year. Let us not hoard it. Let us put it to work to put our people to work.

(ES) Mr President, unlike many others, the car industry does not work on the basis of speculation but rather operates on fine margins that only turn into profit if many units are sold.

Of course cars are a significant source of greenhouse gases, but it is also true that the industry, in conjunction with its support industries, is responsible for 10% of European GDP and provides 12 million jobs representing 6% of employment in the Union.

For this reason it is a very important sector for the well-being of our citizens. We cannot abandon it to its fate and to the hard and fast rules of supply and demand; these are the very reasons why we now have this crisis in the financial sector and consequently in all other sectors, including the car industry.

We must look for support solutions that respect the principle of free competition in the European Union and which offer the necessary aid to save this manufacturing sector. For this we need a European framework to ensure harmonisation across all Member States. Multi-million-dollar aid has already been approved in the United States and other places. Furthermore, some countries have adjusted their exchange rates and introduced other mechanisms to become competitive in our markets.

We must therefore not be concerned with what the rest of the world says, but rather adopt the necessary measures without further delay.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we will only succeed in fighting climate change and restructuring the world economy if we tackle the two together. What we need is a green New Deal.

The crisis in the car industry is not a purely economic crisis. The carmakers' slump is also the result of their bigger-faster-heavier philosophy over recent years. Until just a few months ago, General Motors, Daimler and co were focussing on gas-guzzlers, whilst their marketing made out that SUVs were the new city cars. They were quite simply ignoring climate change. That is coming back to haunt them now.

If we are now to make billions of taxpayers' money available, the terms must be clear. The car companies must use the money to switch to a smaller, more efficient range of products, to alternative propulsion systems - not only for the environment, nor merely for the climate, but also for the long-term security of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I will give you an example from Germany, my home country, of how not to do it. In Germany, if the CEO of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann, decides to scrap his nine year-old third, fourth or fifth car and buy a new Porsche Cayenne, he will receive EUR 4 000. This is neither socially nor environmentally-minded. In fact it is simply crazy. We must not go along with this.

(SV) Like many countries, Sweden, where I come from, is heavily dependent on the car industry. Volvo and Saab are well-known makes. The Swedish car industry has, like the rest of the car industry, been severely affected by the crisis. Several factors have contributed to this crisis, but one factor in particular is the failure to make the necessary switch in production at an early enough stage. The switch to the production of smaller, lower-energy and more environmentally-sound vehicles is necessary.

The EU has for a long time required a one-sided flexibility from workers. I and the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left demand that we also impose the requirement for flexibility on the part of the management of the large undertakings. The lack of flexibility and new thinking has, after all, contributed to the crisis we are seeing in the car industry and in other industries.

Finally, I would like to say that the car industry is an important workplace, an often predominantly male workplace, and it has our full support. I trust that the EU will show the same level of commitment when we have a crisis and downturn in what can be considered to be female workplaces.

- Mr President, you could have guessed what these reports would say. We have got a problem and the European Union has got to give its opinion. It has got to give the impression that it is in the driving seat to solve the problem. So we have a European Economic Recovery Plan of which the car industry is a part. But in reality each manufacturer is going to look after itself as best it can, and each country will look after its manufacturers as best it can.

There is of course a possible case for some support, some financial support to the car industry and other sectors to keep capital intact and to keep skills intact. But this can only be decided at the national level because the support - apart from the European Investment Bank mentioned by Mr Verheugen - can only be provided by national taxpayers.

But there is one thing that the European Union could constructively do here, at least until the recession is over, and that is to give car manufacturers a break from environmental restrictions. The industry is already in serious trouble. These environmental and other standard restrictions make cars more expensive. You are helping to kill off an industry which is already in serious bother.

- Mr President, yesterday in my home city of Birmingham we held a car crisis summit. I was sorry I was unable to be there because I started work in the automotive industry 40 years ago. I have been through many crises, but nothing like this.

There has never been a situation where sales have collapsed so quickly. I want to say to my Green colleagues that if they go and look at the unsold cars they will find that the smaller, lighter, greener models are of a higher proportion sitting out there. This is not a failure of business models: it is a failure of the whole economic system.

One of the statistics from our summit - from Professor David Bailey in our Birmingham Business School - estimates that 300 000 consumers in the United Kingdom were refused a car credit application over the last six months. Now some of them would probably have been refused any way, but that is the nature of what we are facing.

As regards some of the things we have talked about - and I agree entirely with what Stephen Hughes said about Nissan, and he knows them very well - we can do things at a national and a European level to help the industry through this restructuring. It is much better to help the industry keep those core people on the payroll and retrain them than to let them go and then to hire them back again later.

We have the incentives to invest in those new cars that Ms Harms and others want. The fact that the Greens are talking about electric cars as being a solution shows simply how out of touch they are with the real world - those are 10 or more years away, and we all know that.

The problem is actually getting buyers and demand back into the economy. We need to tackle credit; we need to help public buyers back into the market to buy the green buses, the green trucks, the green cars - after all, there will be things following through there. We do not want a competitive race between businesses. Mr Vondra was absolutely clear that this is a single market, and we do not want competitive activities there.

But, above all, we need to face up to the fact that the car dealers have to be out there selling and looking after cars.

My final point is to you, Commissioner, and you talked about Ms Kroes working on this earlier: please tell Ms Kroes to take off the table this entirely unwanted and destabilising proposal to change the whole structure of dealer contracts. Nobody has asked for it, and we do not want it.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard the commitments of the Council and the Commission, but I would remind you that the overall drop in sales in this sector in 2008 was 8%. There are now thousands of workers who have lost their jobs and are reliant on unemployment benefit. Mr Sacconi gave us the statistics earlier.

This concerns not only the large car firms, but also all businesses associated with the car industry. I am thinking of Tuscany, where I come from. As I have had cause to mention recently, according to the European Association of Automotive Suppliers, one in ten companies will be at risk of bankruptcy in the coming months. I therefore believe that swift, assured and realistic intervention is needed, and I know that Mr Verheugen will be attentive and sympathetic.

There is no time to lose, Commissioner. Coordination between European countries is essential; otherwise we run the risk of ending up with a scattering of different measures that fail to bear fruit, either for the EU economy or in terms of support for workers. We must have incentives, coordinated at European level, such as those Mr Sacconi mentioned, that allow investment in clean cars and support for research and new technologies. We must act immediately to review the criteria of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be used to support European workers, and I believe that more funding is needed, from ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

- (NL) Commissioner, the rescuing of the European car industry is threatening to degenerate into an anti-European chronicle. Every Member State is doing its own thing and launching national support measures. There are Member States - as you know better than we do - that promise cheap loans for car manufacturers, provided that these car manufacturers buy parts from local suppliers in that country. This, of course, is completely mad, and it is good that you stated here a few minutes ago that you will not tolerate this and intend to clamp down on this practice.

What manufacturers need today - as Mr Harbour has already stated - is measures today and investment support for the future for new environmentally-friendly and hybrid cars. That is all well and good, but it does not solve today's problems. That is why it comes as very good news and as a ray of hope that the Czech Presidency is announcing a new initiative here today ahead of the forthcoming Spring Summit, namely a proposal to implement a measure across Europe that would provide a dramatic stimulus to the purchase of environmentally-friendly cars.

In addition - and this is nothing new - there is a need for fresh credit and credit guarantees for car manufacturers. The European Investment Bank has freed up a considerable amount of money, but much more is needed to get through this difficult time. In many cases, the companies in question are SMEs in the supply industry that need credit now in order to survive.

On a slightly different note, Commissioner, we should also seize on this crisis as an opportunity to finally force a breakthrough in the area of car tax. We have been squabbling for years about the Commission proposal to adjust car tax. The time has come to finally make the switch right across the European Union and transform car tax permanently into a system in which those consumers who opt for environmentally-friendly cars will be rewarded for doing so.

- (NL) The car industry is a very important sector for employment in Belgium. In and around Opel Antwerp Belgium, there are 2 700 direct jobs on the line today. The decisions are taken in Detroit, and all Opel sites are faced with overproduction. Needless to say, the relevant authorities are ready in the wings with rescue packages consisting of State aid and bank guarantees. To ensure that this aid is effective, though, I would urge the European Commission today, in the form of Commissioner Verheugen and your colleague Mrs Kroes, to sit round the table with the authorities and the sites involved to secure a maximum number of jobs at European level and to guarantee a coordinated approach at European level before 17 February, the day on which the decision will be made in Detroit. This is to be done, as you said yourself, in order to prevent a race amongst the Member States to enact protectionism.

(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must revive the great industrial policies on which the European Union was founded. This was the case for coal and steel.

The strength of these policies lay in the fact that that they were modernisation tools - as must be the decarbonisation of the automotive sector - while, at the same time, being social policies for the support, defence, training and protection of employees. Therefore, I would like to put forward four proposals.

Firstly, the creation of a European Support Fund for Employees in the Automotive Sector that exceeds the Modernisation Fund because it is important to retain employees in companies during these crucial periods by supporting their level of remuneration in the event of short-time working and by supporting their training within the company. We cannot be content with hypothetical retraining of employees who have been made redundant.

Secondly, we must create an agency for innovation and accelerate the funding of research and development in order to advance very quickly and close the technological gap between clean vehicles and safe vehicles.

Thirdly, accelerate the renewal of the vehicles on the road. Premiums for scrapping vehicles can be effective. They need to be harmonised at European Union level in order to avoid the effects of unhealthy competition.

However, I would like to close on this point. I fully understand the meaning of the word competition, but it is also necessary...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Ladies and gentlemen, it is now time for the President to receive additional requests to speak but we have a problem as many Members have requested the floor. I am therefore going to adhere very strictly to the Bureau's decision to give the floor to five Members. They will be automatically cut off as soon as the minute assigned to each is over.

(RO) Amidst all the debates about the crisis in the car industry and the decisions which will arise from this, we must not overlook the problems for car component producers. They, in turn, have been affected by the crisis as a result of the domino effect because they are at the mercy of the customers' production stoppages.

In Romania, for example, there are more than 400 companies involved in producing car components, which achieved a total turnover in 2008 of EUR 8 billion. Three-quarters of these companies are small and usually work for a single customer. This is why the effects of the crisis are being felt extremely hard. In these circumstances, companies need to resort to redundancies or find solutions such as reducing working hours or giving unpaid leave. Tyre manufacturers are just as severely affected.

Bearing in mind the large number of employees within these companies, I feel that car component and tyre manufacturers must be included in any future solution for providing economic support during this crisis.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen has just set out for us how dramatic the figures are and what the current situation is in the automotive market. Dramatic events, then, require harmonised action. In 2006, we, in the European Parliament, launched an own-initiative report on the harmonisation of vehicle tax, which we hoped would be based on CO2 and consumption. I believe that this would represent an economic programme through which the Council could show, as one - as this would have to be decided unanimously - how consumption-based vehicle taxes could be brought on-line.

With regard to what my colleague, Mrs De Vits, was talking about, which is to say General Motors, I would like to ask the Commission whether it is taking precautions for the eventuality of the collapse of the parent company. In such an event, would the Commission act harmoniously to find a European solution for General Motors' subsidiaries?

- (PL) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to three issues in this debate.

The governments of European Member States are providing automobile manufacturers with significant financial support, amounting to tens of billions of euros. The German Government, in addition to supporting German manufacturers, has decided to assist vehicle users. Anyone who decides to send their old car to the scrap yard will receive EUR 2500.

The European Commission, which has, to date, strictly monitored compliance with the rules for providing State aid to companies, has been very quick to grant its consent in all these cases, generally adapting its decisions to earlier decisions made by Member State governments concerning these matters.

Without calling into question the principles behind the action taken to aid the car manufacturing industry in Europe, I would like to once again remind you of how painfully unfair the European Commission's decision, namely that State aid given by the Polish Government to Polish shipyards must be repaid, was. As a result of this decision, around 50 000 jobs are now being cut in the Polish ship-building sector itself, while over ten thousand jobs will be lost in related industries in the future.

- (SK) Commissioner Verheugen, the European Commission must take concrete steps towards getting the automobile industry back on its feet. First and foremost, we must prevent distortions of the internal market. The protective measures proposed by some states are no way to tackle the current crisis. I call on the Commission to submit measures for a European scrapping scheme as quickly as possible.

Mr Vondra, I expect from the Council that the Member States during the European Council's meeting in March will approve a scrapping scheme that will directly boost the purchasing power of consumers intending to buy new cars.

I firmly believe that if the EU wants to be the largest exporter of cars and at the same time wants to be a global leader in the fight against climate change then it must help its car industry, which is the largest private investor in research and development. Through funding research and development, through supporting investment...

- Mr President, I was listening to the debate quite carefully and I am not going to bring forward anything new. I would just like to stress a few remarks that were made, which in my opinion should be overarching the whole debate.

I refer to Mr Vondra's words that we should take care to take into account fair competition and we should avoid market distortion, and the Commissioner's remarks that we should be fair and not raise false expectations. Above all, Commissioner, thank you for saying that we should allow our manufacturers to be more flexible through less regulation, less law and less exorbitant bureaucracy.

Let me take 30 seconds to explain the rule established by the Bureau to you, because I recognise that it is most disagreeable for Members to request the floor but not to be given it.

The Bureau decided that the fundamental debate time is that assigned to Members who speak using the time allocated to the different parliamentary groups. Subsequently, in the 'catch-the-eye' procedure, the floor is given to five Members for one minute each, in order from the largest to the smallest group. However, if there are six requests, and we have six minutes available, they can all be heard. It can be stretched to six minutes, possibly seven. However, in this case, 12 Members requested the floor. Only five of them had their request granted, as laid down by the Bureau for this point in the debate. I am clarifying this so it can be taken into account on subsequent occasions.

Mr Vondra now has the floor to respond to the various speeches on behalf of the Council. Minister, you have the floor.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I should like to thank Members for a very useful debate. The Council appreciates all your contributions to the debate and will try to do its best to play its part, with the Commission, in fixing as many problems as we can in the automotive industry.

There is no doubt that there should be some short-term measures, and they are already happening at Member State level. So I think we are in agreement that those measures must be realistically sustainable financially, as well as in other respects. They should be targeted, effective and, most of all, must be carried out in a way that would be compatible with the strict state aid rules under Community law. I informed you, for example, of our initiatives regarding the scrapping scheme; so it is really important that the steps being taken are in conformity with the competition and state aid rules and avoid distortion of the single market.

My second point is that we should still bear in mind that the European automobile industry leads the world - we are exporters, those who are producing the cars - and, in this light, we should bear in mind the need for maintaining the long-term effectiveness, as well as the competitiveness of this industry. So the measures being taken must fulfil certain criteria regarding the long-term viability and competitiveness of the European industry, including investment in innovation and clean cars etc.

So the Council is making all the necessary efforts to ensure that all those efforts for RTD and innovations in the automotive industry, but also short-term measures in this report, are fully coherent with the overarching goals of the Lisbon Strategy.

My third point is that we must follow developments outside Europe. We are certainly aware that the crisis in the US automotive sector is structural and deep, and US producers are in a much worse position than European car makers. So it is obvious - and Günter Verheugen mentioned this - that the US cannot allow its automotive industry to simply die, because it would not be beneficial for us.

But we still have to work politically with our international partners, in particular through the WTO, in order to ensure that a level playing field is maintained as far as possible. The same applies to the other automobile makers and industries in Asia. We are also watching developments in Korea and Japan etc.

We are now in the run-up to the Competitiveness Council, which will take place in early March, and we hope to produce a high-quality and, of course, consensual decision for the European Spring Council, which will deal mostly with economic issues.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, I agree with what a lot of speakers have said, in particular Mrs Harms. The short-term measures that we are now putting in place must in no way run counter to our long-term goals. That is the bottom line.

As you have been so nice, I too will now be nice and say something that will definitely please you and that I said here back in 2006, namely that the future of the European motor industry will be a green one or this industry will not have a future in Europe. Let me make that quite clear. People can argue about whether the choice of models produced by European manufacturers, especially the German manufacturers, was responsible for the crisis we are now in. I do not know. There have been environmentally-friendly cars in the past, and low-consumption models too - think of Mercedes' Smart car, which led to billions in losses for the company. It is not quite as black and white as you might think, therefore. From an environmental point of view, the choice of models was clearly wrong and the fact that the changeover is being made now, in a crisis, does not make it easier, but that does not change the fact that this changeover is necessary and needs to take place quickly. On this point, then, we are in complete agreement.

A tariff barrier against cars from the US, Mr Louis, is definitively not something that we will be introducing. If there is one thing we will not be doing, this is it. American cars play no real role in the European market, whereas European cars play a large role in the US market. If there is a voice here in the European Parliament calling for us to protect our market against American cars, I fear that there will be a voice in the US Congress in Washington saying that they should protect their market from European cars. Our position would not look too good in such a situation. I would ask you in all seriousness not to pursue this idea any further.

I can only lend my complete support to what Mr Groote had to say about vehicle tax. I also thought that the pointed observations made specifically on this topic were sound. The reshaping of vehicle tax according to a CO2-based principle is something the Commission has been calling for for some time and it saddens me that progress in this matter has been so sluggish.

Mr Groote, you will understand that I cannot express any public view about the question you put to General Motors and Opel. You will have to make do with me saying that we are keeping a very close eye on this development and we are in discussions with all the relevant parties.

I would also like to make those people who have quite rightly put particular emphasis on the employment issue aware that the Commission has, in fact, already tabled a proposal on how the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund can be made more flexible and effective. If the Commission's proposals were implemented quickly and rapidly realised - and I would issue a pressing request to all of you to do that - we would be in a position to provide help, in particular, for temporary workers in the motor industry and unskilled workers, who are ultimately the ones at the front on the cliff edge.

The rules for the scrapping premiums - this has been addressed numerous times and I would like to say it one more time - are clear cut. There cannot be a European regulation forcing every Member State to take part in this. That is absolutely impossible. Similarly, there can be no European regulation that the level of the premium must be the same everywhere. The reference values must be laid down at European level, and that is the case. We agreed on this at our meeting of 16 January in Brussels.

Finally, I would like to emphasise, once again, what many of you have said, which is that we must think beyond the motor industry when we discuss the current crisis. It is, in fact, absolutely right to say that intelligent traffic systems, intelligent traffic management systems, cutting-edge, innovative solutions for the personal and mass transit of the future must be found and that this crisis perhaps offers an opportunity to push such solutions forward more strongly. Personally, at any rate, I would very much like to see that happen.

(DE) Mr President, you have just made a statement about the Bureau's decision, explaining why the 'catch-the-eye' debate system has been changed. In this regard, I would like to make a formal protest against this change. This procedure was introduced in order to invigorate our debates, to generate dialogue with the Commission and to strengthen the debating culture. What the Bureau has now decided is completely counter-productive and I would like to ask you, please, to bring this matter up at the Conference of Presidents and to answer this protest.

Yes, Mr Konrad, of course you have every right and we take note of your protest. However, you belong to a very responsible group in this House and you will understand that what cannot happen is that individual Members have more time than the groups. The groups have a statutory responsibility to participate in the debates.

The Bureau took this decision unanimously. I consider this to be a common-sense decision, precisely to prevent Members who have not been put forward by their group - because the group does not want them to speak at that time - from speaking afterwards. That is why the time has been restricted: five minutes for five speeches, in order from the largest group to the smallest, while also making sure that not all the speakers are the same nationality.

That is what was decided. Of course, this rule can be changed. If the Conference of Presidents proposes a change in the procedure to the Bureau, the Bureau will consider it with all due care.

Thank you very much, Mr Konrad, for your contribution; it has been well noted.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - I would like to draw attention to the fact that the economic crisis in the car industry in the Maltese Islands is being compounded because of a serious administrative blunder. Cars in Malta are subject to a heavy registration tax, on which the Government was also collecting VAT. It has now been established that the Government was appropriating money from thousands of car owners which was not due. The Government is refusing to reimburse thousands of vehicle owners who have paid substantial amounts when these were not due.

The Government of Malta is claiming that reimbursement will amount to millions of Euros. It is exactly because of this that the Government has a duty and an obligation to return taxes irregularly imposed. This is such a serious blunder that if it happened in any other member state of the EU, the Government would have been forced to resign. In Malta the Government has not even had the decency to accept responsibility and apologize to the thousands of Maltese and Gozitans who have been affected. Solutions could be found by offering rebates to the owners of these vehicles on such issues as annual licences. It appears that the Government is completely deaf to any such suggestions.

If we look at the European Union as a living organism, the European car industry is its backbone. It accounts for 3% of the EU's GDP and generates a commercial surplus of EUR 35 billion. However, 2008 was a difficult year for this industry, where during the first half of the year, car sales dropped due to a rise in the price of fuel, while during the second half, sales fell by 19.3% as a result of the financial crisis.

These are not the only problems which this sector is facing. Between 2009 and 2015 the car sector must implement new standards for polluting emissions, fuel economy and so on, while all of this is adding billions of euros to the industry's costs.

The figures given above are also relevant because the car industry provides for the incomes of more than 12 million families. One job in a car company is linked to another four jobs at suppliers and another five in related sectors and sales. It is therefore clear that the health of this sector of the European economy is vital to the EU economy as a whole. In these circumstances, rapid, coordinated intervention by European governments and institutions is an absolute must, such as introducing programmes for returning old cars against a consistent reduction in the purchase price of a new one, financial assistance and so on.

The financial crisis has paralysed credit; it has affected businesses and families; and demand has plummeted, with disastrous consequences for economic growth and employment.

Such a situation justifies exceptional measures, particularly in the case of strategic sectors such as car manufacturing, which represents 6% of jobs.

Even so, almost all the European Economic Recovery Plan, for which I have the honour of being this Parliament's rapporteur, is based entirely on national initiatives.

In reality, how can the Commission guarantee that it is out there checking coordination and that countries are not embarking on a war of support measures?

What mechanisms are out there to safeguard jobs in countries that do not have the financial structure to guarantee the jobs that are vital to them?

For some countries, textiles or electronics may be just as important as car making. What action can be expected?

Will the Commission be more alert to the role of European industry in Europe's survival?

There are limits to what can be expected from the European Investment Bank. Will we have a budget equal to the challenges facing Europe?

The European Union's economy is reputed to be the greatest economic power in the world. On the one hand, this makes us particularly responsible for any action taken in terms of our internal market. On the other hand, a global economy, with the Union at its forefront, has specific consequences. One of these consequences is that it is difficult to define which car manufacturers are truly European. Numerous company mergers, the creation of global manufacturing groups and the presence, for a number of decades, of American or Asian companies on the European Union's internal market, have provided the foundations for a diverse and competitive European car manufacturing sector.

It seems right that our efforts to create a European Economic Recovery Plan, should be primarily guided by the principles of the free market and its competitiveness. We should also remember that the motor industry, which has been so badly affected by the financial crisis, is one of the many links in the chain of the European economy. This induces us to adopt the plan of action proposed by the Presidency, namely that of drawing up a general approach, involving all the stakeholders on the internal market.

This approach should stimulate market demand, which determines the state of the economy. The mechanism for providing aid should also make use of money earmarked for targeted investment in technological innovations, in accordance with guidelines for improving road safety and environmental protection.

The economic crisis has had a powerful impact on the car industry, a sector which makes a significant contribution to the GDP of many European states. Even though the EU does not have any direct intervention mechanisms, Member States must be allowed to take the necessary measures to prevent the collapse of an industry on which the jobs of thousands of European citizens depend. The Romanian car industry has also been severely affected by the crisis. I only need to mention the cases of Dacia Renault, which is restricting its activities, and Ford, which has requested support from the Romanian state.

The serious situation at European level requires the immediate introduction of suitable measures. I am not referring, in this instance, to protectionist measures, which distort the market, but to measures which offer equal opportunities to European industry and allow employees in this industry to keep their jobs.

It is not enough for us to take action nationally, as we need to act at European level too. The economic recovery plan allows this to happen because it proposes new credit regulations in the European banking system which facilitate access to credit. It is also important that the State aid schemes which Member States apply for can be accessed rapidly and easily. This is a key aspect for strategic investors, such as those in the car market.

Consular protection of citizens of the European Union in third countries (debate) 

The next item is the Council and Commission statements on consular protection of citizens of the European Union in third countries.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, this debate on consular protection is, once again, a timely one. A series of events over the last few years have highlighted the importance of consular cooperation among the EU Member States. From Lebanon in 2006, through Chad to the recent tragic events in Mumbai - all have demonstrated the growing risks to citizens of the Union when travelling abroad. The extent of these risks is even greater as increasing numbers of people take advantage of low-cost travel to visit more remote regions of the world.

Cooperation between Member States in this area is therefore important. It offers a better service and an enhanced level of consular assistance. This is of direct benefit to EU citizens.

The Treaties provide us with a basis for this cooperation. Article 20 states clearly, and I quote: 'Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that state. Member States shall establish the necessary rules among themselves and start the international negotiations required to secure this protection.'

The rules mentioned in this article are set out in a decision which was adopted in 1995. This decision specifies that assistance within a third country may be requested from a Member State other than one's own, on condition that there is no accessible permanent representation or accessible Honorary Consul competent for such matters.

In practice that means that a consul who is asked by a citizen of another Member State for assistance should refuse such assistance if that citizen's authorities (consulate or embassy) are also represented.

The 1995 decision is a decision between the Member States, reflecting the fact that consular assistance and protection is an exclusive national responsibility and that consular relations are governed mainly by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The rules on cooperation in this area also reflect the fact that consular assistance and protection are viewed differently in different Member States. Some, for example, consider it to be a fundamental right of all citizens. Others consider it to be a service provided by the state. That is why the Treaty refers to consular protection as an 'entitlement' and not a 'right'.

Since the Jolo crisis in 2000, consular cooperation has been further developed to include aspects of crisis management. The terrorist attacks in the US showed that even third countries with sophisticated infrastructure can find it difficult to cope under extreme circumstances.

Member States subsequently drew up guidelines to handle such crises. Although non-binding, they have been used effectively on a number of occasions and have been refined in the light of experience.

The Council has recently developed the 'Lead State' concept. This means that, in the case of a significant incident, particularly in a country where few Member States are represented, one or two Member States can take the lead in coordinating action in matters of protection and evacuation.

There has also been increased cooperation with some countries outside the Union, for example the US, with which we have annual consultations on consular issues. Norway, Switzerland and Canada have also cooperated with the EU on specific incidents, for example during the Lebanon, Chad and Mumbai crises.

The Commission and Council Secretariat are also part of European Consular Cooperation. Several years ago the Council Secretariat set up a secure internet forum through which consular authorities exchange information on issues such as updating travel advice. The Council has also put at the disposal of Member States a sophisticated teleconferencing system which has been widely used during consular crises.

About three years ago, a platform for exchange of information and political coordination of action at EU level was established. This platform is called Crisis Coordination Arrangements (CCA). The two main actors of CCA are as follows: first, the Presidency, assisted by the Council Secretariat and the Commission, decides whether to trigger the CCA; second, COREPER II is the 'action platform' responsible for coordinating Member States' action or preparing any decisions that may need to be taken at EU level.

The main operational tool is the EU Joint Situation Centre (SITCEN) of the Council Secretariat. SITCEN provides logistical and information support.

In addition, successive presidencies have organised regular consular crisis management exercises which have proved particularly valuable. A European Consular Training Programme was launched at the end of 2008 with the aim of improving cooperation between consular officials, both from capitals and in the field. The co-location of consular facilities is also under consideration.

There is certainly more that could be done. Many other issues, for example prison conditions, parental child abduction and consular information policy, are discussed regularly. But we also have to accept the reality that, whilst expectations and demands from citizens grow continually, resources for consular authorities are always limited. Support for improved cooperation in the consular field is not always matched by adequate budgets at the national level. Squaring this circle will remain a challenge.

Experience shows that cooperation in the consular field is valued, and there are a number of cases where we can be pleased with the results. The successful evacuation of over 20 000 EU citizens from Lebanon in 2006 is just one example. The Presidency is committed to taking this work forward, and I would like to thank Parliament for its support.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am standing in, today, for my fellow Commissioner Jacques Barrot, who would have liked to have been here in person but has an institutional commitment to attend to.

Under Article 20 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, every citizen of the Union, when in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, is entitled to protection by the consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. Article 20 also provides that the Member States are to establish the necessary rules among themselves to secure this protection. Mr Vondra has already gone into this. In light of this, the Member States have introduced coordination mechanisms for consular protection, in particular through the guidelines laid down in 2006 and 2008, which are not legally binding but which help missions to build their cooperation on the ground.

In addition, Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union obliges the diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States to step up their cooperation.

In December 2008, the Council agreed guidelines for the implementation of the Lead State concept in relation to consular cooperation. Under the guidelines, in a future major crisis with consequences for consular protection in the third country in question, one Member State is to be nominated as the 'Lead State' and assume responsibility for the protection of EU citizens on behalf of the other Member States. The Lead State is to coordinate all the measures implemented by the Member States on the ground and is responsible for ensuring that all EU citizens receive support. Anyone who is entitled to consular protection from their own Member State is entitled to ask the Lead State for assistance.

This is intended to facilitate cooperation between the Member States on the ground, with the idea being that additional resources in the form of staff, funding, equipment and medical teams will be made available. The Lead State is also to be given the responsibility for coordinating and leading measures to provide assistance, reunite people and, where necessary, evacuate citizens to a safe destination, with the assistance of the other Member States affected. However, the Member States need to agree on what exactly is meant by the wording 'in which the Member State [...] is not represented' under Article 20 of the EC Treaty. This should cover situations where an EU citizen, for whatever reason, is unable to reach any mission of his/her own Member State. The Member States are currently working on drawing up joint criteria for this.

That, then, is the situation on paper. The fact that the practical reality can be quite different is something that a few Members of this House can testify. I have seen on the list of speakers that Mr Guardans Cambó, Mr Karim and Mrs Mann intend to speak on this issue. They will certainly be telling us something of their experiences in Mumbai last December. I have the impression, even though only three Member States do not have an embassy in New Delhi and that only seven do not maintain a consulate in Mumbai, that it was still very difficult - and I will express this very carefully - for affected European citizens to obtain adequate protection.

I am pointing this out now because it is, of course, right to learn from experiences such as this. In the light of this experience, the Commission takes the view that there is still much work to be done to ensure that the citizens of the European Union are able to claim - to the full and in real life - the right guaranteed them under Article 20 of the EC Treaty. The citizens expect the European Union to provide added value in their protection in a third country. Protection provided by diplomatic and consular missions is not, at the end of the day, limited to crisis situations, but also covers the provision of assistance in everyday situations.

The Commission proposes, amongst other things, better information for EU citizens - we have already proposed that the wording of Article 20 be printed in every passport and displayed on posters in airports and travel agencies, and we are also working on a consular protection website with the General Secretariat of the Council, which would contain an up-to-date list of the Member States' embassies and consulates in third countries.

As part of its mission of better providing EU citizens with what citizenship of the Union means to them, the Commission is ready to tackle every problem in this field that the citizens bring to its attention and to do everything in its power to realise the rights of protection to which EU citizens are entitled under Article 20.

The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon would provide a clear legal basis for EU legal provisions in this area. The new wording of Article 20 of the EC Treaty (Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) allows for the adoption of directives 'establishing the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to facilitate such protection'. This means that the Commission could be tabling legislative proposals for this field in the near future.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, I welcome this debate and I thank both the Council and the Commission for their information and presentation to us. I was the rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the Green Paper on diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries and I therefore continue to take a keen interest in developments in this sector.

At the time I maintained that Article 20 should be applied more broadly and should include more rights for European citizens, because this would strengthen the concept of a European nationality and would demonstrate in practical terms the advantages offered by the European Union on a daily basis and would ultimately strengthen European solidarity.

The recent terrorist attack in Mumbai demonstrated the usefulness and the need for reinforced coordination of protection for citizens of Member States of the European Union at such times. The publication by the Council last December of guidelines on the implementation of the consular Lead State concept in the event of a crisis is a first positive step and they contain important ideas. However, we are waiting with a great deal of interest for legally binding proposals.

I realise that there are huge practical difficulties. However, I consider it extremely important that it should be clear how European citizens on the scene of a crisis are to be informed as to who is the Lead State. I do not think that what has been said to date is satisfactory. In all events, I welcome the importance which the French Presidency attached to this issue and I expect the initiatives to be continued by the Czech Presidency.

Mr President, the right to consular and diplomatic protection is one of the pillars of European citizenship. Minister, you cited Article 20 of the Treaty. It is very clear. Every citizen has the right to consular protection. It is not an option, it is a right.

The dramatic events in Mumbai show us, in actual fact, that this right is far from being guaranteed. Levels of protection vary from Member State to Member State, resulting in discrimination in the treatment of citizens who are never given information about the consulate to contact in the event of need. Financial support is visibly lacking between the Member States. European citizens who have lost everything must often face consular offices that are very reluctant to bear the financial costs.

Member States have a duty to put an end to this situation. It is necessary to make guidelines binding and to make information available to citizens. The Union must start negotiations with third countries in order to ensure the necessary diplomatic protection.

However, as you said, Commissioner, the events in Mumbai have also shown the unacceptable absence of a guarantee of diplomatic protection for Members of the European Parliament. The European Union and the Commission in particular must negotiate without delay, and we heard what you told us, Commissioner, and the Council must conclude ad hoc agreements with third countries in order to ensure specific diplomatic protection for Members of the European Parliament. This is the least we can do.

Mr President, today in Europe citizens can travel without crossing borders, can vote in a Member State other than their own, can collect their pension and can benefit from social security in any Member State in which they choose to live. Furthermore, police forces co-operate with each other. A public prosecutor in Stockholm can have somebody arrested in Seville by means of a Euro-warrant, without needing to become directly involved in local procedures.

When it comes to reprimanding citizens for their actions, Member States have been willing to concede sovereignty. However, for the protection of these same European citizens outside the European Union, it is as if they have travelled by time machine; they find that time has stood still once they have left the Union.

Outside the Union, we are just 27 States, 27 administrations, 27 flags and 27 consular systems, or in some cases, not even that. In a crisis, a European citizen loses his or her European status. There is no such thing as European citizenship.

The 180 million Europeans who travel around the world find that they can only receive protection if they change themselves back into Germans, Spaniards, Poles or Italians. As Europeans, they do not exist outside the European Union. This is a serious non-fulfilment of the Treaty and, with all due respect, makes the Council's statement of a few moments ago a piece of science fiction.

All of what the Council said on the supposed implementation of Article 20 of the Treaty, the 'Lead State', video conferences and joint centres, is pure science fiction in an emergency. Moreover, as the Commissioner said, some of us have had cause to experience this state of affairs at first hand.

Article 20 of the Treaty is ineffective: there are no protocols for implementation; there are no legal regulations; there is no information for citizens whatsoever; there are no consequences for anyone who disregards the article.

In the best-case scenario, consuls help each other. There is goodwill, as there may have been in the 19th century, as there may have been in Peking in the 1800s. The situation is this: there is collaboration between consuls who dine together rather than an obligation to jointly serve citizens in respect of a provision of European law.

For that reason, the European Commission has the obligation, including before the Treaty of Lisbon enters into effect and obviously afterwards, to implement Article 20, to make European citizens proud of their passport and to make sure that certain officials understand that the 19th century is over and Europe does exist whenever a European citizen is in trouble in New Delhi, Beirut or wherever else.

Mr President, I would like to state that I do not share this highly critical stance towards the proposal made today by the Vice-President of the European Commission, on behalf of the Council. I do not think that this is a question of having, or not having, a treaty, but rather whether European solidarity is a concept that only features in political statements or whether it is a specific political practice, one that applies to the citizens of various Member States. If the latter is the case, then the treaty is not an indispensable requirement.

During the Slovenian Presidency of the European Union, France represented the European Union in many countries, such as Asia, Africa and Latin America, as Slovenia had no embassies in those places. I am curious as to whether Slovenian citizens, as well as those living in the smaller Member States, would now receive suitable assistance if they applied to the French consulates in those countries. It is a pertinent question.

We should expand the concept of European solidarity. It seems to me that, in reality, the Treaty of Lisbon is not a sine qua non.

- (SK) According to Article 20 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, every citizen of the Union in the territory of a third country shall be entitled to protection by diplomatic or consular authorities under the same conditions as nationals of that State. It is important to stress the need for the Union to develop cooperation in consular services for these purposes.

Europeans are among the most mobile societies in the world, with almost 9 % of citizens travelling to countries where their home country does not have this level of representation. For example, Slovakia, the country I represent in the European Parliament, has a very weak consular presence in Central and Latin America, which are regions that many of our citizens travel to. I must add that despite the obligations on consular services most Europeans do not know their rights and it is a sad fact that even the employees of these organisations are unaware of this.

In order to ensure that people are better informed about consular protection, we should aim for standard European passports to include an extract from Article 20. The importance of consular protection in third countries became apparent in crisis situations such as the tsunami of 2004 or the Lebanese conflict of 2006. Due to differences in consular regulations, citizens of the EU have to cope with as many systems as there are Member States and these systems may have varying legal force and scope.

The recent events in Mumbai show that we have a long way to go in the area of consular services. The establishment of joint European offices would ensure the functional coherence and at the same time would cut the structural costs of diplomatic and consular networks operated by Member States.

- Mr President, it has been stated already that citizens of the Union travel widely. Well, there are approximately 180 million trips made outside of the European Union every year, and - in theory - they are protected under Article 20, as the Commissioner and indeed the Council Presidency have already provided for in this debate.

Under Article 20, there is a requirement for Member States only to provide consular assistance to unrepresented EU nationals on the same terms as their nationals. This difference in approach between Member States is recognised within the action plan of 2007 and 2009.

Of course, there needs to be a criterion as to when and how other consular services should become involved, and these break down basically into three. I am not going to go through them, but the first two are perfectly sensible. The third puts forward a requirement for that citizen to provide proof of his or her nationality, either by means of passport, identity card or other document, for the diplomatic or consular representation to be provided.

There is a real problem here, because for any European citizen who is fleeing a situation, it is perfectly feasible that they may not actually be in possession of such documentation.

Assistance is provided in the event of death, serious accident, serious injury, arrest, detention, assistance to be provided to victims of violent crime, and relief and repatriation of distressed citizens of the Union. It is extensive but not exhaustive. More work needs to be done there.

To make all this happen, we have heard about the concept of a Lead State, which will endeavour to ensure that all EU citizens are assisted and that it will coordinate between Member States.

That is all very good in theory, but in practice I certainly did not see this happen in Mumbai. There was no real sharing of information and intelligence, not the sort of cooperation I expected to see. Instead I saw only competition between Member States, and further centralisation or consolidation of consular services will risk taking away the flexibility missions require on the ground in rapidly changing circumstances.

(DE) Mr President, Mr Karim is absolutely right. The problem is in the very wording, in the fundamentals of Article 20 itself. It is necessary to take account of the reality on the ground. Of course it is. For one thing, not all Member States have consular protection and in many cases what consular protection there is is very limited and the security structures are insufficient even for the consuls themselves.

I have personal experience of this in relation to the German consul, who drove through the night in order to gather his colleagues, with his driver but no security, on roads that were by no means safe. Quite simply, such conditions are unacceptable. You cannot go to countries such as India or to Latin American countries - there are many other countries where a presence is required in such a critical place as Mumbai - and then have only a small number of staff and inadequate security structures. Intelligence is not passed on at all, the Member States have no access to the information, and so on. This means that there is no end to the limitations and it is no wonder that Member States are unable to provide the degree of protection for their own citizens or for their officials to anything like the degree they may wish.

That is why it is important that the Council and the Commission undertake a careful analysis of this issue. You cannot preach about always being present all over the world and seeing Europe as a global partner and then fail to even have in place a security structure and not be in possession of any intelligent information systems. We are simply opening ourselves up to ridicule if we do not thoroughly analyse our own structures and ensure the requisite level of additional protection.

I would thus offer you the urgent advice that you really must carry out a thorough re-evaluation of the structures, that you must carry out simulations, as other States do, and that you must not concentrate solely on the key capitals, the metropolises, but that in these megacountries and megacities you just have to realise that you also need appropriate representation in the other large cities of the world.

Mumbai will happen again. There will be another Mumbai, just as past disasters have been repeated. Realise this and, I urge you to be prepared for it.

- Mr President, Mr Guardans Cambó and others such as Mr Karim and Mrs Mann have illustrated the gap between rhetoric and reality. We cannot even actually agree on what Article 20 means. The minister, speaking in English, said that it was only an 'entitlement' and not a right, whereas Mrs Roure cited the French, which says 'un droit'. But it is certainly in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, where it is enshrined as a right.

We will surely not make progress, unless it is legally confirmed that it is a right with binding EU decisions and common standards and the right to challenge a refusal of protection in the courts.

The minister talked about co-location being under consideration of consular officials. My experience in the field of visa policy is that it is like pushing a boulder uphill trying to get Member States to co-locate.

Commissioner Verheugen referred to practical measures as being in development. But these were promised in the action plan in 2007: a reference in passports, posters, a website in development. Where are these? I searched consular protection on the Europa website and found nothing.

On the Council travel website it says 'under construction', which I think is a metaphor for the fact that we are failing our citizens in failing to put flesh on the bones of the promise of European citizenship.

Mr President, I think it is very important - and I agree with many of the previous speakers - that EU citizens need to feel secure, and I think it is a priority that we look after the security of our citizens when they are outside the European Union, especially in crisis situations such as we had in Mumbai.

I think it is absolutely essential for European citizens to be able to get information in any crisis situation, whether it be a general crisis or a crisis for themselves, and there needs to be an awful lot more clarity in the situation.

Mumbai is a good example of how it does not work. I welcome the idea of a Lead State which was announced recently. I think that is very important, but it is very clear at the moment that the system is not working. I think it should be seen as a priority by all of us to get the system working because, as somebody else said, you really would feel far more European if a Member State embassy looked after you if you were in trouble when you were in the Far East or in South America or somewhere outside the European Union, and I think that that feeling of Europeaness is very important.

(The President cut off the speaker.)

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ever-increasing mobility of European citizens clearly means that consulates must work together.

The Commission's proposal is welcome, above all because it seeks to simplify the procedures for granting pecuniary advances to citizens in difficulty. Without a doubt, the right to consular protection is currently fragmentary and unevenly distributed. European citizenship often does not exist abroad and people may wish that they were citizens of another country, or even of the Union. I would like to see appeals made to European pride not only when it suits the institutions, but also when it suits the citizen, who may be in difficulty and hoping that his European citizenship may at last be of use to him.

(ES) Mr President, ladies and gentleman, consular protection is a fundamental part of European citizenship. Citizens want to feel European when they are inside the Union, but also when outside Europe. They want the Union to respond to their needs, especially in the event of an emergency.

The Union did not respond properly in Mumbai, as has been the case in other crisis situations. Let me take this minute to explain an idea, an idea that will not be a panacea but will offer genuine assistance to European citizens in third countries.

I would like today to repeat the proposal to set up a European emergency freephone number. This number, which would be printed in passports, together with Article 20, would allow citizens to have access, in their own language, to essential information on the consulates of Member States of the Union which, I stress, would have to help them.

Citizens expect actions and not just words from the Union.

- Mr President, when we become Members of Parliament, we are issued with a laissez-passer - as are a lot of other people who work for the institutions of the Union. I wonder whether the Presidency and the Council understand the worthlessness of this document in Member States.

I had an extremely difficult situation in the Netherlands, when travelling back on the business of this Parliament from Africa. I know of another Member - a British Member - who had difficulty in Dublin. We really need to bring home to our own Member States that this is a travel document of Parliament, the Commission and of the Union and should be fully respected. Those dealing with travel arrangements at airports and ports should be fully briefed as to the worthiness of this document.

I would ask you to take that up with each of the Member States and ensure that it is implemented, because that sort of protection should extend to officials and to Members of Parliament travelling on the business of Parliament.

- Mr President, as an MEP I have had several occasions to contact embassies and consuls because someone was injured, lost, robbed or abducted, or because, tragically, someone died. I am sure this has been the experience of many other MEPs. I am happy to say that, where I was able to deal with an Irish embassy, the work and the cooperation have been excellent. But my own country was not represented in every country, and we had to rely on the embassies of other European countries.

I would just say from experience that, without going into stories, I would like to see more coordination, more help between embassies in the bigger countries where they do have embassies and consuls in almost every country, so as to help all other Member State embassies with their constituents.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I think it was, again, a very useful debate. I have a considerable understanding of how important this is for you as Members of the European Parliament because this is an extremely sensitive issue, where you are confronted with the expectations of your citizens, who are going to elect you in the next few months. So I have a full understanding of the issue that you are considering with care and that you are approaching with such critical insight.

The second reason why I have an understanding is that I come from a medium-sized state, the Czech Republic, which is not a former imperial power so it does not have an embassy or a consulate in every corner of the world. So what the Irish and others are expecting from the European Union here is, I think, very logical.

But now I have to speak here on behalf of the Council so you need to respect certain legal grounds which are available to us, and the fact is that the budget and all those issues are important. And we also have to be able to recognise and to differentiate what is the real problem on the one hand and what is the question or issue which needs more clarification.

I was not in Mumbai, and I was listening very carefully to the critical remarks of Mr Guardans Cambó and some others who took part in the European Parliament mission to India at the time that this tragic attack happened. When I was getting ready for the special hearing yesterday, my first question was: is there a Spanish consulate in Mumbai? I have never been there so I do not know this personally. I was repeatedly assured that the Spanish have a consulate in Mumbai and those that were there know this. I think it was simply a matter of a formal obligation for the Germans to assist Mr Guardans Cambó and his delegation, if we are quoting Article 20 and the decision as a whole.

The Spanish sent a plane, as I was informed, to help evacuate its citizens, as did the French and the Germans. For some reason, which I do not understand, Mr Guardans Cambó refused the offer to fly back on the Spanish plane but instead subsequently returned on the French plane.

So I do not know. I just have the information which is available to me. In general I think we all share the opinion that any improvement within the legal framework is certainly desirable, so let me inform you about at least some partial activities of the Czech Presidency to strengthen the consular protection within the current legal framework.

For example, there is a project on including a message in national passports which would inform the holders that they can ask for consular protection from any other Member State embassy or consulate in a third country, provided their country is not represented there. So that is at least an attempt to clarify the situation on the ground.

Second, the Presidency is to intensify and unify the use of emergency travel documents, the ETDs which can be issued by any Member State representation to any Member State citizen who has lost his passport or had it stolen.

Third and finally, the Presidency will also organise the two consular seminars or training courses in order to contribute to this consular protection team in a very practical and effective way.

These events will deal with the CCA system, simulating a real consular crisis. The training will define and carry out practical testing of all relevant mechanisms in the CCA cadre, including cooperation between all authorities and institutions involved. The experience will even, by means of field work, teach the participants how to behave and promptly react in a situation of extreme psychological and time pressure. I do not know whether this will amuse us enough before the elections, but at least it is a contribution which we are bringing to this important issue.

Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, the Treaties do not confer any power of initiative on the Commission in the field of consular protection. Within its limited powers, the Commission is trying to boost, as much as it can, the effectiveness of the citizenship rights European citizens are entitled to - see, for example, the Commission Action Plan 2007-2009.

I repeat that the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty would certainly very much improve this situation. I hope that Mrs Sinnott, who shared her experience with us, will use the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would change the situation and her experience to help to organise support for the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.

The deplorable events in Mumbai show that, already today, there is a clearly a huge margin for improvement if we are to fulfil the legitimate expectations of EU citizens.

- Mr President, I have just a short recommendation to the Council. I appreciate very much what you said, but can you make sure that, once you foresee this kind of simulation today, that you invite some of the people who were actually in Mumbai, because it could give you some insight?

The debate is closed.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

The increasing mobility of EU citizens requires us to adapt our current principles of consular protection to take new circumstances into account. EU citizens must have access to protection and assistance from their own countries, via their diplomatic missions and consulates (Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) and, under the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, additional diplomatic and consular protection beyond the borders of the European Union, which stems from their status as EU citizens. In practice, this means that, while staying in a third country where the Member State of which he is a citizen has no representation, all EU citizens have the right to diplomatic and consular protection from any of the other Member States, according to the same principles as the citizens of that country.

Unfortunately, the critical situation in Mumbai following the bombings last year revealed the shortcomings of many diplomatic offices, in terms of the practical application of Community decisions concerning the security of EU citizens. Dozens of Europeans, including the European Parliament delegation which was in India at the time, encountered administrative problems and disproportionately long waiting periods for receiving copies of lost documents. This proved that it is not easy to implement the concept of European solidarity.

The right to consular protection in third countries is one of the main features of European Union citizenship. The Member States should do all that they can to ensure that it is properly implemented, and guarantee equal treatment and care to all EU citizens.

in writing. - According to Article 20 of the Treaty establishing the European Community 'every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State'.

At the end of November last year, our colleague, Ignasi Guardans Cambó was in Mumbai during the terrorist attacks and he witnessed several violations of the Treaty by diplomats of some Member States, as citizens of the European Union were differentiated and discriminated against on the basis of their nationalities.

The conduct of the diplomats of some Member States in Mumbai did not only violate the rights of the EU citizens, but also pointed out deficiencies in the EU integration process. Therefore, it is crucially important for the EU to investigate this particular case and take action to ensure that such a situation does not occur again.

I would appreciate it, if the Council and the Commission could assure that the implementation of Article 20 of the Treaty is closely monitored and that every deviation is investigated thoroughly.

Question Time (Council) 

The next item is Question Time (B6-0006/2009).

The following questions have been submitted to the Council.



Subject: SMEs

Given that the economy is one of 'the 3 Es' of the Czech Presidency's priorities, what specific steps will the Council be taking to enhance the confidence of small and medium-sized enterprises in the market economy in light of the current economic situation?

President-in-Office of the Council. - Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the question on SMEs, because during this current economic crisis the big businesses and the big companies are always strong enough to lobby for some relief, but it is much more difficult for SMEs and it certainly requires a systemic approach.

On 1 December 2008, as you know, the Council endorsed the European Economic Recovery Plan, which was presented by the Commission on 26 November 2008. As a response to the financial crisis, the Council supported a stimulus which is equivalent to about 1.5% of the EU's gross domestic product to restore business and consumer confidence. Furthermore, the plan contains specific measures to support SMEs, the most important of which are those aimed at improving access to finance for SMEs and reducing the administrative burden.

The Council also agreed that improvements in the framework conditions for European businesses, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, was essential to counter the effect of the crisis on competitiveness and to support and enhance job creation.

The Council also adopted two sets of conclusions related to providing support for SMEs, in the context of overall competitiveness. Firstly, conclusions endorsing proposals to support SMEs presented in the Commission Communication entitled, as you probably know, 'Think Small First: a Small Business Act for Europe', this so-called SBA, including an action plan outlining the priority measures requiring particular attention.

Secondly, conclusions from the Commission communication entitled 'Towards world-class clusters in the European Union - implementing the broad-based innovation strategy'. Although clusters are not exclusively meant for the SMEs, they play an important role in many clusters that have been set up throughout the EU.

At its meeting in mid-December 2008, the European Council approved this European Economic Recovery Plan and supported the full implementation of the Action Plan for the Small Business Act. It has specifically supported an increase in the intervention by the European Investment Bank to the tune of EUR 30 billion for the years 2009-2010, especially for loans to SMEs, which amount to an increase of EUR 10 million over the EIB usual lending in this sector.

The Council also supported a temporary exemption for two years beyond the de minimis threshold for state aid in respect of an amount of up to EUR 50 000 and the adaptation of the state aid framework as required to increase support for enterprises, especially the SMEs.

The Council also called for the use of accelerated procedures for awarding public contracts provided for EC legislation, as well as for reducing the administrative burden on businesses.

The Czech Presidency will continue to pursue this effort, because our economy is broadly based on SMEs, so we have our own experience with that. Therefore, both of the forthcoming Competitiveness Councils under the Czech Presidency - one will take place very soon in early March, as well as the informal one which will take place in Prague - will tackle the question of reducing the administrative burden, since we believe that better regulation is an important factor for improving competitiveness, in particular for SMEs, and it plays an even more important role in times of economic crisis.

Moreover, the Presidency will try to make progress in the implementation of the action plan and put this SME policy at the forefront of society as well as linking the implementation of the action plan to the national reform programmes of all the Member States.

The Presidency will also continue with the increased effort of discussing legislative proposals related to SMEs, such as the regulation on the Statute for a European Private Company, which would offer SMEs a form of business enabling them to take advantage of their potential and develop cross-border activities.

Another legislative proposal I should mention is the proposed directive for reduced VAT rates for labour-intensive services, which will be discussed at the upcoming ECOFIN Councils.

In addition, the Council will be concerned with the review of the Late Payment Directive, which is now being prepared and which is to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises are paid in time for all business transactions. Again, that is pretty important in the current situation.

Since we are running rather late, I propose that the Council reply to all the supplementary questions together. As you know, I can only accept two supplementary questions in addition to the original author's. That being the case, I have selected two of the five questions tabled based on the criterion of choosing different political groups and nationalities. The Members I have selected are Philip Bushill-Matthews and Silvia-Adriana Ţicău.

author. - Normally I use my own mother tongue but, as I am replacing Marian Harkin, I will try in broken English. This is a common language in this Parliament.

You mentioned, Minister, the administrative burden and the goal of reducing it by 25% by 2012. Do you really think that is an ambitious goal? Could we not do more, and could you perhaps be more specific about what has been done so far? What are your aims? Could you not say 25% by 2010, for instance? That would be rather ambitious.

- You mentioned the review of the Late Payments Directive, which I think is extremely important. I was concerned, though, that the consultation period for that finished at the end of August, just before the real financial crisis hit. Had the consultation period been extended I think we might have got much more robust answers as a basis for a better review of the Directive. Is it worth considering whether we should open a further short period of consultation, so that we get the most up-to-date information possible, on which a review could then be based?

(RO) I would like to ask the Council a question about the European Economic Recovery Plan. This plan is providing a sum of EUR 30 billion for small- and medium-sized enterprises. The Commission advised us that grants will be awarded on the 'first come, first served' principle.

I would like to ask the Council about what measures it is taking so that all Member States develop national programmes to support their small- and medium-sized enterprises so that they can access these funds.

President-in-Office of the Council. - I will try. On the first question on the targets for the reduction of the administrative burden, my country, with some other like-minded countries, has already started with the process somewhat in advance. Along with the Netherlands and some other countries, we have a national goal of a 20% reduction by 2010. We will have to see whether we can do more by 2012.

The Commission has announced a road map for the end of January 2009 showing how it will ensure that all the proposals needed to achieve the 25% reduction in the administrative burden at Community level are tabled before the end of 2009. Proposals tabled during the first half of this year in this area will be responded to by the Council under the incumbent Presidency, so we will certainly be dealing with that. We will evaluate the process during the Spring European Council. I hope that we will be able to act as thoroughly as we can. Certainly this is what the Presidency wants to do.

On the Late Payment Directive, the Commission intends to publish the proposal at the end of February 2009. The Presidency will start discussing the issue at the Council's preparatory bodies.

The last question - which I missed - was related to the European Recovery Plan. It was specifically about the amount of the possible EIB loan. I hope that SMEs will be able to compete with those other big industries. We had a substantial debate on the automotive industry just an hour ago, so certainly I think that the general wish is that the SMEs would be able to benefit from that.



Subject: Grounds for a new world trade agreement

Following the stalling of the Doha Round multilateral trade negotiations last summer and the agreements reached by the Group of Twenty at the Washington summit last November, does the Council feel that there are grounds for the European Union making new proposals on trade that would satisfy developing countries?

President-in-Office of the Council. - In response to Mr Medina Ortega's question, which relates to the WTO, I think it is an important issue. We have all read the reports of - some of us even took an active part in - the Davos World Economic Forum, and have listened to the recent comments by Pascal Lamy and others. There is no doubt that there is a fear of rising protectionism, so we are all very well aware of the challenges ahead of us.

I would like to point out that on 15 November last year the members of the G20 emphasised the importance of establishing the modalities for an agreement by the end of 2008, which has already passed. In this context the delegations of the WTO members, including the European Commission on behalf of the EU, intensified their work in Geneva with a view to providing a political impulse.

A lot of work has been done, and the effort led to the new revision of the AGRI and NAMA texts. Moreover, in the light of the current political and economic development, the European Council in mid-December last year stated in its conclusions that it endorsed the objective of arriving this year, within the WTO, at an agreement on the modalities leading to the conclusion of the Doha Round with an ambitious global and balanced report and result.

The Council and Commission stood ready for constructive EU participation at the ministerial talks, if and when convened. However, on 12 December 2008, the WTO Director-General, Pascal Lamy, at an informal meeting of the heads of delegation, indicated that he would not convene the ministers to finalise modalities by the end of the year, because the conditions did not yet exist for a successful ministerial meeting, despite intensive consultation.

The aim of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is to achieve transparent liberalisation of trade at multilateral level which will bring about long-term advantages and a major boost for the world economy, in particular for developing countries, due to the development-oriented character of this round.

Therefore, despite the fact that no conclusion was possible by the end of 2008, the Council remains fully committed to the multilateral trade system, as well as to the conclusion of an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive outcome of the WTO Doha Round. This is even more important given the current economic and financial situation.

Although the Presidency is well aware of the obstacles that exist on the way toward successful completion of the whole process, it will undoubtedly seek to give an effect to these commitments by working on the renewal of discussions on the DDA as soon as the conditions allow. It will also support more intensive work within the framework of other WTO agendas, in particular in the areas of services and TRIPS.

(ES) Thank you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, for that response, which I consider quite comprehensive. I would, however, like to remind the President-in-Office of the Council that, in the summer of 2008, the Doha Round was about to conclude but an agreement could not be reached because some BRIC countries were not disposed to make any kind of concession.

Considering that the BRIC countries played a greater role at the Washington meeting, it is possible that the previous unwillingness of these countries to make a concession was due to their considering that they had been afforded a secondary position, whereas at the Washington meeting they were given a priority role. Does the Council Presidency have any information that the BRIC countries, as a result of the commitments made in Washington, may be disposed to adopt a more active role and contribute to the successful outcome of the Doha Round?

- I just wondered, as a supplementary to this question, if, looking at the European Union's new proposals, or if the European Union were to come forward with new proposals, he agrees that any such proposals should include moves to remove the inequities of the common agricultural policy so we can unlock the negotiations in NAMA and then unlock the negotiations on services, which account for about 70% of the EU's GDP. Would he also agree that it is time for the EU to show a true commitment to free trade?

I would like to ask the Minister if his attention has been drawn to the protectionist elements in the plan for recovery in the United States, particularly as put forward by members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and if he has, on behalf of the Council, communicated the concern of the European Union to the American Administration about this.

This does not augur well for a new Doha Round. Would he ensure that our concerns are communicated before the necessary legislation passes through the US Congress?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I think we all know where the problem lies. It does not lie in the European Union. I think the European Union is very much in favour of completing the Doha Round and we did all that was necessary for it in the course of the last year and we almost, almost made it.

Where, then, is the problem? First we have to wait for the US Administration, and, while some appointments have already been made, some others are still to come, and it remains to be seen whether the current US Administration will remain committed to trade liberalisation. We may have some doubts about a fast-track approach under the current circumstances. Another country to discuss this with is India, which, as we know, is expecting elections in the spring.

So as a representative of the Council who is coming from a small- or medium-sized country which traditionally has an open economy, I would like to promote this, and would like to tell you that our primary goal is to finish the talks successfully, as soon as possible, but I am afraid we also have to be realistic, and I cannot promise you castles in the air.

The optimistic scenario is this: a clear favourable message from the G20 meeting which will take place in London early in April, and then the fulfilment and implementation of the commitment, which could be followed by a ministerial meeting in Geneva in June or July. There agricultural and NAMA (non-agricultural market access) modalities could be concluded. So we are all hoping for that. We will be working hard to do that, but we will see when we meet here at the end of our Presidency whether we have been successful or not.



Subject: Measures to improve the energy efficiency of buildings

The Council has set itself the target of achieving a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020, with 20% of the energy used coming from renewable sources. Forty per cent of overall greenhouse gas emissions stem from buildings. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In November the Commission proposed a revision of the directive on the energy efficiency of buildings.

Bearing in mind how important the energy efficiency of buildings is for citizens, given the potential for reducing their electricity and heating bills, can the Council say how much priority will be given to this area in the period from January to April 2009?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I would like to thank Mrs Ţicău for her question, which is also timely. Housing, or the issue of increasing energy efficiency and the commitment to increase energy efficiency by 20% by 2020, has to be taken seriously.

The Council shares the view that the draft revised directive on the energy efficiency of buildings is of fundamental importance for the achievement of the Community's targets on increased energy efficiency, renewable energy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The recent gas crisis has once again unveiled the vulnerability of the EU vis-à-vis energy dependency. Should we succeed in meeting an ambitious reduction goal, while not increasing energy security risks, we must adopt a series of short-, medium- and long-term measures that will decrease our energy dependency.

Increasing the energy efficiency of buildings is definitely among the most important of them. As a result, the Presidency is beginning to examine this draft directive at working party level. The aim of the examination is to explore difficulties in the proposal. We expect that the question of the scope of the directive will be put on the table first. This question of scope is the most important, not only in relation to possible energy savings, but also regarding the administrative burden of households. Therefore, the Czech Presidency will ensure that work continues intensively over the coming months. I have regular discussions with Martin Bursík, my colleague in the Government and the Minister of the Environment, who chairs the respective Council.

The Council will also follow closely the work on this issue in the ITRE Committee. For your information, I am meeting the Chair of the Committee after this Question Time. The Presidency is committed to making as much progress as possible, with a view to the early adoption of the directive. To that end, it plans to submit a progress report to the TTE Council in mid-June. The adoption of the Council conclusions on the Second Strategic Energy Review is envisaged for the first TTE Councils, which will be held on 19 February, and which will form the input for the March European Council meeting.

Adequate attention will also be paid to the recent Ukraine-Russia gas dispute and its consequences. A policy debate will be held on the draft Council directive on the oil stock. So, in general, the Council considers it important that the highest priority be given to the finalisation of the negotiations with the European Parliament on the third internal energy market legislative package over the coming months. The Council also recalls that energy efficiency will be addressed in relation to the wider question of energy security, the protection of the environment and, indeed, the context of the examination of the Second Strategic Energy Review.

(RO) I would like you to know that in my report I am going to propose setting up a European fund for energy efficiency and renewable energy to help raise the public and private funds for implementing specific energy efficiency projects across the European Union, and I would like to have the Council's support for this important initiative.

- (SK) The energy efficiency of buildings can lead directly to savings for European consumers. I see a solution in the wide-scale introduction of automated intelligent consumption metering systems and of systems providing up-to-the-minute snapshots of energy consumption, including ones for household use.

What can the Council do to implement this solution? What sort of timetable do you consider to be realistic? Can the Council inspire the European Technology Institute in Budapest to address itself to the problem of the energy efficiency of buildings?

- Has there been any discussion in Council about trying to get Member States to provide financial incentives for increasing energy efficiency, in particular for elderly people? On the one hand it would increase energy efficiency, and on the other hand it would provide employment.

President-in-Office of the Council. - I fully share the view that energy efficiency is an important instrument for handling both environmental concerns and energy security needs.

In fact, we have just been discussing this at home - now I will just step out of my Presidency role - and in Prague we consider two measures to be really important. The others are also important, but either in the long term or without such a huge impact. One is housing and energy efficiency. The second one is nuclear energy, but I know this is a sensitive issue for some Member States. Those are the most important in combating climate change and dealing with energy security. Therefore, finding the proper instruments to promote energy efficiency and housing is the challenge of our time.

I would like to deal with the questions on financing. The European Regional Development Fund, as was proposed by the Commission, could be used to find resources for investment in housing and energy efficiency, so this is one instrument which will be available now, also within the framework of the recovery plan.

Another possibility for countries like Romania - I know this from my own country - is just to use the emissions trading scheme, which is within the current Kyoto, so it is possible to use the income from that.

I think we have the instruments. With regard to this new directive, we will consider the debate about the scope to be the most important. Certainly, we in the Czech Presidency, in cooperation with the upcoming Swedish Presidency - for them it is a priority - will try to do our best and not to waste too much time.



Subject: Energy, external relations and the economy under the Czech Presidency

In light of the Presidency's stated priorities for its term in office, can it please specify how it intends to integrate the three priorities in terms of concrete initiatives? I refer specifically to discussions with partners to the east over strategic energy corridors which could serve to guarantee the EU's energy security and economic competitiveness into the future.

President-in-Office of the Council. - I want to thank Mr Burke for his question concerning the southern corridor plans and the meetings during the upcoming Czech Presidency. We will ensure that these are the three priorities - energy, external relations and the economy - which are fully integrated and interconnected and focus on the concrete initiative; this is one of them. It will in particular concentrate on the objective of ensuring reliable supplies of energy through the development of a range of energy relationships with third countries and regions and by working towards greater diversification of energy resources, as well as the transit routes.

The Presidency intends to take this work forward on the basis of the elements contained in the Commission communication on the Second Strategic Energy Review. The Council is expected to adopt a conclusion on this communication in February and energy security will be of particular focus in the spring 2009 European Council.

As part of its work, a large number of meetings with third countries or third-country organisations are planned. These meetings will deal either exclusively with energy-related themes or will cover energy among the other issues. As regards the specific discussion on energy strategic corridors to which the honourable Member refers, the Presidency is organising the following meetings. The most important are, first, the international investment conference on the Ukrainian gas transit network, which will take place in Brussels on 23 March 2009. Second, the so-called Southern Corridor Summit meeting, which we plan to organise together with the Eastern Partnership event; that will take place in Prague in early May. The aim of that meeting is to launch a mutually beneficial dialogue between the EU and both the transit and producing countries from the Caspian region. This should lead to a greater diversification of energy supply routes, suppliers and sources, and will thus strengthen the energy security of the EU. One of the specific purposes is to promote the Nabucco project.

The issue of the strategic energy corridor is also likely to be addressed during the meeting of the EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council on Energy, which will also be organised under the Czech Presidency, probably in May, just to create a run-up to the summit meeting between the EU and Russia, which we are planning for 22 May 2009. So the importance of the strategic energy corridors referred to by the honourable Members has been clearly underlined by the Ukrainian-Russian gas dispute in early January.

The Council, at its extraordinary session of 12 January 2009, which was devoted to this subject, adopted conclusions outlining a number of measures to be taken in the short, medium and long term. So the Presidency will work to ensure that appropriate and concrete follow-up is given to these measures as a part of the high priority it attaches to the issue of energy security.

- I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his very comprehensive reply. In fact this question was tabled before the Russia-Ukraine dispute arose. I had a feeling that it might arise at the time it did. I would like to ask him this: under Lisbon, we were talking about a common energy policy; maybe he could outline, in his capacity as President-in-Office, his opinions on the improved tool kit which Lisbon provides to address these challenges in the future and the advantages of adopting the whole Lisbon approach and Treaty.

- (LT) Thank you for your explanation of a very important subject. I would like to ask how the Czech Republic, the presiding country, views the Nordstream project, which has both positive and negative aspects, and we know that there are certain doubts about its ecological impact. Thus, as you begin the Presidency, how do you evaluate this project? Thank you.

(DE) It would interest me to find out whether there is an initiative in ECOFIN and on the part of Commissioner Kovács to initiate a progressive tax write-off across Europe for those energy projects that are currently imminent, such as the Nabucco pipeline or the building of new power stations, in order to create incentives and thus drive these strategic initiatives forward.

President-in-Office of the Council. - All these questions are about issues which we are discussing almost on a daily basis now. On the Lisbon Treaty, we all know that it contains solidarity formulas which should help us to enforce the legal framework for better cooperation in the area of energy within the EU. That is one part of the story.

At the same time I think we have learnt some lessons during the current crisis. One thing is the solidarity as a political slogan. The other one is the need to react quickly in a time of crisis and to respond, for example, to a difficult situation which we had in Bulgaria or Slovakia during the crisis. So we need to have some improvement of the interconnections in particular in Central and Eastern Europe in the area of gas supplies. We need to have a compressor on the pipeline to be able to reverse the flow. For example, my country has it because it modernised and invested, but the Slovaks did not.

So that brings me to your question as to whether there is some investment programme to cover short- or medium-term needs - there is. In fact, today I had some meetings with the respective chairs of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy as well as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, because EUR 5 billion remains, which was not spent last year, and it has been agreed within the European Economic Recovery Plan to allocate that for some infrastructure projects. As far as the Commission has proposed late last month, EUR 3.5 billion out of those five should be allocated to the interconnection projects which can be realised in the next two years, 2009 to 2010, in the area of gas connections, electricity grid interconnections and connecting gas with the offshore wind turbines in the north of Europe.

So, yes, there is a plan and my view on Nord Stream is that there is a debate, we all know that. I think one lesson of the current crisis between Moscow and Kiev is this: that we should have the means to make it possible to solve these problems if they are repeated, both regarding Russia and Ukraine.

There is the Nabucco project, which should be able to bring gas to Europe from countries other than Russia, in other words the Caspian Basin. But we also should be able to diversify the transit route of gas to Europe so that this is not just one country. I think, in this respect, Ukraine is serving us as the only terrestrial supplier.

So there are some concerns about the possible environmental impact. Some Member States are raising the question, so there is no secret about that, but I think that at the end of the day we need to have diversification of both routes and suppliers.



Subject: Tobacco control and smoking cessation

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is the first international health agreement signed and ratified by the European Union and all Member States except one, the Czech Republic. As the Czech Republic will be leading the discussions on the FCTC, what plans has the Czech Presidency to ratify the treaty itself?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I see Avril Doyle and I am asking myself whether I am the other side of this question: the last time we discussed this was in the only place in this building where I as a heavy smoker can smoke. I guess that you observed that, and that is one of the reasons why I now have the obligation to answer your question. My mother was always advising me to speak truthfully at every opportunity so now I have a dilemma: to read this or to speak my mind.

But I shall use this opportunity to start at the personal level. I am a member of the 30% minority in Europe: I am a heavy smoker, and I feel terribly discriminated against in this building. I appeal to you as a person, not on behalf of the Council, to provide better conditions for appeasing our habit. But now I have to respond to this question.

The question is about the state of the ratification process in the Czech Republic. I can assure you that the ratification process of the framework convention in the Czech Republic is in progress. It has been in progress since 2003, and the new attempt to find approval in the Czech Parliament is ongoing. The new Czech Minister for Health - who, like her predecessor, smokes - has the new proposal aimed at renewing ratification and will send it to the inter-agency process, so it will reach Parliament pretty soon.

The ratification process should be concluded if we find enough votes in Parliament. In the Senate I can assure you that this is not easy when our senators are travelling in Europe and are facing the same problem as I do in this building. But I think one thing is important: that the legislation is fully implemented so all laws abide by those commitments which are part of the convention.

Regarding our approach as the Presidency: the next formal meeting in the framework of the FCTC will be the third meeting of the international negotiating body on a protocol on illicit trade in tobacco products. Here my country, as well as the Presidency, is fully committed to fighting the illicit trade in tobacco products. That will take place from 28 June to 5 July in Geneva, so we will share this somehow with our friends the Swedes, because that is the time when we, the Czechs, will hand over the Presidency to our friends in Stockholm. That is the substance of my response.

- I would like to thank the President-in-Office. I do not mean to make him paranoid with my question. It was tabled, after all, last December.

I am anti-smoking, not anti-smokers. We all agree they need all the help they can get: nicotine replacement therapies etc. But we must recognise the damage that passive smoking does to those who do not enjoy smoking, so please do not feel personally under the spotlight here.

Could you guarantee me then that, before the end of the Czech Presidency, you will have ratified the framework convention - yes or no? It would be extremely important if you could give me guarantees on that. After all, cigarettes are the only legal product on our shop shelves that, if used by consumers according to instructions, kills one in two of the consumers. They are amazing really.

- Thank you, President-in-Office, for your honesty. You quoted your mother - well, as a mother, can I urge you to stop smoking, while sympathising with your plight in the building? If you were in Ireland, you would be completely out in the cold.

My question is: have you ever considered giving some leadership and quitting the bad habit and encouraging your senators to follow suit?

President-in-Office of the Council. - To conclude this rather unusual evening's debate, my mother smoked when she was pregnant, and here I am as the Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, and my brother and sister are both in very good condition. My wife smoked as well and she still smokes. We have three nice, very intelligent, kids - so those are my private views.

I notice that this issue attracts particular interest in Ireland, and I know that you have adopted the measures. The date of our ratification is in the hands of the Members of the Czech Parliament and the Senate. Parliament is sovereign.

I am now fighting in my country for the earliest possible ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. During the debate on Lisbon, I am often asked by the members of the Senate whether the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty will lead to keeping their freedom of smoking in some public spaces.

So I have a dilemma. What is more important: the Lisbon Treaty or this? But I can assure you that the Government will do whatever it can to obtain ratification of both Treaties. We signed both Treaties, and the responsibility of the Government is to do the best it can.

- The questions that have not been taken due to lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

That concludes questions to the Council.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.15 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

The dramatic consequences of the 'Klaus'  storm in Southern Europe (debate) 

The next item is the Commission statement on the dramatic consequences of the 'Klaus' storm in Southern Europe.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the European Commission wishes to express its sadness at the number of lives claimed by storm Klaus and sends its condolences to the French, Italian and Spanish families that have lost loved ones. This is indeed a human tragedy, which has had a devastating impact on people's lives, homes and businesses. It is also an ecological disaster.

While this storm was extremely powerful, it only affected a narrow band of territory, and national resources have been able to cope with the immediate disaster response.

For this reason, the Community Civil Protect Mechanism was not activated. However, the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre has been in close contact with the concerned Member States from the first moments when the storm was forecast.

Other Member States were aware of the situation and were getting prepared to provide support to the affected regions. For example, the Czech Republic spontaneously offered its assistance.

The Commission is now cooperating with the authorities of the Member States affected in order to identify options for EU support. Possibilities may include through the EU Solidarity Fund or a reprogramming of the structural and rural development funds.

Storm Klaus is an unpleasant reminder that natural disasters are a growing threat for all EU Member States. Devastating floods hit Central Europe in 2000 and 2002, the UK in 2007, and Romania and EU neighbours last year. The 2003 heatwave claimed tens of thousands of lives. In 2003 and 2007 forest fires ravaged Portugal and Greece. These events give us an idea of how climate change is likely to affect the EU's future because, as the climate changes, we can expect more extreme weather events.

The Member States and the Community need to combine their strengths to prevent disasters, to limit their impacts and to improve the Union's disaster response capacity.

The Commission will shortly adopt a Communication on 'a Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters'. We look forward to receiving feedback from Parliament on the ideas that are set out.

The Commission would also stress the importance of moving forward on the revision of the Solidarity Fund regulation. The proposal helps to accelerate the rate of response by allowing for advance payments, and it contains simpler criteria for an activation of the Fund in less time. While Parliament largely supported the Commission proposal, there has been no progress in the Council.

These initiatives are contributing to shape a genuine European disaster management policy, and the Commission hopes that the European Parliament will continue to support its efforts to reinforce the EU's capacity to deal with natural and man-made disasters.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, I am speaking also on behalf of my colleague, Alain Lamassoure. In November 1999, I took the floor in this very Chamber following the storm which had raged in south-west France, to call for European solidarity when wide-scale natural disasters lay waste to our countries. Ten years ago I was told that there was no European fund to help our fellow citizens in such times of need.

Since 1999, while natural disasters have unfortunately continued to cause death and major destruction in Europe, EU action has fortunately been strengthened with the creation, in 2002, of the EU Solidarity Fund, an initiative of the Commission and Mr Barnier. This Fund allows us to take swift, effective action within a flexible framework.

As things stand, I feel that we need to mobilise this Fund to assist the affected regions, and in this regard I support the French Government's calls to do so as quickly as possible. I took note, Mrs Vassiliou, of the Commission's wish to speed things up. There is indeed an urgent need when it comes to the damaged infrastructure.

There is also an urgent need with regard to the forest. I would like to stress this point, since the storm has devastated between 60% and 70% of the forest in the south of Gironde and Landes, whereas this forest, one of the largest in Europe, was already barely managing to recover from the damage caused in 1996 and 1999. You are aware that there is no insurance for this kind of damage, and foresters are now completely penniless in the face of this disaster. We must show them our solidarity and assist with rebuilding the natural heritage of these regions.

Before ending, allow me to spare a thought for the victims of storm Klaus, in France, Spain and Italy, and express my support for their families.

Madam President, Mrs Vassiliou, ladies and gentlemen, the images of the 1999 storm, which was just mentioned and which hit south-west France causing tremendous damage, are still engraved on our collective memory.

It is an understatement to say that Europe was not prepared to endure such a tragedy again, so soon. There are those who view it as a blow dealt by fate, but I see it rather as a horrendous example of the climate change which you have just referred to, Mrs Vassiliou, for which we merely propose rough solutions whereas in fact urgent action is needed. This is a situation that we must handle responsibly. Unfortunately, we need to be prepared to face even more natural disasters.

On 24 and 25 January this year, storm Klaus, which hit southern Europe, killed 11 people in France, 14 in Spain and three in Italy. It caused significant damage, destroying schools and many homes, depriving thousands of people of electricity, heating, drinking water and a telephone service and leaving certain economic sectors in a critical situation, as in the case of the timber industry.

While I am keen to express my solidarity with the families of the victims and all those affected, and my support for local councillors, I would like to take advantage of this forum to call on the European Community since, it has to be said, this kind of situation requires a European response and, first and foremost, European solidarity.

Admittedly, in France a state of natural disaster has been declared, which will facilitate aid to disaster victims, but this does nothing to detract from the need to take coordinated European action to supplement the Member States' efforts to protect people, the environment and property in disaster-stricken towns and regions.

In practical terms, this primarily entails centralising information at European level in order to make a precise assessment of the damage. We must then release the necessary funds to provide support for local authorities that are facing huge challenges. In particular we should support the public services, which have been doing an exceptional job, and which we desperately need in order to repair infrastructure and equipment in the energy, water-supply, sewage, transport and telecommunications, health and education sectors.

Past disasters showed that action at European level is urgent and enabled the prevention of natural risks to be included as one the goals of the European Regional Development Fund. From now on, Europe must prove its ability to react and to translate its solidarity into practical measures. I therefore hope, although you have just said so, that the Commission will take this message on board and mobilise all means necessary to respond to this urgent situation, in particular through the EU Solidarity Fund and the Civil Protection Financial Instrument.

Lastly, in conclusion, I would like to remind you that, as with the fires in Greece in 2007, this violent storm has demonstrated the need for a civil protection force that can be mobilised in all crisis areas. I would like to hear your opinion on this subject, Mrs Vassiliou, as well as your response to Parliament's request in its resolution of 27 April 2006, seeking the creation of a European observatory on natural disasters to ensure a more effective European response when these unfortunate events occur.

Madam President, Mrs Vassiliou, on 18 November last year, I said the following in this very place: 'we do not know what the next disaster will be or on what scale it will be, but we are sure of one thing, and that is that there will soon be another disaster again. When that time comes, our fellow citizens, who for 50 years have been used to seeing a supposedly united Europe being built, will turn round and ask us: "what have you done?”'. I repeat, I said that here, to this House, last November.

In this same Chamber, in November 2006, two years before, I said more or less the same thing: 'if there is one area in which all Europeans expect effective Community responses, it is that of large-scale natural disasters'.

I said that everyone could see this whenever disasters such as the tsunami occur, and continued: 'that is why, together with my group, I am in favour of implementing preventative actions and of putting in place the capacity to respond very quickly to the consequences of tragedies. In this connection, I should like to draw attention to the quality of the Barnier report, which states the problem well and proposes solutions that are constructive not only in terms of efficiency but also of subsidiarity'. Mrs Vassiliou, we have all remained enthusiastic about this report as it contains highly practical and concrete proposals. It even contains budgetary items and explains that 10% of the Solidarity Fund can provide funding. It explains in a most pragmatic way how to work with the stakeholders in each state.

With the twelve proposals contained in the Barnier report, we had everything necessary to take action at European level which, a few weeks prior to the elections this coming June, would have provided an additional indication of the usefulness and effectiveness of true European operational solidarity.

You have just told us, Mrs Vassiliou, that you hope to receive Parliament's support. You had this support, and continue to do so. What is the Council doing, since you say that it is the Council which is the issue? The Council is not here this evening. We hope that over and above this debate, it will listen attentively to our call, which is not a call for help, nor another expression of surprise at the recent tragedy, but a call for it to clearly hear the question which I recently asked: 'what have you done?'.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Vassiliou, ladies and gentlemen, I would like us to reflect for a moment on the nature of this evening's exercise. It seems to me that we do this often, too often. Each time there is a disaster, we meet here, in this Chamber, and begin our chorus of lament where naturally we say that what has happened is a tragedy, and we bow our heads in respect for the victims.

Of course, I do this along with everyone else, but I do not believe that our role ends there. Our role is perhaps, as my fellow Member was just saying, to plan for the future, since there will be other environmental disasters. We said this again this morning, with our vote on the Florenz report. We know that the climate is increasingly unsettled. Storms of the century now come each decade and soon will come each year. When there is no storm, there is flooding, and when there is no flooding, there are severe forest fires.

Faced with all this, what is Europe doing? I am well aware that the Council is incapable of contemplating anything beyond its national navel. The juxtaposition of 27 navels does not yet make for a great continental project. We suffer the consequences of this during every tragedy. We are told to 'call for solidarity', but using which funds? I remember in the Committee on Budgets, when we discussed funds, precisely for the climate, we were talking about a few tens of millions of euros. This storm alone has cost EUR 1.4 billion. How much will we have to pay in insurance bills before we realise that protection of the environment and the climate is not a burden, but an investment in the future?

Still today, we are continuing to discuss the need to mobilise European stakeholders when a tragedy strikes. But we already said that, as I recall, here in this Chamber following the AZF factory explosion in my city, in 2001. We said that we had to consider a European intervention force to show that in Europe, in the event of a human catastrophe, the word 'solidarity' is not just a meaningless concept, but that we take practical action. All these years later, what has become of this European intervention force?

I was actually at my home in Toulouse, ladies and gentlemen, when the storm struck. I now know what a major environmental disaster entails. If I needed to learn, I have now experienced it in the damage to my home, in the tiles that were ripped off and in the trees that were uprooted. Therefore, I now know what these populations have been through: people who, in just one night, have seen their life's work completely destroyed.

However, as long as we, here in Parliament, and you, Mrs Vassiliou, members of the Commission, and also those absent this evening from the desperately empty Council benches, as long as we fail to realise that we must make real budgetary resources available to combat disasters, and not content ourselves with hollow words, as long as we fail to implement European solidarity through the actual establishment of a rapid-reaction, continental-scale civil intervention force, we shall continue here, tragedy after tragedy, to simply perform, once more, our chorus of lament.

The real response to storm Klaus may have come this morning, in our preparations for Copenhagen, and may come tomorrow, Mrs Vassiliou, by finally releasing funds and at last creating this civil force which is so lacking at European level.

- (FR) Madam President, Mrs Vassiliou, the storm called 'Klaus' in German, or 'Nicolas' in French, has devastated eight 'départements' in my south-west France constituency, and Landes in particular, hence the main impact being on the forest. The equivalent of six years' harvest of timber is lying on the ground, that is, 50 million cubic metres of windfall or windbreak over 300 000 hectares.

The first thing to do is clear the forest to prevent the timber rotting. There needs to be payment of EUR 5-10 per cubic metre of timber removed, that is, in the region of EUR 500 million, namely the amount of aid France has given to the press. Afterwards, the forest will need to be reseeded and replanted, leaving a 20-year hiatus in the timber industry. Now, this industry ranges from the woodcutters and cafés where they have a drink, to hauliers, nursery gardeners, vendors and so on.

The second industry affected is that of poultry, sheep and cattle farming. Roofs have been ripped off, animals lost and feed stores destroyed. We can see a need for a European agricultural insurance fund against climate and health risks. The French Presidency talked about this, and the Czech Presidency should do likewise.

The third set of victims is silent, since these victims are never mentioned: the elderly and the isolated in villages in France which are still without electricity. We need to create a European 'Fourth Age-Climate' strategy, like the 'Climate-Energy' one, that is to say, we must tackle the impact of the climate on the millions of people aged over 80 or 85. We have to create a modern fourth-age economy in order to emerge from the crisis and avoid the geriatric European Rwanda we are heading for, an economy with a modern construction industry, pharmaceutical and medical research, and a new network to avoid Europe having Gabon-style healthcare. Above all, we must prevent these climatic incidents providing an opportunity to play at Darwin and natural selection, while we should be building a Europe for life.

(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the Commissioner for her words of solidarity.

As has already been said, on 24 and 25 January, several countries in the south of the Union suffered the effects of a severe storm with winds reaching speeds of nearly 200 km per hour over many parts of the Iberian peninsula as well as some 30% of total annual rainfall falling in just a few hours.

The result of the storm was serious damage to property, services and public facilities, both in rural and urban communities, as well as widespread power cuts. The most serious consequence, however, was the loss of 11 lives across Spain as a result of falling masonry and accidents caused by the fierce gusts of wind.

One of the most tragic events was the death of four children, aged between nine and 12, in Sant Boi de Llobregat in Catalonia, when the wind destroyed a sports hall in which they were playing baseball.

Apart from lamenting the loss of so many irreplaceable human lives and expressing our solidarity with the families in their grief, the European Union must act, as it has on other occasions, by mobilising either the Solidarity Fund or another more appropriate fund, to repair the material damage caused by this natural disaster.

Twenty thousand hectares of forest have been affected in Catalonia, 75% of which is either seriously or very seriously damaged. Action is required in order to reduce the future risk of fire; clearly this task must be completed before the summer.

Furthermore, a lot of debris of all kinds has been deposited in rivers, streams and other watercourses. This may block water flow and there is a risk of local flooding.

In view of these and many other effects and aware of the fact that we do not yet have a final figure for the material damage, which, of course, Spain will provide through its request for assistance from the Fund, we think that the European Commission should help these regions return to normal. This would complement the immense public effort in the affected Member States and would give priority to repairing the serious damage with the objective of restoring living conditions and economic stability in these areas as soon as possible. The affected regions are facing a downturn in economic activity, degradation of the environment, loss of agricultural production, cessation of activities by many companies, a massive loss of trees and so on.

Given the characteristics and effects of the storm, I request that the Commission make these funds available as soon as possible. They are mainly intended for natural disasters with serious repercussions for life, the environment and the economy of a Member State or region of the Union. The objectives of the operations that would receive subsidies include the restoration of infrastructure to working order, the repair of power and water supply equipment and the clean-up of affected areas.

Commissioner, for these reasons I ask you to mobilise these funds as soon as possible once all the necessary information has been received.

- (FR) Madam President, as my fellow Members have reminded us, this storm has exacted a heavy toll. There are victims in France and Spain and this evening we think of them and their families. 200 000 hectares of forest have been destroyed in the south west of France.

In fact, this storm has ravaged 60% of the Landes forest. 1.7 million homes were without electricity at the height of the storm, and 3 200 of them in the Landes are still without electricity. Thousands had their phone lines cut and also their water supply disrupted. Many roads are still impassable due to obstacles such as fallen trees, power lines, floods or landslips. The services are endeavouring to restore everything as quickly as possible.

While I am pleased that the French Government has formally committed itself to submitting an application so that the areas of France affected can benefit from this fund, I deplore the fact that the French Presidency did not deem it necessary to press for a review of this fund.

This fund, as you, Commissioner, and my fellow Members have said, is still blocked by the Council of Ministers. As far as Parliament is concerned, it is about covering any major natural disaster which causes serious harm to the population and the environment, like floods, fires and droughts. However, we are going further by also including man-made phenomena, like catastrophes caused by terrorist attacks.

Our Parliament has also declared itself in favour of lowering the threshold for assistance. Now, if we question whether this Solidarity Fund is working for the affected regions, we can see that we risk being below the damage threshold. Now, this is a situation where, ultimately, several countries are affected. Therefore, I think that this threshold should also be reviewed to show that European solidarity really can exist.

As you have said, Commissioner, and my fellow Members have underlined, this sort of event will be repeated due to the results of climate change. The Commission has already announced a Communication on adapting to climate change.

It is important from now on for this Solidarity Fund to be a genuine European instrument for protecting citizens. It is time Europe showed that, in tragic situations, it is there to protect its citizens.

- (FR) Madam President, first of all, I too would obviously like to express my condolences and offer my sympathy firstly to those families who are in mourning, and to all those who are victims, in particular the many who have been cut off and who today still lack electricity, water or public services.

Commissioner, I listened to you promise us - and I think you were right - that crisis prevention measures would be consolidated, but the issue this evening, if I may say so, is compensation for the last crisis.

This is the third catastrophic storm in 20 years. The first one, as you will remember, was in July 1988, in Brittany. It still holds the wind speed record: over 250 km/h. The second, which was on an unprecedented scale, was the storm of 27 December 1999. It flattened most of our forests, for the first time. The third storm was on 24 January 2009. The reason I remember it is that I live in Gironde, very close to the Gironde forests.

The first thing we need to do is ask ourselves what the European Union's added value might be. In forestry the situation is catastrophic and what threatens us is that foresters have stopped foresting, by which I mean that some of them believe this profession has become unsustainable.

We must therefore put a plan in place, and I am among those who were ready, almost 10 years ago now, to consider a joint crisis organisation, so that we can sell all the wood which has now been placed on the market rather involuntarily, without affecting the price: we could do this by blocking supplies from other European regions, by funding transport and by making sure that this land can be replanted very quickly; otherwise, I think it will become subject to speculation, or even abandoned. Here we have a problem which is of direct interest to the European Union.

Secondly, I am also thinking of the oyster-farmers. Today the profession is in dire straits. It was already in trouble in 2002 after another disaster which was not at all natural, the sinking of the Prestige, and at present the oyster-farmers of the Arcachon Basin are losing all hope of being able to get back on their feet.

Finally, I would like the European Union Solidarity Fund to be mobilised. Obviously, I sympathise with what Mrs Laperrouze has said. Today, the Council is not here. It will do it no harm and I think it is extremely disappointing that it has refused to change the rule and that this fund today is so difficult to mobilise.

I ask you, moreover, whether the French Government itself has mobilised it. I am among those who will strive to see that it does this, because I believe it is very important, a few months from the elections, that our citizens know that European solidarity does exist and that Europe is not just dominated by the market.

(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, on 23 January I was in Galicia when winds of almost 200 km per hour struck my region: over 40 000 hectares of forest were devastated, Commissioner.

Galicia has the highest density of forested land in the European Union. After the passage of the storm, hundreds of thousands of trees had been blown down, roads were blocked and more than 500 km of high- and low-tension electricity cables were down and have still not been fully repaired.

Over 300 000 subscribers, including myself, suffered power cuts, in some cases for several days, as well as a loss of telephone services.

The storm caused injuries and badly damaged homes, infrastructure, farms, businesses, industrial plant, sports facilities as well as public and municipal buildings.

The response of the Government of Galicia to the storm, the worst in recorded history, allowed aid of EUR 17 million to be quickly approved for initial compensation of those affected and to subsidise repair of the damage.

As we know and as has been mentioned here, on 26 January the two worst affected Member States, France and Spain, requested European aid for the damage caused by the storm. As the damage that we have suffered can be defined as an extraordinary disaster under the terms of the prevailing Solidarity Fund Regulation, the governments of the two Member States announced that they had commenced work to apply for assistance from the Fund.

However, once again, as in the recent floods in Romania, we find that the requirements of the regulation are so restrictive that in actual fact they prevent this disaster being considered severe, Commissioner.

I would like to recall, as you and other Members have already done, that the Commission presented its proposal in 2005 and that Parliament issued its opinion in favour of reform of the Fund Regulation in 2006. Since then, the matter has been blocked in the Council, which has sat on the proposed reform for over two years.

For all these reasons, Commissioner, and given that these circumstances are exceptional and that the disaster has had serious repercussions for the living conditions and economic stability of the affected regions, I would ask you to trigger the Fund as proof of solidarity with the Member States concerned and above all with the citizens affected. They should be given financial assistance, as I believe, even though the sum involved is not so great, this would be a direct and urgently needed expression of European solidarity.

(RO) First of all, I would like to express my support for the families who have suffered as a result of this disaster. I saw, along with everyone else, what the dramatic consequences were in the wake of storm Klaus. I also watched the first intervention efforts on the scene, made by the countries affected as well as other European countries.

As we have been talking mostly about effects and relief funds, I would like to ask the Commission about specific projects which are actually able to implement prevention mechanisms for incidents like this so that, at least in the future, we will not have any more loss of human life.

- Madam President, can I just add my sympathy, as others have this evening, to the families who are deeply and sadly affected by this storm, and offer my support for calls for greater flexibility in the Solidarity Fund.

But there is a wider question as well to which I would draw your attention. It is not as grave as what you are discussing here but in all Member States there are occasional natural disasters and I think of counties that I represent - Offaly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Laois" \o "County Laois" and Louth - where there was very unnatural and unseasonal flooding. A small number of families were deeply affected by it, not enough for anyone to notice, but they will suffer serious consequences. Perhaps we need to look at funding under rural development or the common agricultural policy and establish a hardship fund to look after cases like this which are there and which need assistance.

- Madam President, the Commissioner mentioned several disasters in her opening speech, and among them the heatwave in France several years ago which claimed the lives of between 12 000 and 14 000 people. Just to set the record straight on this, it was not a storm or a flash flood, or anything like the other natural disasters. That heatwave lasted five to six weeks, and the deaths came over a period of five to six weeks. Almost all of the people who died were either disabled or elderly and in nursing homes or residential care, or in respite while their families were on holiday. The French Government at no time recalled the families or recalled staff from their holidays, nor did it call in the army or any other rescue services. They just allowed people to die, week after week.

I have spoken to many people in France about this incident, as I am involved in the Commission-funded project on rescuing people with disabilities in disasters. It was a scandal, and a scandal that no one has put their finger on or identified. I would ask the Commission to investigate that heatwave, investigate the level of deaths and realise that France did nothing about it, and yet when the autumn came and all those people had been buried, there were 14 000 fewer people on their social services register.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, let me say that all of us have at some time experienced environmental, natural or man-made disasters in our respective countries. That is why I fully share both your sentiments and your concerns.

The Solidarity Fund has to date offered assistance to 20 Member States, including four times to France, to Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and many others - 20 altogether - but I know, and I share your view, that we should improve. We should make it even more practical and give greater assistance to Member States. We shall continue our efforts to have those improvements approved by the Council. I am glad that we have Parliament's approval for this, and your support will be a great help in our efforts.

As I said in my introduction, the Commission is fully committed to assisting France and Spain, which were hit by winter storm Klaus, and will mobilise all relevant European instruments to express European solidarity towards them. The Commission is ready to examine the possibility of mobilising the Solidarity Fund but, as a first step, we need an application for this from France and Spain. They have 10 weeks to apply for that assistance.

I was asked whether we have in the pipeline other measures to improve the system of solidarity to Member States for natural disasters, and so would also like to mention that, apart from the review of the Solidarity Fund, we have an upcoming communication whose objective is to identify measures that could be included in a Community strategy for the prevention of natural and man-made disasters.

To sum up, it is the view of the Commission that the Solidarity Fund is already a very useful instrument but, of course, there is scope for improvement, and we shall continue our efforts to that end.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

The Klaus storm blew across south-west Europe on 23 - 25 January and caused significant damage. During the storm, winds gusted at speeds of up to 194 km/h. The storm claimed 18 victims in Spain, France and Germany and the number of victims would have been even higher if the early warning system had not been operating.

In Slovakia, we watched our television screens with feelings of profound sympathy as the terrible tragedy unfolded in the village of Sant Boi de Llobregat where four children lost their lives after the roof was blown off a sports hall. I would like to express my sincere condolences to all families that have lost family members.

The Solidarity Fund is a useful instrument. It was established in the EU after the floods in August 2002. Assistance from the fund is designated for Member States and Accession States that have suffered major natural disasters. This applies to disasters causing damage estimated at more than 0.6 % of the GDP of the affected country. Following the November 2004 storm which destroyed 2.5 million cubic metres of timber, Slovakia received EUR 5,667,578 from this fund.

Disasters are steadily increasing in number as a result of climate change in Europe, forcing us to adopt rules to ensure not only the rapid and flexible provision of financial assistance in the immediate aftermath of a disaster but also the implementation of preventative measures against various natural disasters.

Use of PCB waste oils in an Irish food recycling plant (debate) 

- The next item is the Commission statement on the use of PCB waste oils in an Irish food recycling plant.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission is fully aware of the high risks of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for human health and the environment.

Incidents like those in Belgium in 1999, and in Ireland last year, have demonstrated once again that even small amounts of PCBs can cause severe contamination of the feed and food chain.

Over the past three decades, the EU has established legislation to decrease the release of PCBs and dioxins into the environment, with the objective of reducing human exposure and protecting human health and the environment.

Nevertheless, as equipment containing PCBs typically has a long life expectancy, even after the ban of PCBs in 1985 significant amounts remain in use and are one source of possible human exposure.

In particular, the Directive on the disposal of PCBs, Directive 96/59/EC of September 1996, provides the appropriate tools to ensure the disposal of equipment and waste containing PCBs as soon as possible, and for large equipment before the end of 2010.

However, there remain significant gaps in the full implementation of this legislation. The Commission had to launch infringement procedures against most Member States concerning the obligation to establish inventories of large PCB-containing equipment and PCB disposal plans.

As a result of these infringement procedures, the overall situation has improved. Currently only two such cases are still open, but are about to be closed.

All Member States have communicated their plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein, and for the collection and subsequent disposal of equipment containing less than five cubic decimetres of PCBs (as required by Article 11 of the Directive).

Nevertheless, additional efforts are needed. In order to ensure the efficiency of PCB disposal plans, Member States have to further improve the implementation of existing legislation on PCBs and of European waste legislation in general.

The Commission is placing increasing importance on the proper implementation of EU waste legislation, and is actively supporting Member States in enhancing the implementation of their national waste legislation.

The feed hygiene Regulation No 183/2005 lays down minimum requirements for feed hygiene which apply from the primary production of feed (at farm level), through the production, the processing and the distribution, to the point of feeding the animals.

Feed business operators (FBOs) should put in place, implement and maintain procedures based on the HACCP principles. This means the identification of critical control points and the identification of, inter alia, possible chemical contamination when using the direct heating process to dry feed materials.

The responsibility for compliance with these requirements rests with feed business operators, although the adequacy of the measures put in place by FBOs must be verified by the competent authorities of the Member States. In most cases, this must be done by an on-the-spot visit.

Furthermore, general principles on the organisation of official controls laid down in the Official Control on Food and Feed Regulation require Member States to ensure that controls are carried out regularly, on a risk basis and with appropriate frequency. These official controls must include controls on feed businesses.

The role of the Commission is set out in Article 45 of the Official Control on Food and Feed Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Commission experts carry out audits of the competent authorities in the Member States to verify that controls take place in compliance with Community law.

A general audit of Ireland under this article was carried out across a number of sectors in 2008 and a report will be available shortly. The list of establishments to be audited is jointly decided between the national competent authorities and the auditors from the FVO.

The plant mentioned in the question was not one of those subjected to inspection in the 2008 general audit.

In the Irish dioxin contamination incident, the use of contaminated breadcrumbs as animal feed was identified to be the source of contamination. The breadcrumbs were produced from bakery waste (out-of-date biscuits), which are dried using a direct heating process. In a direct heating process the combustion gases are in direct contact with the feed material to be dried. The fuel used was apparently contaminated with PCB transformer oil. The relevant responsibilities of the different actors, from the breadcrumb producer to the fuel supplier, and so on, will be identified by an ongoing legal investigation.

I would like to stress the major importance of a comprehensive approach to be adopted for the risk classification, which includes possible risks related not only to the nature of the incoming material, in this case breadcrumbs, but also to the process itself.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank the Commission for that very detailed statement on this subject.

I think the reason we are debating this tonight is because we want to learn lessons and ensure that it does not happen again. The difficulty is that, back in 1999, when we discovered a problem in Belgium, we thought then that we had tightened up our rules sufficiently so that there would not be another incident. However, we are where we are now, and we know the consequences of the system's failure, in terms not just of money - although that is hugely significant for the European Union, for the Irish Exchequer, for taxpayers - but of the loss of confidence among consumers, and the damage done generally to the Irish food producing sector in terms of markets.

I am happy that we have made progress now and are restoring our name on the international marketplace, but I am also acutely aware that farmers throughout the European Union also face problems because of the Irish difficulty. That is why I think that tonight's debate is not just about Ireland. In my view, it is clear from your statement that this problem that occurred in Ireland has the potential to happen in other Member States. So that is, I suppose, where the starting point for this debate must be.

We know that this oil should not have got into the animal feed chain. What we are trying to find out is how that happened and - as you rightly say - that is the subject of a police investigation with a cross-border dimension to it. We will, I hope, find out the exact trail of events so that we can avoid a similar occurrence.

But it also raises another question, which you have alluded to, and that is how we handle waste or surplus food. Recycling is now 'the thing to do'. Everybody is in favour of it because we all want to be environmentally friendly and sustainable. So there are two issues here: first of all the issue of recycling of oils - to which you have alluded - and I think that needs more careful attention in relation not only to PCBs but more generally to the collection, distribution, handling and so on of waste oils, though obviously there is a particular worry about PCBs.

Regarding surplus food - or waste food as it is sometimes called - my own view is that it is appropriate that we use this product in the animal feed chain, but I want to say very clearly that, if we cannot guarantee its safety and how it is processed and handled, then I am afraid we may need to look at banning this in the food and feed chain.

I would not like to see that happen, but then again I would not like to see happen again what occurred in Ireland and the subsequent consequences of it. What we want is for this surplus or waste food to be used because it is good quality, not because the animal feed chain is a dumping ground for it - I think that is an important point.

We need to talk, too, very openly about the whole issue of the mixing of animal feeds. Farmers like to buy ingredients and to mix their own rations, and generally larger farmers do this. That is appropriate if we have tight controls on it. I understand that there are regular checks carried out, but in this case there were clearly some gaps in the checks on that market. Indeed, those farmers who were caught and suffered consequences because they used this product were saying to me, 'Why was somebody not coming and checking what was coming into our yards?'

On the issue of regulation, I believe that there are very tight controls on licensed animal feed operators - the compound feed industry of the European Union - and they came in because of practices in the past which we needed to tighten up on.

I have a sense that, in Member States, we regulate the compliant particularly tightly and we do not keep a lookout for the potentially non-compliant. We do not think outside the box. There is perhaps a tendency, once the paper trail is correct and the boxes are ticked, to put it all to bed and not look underneath the surface.

I think we need to look again at regulation. We are looking at it again in the financial sector, and we also need to look at it in the food sector. I also think that, at farm level, inspectors are sometimes regarded as the devil incarnate coming on to farms. Why do farmers not welcome inspectors in, seeing them as protectors of their businesses?

I think we need to change the mindset now in the entire food chain, based on this experience. I welcome very particularly the announcement of the Irish Farmers' Association that they are setting up a food taskforce. It is high time that farmers took some control of the food chain that they are the first step on.

Lastly, the issue of low-cost ingredients is not one for now, but the pressure on producers to produce ever more cheaply is part of this issue and needs to be addressed.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I have a number of points to make in relation to this issue and of course I would disagree slightly with Mrs McGuinness in relation to 'this is not about Ireland'. Of course, this is about Ireland. This is the most recent scandal in relation to food risks.

The protection of human health has to be the primary concern on this issue and what we are talking about here is the implementation of a 1996 directive. Indeed, unfortunately, Ireland was one of those Member States which had to be forced by threats of legal action to actually implement this directive, five years later, in 2001. Of course, the process of implementing it is still, it would appear, under way, and the inspection procedures for ensuring that it is being complied with appear to be quite weak. From what I understand from what I have read about it, one of the surprising things is the lack of information about what precisely occurred in this particular instance with regard to the contamination of pork. It would appear that the factory concerned which produced the feed had not inspected for some time.

I also have to say - and I am sure the Government would be surprised to hear me say this - I do believe they took the right decision in clamping down immediately on the distribution of pork and indeed the withdrawal of pork from the shop shelves. Of course it hurt many innocent and compliant producers and butchers and so on: 90% or more of products were not contaminated at all. The factory concerned was only supplying something like 10 outlets, so it was a big move to make, but it was the right move to make. The most important thing is that we try and ensure that the public and the consumer can be certain that the food they are buying in the supermarkets, in their local corner shops is safe to eat. If we do not take immediate and drastic steps to guarantee that, then I think we are failing in our responsibility.

I have two questions for the Commissioner. One is, as I say, we are talking about the implementation here of the 1996 directive. Is there not an argument now for that directive to be reviewed? Are the standards that were set in that directive not now adequate or inadequate? Should we not be looking more seriously at taking these PCBs out of circulation much more quickly than is envisaged, particularly because of the late way in which many Member States actually implemented the directive?

My other question relates to the management plan which the Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland is belatedly putting in place in 2008 where it talks about the code of practice, which the plan also includes, for the in-use management of PCBs and PCB containing equipment. What I want to know is whether a code of practice is in fact compliant with the directive. Should we not be looking for a more stringent application of the rules in terms of the management of PCBs? I am not in favour of charging everybody who breaks a rule here and there, but I do think that, where food safety is concerned, there should be criminal sanctions for those who carelessly abuse their position.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - Madam President, the Irish pigmeat industry plays a vital role in the Irish agri-foods sector. That industry is valued at approximately EUR 1 billion and is responsible, directly and indirectly, for the employment of 10 000 people.

Against the backdrop of the current economic climate and the rising cost of food prices, it is critical that we do our utmost in Ireland to defend the Irish pigmeat sector, which operates to the highest European Union and international standards.

The detection of dioxins above the minimum threshold in a sample of pork fat under the National Residue Monitoring Programme enabled the source of the contamination to be quickly traced to an individual feed manufacturing plant. While any contamination of our food is always regrettable, what this incident shows is the very high level of food safety controls which the Irish authorities have in place to guarantee the integrity of the food chain. In other words, those controls worked.

I would therefore like to acknowledge the competence and swiftness of the action taken by the Irish Government and the Department of Agriculture regarding the decision taken for a total product recall. This was very well received by European and international markets, and indeed by the European Commission. It highlighted how seriously we as a country view food safety matters, and helped maintain our reputation at home and abroad as a quality food-producing nation.

Irish consumers continued to buy pork as it became available on the supermarket shelves, and there was an early resumption in trading in most European and international markets. Obviously, additional work needs to be carried out to resume full trading, such as enhanced marketing campaigns and so on.

I would like to commend the Oireachtas Agriculture Committee for its comprehensive investigation of the dioxin incident, which involved a series of hearings that involved government departments, state agencies and representatives of the pork industry. I am glad also that the Department of Agriculture is carrying out a further investigation, under the chairmanship of a very well-known individual in European circles, Professor Patrick Wall.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, at least this was discovered, in the Irish case, by means of inspections. Ten years ago in Belgium, the cases came thick and fast. In both cases, we hear talk of accidents that took place, but these accidents have never been proven. After 10 years, the case is now closed in Belgium. One person got a suspended sentence of one and a half years. However, how the substance got into the products is not clear. We must therefore continue to assume that toxic substances were deliberately mixed in, that feedstuffs were used to save on disposal costs. Thus, the oil is diluted and added to the feedstuffs. In both cases, the oil in question is transformer oil.

As long as these accidents have not been reconstructed and it remains unproven that it really was the result of burning, it must be assumed, in Ireland, too, that a criminal act took place whereby these toxic substances, this PCB, were admixed. This means that we must increase the frequency of inspections so that criminal efforts are not focused on such feedstuffs with the impression that this is an easy way to cut costs.

For that reason, the open declaration that we will be adopting here tomorrow represents a further opportunity not to increase the focus against criminal efforts but to increase the frequency of inspections. Risks, furthermore, must not be determined merely in terms of which plants are involved but also in relation to who on earth is running these plants and from what murky sources this oil is obtained. We do know the sort of people we are dealing with here and the institutions thus need to be aware, in relation to inspections, that they represent a higher risk and must therefore be subject to stricter inspections.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (GA) The incident involving high levels of dioxins in Irish factories is creating large economic difficulties for farmers in the North and in the South. This is bad news in the current difficult economic climate. Because such fast action was taken the market can be assured that Irish pork is safe. Be that as it may, it should not be expected that those affected should deal with these consequences by themselves. I know that some of these economic questions relate to other commissioners but it is important that the following points be raised. The aim of the Pigmeat Recall Scheme announced by the Irish Government in December 2008 was to remove contaminated Irish pork from the market. Be that as it may, it does not appear that this scheme is providing for the 4 000 contaminated pigs sent to the Vion pig processing plant in Cookstown, County Tyrone, in my constituency, between the 1st of September and the 6th of December 2008.

Fortunately, we can state unconditionally that Irish pork is completely safe. If this factory is not entitled to compensation under the EU support scheme, however, there is real danger that it will not be able to continue operating.

The EU must ensure that this processing plant will not be left to deal with the consequences of accepting 4 000 contaminated pigs.

If they will not be entitled to compensation under the Pigmeat Recall Scheme agreed between the Commission and the Irish government, a similar type of scheme must be agreed between the Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Assembly in Belfast.

In the spirit of solidarity, the European Union should approve the co-financing of the necessary compensation for those who were affected. 2009 will be a difficult year for everyone - let us not forget the highly exceptional circumstances that left a lot of people in the food sector in a predicament they did not create.

The Ministers in the Assembly in Belfast and in the Irish Government will soon provide an all-island animal health strategy.

We must have an all-Ireland approach that goes further than animal health and that includes a single regulatory approach for the island. That is to say, EU regulations should be managed and implemented on an all-island basis. Every Irish farmer would benefit from a situation like this and the lack of duplication would increase the effectiveness of monitoring of EU regulations.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, my colleague mentioned the murky channels by which PCBs came into the food chain in Ireland. I think maybe it is worse, sometimes looking back at the history of PCBs. Polychlorinated biphenyls are almost 100 years old. They are man-made and from the very beginning it was obvious they were very dangerous.

They were used for many years in capacitors, hydraulic fuels, wood floor finishes: clearly not something we want in the food chain. But almost from the early 1900s until 1966, when a Swedish scientist actually established their danger, people looked the other way and allowed them to be used, even though numerous industrial accidents happened over and over and over again.

But even once the science was in place it was really not until the 1970s - 1972 -before PCBs in public areas were banned; even then, they were still allowed to be used and their use was not fully banned until 2000. So there are a lot of PCBs out there and they were left out there almost 100 years after we knew there was a problem.

So, despite the Commission's directive of 1996 which required the disposal of PCBs, we find them coming up again and again, in particular in Belgium and in Ireland recently.

But I have found that one thing really confused people in Ireland. I remember visiting a butcher around that time and he just could not understand. He said, we have put into place so much traceability. We can know exactly where this egg comes from, what day it was laid and if we really want to delve a little bit further we can find out exactly what farm and so on. And yet, even after we knew the source of the PCBs, this butcher, who sources all his own pork, who had all the code numbers etc. was still being forced to throw away and destroy pork.

I do not understand how that happened, because we have really worked so hard on the Committee on the Environment; you have worked so hard to achieve traceability, and yet when the chips were down, those systems were not used. Maybe they were used to find the farms, but they were not used to clear the reputations of the innocent and this cost people an awful lot - and it cost my country an awful lot, for it was not these particular supply chains, it was the whole country that was blackened.

And there is confusion about other things. We are talking today about PCBs and dioxins and rightly so, but are we going to spend 100 years before we realise the connection between dioxins and incineration? This is something that I am also constantly trying to do, namely to keep dioxins from incineration out of the food chain.

- Madam President, several farmers and a processing business in my constituency face millions of pounds of loss through no fault of their own because contaminated feed bought in good faith was supplied from a food mill where wanton disregard - never mind good practice - was shown. It is no surprise that there is considerable anger amongst those affected constituents.

I have a series of questions for the Commissioner. If they are not answered tonight, I would like them to be answered in writing if that is possible.

Firstly, what is the history of the culpable recycling feed mill in terms of compliance with EU regulations? Is it a law unto itself as has been suggested?

Secondly, did Millstream have a licence to use the oil in question? If not, was it not the responsibility of the Member State to ensure that such defiance of basic regulatory requirements was discovered and dealt with?

Thirdly, was Millstream implementing an HACCP-based risk analysis and an auto-control plan as required by the food hygiene regulation?

Fourthly, is the Commission satisfied with the level and frequency of inspections and supervision imposed by the Member State on this plant and its produce, given the Member State's obligation to have a risk-based official control plan? Was there negligence on the part of the Irish authorities in enforcing with rigour the feed law and food safety requirements?

Fifthly, in my constituency legitimate food mills have to comply with rigorous controls and standards under quality assurance schemes. Why was there no equivalent scrutiny of the Millstream recycling?

Sixthly, was there any reliance upon self-certifying of safety of feed mills and, if so, why - since that should only be permissible on small-scale operators - was it allowed to apply here?

Finally, if I might, what is the precise legal basis upon which the Commission agreed a large payout to the Irish state, as initially the Commission spokesman said that no such basis existed? Will there be a follow-up in terms of infringement if that Member State is found to be in breach of its requirements?

(RO) It is useful that we can have a debate this evening based on the declaration which the Commission and you, Commissioner, have already made concerning the use of waste oils in feed preparation in Ireland.

I would like to extend the debate slightly to tell you that a very large number of Member States, including Romania which I am going to speak about, have been affected by this incident, or to put it more precisely: the incident has affected the meat industry but, above all, consumers. It has affected the industry, which has recorded major losses in an extremely short space of time, and consumers at a time when, at least in Romania, there is usually a significant consumption of pork, in keeping with the tradition of celebrating Christmas.

The one thing which has functioned extremely well is the notification of the veterinary authorities via the European rapid alert system. However, apart from this measure, all the information has disappeared. What quantity of contaminated meat was involved, where was it distributed and where are the food products were the questions to which partial answers were given, although, in some cases, none at all. What has been the effect of this? A panic reaction among consumers and huge losses for producers, as well as the fairly poor ability on the part of the responsible authorities to manage such an incident effectively.

In my view, we have at least two problems. The first is the dioxin contamination as a result of using waste oils, given that dioxin is, as we all know, a substance which poses a major hazard as it is highly toxic to the human organism, even in tiny quantities. What can we do to ensure that such an incident never happens again?

The second problem is: how do we improve the ability of the responsible authorities in the Member States to respond and take action in such dangerous situations?

On a final note, I hope that this debate will give us some answers, at least to these two questions.

- (BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem of the use of waste oils containing polychlorinated biphenyls at a food waste recycling plant again has posed the question of the need for guaranteeing food safety in the European Union.

First of all, we must underline that the problem does not stem from some animal disease but from the inadequate monitoring of stipulated measures carried out for fodder hygiene and safety in the European Union. Despite the controls in place, a high level of dioxin was intersected by the time it had reached the pork meat. The logical question is: why did this not happen earlier?

Many European citizens today are asking whether the European Union has the necessary legislation available which would require Member States to apply adequate monitoring on the safety of fodder fed to animals. The answer to this question is urgently needed, taking into view the fact that not applying safety norms at even just one food processing plant can have fatal consequences and bring about losses amounting to hundreds of millions of Euros.

I would like to call upon the European Commission to undertake the necessary measures to intensify monitoring, which is an inseparable part of European Union policy for consumer safety protection. Pork meat containing high dioxin from Ireland also reached Bulgaria as well as many other European countries. However, such incidents must not be allowed in future as the financial and social price that must be paid afterwards is exceedingly high.

Finally, I would like to welcome Mrs McGuinness on her initiative to put this issue to scrutiny before the Commission.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we are, tonight, discussing the use of PCB waste oils in an Irish food recycling plant. Tomorrow, we will be debating the placing on the market and use of feed for animals. Tomorrow, we will observe that we have, together, already achieved a series of important and expedient measures in this sector. Yet there are still problems in this area. That is why the five questions posed by Mrs McGuinness in her oral question must be taken seriously and must be given a serious answer.

Commissioner, you, yourself, talked of gaps that are still to be closed in the implementation of our legislation in a number of Member States. It is true that the feed sector overall has thoroughly proven its reliability in recent years, but certain businesses are either unaware of the risks or do not wish to see them. It would seem, furthermore, that there is still much room for improvement in many Member States in terms of inspection on the appropriate risk basis.

All of us - Parliament, the decreasing number of farmers and also consumers - expect the proper application of EU legislation with inspections to that effect. For that reason, I believe that general food law, food and feed hygiene and the licensing conditions for food recycling plants needs to be looked into.

Yes, we do want to make use of surplus foodstuffs. I, personally, at least, would like this to happen and for the surplus foodstuffs in question not to be destroyed. Traceability, however, must be ensured. Unwanted substances and products must be excluded in a secure and controlled manner. When feed companies are licensed, the professional competence of their staff in the area of food and feed safety must be ensured.

Feedingstuffs are the basis of food safety and there must be certainty on the part of farmers so that consumers can be ensured of safe and sound food.

- Madam President, first of all can I say I welcome the opportunity for this debate. It has been brought home to farmers how vulnerable they are to what others do.

This is something that occurred in the Republic of Ireland, but the ironic thing is that the waste oil which was the supposed cause of the problem originally came from Northern Ireland. But it manifested itself in the compound feed from the Republic of Ireland.

The problem that has arisen as far as I am concerned is that the farmers in the Republic of Ireland, be they of pig or beef, have been compensated, aided and assisted by Europe. Farmers in Northern Ireland at this time stand high and dry with no help and no support. Northern Ireland farmers have been destroyed and many of them stand to lose their farms and be put out of business through no fault of their own. They have done nothing wrong, committed no offence, and I have to state straightforwardly to this House tonight, and to the Commissioner, as far as I am concerned the farmers in Northern Ireland have been seriously let down, not only by our own Department of Agriculture, the DARD as it is known in Northern Ireland, and most especially by the Minister, who seems incapable, weak and unable to solve the problem.

The Minister of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland has shown clearly that he takes care of his own first. That I understand. Can I ask this question to the Commissioner: are you going to receive any information from an inquiry that is supposed to be carried out by the police both sides of the border? Will you be prepared to act on the information that you receive, and will you be prepared to ensure that Northern Ireland producers have the same support as farmers in the Republic of Ireland and that they are not disenfranchised in any way financially? And, above all, and this is my last point, will you ensure that such a problem can never again occur? All this achieves is a loss of confidence for the consumer and above all else the destruction of the producer.

- Madam President, one source of human exposure to PCBs is through the food chain, as the Commissioner says. However, open fires and cigarette smoke are far greater sources to a far greater number of people. Let us be proportional and let us keep the hysteria out of this debate, and more light and less heat on it.

Minimum requirements for feed hygiene are indeed very important and must be rigorously enforced, but they must also be accompanied by full identification and traceability for all meat products - not just beef but also poultry, pigmeat and sheepmeat. I have put down amendments to current legislation to that effect, and we will be discussing these in this House shortly.

The pig feed concerned was indeed contaminated by breadcrumbs because, inadvertently, Millstream Recycling used fuel to dry the breadcrumbs after buying this in good faith from a company it had dealt with for years and with which it had had no previous problems. There is an ongoing police investigation and the company concerned is cooperating fully with them.

I would like to refute completely Mr Allister's claim that the company showed wanton disregard. That will be proven not to be the case, so let us be careful what we say here.

The biggest problem was that we had to have 100% withdrawal of all pigmeat products, and their destruction, albeit only in the short term. The livelihoods of many Irish farmers, and indeed the reputation of Irish food products abroad suffered because we had to have such a disproportionate response, when only six to seven per cent of our pig farms were contaminated, since the Irish system of identification and traceability failed at the point of the slaughter-house. All pigs are supposed to be eartagged in Ireland, or slap marked, but somehow, at the slaughter-house level, we could not differentiate those pigs that had had the contaminated feed from the vast majority of other pigs that had not.

We need to look at that issue. The Commission needs to look at the whole role of identification and traceability, and above all let us wait for the police investigation, which I think will surprise people.

The companies concerned are extremely sorry, and have said so publicly, for the damage caused to the food chain and Ireland's reputation, and indeed for the economic damage caused to the many farmers who have purchased their excellent feed products up to this point. They are now back in business and again producing, I might say, an excellent feed ration for farmers to mix.

This has been an appalling episode. No one would have wished it to happen.

- Madam President, I have tried not to be judge and jury on this Irish case, because that is not why we are here tonight, but I would like to ask the Commissioner three questions: what volume of PCBs is still in circulation; can you guarantee that none of these will contaminate the food chain in the next 23 months, when they are still in the process of disposal; and would the Commission present a report on the status of implementation of the Feed Hygiene Regulation, which this House would like to hear?

I would also like to point out to Jim Allister that this is a cross-border issue. The contamination, as we understand it, came - as Jim Nicholson rightly pointed out - from across the border. That is why I do not agree with Proinsias. This is a European issue because it has a cross-border dimension. What happened in Ireland could happen in any Member State because there are - as I understand it - thousands of tonnes of PCBs in circulation. Perhaps the Commissioner could clarify that point.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, has the Commission investigated or reconstructed the course of events leading to the accident? I find the idea that the burning of waste oil and the smoke that then seeps through a few breadcrumbs could cause dioxin contamination on this scale, where a 200-fold increase in dioxin levels occurred in the pigmeat - not in the feed, but in the pigmeat itself - quite laughable. I shall continue to assume, until or unless it is proved to the contrary, that this was a case of a deliberate admixing.

Every road accident is reconstructed and it is investigated how such an accident could have occurred. This accident - if that is what it was - too, must be reconstructed and it must be investigated whether this type of combustion and the smoke which it passes through the meat really can cause so much dioxin to end up in the meat. As a practician, I would say that everything that is being said in this regard is nonsense. What we are talking about here was a deliberate admixing and we are being made into repositories for this poison, one which does not break down by itself and which therefore continues through generations of people.

- (NL) This has been an extremely interesting debate. I fear that we will have cases like this again in future. We can never rule out criminal behaviour and people taking advantage of the system.

One of the issues that were not discussed this evening is the system of private hallmarks. Why does the Commission not give the industry more encouragement to carry out its own inspections, and to develop private quality hallmarks? The Commission can then say, 'we can carry out checks at the end, but, in the first instance, it is up to you to ensure that you check your fellow professionals and to ensure that these things do not happen. If you develop a reasonable system, we will encourage it and recognise it.' It appears to me that we need to encourage from the bottom up so that practices of this kind do not occur in future.

- Madam President, there is no dispute about the fact that the oil apparently came from Northern Ireland. That is not the issue.

The pertinent point is that Millstream chose to buy in that oil, knowing it was looking for oil to use in dryers - to deal with feedstuff, to dry the breadcrumbs - so why was it buying oil of that sort, no matter where it came from?

Why was it not checked by state inspectors and by the company itself? The use of oil in that circumstance is, as I understand it, illegal, a breach of the food and hygiene regulations. So where it came from is not the issue - it is why it came there and why it was used for the purpose for which it was used.

- Madam President, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's allegation of deliberate mixing of this contaminate into feed is contemptible and unworthy of any professional politician. Let us allow the due process of the legal investigation to take its course.

The company concerned, Millstream Recycling, are cooperating fully. They have a full paper trail to prove they bought this oil from a licensed company in Dublin that supplies oil. They bought it as a recycled light fuel oil which would have been the correct oil to use in this particular drying process. They were sold it by a licensed company and, as far as they were concerned, it was recycled light fuel oil they bought; they accept, however, that they were given transformer oil which caused the dioxins.

There is a legal and police investigation. Let us let due process take its course and stop these allegations flying because this is a very serious issue, which is not helped by hysterical and over-the-top reaction.

- Madam President, everybody agrees - no one denies - that, yes, the oil came from Northern Ireland. We cannot deny that. But, while we argue, there are eight farmers in Northern Ireland going out of business, and in the Republic as well. They have suffered as well, I accept that. This is not political. This is ordinary people suffering, and it is our farmers who are suffering financially.

The truth is - and we have to face up to this, and you, Commissioner, have to face up to this - there were tonnes of pigmeat that were untraceable. Nobody knew where it had come from, what pigs it came from or where it came from. Commissioner, it is time, long past time, that you brought in straight, clear labelling of origin of where this comes from. At least if that had been the case, we would have known where we stood and where it is.

I do not want to make this political because for me this is not political. I talk to my farmers every day, and some of these people are most probably going to lose their farms. So this is serious stuff. If we have to follow the legal investigation to its ultimate conclusion, I want to see that happen - but I want to see my farmers protected, and I do not want to see them sold down the river. I want to see them properly protected by you so that they get the same position and protection as farmers in the Republic of Ireland.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, this discussion has been really lively, and many questions have been put. Many assumptions have also been made, and I would agree with Mrs Doyle that we have to be patient and wait for this investigation to finish. Then we can draw our conclusions and take decisions for the future. One thing I have to say - I was not involved at the time but have heard about it - is that similar incidents happened in Germany and in Belgium, and there was wide information about those incidents in all the Member States. So I would have thought that a prudent Member State would have taken more stringent control measures. But even with the most stringent control measures such a thing may happen, either because of fraud, or because of negligence, or whatever. Our responsibility is to see to it that we have legislation - which I believe is now satisfactory - and to see that Member States comply with that legislation. Our duty as the Commission is to have controls and to see that Member States do their duty.

FVOs make their inspections, and FVO reports are open to the public, so the extent to which there is a compliance with our laws can be implied from those reports, which are even prepared on a country by country basis.

A number of you raised the issue of traceability, which is indeed one of the main pillars of general food law and is the responsibility of the food business operators, who must be able to indicate from whom they have purchased and to whom they are selling. However, the level of detail or specificity of internal traceability chosen by the food business operator determines the final economic loss to be borne by food business operators in the case of recall. In this particular case, what the traceability rule in Ireland required was simply the date of production, and not the farm where the meat came from. That was why it was necessary to recall all the meat produced in those two months. If stricter traceability rules were applicable (which would have costed more, of course) only the meat which was identified as originating from that particular farm would have been recalled. So one has to decide: pay more and have better traceability rules or pay less and, in the final analysis, bear the loss.

It was mentioned that we have provided aid, as a Commission - although the payment of compensation is not my responsibility, but that of Commissioner Fischer Boel - and I must say that what was paid in this case was paid on the same basis both in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. I have here some figures. The Commission has introduced a private storage aid scheme for Northern Ireland, and under this scheme up to 15 000 tonnes can be stored for a maximum of six months. The budget for that measure is EUR 6.9 million. A similar private storage scheme was also adopted in the Republic of Ireland. Under that scheme, up to 30 000 tonnes can be stored for up to six months, with a maximum budget of EUR 13.9 million. In the Republic of Ireland there was also a disposal scheme which was cofinanced by the Community and which cost EUR 20.6 million. No payments were made by the Commission directly to farmers either in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland, because there is no legal base for such compensation.

Summing up, I would say that we have good laws, but in the future we have always to be vigilant. We must make sure that those laws are applicable by the Member States, and we need the cooperation of the Member States. On the Commission side, we have to keep up our controls and make sure that Member States comply with our regulations.

Moreover, once we receive the results of the inquiries and investigations, we can then think about the future. If we believe that there is scope for improving our regulations, we shall have no hesitation in doing so.

- The debate is closed.

Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 10.45 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 10 a.m.)

Documents received: see Minutes

The placing on the market and use of feed for animals (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the placing on the market and use of animal feed - C6-0128/2008 -.

rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, today we are discussing what is known as the 'open declaration'. This is about transparency with regard to feed as the basis for healthy food for consumers, and it is about giving purchasers of compound feed an overview of what is supplied to them.

It has been a long road but, if we adopt this Regulation today, I hope this brings matters to a successful conclusion, and I should like to thank the Commission, which has helped us a great deal with its constructive work on the issues. The Commission encountered absolute political will on the part of Parliament to push through this open declaration, and also experienced a stubborn but fair debate with the Council. We can be proud of the results.

Let us take a brief look at the history. We had the BSE crisis and, in 1997, the Temporary Committee of Inquiry issued its final report in which Parliament called for this open declaration. The Commission presented a proposal, which subsequently became Directive 2002/2/EC. In a compromise with the Council - this went through all the bodies - the Directive pushed through the open declaration, which meant that labels had to state the ingredients with a ± 15% tolerance, and the exact composition had to be provided on request.

That was a directive rather than a regulation, and Member States implemented it only very hesitantly or not at all. The feed industry brought an action to the European Court of Justice, and the Court gave the following first-class confirmation: apart from the exact information, the legality of this Directive was not in dispute. We then took account of this judgment in a further procedure in Parliament, and have now brought matters to a conclusion in the form of this Regulation. I had the honour of being rapporteur each time and, throughout this long period, I enjoyed extremely intensive cooperation with the Commission that was based on trust.

Today we have a result that has been fought for hard but fairly, and of which we can be proud. It is also apparent that it enjoys the support of the majority in this House and of the groups. There are no amendments, from which I conclude that this Regulation will indeed be adopted by a large majority. Therefore, we have a good Regulation that brings about the open declaration in three steps - you know what they are - firstly, the components in descending percentage order; secondly, the provision of information to feed businesses with a ± 15% tolerance - in this regard we have not laid down a reservation of intellectual property rights in this legislation, but rather referred to the general legislation - and thirdly, the provision of exact information to the authorities.

I also wish to point out that we have set up a register. No feeding or admixing of components will now take place in the European Union without such components being published, as they must be included in the register. This is important not only to the supervisory authorities but also to the public and to customers. From the point of view of the rapporteur, therefore, I can say that I am very satisfied with the result overall.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for its work on this dossier, and especially the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, as well as all the shadow rapporteurs, who all played an important role.

Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has managed to steer discussions during the negotiations with great skill, and we are very grateful to him.

The compromise package maintains the high level of feed safety achieved in the EU. It strikes the right balance between consumer protection and intellectual property rights. It removes the burden of the pre-market authorisation procedure for bio-proteins, modernises the labelling of feed through proper information for the customer and places coregulation at the heart of legislative procedures. It improves market transparency through the notification system for new feed materials, facilitates innovation and competitiveness in the EU feed business and marks a concrete step against the misleading of feed users - be they farmers or pet owners.

The result of the negotiations is the compromise package submitted for your vote, which amounts to simplification and modernisation of the current legal framework. The provisions concerning the so-called 'open declaration' allow for a more modern type of labelling. Feed materials incorporated into compound feed for food-producing animals will have to be labelled by weight, in descending order.

On top of this, the exact percentage of weight has to be indicated for highlighted feed materials, and in the case of voluntary labelling.

Furthermore, the provision that certain information concerning compound feed can be transferred from the competent authorities to the purchasers on grounds of urgency improves the appropriate information to the user in cases such as feed contamination incidents.

In this context, the Commission makes the following declarations. First, in order to adapt Annex III on the tolerances for the compositional labelling of feed materials and compound feed to scientific and technical development, the Commission and its services envisage taking up examination of that Annex. In this context, the Commission will also consider certain feed materials with a moisture content in excess of 50%.

Second, with regard to the labelling of additives, the Commission will study whether the principles of information through labelling of feed could also apply to the additives and premixtures authorised under the Regulation on additives for use in animal nutrition.

Finally, the Commission understands that any urgencies relating to human and animal health and the environment may include urgencies generated, among other things, by negligence, international fraud or criminal acts.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and myself, I should like to extend the warmest of thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. I believe that the approach taken to this report is a model for the parliamentary work in this House.

Today's vote does not involve any amendments, as the work on this was technically very sound and encompassed the entire political spectrum. I believe that this result is one to be proud of. It is a balanced result that safeguards the interests of farmers as users of feed, feed manufacturers, and all other links in the food chain.

It improves transparency, and my group, in particular, sets great store by the setting up of a register in which the raw materials mixed into feed must be entered. Food scandals occur time and again and not even the new legislation will prevent this, as no European rules are designed to prevent criminal activity; but these rules will help ensure that, when these scandals do occur, it will be easier to detect what substances have been mixed in.

I also think it a good thing that manufacturers of feed may provide further information on a voluntary basis, and I consider it an excellent proposal that, if they provide such information, this must be scientifically proven. I am of the opinion that this new feed law significantly improves protection and that the decreasing order enables farmers to see the proportions of each feed component and what is the best feed for their animals, and to choose accordingly.

I reiterate my thanks to all those who contributed to making this such a good report.

Mr President, Commissioner, as I have already done in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups and also the Council for the work carried out.

This work has allowed us to reach agreement at first reading and furthermore, has been an excellent running-in process for the codecision procedure that will be standard practice in our committee in the near future.

Ladies and gentlemen, at present, legislation on the movement of raw materials for feed and compound feed for animals, including pets - a sector that represents some EUR 50 billion in trade at Community level - is regulated by several directives and some 50 amendments and implementing acts.

The simplification of the legislation and its harmonised application are the main objectives that will doubtless be achieved by this Regulation.

Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has already debated the placing on the market of animal feed, back in 2006. We will all recall that we unanimously asked the European Commission, in future review, to endeavour to find a fair balance between the interests of farmers in obtaining detailed information on feed ingredients and the interests of the industry in ensuring sufficient protection of its know-how.

The compromise reached on the main sensitive points of the Commission's proposal, the open declaration of raw materials and the creation of a Community list of raw materials, is a good reflection, in my opinion, of this balance. Proof of this is the welcome the compromise has received from all those involved.

In fact, by means of the open declaration, the compromise protects the rights of purchasers to be informed and of manufacturers to retain ownership of their know-how by indicating that information should be provided without prejudice to the 2004 Directive on intellectual property rights.

There is no question, ladies and gentlemen, that in a relationship of trust between supplier and user, the formulae should be known, but it would not be logical to be obliged to give the recipe to the first client who came through the door. Many of us have drunk Coca-Cola for many years. Although we do not know its recipe, this does not mean that we doubt that the product's characteristics are observed and that health standards are respected.

The Court of Justice judgment previously mentioned strictly establishes that the obligation to inform customers of the exact composition of feed, if they so request, is not justified by a desired aim to protect health.

That said, I must remind you that the competent authority will have access to the precise composition at all times and, as established in the compromise reached, any emergency related to human or animal health or the environment will mean that the purchasers will have access to precise information on the composition of the feed in question once the legitimate interests of both the manufacturers and the purchasers have been considered.

With regard to the list of good labelling practices, this remains voluntary for the professionals in the sector without at any time becoming a positive list of raw materials for the manufacture of compound feeds, as this is something that has not been requested.

The legislation will include, at the European Parliament's request, a new annex comprising a list of raw materials for animal feed of which the placing on the market or use is prohibited or restricted. This is information, whether an annex or a list, that the Commission can update.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament, whom I represent, supports the compromise reached and has not tabled any amendments for the plenary. We are fully in favour of the position as presented today in this House and, as such, we will vote in favour of it.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) I, too, should like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe shares the view that the compromise that has been struck is a good one, and so we will be able to vote in favour of it later today.

What matters most is for the intellectual property of the cattle feed manufacturers to be safeguarded. If we in the sector want innovation - as indeed, yesterday, we voted on a climate report - there is much room for improvement in the cattle feed sector too, so that the emission of all kinds of gases caused by livestock can be reduced. Well, this is a challenge we need to confront squarely. When cattle feed manufacturers decide to innovate, they should not be impeded by excessively strict legislation on disclosure. This disclosure is, to my mind, safeguarded, as others have already mentioned, and could be done at the request of the government or a certain customer, for example. There is nothing stopping the cattle feed manufacturers from doing this on a voluntary basis.

The ingredients as such are not the most important thing: the precise nutritional value of cattle feed is much more important, and should be correctly labelled. Everything that is on the label, such as energy, protein, and suchlike, is valuable information. In short, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe will be backing this compromise. We will also say to the cattle feed manufacturers that if they wish to innovate in their production processes and their cattle feed composition, for example, this is a good compromise that will help them do this.

Mr President, the market for feedstuffs and their use in animal production is extremely important, because it concerns the health of hundreds of millions of citizens in EU Member States.

Unpleasant experiences from the past in the form of animal diseases caused by unsuitable feedstuffs brought about huge material and social costs in the countries of the Community. This is why defining the composition of feeds is also extremely important, in order to limit the use of improper feeds. Effective enforcement of the provisions contained in the regulation is also important, so that they will not be merely hollow declarations.

Currently, when millions of people and even entire countries in Europe are against the consumption of food produced using animal feeds which contain genetically modified plants, those people have the right to know what is happening. Therefore, it is not only farmers who should be informed about the contents of animal feed, but food processing plants should inform customers about this on product labels. And this is not being done.

Several months ago in this Chamber, we debated the increasing numbers of obese people in Europe. This problem, however, in great measure concerns precisely the contents of animal feeds, because it is these contents which significantly affect the quality of meat. It is very good that in the draft regulation, much attention has been paid to the hygiene of feed production and to the problem of the addition of contaminated materials during production. That practice has sometimes been used by many producers.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I will be no exception in offering my congratulations to my group colleague, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, who has worked very hard on what must be one of the more technical dossiers we have dealt with. He has also displayed the wisdom of Solomon in striking a balance between the needs of the consumers and the very legitimate needs of manufacturers for the protection of their product and their intellectual property.

This is what I would call back home one of the more classic European Parliament dossiers. Looking at our guests in the visitors' gallery, it is pretty safe to say that animal feed labelling is probably not one of the most glamorous subjects they could have heard us talking about today, but it is crucially important and it is a real example of where this Parliament adds value, and where we can ensure our consumers', our citizens' and our voters' faith in the food chain of the food they eat.

It is important to remember where this issue came from. The BSE crisis proved that what we feed our animals needs to be regulated. This Regulation needs to be transparent, and there needs to be a balance struck between consumers' needs and the needs of the manufacturers, but it can go wrong. It has gone wrong and we must ensure it does not go wrong again. This report is crucial in taking that forward.

I have had numerous meetings with the industry in Scotland, and with consumer groups and the farmers themselves, and there has been pretty well universal support and approval for the way that the Commission and Parliament have taken this forward, and particularly for our rapporteur.

This dossier does add value. It is a good example of Parliament working. We often say that there has been good cooperation between the Commission and Parliament. On this one, there really has been, and the fact that there are so few amendments being tabled to this report demonstrates that it will go through with a big majority. Parliament has had a good day today.

Mr President, the compromise achieved concerning feedstuffs does have certain advantages - it harmonises and simplifies EU legislation - but it also has fundamental flaws: it does not offer sufficient guarantee of the safety of animal feeds and of foods, it affords weak protection of the interests of the five million farmers who breed and raise animals, and it does not sufficiently protect our health.

The access of animal feed users to information about the contents of the feed will still be limited by the protection of intellectual property rights. If the producer of a feedstuff uses a dangerous ingredient, we will still be vulnerable. The problem of feedstuffs is further proof of the mistaken direction being taken by agricultural policy which, in spite of declarations, supports industrial agriculture first and foremost and, in such agriculture, farmers do not have to have their own feedstuffs and can raise animals using feedstuffs produced by specialised businesses. These businesses are, of course, profit-driven and will always find a way to reduce costs, but will not necessarily take into account the safety of animals or our health. As a consequence, we have to multiply specific provisions and increase monitoring, which takes the matter to an absurd level.

Is it not time to reverse these tendencies and to return to the sustainable development of agriculture, in which farmers will have their own feedstuffs and will not be exposed to the losses caused by dioxins or BSE? Progress in agriculture does not have to mean the concentration of production or the concentration of feedstuff production. We should bear in mind that in the EU, we currently have 15 million farms, and as many as 95% of these are small and medium-sized farms. Most of these farms can use the sustainable model of agriculture for the good of farmers, the environment and of us all. We only need to radically change our approach to agriculture, and in doing so to change our approach to current common agricultural policy.

(FR) Mr President, what is good about animals is that the years go by and the problems remain the same. For example, we always mention jaw traps when talking about wild animals, and the question of transport, breeding and feed always arises in relation to farm animals. Animal feed is a classic case; it is a mishmash, a load of rubbish. Antibiotics, clenbuterol, growth hormones, even the remains of other animals, are used, and this is what the United Kingdom's contaminated feed problem from the 1990s was all about.

However, today we are told that the junk-food era is over. There has been a 2002 directive and a 2005 Court of Justice ruling and, now, there is the desire to reconcile the market and profit - which is referred to as intellectual property - with consumer safety.

Thus, here we find ourselves today armed with a regulation. Using the classic tool of labelling, all the components are going to be indicated, in descending order of weight, and there will also be an open declaration, an Annex III and a tolerance of +/-15%. Moreover, the most inquisitive among us will even be able to request the exact composition.

Only two big questions remain. The first concerns imported animals which have not been labelled. Mr Parish is here; he has taken a great interest in animals arriving from Brazil, which are not marked and which have been fed clenbuterol. When it comes to the safety of these animals, we do not know a great deal.

And then there remains the big question of imported feed, namely raw materials that have been arriving from the American continent since the 1960s. In the 1960s, this came in the form of corn gluten feed - molasses, oilseed residues - and, today, it is in the form of transgenic soya from Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil, and transgenic maize from Canada and the United States. And this, dare I say it, because people are against local GMOs, but not immigrant GMOs.

The fact is, we are talking here about two-thirds of the feed of our herds, and that is a real health issue. The single issue of European health security is obscuring the wider issue of global health risks, due to the Uruguay Round agreement and the Blair House agreement, which oblige us to import our oilseeds to feed two-thirds of our herds.

Mr President, I should like to congratulate the Commissioner and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on their excellent work and the good cooperation we have had.

Let me say to the last two speakers and to the guests we have in the gallery: please eat your food safely this afternoon when you have your lunch, because, if we are to believe the last two speakers, there is nothing safe to eat anywhere as far as I can see!

The whole idea of this legislation is to bring safety to the food we eat, and, of course, what our animals eat is essential because we eat those animals. I know it is a very simplistic approach to take, but that is exactly why we are here.

Yes, we have made mistakes over the years, and I would be the first to admit that the feeding of meat and bone meal back to cattle caused the BSE problem - which was not anybody's finest hour - and that is why we are bringing this legislation forward.

The whole argument now is not about whether we should have transparency and have the ingredients on the label, because that is precisely what will be there. The manufacturers' argument was to ask whether they had to put the precise percentages, because somebody could then turn round and copy that feed and make exactly the same feed.

That is where the compromise and the work that Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, the Commission and Council have done is so good, because we have reached a situation now where we can really trust our feed. If you have looked recently at the problems that we have had in Europe - and we have had problems in various countries with animal feed - this is not because the labelling system and the processes have been wrong, but because companies have broken the law.

Therefore, we must ensure not only that we get this law right but also that the Commission and Member States monitor this law and inspect the feed companies to make sure that they are not breaking the rules, because, again, people and consumers must have confidence in our food.

I would say to you that European food is as safe as we can get it, but we must never let up, to make sure that our consumers are absolutely satisfied that what they are eating is safe. I would say to our guests: please go and have a good lunch and be assured that it should be safe!

(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I heartily congratulate Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on another excellent report.

Efforts at simplifying current legislation in the area of the marketing and use of feedstuffs and in the area of required and additional information placed on packaging and in freight documentation are a justified step.

It is certain that simplifying technical provisions and an enlargement of purely administrative provisions will have a beneficial effect on the growth of competitiveness of the EU feedstuffs sector and on food safety, which Mr Parish has just spoken about. I am certain that this assumption is itself justified.

However, I would like to draw attention here to a question which may be problematic. I think that the obligation to label products with a freephone number placed on small and medium-sized producers of feedstuffs for domestic pets is unnecessary. Introduction of this provision may cause a financial burden which is too great for these small and medium-sized producers, and most feedstuff producers fall into these two categories.

In summary, I would like to stress that we must strive to simplify the entire system of legislation in the area of the marketing and use of feedstuffs. In so doing, care should be taken over safety. However, the introduction of controversial provisions which generate excessive costs may unfavourably affect precisely those small businesses which produce for local markets.

(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also first like to thank the rapporteur, Mr zu Baringdorf, for the thorough work he has done in preparing for this debate.

Food safety in the EU has been shaken by many crises in recent years, such as BSE and several dioxin scandals, the latest of which apparently occurred last autumn. The causes of the crises have often been found to be contaminated feed, due to negligence or even criminal activity. This regulation to simplify and clarify legislation is welcome. The regulation must bolster consumer confidence throughout the European food chain. Consumers need to be protected and they must be able to tell where and how the food they buy has been produced.

Another objective is the legal protection of farmers. They have to make choices on the basis of labelling, and they must be able to have faith in the impeccable quality of feed. The manufacturing rights of the producers of feed must also be safeguarded, as Mr Mulder said earlier on.

In many Member States, things are well under control, but the regulation before us, which will make labelling clearer and make it easier to trace the origin of feed, is needed to ensure things are put right throughout the EU, and to end differences of opinion when it comes to interpretation.

I would nevertheless like to point out that it is crucially important with this regulation, and others, that there is proper implementation and monitoring. Clear and precise regulations will not help unless they are complied with in practice. When monitoring the quality of feed, it needs to be ascertained that it is safe and fit for purpose and that it meets the legal requirements. This way we can improve the safety of the entire food chain and protect consumers.

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a few years ago in Italy, it was claimed that foodstuffs mixed in the shed by farmers were to be considered as feed, and thus the sheds were to be considered as feed factories. Agricultural producers would never have been able to comply with complex health regulations, HACCP and traceability, and would therefore have been forced to purchase from real feed factories the foodstuffs that had been made on the farm for centuries. At the time, we managed to avoid this snare.

The report that we are debating today defines feed but not feed factories. So that Europe does not get the blame once again, it must be crystal clear that foodstuffs for livestock, mixed on the premises of the livestock company, does not constitute feed, but simply extemporaneous mixing of foodstuffs and raw materials produced directly in the fields, and that the agricultural business is not a feed factory. Perhaps it is a partisan position, but one can never be too careful when interpretations have considerable economic significance.

Mr President, in the aftermath of the dioxin contamination in the Republic of Ireland which visited such losses on innocent producers and processors in Northern Ireland, we discussed new measures on the labelling of feedstuffs.

The obvious question for me is: would any of these proposals have saved my producers from their present losses? Sadly, the answer is 'no'. They will, of course, impose greater transparency which is, of itself, all to the good, but only in respect of EU feedstuffs fed to animals within the EU, not in respect of feed fed to animals whose meat we then import into the EU.

Providing maximum detail on the precise composition of feedstuffs is right and understandable, but we must not so undermine intellectual property rights as to make them meaningless. In that respect, I have some residual fears on aspects of these proposals. Compound mixes are trade secrets built up over years of research and trial. They must be adequately protected.

I trust that the 15% margin in description precision will be enough. I, for one, do not want to see feed mills in my constituency, which have worked hard and invested heavily in producing premium product, being gazumped and their intellectual property rights raided by manufacturers operating in cheaper production areas, either within or outside the EU.

I trust this regulation will not be either misused or abused in that regard. Yes, farmers are entitled to maximum information on compound contents, but within the confines of preserving the viability and the future of the mills from which they buy.

(NL) I should like to echo all the compliments that have already been paid to our rapporteur. Needless to say, public and animal health should be at the heart of cattle feed legislation. This translates into clear rules regarding the use and labelling of raw materials. This should, of course, remain workable and not lead to a greater administrative burden or, as has already been mentioned, jeopardise the manufacturers' intellectual property. We will continue to monitor this with a critical eye, but it looks as if the new regulation will meet these requirements.

I should like to make an observation with regard to inspection. Once again, effective controls and sanctions to separate the wheat from the chaff will make or break this legislation. The regulation stipulates that the penalties which the Member States may apply themselves must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. I would urge the European Commission to closely monitor the situation in the near future, to make sure this is the case in all the countries of the European Union. It is, after all, unacceptable for one country to be stricter than another. An excellent case in point is, to my mind, the suspended sentences that were given this week, ten years after the event, in the Belgian dioxin scandal.

Finally, I should like to mention a topic that cannot remain untouched, namely meat and bone meal. Following the emotional speech of the first speaker from the Non-Attached Members, I shall confine myself to the facts. Meat and bone meal in animal feed has been banned since the BSE crisis. However, in the case of chickens, for example, this leads to a shortage of animal protein in their feed, quite apart from the fair criticism that valuable proteins are destroyed. Moreover, animal feed is the largest overhead for the five million cattle farmers in the European Union who have not got it easy to begin with.

Of course, we do not want to revert back to a situation in which animal proteins from within the same species end up in the feed. Cannibalism: never again! We need to put tests in place in order to handle this situation properly. The European Commission has indicated that these tests could be available in 2009, which means that meat and bone meal could be reintroduced in the feed of chickens or pigs, for example, in a safe manner. I should like to find out from the European Commission what the latest is on this score and what steps we can expect in this respect in the coming year.

(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, the quality of food products of animal origin (meat, eggs, milk) and the protection of consumers against poor food quality has been a subject of EU interest for many years.

For products of animal origin to be of good quality, good quality feedstuffs are essential - this is the most important factor - as well as suitable living conditions for the animals. Most of the ingredients of feedstuffs are produced by agriculture itself, but the additives which are used are most often chemical products. It is these which create the most controversy. Therefore, we should fight for the exact composition of industrial feedstuffs to be declared. It has nothing to do with intellectual property rights and their protection. Only when a patent office grants a protection certificate is a product protected.

When they have not been tested sufficiently, new animal feed additives may be harmful to our health, although they ensure the best growth or the best appearance of the product. A farmer does not have the facilities to test feedstuffs and can only rely on information supplied by the producer. We should remember BSE and the results of adding meat and bone meal to animal feeds. Industry will do everything for profit. This is why I support Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's report in its entirety.

(PL) Mr President, I hope that the proposals contained in the compromise package which we are debating today will bring about the simplification of provisions in the area of the marketing of feedstuffs and that in so doing, they will raise the competitiveness of the feedstuffs sector in the European Union. I also hope that the new rules will not increase costs for small and medium-sized producers of animal feed mixes.

When discussing the subject of labelling, it should be remembered that often the problem is not a lack of information on the product label, but a lack of understanding on the part of the ordinary consumer. Too much information on the label may actually hinder the buyer when making a choice. On the one hand, we must ensure that our citizens have access to information, while on the other, we must safeguard the intellectual property rights of producers.

I endorse the idea of drawing up a list of ingredients which may not be fed to animals. One thing is certain - we cannot allow a repeat of food-related scandals. Irish pork contaminated with dioxins or melanin in milk from China are examples of incidents which should not have happened. We ought to ask why the monitoring system did not function correctly and why the contamination arose.

The system of monitoring therefore requires greater supervision. Procedures must be transparent and unambiguous. Fines for not complying with the monitoring system or for breaching it should be high, because they are related to human health. In spite of the incident in Ireland, I would like to give my assurances that in Europe, farmers and producers maintain the highest standards in the world. Our food is characterised by its acknowledged reputation and quality. The food in Europe is safe.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by giving my very sincere thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. Not only in this report but also over many years in the past, he has always followed a clear line, which aims to achieve what we have achieved today: creating clarity for farmers and setting out clear requirements in the field of placing feed on the market and the use thereof.

Today, we are discussing the second step, and this, in particular, has become clear time and again. Commissioner, yesterday evening, last night, we discussed the first step: production. I should like to return to this. The type of production and the type of controls on production are the most important prerequisites for this report, to ensure that ultimately, we have healthy, safe feed from which to produce healthy, safe food.

I should like to reiterate my conviction that businesses that also process food to make feed should be subject to better scrutiny, that the HACCP concept should be required as a basis for authorisation - possibly for authorisation throughout Europe - as that has also been a problem in both yesterday's and today's debates. We need the same controls for the same risks throughout the European Union. Although we can never rule out abuses, this report and also yesterday's debate have laid good foundations for safety without going over the top. This is another point made in today's report, of course: that we have learned from developments following the BSE crisis, and that we now know that quite a few things can - and must - be done differently.

I wish to reiterate my thanks to our rapporteur, who has produced a good report today out of all the negotiations here. I hope that he receives one hundred per cent support from this House.

(FR) Mr President, the excellent report by our fellow Member - whom I congratulate - on which we are going to vote today, is important because the European animal feed sector is one of our main agricultural sectors, both in terms of production, since it accounts for half of the agricultural production within the European Union - 120 million tonnes - and of turnover - around EUR 50 billion. Within the European Union, there are, in fact, 5 million farmers and 60 million pet-owning households.

In the past, the European Union has come to terms with a number of health crises, which means that, today, we have to be more vigilant with regard to transparency, in order to meet the expectations not only of farmers, but also of consumers. The provisions laid down in this report have the advantage of representing a minimal cost for the industries and a great benefit for consumers, who are paying more and more attention to the quality of the goods they buy. Adopting this report will make it possible to limit the risks by guaranteeing better quality goods, better monitoring, more traceability, and better information for farmers and, therefore, ultimately, for consumers.

Today, with the increase in international trade, it is vitally important to strengthen all prevention systems, so as to ensure that the food crises that we have experienced in the past do not happen again.

This report succeeds in reconciling the right to information, while strictly defining the nutritional elements that must appear on the labels, with the right to intellectual property, which is so important when it comes to preserving the competitiveness of our industries.

I believe that manufacturers should actually be obliged to give immediate notification of the use of any new raw material going into animal feed, in order to guarantee transparency and to facilitate the inspections performed by the competent authorities. Including an urgency procedure that enables a new dangerous substance to be incorporated into the list of prohibited materials seems altogether crucial to me.

Equally, giving farmers the opportunity to question the competent national authority or the European Commission in case of doubt about an unfair allegation enables the system to be controlled better and customers to be protected, while fair trading is also preserved.

I therefore wish to offer my full support to this excellent report, for experience shows that a regulation on the labelling of animal feed that prioritises quality, transparency, traceability and monitoring is the best means of preventing further health crises in Europe.

Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this report, which is a very technical one and answers the Court's question about protecting the rights of farmers and the rights of those who produce the animal feed they purchase.

I support the idea that intellectual property rights are worth protecting. We cannot have formulations being copied by operators who come in and out of the marketplace, so the report is successful from that point of view.

The issue of rogue operators has been brought up in the debate here this morning. The truth is that we will only keep a check on the industry if we check those who do not comply. That can only be done by regular monitoring, inspection and control at every point along the way. We debated that very vigorously last night in this Parliament and I was glad to hear that improvements will be made.

Lastly, a bigger point on the volatility of commodity prices. The Agriculture Commissioner is joining us. This is a big issue for the feed industry and for farmers, and it is one that we need to address.

Mr President, firstly, I welcome this report and wish to congratulate the rapporteur, who is to be commended for his report and hard work.

We do indeed need transparency, and have to know what is in compound feed - there is no doubt about that. I have no problem with a company keeping its intellectual property rights confidential. However, recent events in the Republic of Ireland, with the dioxin problem, bring home very clearly to all of us the need for control. Farmers can have the highest possible standards of livestock husbandry and do everything right but, as we have witnessed, all can be lost when events way beyond their control destroy all their good and hard work.

This is a good day for Parliament, and it shows what we can achieve through cooperation. Maybe it also shows what we can actually achieve within agriculture for a better future for farmers throughout the European Union.

I am pleased that Commissioner Fischer Boel is here with Commissioner Vassiliou this morning, because it is very important that we make the point of the serious danger of farmers in Northern Ireland - eight farmers at this moment in time - losing everything because the local Assembly has not been prepared to support them.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to start by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, as he has succeeded in producing a genuinely workable compromise at first reading. It has also proved possible to reconcile consumer protection and food safety with the necessary protection of intellectual property.

Farmers must be able to trust that the feed they are using contains what is stated on the label. Black sheep in the feed industry have caused great economic losses in agriculture and far beyond. Thank you once again, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf.

Mr President, I should like to make two quick points.

Firstly, yes, consumers and farmers depend on clear and transparent labelling, and I support the rapporteur's amendment to allow the manufacturer to refuse to disclose information if he or she is able to prove that intellectual property rights could be infringed on any ingredient which constitutes less than two per cent of the ration. We urgently need more investment in research, especially into ruminant feed to reduce the methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Secondly, is it not long past the time for reference points for action, or RPAs, for dealing with the adventitious presence of minuscule levels of GMO in feed, rather than the present zero-tolerance regime, which results in criminally disproportionate waste of feed and cereal shipments and criminally disproportionate sanctions? I refer, of course, to the presence of previously authorised GMs by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), so that they are fully risk-assessed by definition, or perhaps a GMO that is fully authorised in another jurisdiction.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioners, I do not have anything to add about the content, as enough has been said in this regard. I should like to thank the rapporteur, who showed good staying power in the trialogue.

This report has been a long haul. As we know, the European Court of Justice issued a judgment, which was followed by clean, fair discussion. We had opportunity to discuss this at length and, as rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has shown that a satisfactory solution can be achieved in a short space of time even as part of a first reading agreement. I have crossed swords with him a fair few times since 1994, but our teamwork has always been fair, and I should like to thank him once again for his work.

(DE) Mr President, I had run out of speaking time, so I do have some new things to say. If we now adopt new European feed legislation here in Parliament, by what will probably be a large majority, and the Council accepts this legislation, we shall have achieved a new, high quality standard in Europe.

I should like to ask the two Commissioners present to insist on these European standards in the case of imports of feed and food as well in future. Europe can face up to global competition only if the same standards are applied to imports. Therefore, the Commission must also press for our European standards to form part of the WTO negotiations and to become a global standard - then we need not fear this global competition.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for their remarks, and shall now reply to some of those remarks. First of all, on the question of safety, safety of feed is guaranteed by the negative list of feed materials which cannot be used in feeds. The proposal contains the list of feed materials which are forbidden. The Commission will extend that list every time it is convinced that it is necessary to add to that negative list.

On the other hand, I wish to remind you that there is a large list of maximum levels of contaminants, such as dangerous micro-toxins, heavy metals and dioxins, which has been in force, under the Directive on undesirable substances, since 2002.

I would agree with all those who said, as I confirmed, that European food is safe. However, as I also indicated last night during our discussions, laws and regulations are as good as we make them, and we therefore have to remain vigilant and see to it that Member States, feed dealers and, indeed, the Commission, ensure that everybody sticks to their obligations in ensuring that laws really are enforced and that they are good laws.

The recent Irish meat incident highlights the need for stringent enforcement and controls on legal requirements, and my services will continue to examine how that can be improved. I am confident that, once the new rules come into force, regulation of the feed market will be significantly improved, in the interests of both feed manufacturers and users.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the rapporteur once again for his excellent contribution, and all Members for their constructive and positive role in reaching an agreement on this important initiative.

Mr President, Commissioners, I wish to express my thanks for the many kind words that have been said today. I believe this is a good report.

On the subject of whether criminal activity can be prevented, this report cannot do so, of course, but the improved intensity of controls it provides may deter such activity. Criminal activity always focuses where it sees an opportunity, where it sees loopholes, and we have now been able to close these in some areas. I hope - as Mr Nicholson said - that both the feed industry and farmers will understand that there is something to be defended here, that a community is being formed against these attempts to dispose of toxic substances via feed. I am fairly sure that this will also curb criminal activity.

I should like to make clear once more that we are not creating a separate line for intellectual property here, but rather making reference to the legislation already in force, which also applies to this field. We wanted to prevent the duty of information from hiding behind these intellectual property rights. That is why this is a good arrangement.

Let me conclude by thanking the shadow rapporteurs. Here, too, there were arguments, of course - after all, we hold different opinions in this House - but I believe that what we subsequently created now has everyone's support. I should also like to thank our committee's administrative team - in this case Mr Emmes - who did outstanding groundwork. Although we Members of the European Parliament always play a leading role in the political field, in the administrative field we do need to be able to fall back on this groundwork. Here, too, this was very successful.

I should like to add that, when we have codecision, parliamentarianism is fun. It was always said that codecision in agriculture would make everything much more complicated and time-consuming. This is not true, as we have seen that, given good work, a good understanding of matters, good groundwork and good political opponents, things can be staged very quickly. I think that this is proof that the expertise of the European Parliament can serve, and help, to set good legislation in motion.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Dumitriu, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries - C6-0313/2008 -.

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate in a plenary session an issue which is important not only for the Community's agricultural sector, but also for the European economy's competitiveness as a whole.

At a time when the economies of our countries are suffering as a result of the global crisis and when increasing the demand for agricultural products is an imperative, amending Regulation No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries offers us additional leverage to support agricultural producers and, by extension, the EU economy.

European Council Regulation No 3/2008, which combines in a single text regulations 2702/1999 and 2826/2000, has accommodated the European Commission's new political approaches on simplifying legislation, while also achieving the objective of facilitating administrative procedures within the European institutions. Based on this regulation, the Community can take information provision measures for a certain number of agricultural products on the internal market and on the markets of third countries, while also preserving the specific nature of the measures, according to the market in which they are implemented.

This policy provides a response to a real need on the part of Member States to promote the image of their agricultural products, especially the benefits in terms of quality, nutritional value and food safety standards, both among European consumers and consumers in other countries. It also helps open up new market outlets and has a multiplier effect for national and private sector initiatives.

The amendments initiated by the European Commission are aimed at allowing interested Member States to devise a relevant programme where the organisations involved in drawing up proposals do not wish to present programmes to be implemented in third countries. As a result of this, Member States will have the opportunity to expand the area of application of the measures targeted by these programmes and also seek the assistance of international organisations in implementing these measures. The draft report we are discussing proposes certain additions and adaptations to the Commission proposal, which are necessary in order to clarify and supplement the logic of the regulation.

First of all, we are proposing to introduce consultations with professional associations and organisations operating in the target sectors of the Member States, which are involved in the process of devising information programmes for agricultural products, both on the internal market and in third countries. In view of their expertise and the important role these associations and organisations also play in guaranteeing and controlling quality, it is absolutely paramount that they are consulted. At the same time, we support these programmes being drawn up based on an assessment of the need for them and their timeliness, providing us with the assurance that the funds are being spent effectively in programmes which meet the objective of helping promote Community products.

We are also proposing to extend the areas where international organisations can be assigned the implementation of information programmes for third countries. Promotion and publicity measures are also relevant to the wine sector, both on the EU internal market and in third countries. As is the case with the olive oil and table olive sector, international bodies exist in the wine sector, such as the International Organisation of Vine and Wine, which can ensure the implementation in third countries of programmes proposed by Member States, thereby disseminating information about the characteristics and advantages of wines with a protected designation of origin and those with a protected geographical indication.

Another amendment which we are proposing to you is aimed at increasing the European Union's cofinancing percentage from 60% to 70% at a time when it is increasingly more difficult for small producers to gain access to financing due to the financial crisis. Without any financial support, they risk going bankrupt as they do not have the leverage to promote their products and are facing a drop in market demand.

The ultimate aim of these proposals is to generate greater market demand in order to boost production and support the European economy as a whole. Attaining this goal will help us overcome these difficult times we are going through. The quality of the European Union's agricultural and food products is an advantage which we need to utilise in order to guarantee the European economy's competitiveness and higher incomes for producers.

I hope that the recommendations we are going to adopt will be implemented as soon as possible by the European Commission and Member States because we cannot afford to waste time in such circumstances when European citizens are being hit by the effects of an extremely deep economic recession. The measures being proposed will obviously not resolve all the problems linked to marketing and promoting the Community's agricultural and food products.

Simplifying the red tape involved with registering traditional products, introducing a 'Made in the European Union' label and solving the problem of products imported from third countries of lower quality and safety standards are just some of the areas which we need to consider in order to boost the market share for Community products. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your comments and questions.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Dumitriu, and the members of the Agriculture Committee, for an excellent report on the Commission proposal on information and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal and external markets.

I would like to stress the importance of the issues addressed in this report. I think we all agree that the promotion of European agricultural products is of huge importance, both internally and externally. I am convinced that trade in agricultural products will continue to grow in the future - even if we have to admit that we face a setback at the present time owing to the economic crisis. However, there will be huge opportunities for our European products in third-country markets, and our promotion campaign should help European producers explore those new markets.

Before going into the content of the report, I would like to put it into perspective. In 2008, the Commission adopted 42 programmes on the internal market and on third countries, representing a budget of EUR 128 million over three years. According to the rules, half of that amount was then to be financed by the Community.

The aim of the Commission proposal is to make it possible for Member States to launch programmes cofinanced by the European Union in third countries - as described by the rapporteur - because today this possibility only exists for the internal market. It should also be possible for those programmes to be implemented by international organisations.

The three most important amendments from the rapporteur and his colleagues are as follows: firstly, to make it compulsory for Member States to consult trade associations about the proposed programmes; secondly, to specify that implementation by international organisations is not only a possibility reserved for the International Olive Oil Council, but a general possibility, for example - as mentioned here today - also in the wine sector; and, on the budget side, to increase the cofinancing rate.

With regard to those amendments, I would emphasise that Member States do, in fact, already consult trade associations in order to make sure that they have the support of producers. I would prefer that partnership approach to continue on a voluntary basis.

My mentioning of the International Olive Oil Council is only meant as an example, because of the discussions that have recently taken place on the whole olive oil sector. It certainly does not exclude other international organisations, such as the International Organisation of Vine and Wine.

Regarding the funding of the budget, there is, of course, ongoing discussion on the level of cofinancing by the Community, but we discussed this issue when merging the two regulations dealing with promotion and information in 2008, so I do not think we should re-open the discussion on this issue.

Could I just take the opportunity to say that, when we agreed the wine reform, we did recognise the importance of promoting our products on third-country markets. Therefore, in the interests of spending the budget for wine in a smarter and more intelligent way, we proposed the earmarking of EUR 120 million each year for the promotion of our wine products on third country markets as a special budget line. However, since Member States - and especially the new Member States - did not want to be in a position where that money was earmarked in such a way that, if it was not spent, then it was lost, we included the EUR 120 million in the national envelopes, so that Member States can decide for themselves. In any case, this gives a clear signal that the Community does care and does recognise the importance of strong promotion of our European products. I look forward to the discussion here today.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Dumitriu, for his objective report which reflects the real needs of this Community sector in terms of promoting European producers.

The report contains measures which will help open up new markets and make our farmers' agricultural production profitable. This policy meets the actual needs of Member States wishing to promote their agricultural production, both among the Community's consumers and among those in third countries.

It provides an excellent opportunity for the emphasis to be placed on quality, nutritional value, production methods and the safety of the food produced. I support the rapporteur's proposal offering the opportunity to interested countries to put forward information programmes for third countries if the latter do not have this facility.

This amendment will allow European countries to extend the practical scope of the measures envisaged by these programmes and to seek assistance from international organisations in implementing them. I believe that during the process of devising these programmes, consideration should be given to the important role played by the associations and industry organisations in the individual countries, which have an objective view of what is happening in the individual industries.

We must note the importance of certain international bodies in promoting the specific characteristics and advantages of food products typical of particular EU regions. I support the rapporteur's proposal for increasing the percentage rate for the Community's financial participation so that additional assistance can be provided to the projects selected by Member States. I urge you to support Mr Dumitriu's report.

Mr President, Commissioner, I sincerely congratulate Mr Dumitriu on a good report - a continuation of the reports which were drawn up earlier, in which we talked about promotion and sums of money allocated to promotion of the European Union in third countries.

Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries play an enormous role in creating a positive image of the 'Made in Europe' brand. I have been stressing this for a long time, and for several years I have been active in efforts to simplify the entire information provision and promotion system. In my speeches I have repeatedly stressed the necessity of promoting the 'Made in Europe' brand in third-country markets. This is especially legitimate in the formal and legal conditions of today.

In accordance with the Declaration of the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, the use of all forms of export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures with equivalent effect will be eliminated in 2013. In view of the complicated nature of organising promotional campaigns in third-country markets and the higher costs of such measures at a significant distance, particularly in Asia or America, the mechanism for supporting promotional activities did not attract much interest from trade organisations.

The proposal of the European Commission allows for stimulation of their activity. Promotional programmes carried out by Member States offer the opportunity for entities to work together, where they have not managed to run and finance these activities on their own. Nevertheless, efforts to increase the percentage share of the Community in financing this type of project should be continued. I will mention as an example the United States of America, where several times more is spent on promotional activities than all the money allocated to wine and to activities in the area of other promotional products in the entire European Union.

In the face of liberalisation of the commercial flow of agricultural products, an instrument to support the promotion of Community production in third-country markets might be the only tool available which accords with the guidelines of the Agriculture Framework Agreement in the WTO Doha Development Agenda Round. Promotion of the 'Made in Europe' brand is the chance to maintain competitiveness and, on a longer time-scale, even to strengthen the attractiveness of European agricultural and food products and to extend their market.

I would like to thank the Commission for these measures, which we have repeatedly spoken of in Parliament, and which have been included, and especially for the reduction in contributions from trade organisations from 20% to 10% and for increasing the funds available for promotional activity.

Mr President, I warmly welcome Mr Dumitriu's report and I would like to congratulate him on the work he has done.

This budget gives Member States an excellent opportunity to find markets both inside and outside of Europe. Coming from Ireland, I would like to say that selling our healthy, fresh, food products on world markets, particularly in Asia, is of great help to us in Ireland. Like my colleagues, however, I would like to say that I see a better opportunity here to simplify the rules related to this budget so that accessing the money supply for trading would be easier than it is currently and, of course, the budget must also be increased as has been said. This is very important, not only to the Member States, but to Europe as a whole.

Mr President, Commissioner, I agree with you that advertising is important. Yet advertising comes about not only as a result of professional offensives but also of occurrences in the region from which the foodstuffs originate.

When the world associates us with BSE, when we have turned our heraldic animal mad, or when, as now, countries are issuing product recalls because of the dioxin problem - which, of course, is also going around the world - and when millions of slaughtered sick cattle are shown on television news around the world, this is also a kind of advertising: negative advertising.

We must be careful to avoid contradiction here. On the one hand, there is our talk of good products but, on the other, there are the negative reports - but we are working on this, as we have just seen with the debate and what we have concluded.

If we wish to advertise externally - yes, that is right, we have good reason to do so, as we have good products - I do not want it to be generalised advertising, but advertising showing European diversity. As you know, we have the situation in Germany where the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled against a kind of compulsory advertising with a compulsory levy. It pointed out that advertising that does not differentiate between the individual qualities does not increase sales, and that instead, it is important that the individual producers be able to advertise for their specific products.

In addition, it is increasingly important - not only within Europe but also externally - to describe not only the quality of the end product but also the quality of the process. What is the situation with regard to animal protection, to the environment, to the ingredients, to the structure of the farming, to fair trade? These are all criteria that do not necessarily affect the quality of the end product, but are becoming increasingly important to consumers. We must incorporate this into our advertising too, therefore, and must see that Europe's reputation in the world is further enhanced as a result.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we need to bear in mind that it is important to improve the conditions and support for information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products, both in the European Union and in third countries, broadening the scope of the proposals that the European Commission has presented.

We therefore support the proposals of the rapporteur and of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, namely those aimed at greater intervention and strengthening the role of trade associations and organisations operating in the sector, in view of their expertise and the important part they also play in ensuring quality control, including the associations and organisations of the Member State that draws up the programme, as well as increasing the percentage of the Community's financial participation. It is important that there is additional aid, especially for projects selected by the Member States.

Likewise, we believe that promotion and advertising actions in third countries should be able to benefit other important products in addition to olive oil and olives, with emphasis on wines with designations of origin or protected geographical indications. In this respect, I will also mention here the important role of farmers' associations, with emphasis on cooperative wine cellars and other associations of small and medium-sized farmers, whose existence is fundamental in ensuring the flow of the produce of farmers who, on their own, would not be able to survive.

Once again, I would call for there to be enhanced support for these farmers' organisations to be able to completely fulfil their role in upholding family farming and promoting the high-quality agricultural products they produce, which are essential in guaranteeing a healthy diet for the population of our countries.

We will therefore vote in favour of this report.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union is a significant exporter of many agricultural products, but the future of EU agriculture will be determined by consumption in the internal market. Stimulation of this may bring benefits to farmers, consumers and whole economies.

In many Member States, the consumption of food products essential for good health is not high, and its growth, by means of good information and promotion, is most desirable. However, it is important that EU farmers benefit from the programmes under discussion and, in particular, small and medium-sized farms, which comprise 95% of all farms.

These programmes should enrich consumers' knowledge of healthy eating and, at the same time, leave the choice to them. This is why it is worth taking the following steps: organising consultations with specialists in the field of healthy diet and training salespeople, who should also be consumer advisors in matters of healthy diet. Good presentation of information about the health benefits of the products being promoted, and about the way the foods are produced, is essential. Information on food labels is insufficient.

This programme may be threatened by the promotion of food mass-produced by large food corporations, which can prepare effective programmes and which have the best specialists at their disposal. Except will this not then compromise the promotion of high quality foods?

Legibility of the expiry date on products is also very important, as is a rise in consumer awareness of the significance of all the information which is to be found on product labels.

(RO) I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague for all the hard work he has put in as rapporteur in terms of simplifying EU legislation to reduce the administrative burden, something we very much need to do.

The information provision measures taken by the European Union are a response to a real need on the part of Member States to promote the image of their agricultural products, both among European consumers and consumers in other countries, especially as regards quality and nutritional value, as well as food safety and safe production methods. As quality rapporteur, I greatly cherish this competitive edge that our European products have.

This legislative amendment will offer interested Member States the possibility to propose information programmes, including when there are no programmes put forward for third countries. As a result of this amendment, Member States will have the opportunity to expand the area of application of the measures targeted by these programmes and seek the assistance of international organisations in implementing these measures. The percentage rate of the European Union's financial participation needs to be increased in order to provide additional support for the projects selected by Member States, at a time of a general tightening of the conditions in which national organisations and authorities seek to obtain the amounts they must contribute to cofinancing.

I support the idea that the organisation tasked with implementing the selected programme should be an international organisation, especially where the programme is aiming to promote the olive oil and table olive sector, not to mention the sector for wines with a protected designation of origin and those with a protected geographical indication in third countries.

At the same time, we must bear in mind the important role which professional associations and organisations operating in the target sectors of the Member States have in devising information programmes for agricultural products. I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur once again, and especially Commissioner Vassiliou, because she has accepted all the proposals we have made within the report.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, over the last few months, above all during this parliamentary term, we have witnessed a steady decline in direct support for our farmers and in the rules that used to protect our industry from cheap imports from outside the EU, in order to free up the resources needed to meet the new environmental, economic and social challenges of this millennium and to comply with international trade agreements.

As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, most importantly, as a representative of a country that has earned worldwide recognition and respect for the quality of its agricultural produce - I am thinking of olive oil, wine and cheeses - I cannot help but approve of any action whatsoever that the Commission may propose to safeguard high quality European produce and to promote, where possible, the marketing of this produce both on the internal market and abroad.

This information programme is, in fact, particularly significant, since it is to make clear to European and other consumers that our produce is not in competition with that, which may be cheaper, from other countries, but rather that it represents an alternative that focuses on quality and on a production model that respects the environment and social and animal welfare standards which, in turn, naturally benefits human health.

The legislation that we vote on in this House every day can come at a price, above all for our producers. That is why we must offer them all the help we can, so that the richness and quality of our produce is not lost and does not become ironed out in an ever-more homogeneous global market. For this reason, I support the rapporteur's amendments, which are aimed at increasing Commission cofinancing, adding to the activities that can be funded and, most importantly, increasing participation in producers' associations, which are best-placed to defend the qualitative features of their produce to ever-more exacting consumers.

(RO) Today we are discussing a report that is extremely important for European agriculture. As the rapporteur himself has emphasised, the quality and safety of European products provide a competitive edge which has not been sufficiently utilised yet.

Measures aimed at providing information about and promoting these products, their quality and the food safety standards they comply with may trigger a chain reaction by boosting demand, increasing farmers' production and profits and creating new jobs, which also implicitly means economic growth. These measures must be directed equally at consumers in the internal market and those in third countries.

Let us not forget the competition we are facing on the internal market from producers from other countries, offering products which are sometimes cheaper, but where, very often, the quality and safety standards are much lower. Consumers need to recognise Community products and know why they are healthier than others. Last but not least, they must know that buying these products supports European farmers and agri-food producers and, therefore, the European economy.

I particularly appreciate the initiative from the rapporteur on recognising the important role which professional associations and organisations play because, in most cases, they have the expertise which the country's institutions do not have. They are also much more familiar with the real situation on the market and its requirements. At the same time, I think that the proposal to increase the cofinancing percentage is an absolute necessity in the current credit crisis. I strongly believe that this will increase the rate of use of these funds.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Dumitriu, on all his hard work and his proposals, a view which I believe all my fellow Members share.

(RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Dumitriu. The agricultural sector is important for the Member States' economies because it provides food for the population, agricultural products for export, not to mention a large number of jobs. The European Union must be able to provide sufficient quantities of food for its population at affordable prices.

It is obvious that in a competitive market, information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries are becoming increasingly important. Professional associations or organisations must be consulted when it comes to drawing up the programmes for promoting agricultural products. I believe that this regulation will encourage European farmers to promote their agricultural products.

Romania has a huge number of agri-food products which we do not, unfortunately, come across on European markets, even though many of them are environmentally friendly. A campaign to promote these products will benefit both European consumers and Romanian agricultural producers. Particularly at times of economic crisis, the agricultural sector obviously remains one of the sectors which must be given special attention, along with adequate programmes and funding.

In a crisis situation, Member States must focus greater attention when setting their priorities. This is why I believe that agriculture must remain an area which is supported because it is important for the European economy.

(RO) I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur on all his hard work on this report, which raises a very important issue. There is a real need on the part of Member States to promote the image of their agricultural products, both among European Community consumers and those in other countries.

I would like to highlight two proposals mentioned in this report. A request is being made for the percentage of the European Community's financial participation to be increased in order to provide additional support for the projects selected by Member States, at a time of a general tightening of the conditions in which national organisations and authorities seek to obtain the amounts they must contribute to cofinancing.

The second paragraph of this amendment seeks a financial participation of 70% from the European Community for measures to promote fruit and vegetables specifically for children in schools. I feel that these amendments are appropriate and I hope that this initiative will be supported by as many MEPs as possible.

(RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for all his hard work and for his contribution to expanding the area of application of the programmes for providing information about and promoting agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries.

One of the most important amendments being put forward by this report is the 10% increase both in European cofinancing for programmes promoting European agricultural products and in the budget allocations for promoting the consumption of dairy products, fruit and vegetables in schools.

On the one hand, Europe will benefit from a larger number of agricultural products being promoted more actively while, on the other, the biggest beneficiaries of the Community's aid will be children and pupils.

I think that the measures which have been proposed are extremely important as, now more than ever, we need investment in the areas which are developing rapidly and can lead to economic recovery. Agriculture is one such area and the European Union can make a significant contribution to promoting it.

Mr President, the major food manufacturers around the globe spend billions promoting themselves - maybe using EU-produced food, but concentrating not on its origin but on their own brands. We have celebrity TV chefs promoting their particular version of food production, with access to the airwaves and budgets of millions. And here we are talking about a relatively small amount of money to promote all of Europe's food, both throughout the world and internally. It is a big ask! It is a very good report, which I fully support, and I endorse the comments of our Commissioner here today.

I am particularly interested in the idea that we need to promote outside our borders, and I would agree wholeheartedly with that, but we also have to be realistic about how we are going to compete, and whether we are competitive on a global market. Perhaps the Commissioner would take that up in her responses. The question of our standards has got to be acknowledged and recognised. Is that being acknowledged and recognised at the WTO?

Mr President, I very strongly support promotion of our high-quality food. In today's difficult market, the quality product is the best refuge, but it does need fulsome promotion. 60% cofinancing would be good if it can be obtained, and I regret that the Commissioner was unable to be as forthcoming as we hoped she would be in that regard.

In respect of my own region, I would very emphatically call upon the regional government - not one blessed with much initiative or with funds given how much it wastes on its top-heavy administration and needless cross-border bodies - to exert itself to draw down this EU funding, and thereby give our excellent local produce the best chance in the marketplace. Along with what I hope will be 70% support from Europe to promote food and vegetables to our schools, I trust this opportunity will not be lost by a lackadaisical local department.

Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the Commission for the recent approval of 50% funding for An Bord Bia's proposal on information provision for meat in Asia over the next three years, which is much appreciated.

While I am very supportive of this proposal, could I be allowed two commercial caveats. Firstly, some countries, such as Ireland, may be unlikely to draw up information programmes if the trade does not show an interest. Secondly, while the proposed increase in funding to 60%, and to 70% for fruit and vegetable promotion would be very welcome in the current economic environment, realistically, the incentive to expand generic promotion may be limited as contributors and non-contributors alike will benefit from the programmes.

I would like to thank the rapporteur.

(RO) I wish to express my support for the report presented by Mr Dumitriu on the information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market. I believe that we need to increase the percentage rate of the European Community's financial participation in order to provide additional support for the projects selected by Member States.

In particular, it is vital to increase the European Community's financial contribution to 70% of the real cost of the new programme for promoting fruit and vegetables specifically for children in the European Union's schools. This measure will make a substantial contribution to the implementation of the programme for promoting fruit and vegetables in schools, which is an effort that must be made for the benefit of our children's health.

Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a very good report.

Commissioner, I would like to endorse what you said. I believe the future of European agriculture policy is very much with the market. We have got to go out there and promote our high-quality products. You mentioned the wine reform - previously, we were taking a lot of low-quality wine out of the market, buying it into intervention and then making it into biofuel, which was absolutely the wrong way to go. What we should be doing is promoting quality food. We have got a great diversity of wines, cheeses, meats, olive oil, fruits, vegetables - you name it. Europe is rich in all these and we must go out and market them in the future.

I think, as we move beyond the Health Check into the new agriculture policy in 2013 and beyond, we have got to make sure that we use more money to promote our products and to link into the marketplace, because that is where the future lies.

As one last comment, can I say to the Commissioner that perhaps he should go to America and convince President Obama that Roquefort cheese is extremely good and that perhaps he can reduce the tariff that President Bush put on it before he left office.

(PL) Mr President, European and third-country consumers receive too little information about the quality and standards of European food. The requirements which we place on European producers are exceptionally high. Consumers should be aware of this, because it will affect their decisions concerning the choice of suitable products.

I am for promotion and information, although I more often speak of information as a more objective form of message. We must also have specific requirements and standards concerning the quality of information and the method of promotion. Finally, I am in favour of the EU and also national budgets supporting information provision and promotion programmes in the field of food. At a time of crisis, it is important to have promotion and information which will counteract the fall in demand and consumption, including food consumption.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, my thanks for all the contributions. It is great to hear such enthusiasm and interest in this important issue. I think that all the comments here are, to a certain extent, very much in line with the Commission's view on the proposal.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the questions or issues raised here. First of all on the financing - this has been raised by quite a few of you - to increase the cofinancing rate. I think, though, that we have to be very cautious and careful when we try to monitor the benefit of the Community financing because I fear that if we increase the cofinancing, the bottom line will be that there will be less promotion. That would be a bad outcome and that is the reason why we have maintained our proposal.

Quality has been mentioned quite a few times today and I agree with you. I think we have a golden opportunity to discuss this quality issue that is also linked to how we promote our products in the Third World, how we explain to consumers what they get when they buy European.

Last October, we presented a Green Paper on quality and we have had lots of contributions; there are more than 1 000 contributions on the website from all over Europe. We are now digesting all these different ideas and we will present a communication in May. We should take this opportunity when the discussion takes place here in Parliament on communication to make a link - how do we improve our possibilities to make it visible and make it understandable. Here the labelling issue, which is both difficult and important, comes into the discussions, so I am looking forward to having a discussion with you on this issue in the autumn.

Finally, regarding the school fruit scheme which has been raised here today - it is not part of the proposal, but just to keep you updated - we introduced a school fruit scheme with a cofinancing rate of 70% to increase the awareness of young people and to take the opportunity to underline the importance of good eating habits among school children.

Once again, my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Dumitriu, for a very good report. I think it is very well mirrored here today by the dynamic discussion that we have had.

I wish to apologise if I run over my allotted two minutes by a few seconds. Thank you for the extremely relevant comments and views you have expressed about this report. I am confident that our remaining fellow Members will consider that the new regulations being proposed are appropriate and that we will vote in favour of them.

I would like to advise fellow Members that I will support their suggestions, especially those aimed at promoting European diversity, introducing European quality labelling and more consistent financial support from the Community. I have been asked: why wine, along with olive oil among the international organisations which can implement promotion projects? I would like to respond with another question: why olive oil then? My response is positive on both counts. They are highly successful export products from European Union Member States. They have powerful, experienced international organisations which have already demonstrated their ability to manage complex programmes. Indeed, the report's provisions do not exclude other areas. As regards the second question about the 70% rate for cofinancing, the initial percentage rate was 60% and I felt that, in the current economic climate, it was necessary to increase it.

As experience from the uptake of European funds has shown so far, one of the biggest problems remains how to obtain cofinancing, especially at the moment when we are faced, on top of this, with a credit crisis. This is why this rate needs to be increased, otherwise we risk ending up with the funds not being used. Mrs Fischer Boel, I would like to thank you for the importance you have given to this report, in particular for the views you have expressed. Although this is a consultation report, I hope and I would like these amendments to be included in the Commission's new proposal.

To finally sum up, there are two reasons why this report is necessary. Member States will have the opportunity to expand the area of application of the measures targeted by these programmes and seek assistance from the international organisations in implementing these measures. It assigns a greater role to professional organisations and associations in the process of drawing up and implementing product information and promotion programmes. Last but not least, it is part of the logic of the proposals for adapting European legislation in order to make the use of European funds more accessible by increasing the cofinancing percentage rate during a time when it is extremely difficult to gain access to credit. As a further recommendation, I would also like to mention that the report was adopted unanimously by the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Committee for the support they provided. I would personally like to thank Neil Parish for the support he gave me and, last but not least, Lutz Goepel for the trust he placed in me when he assigned me this report.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place later today.

1. Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products (

2. Implementation in the EU of Directive 2003/9/EC on the minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers: visits by the Committee on Civil Liberties 2005-2008 (

- Before the vote:

Mr President, we have not been able to hold a debate in plenary on this very important report, which is why we feel it is necessary, on behalf of the Committee, to take the floor before you today.

We have all worked together, and I commend the outstanding work of the shadow rapporteurs. We visited no fewer than 26 detention centres in 10 EU Member States, and we noted several key points. We observed, in certain centres, an obvious state of decay and an obvious lack of hygiene, and we denounced the failure to respect human dignity. We found that access to healthcare was not always possible and that the children's right to education was not always respected.

We call for respect for clear, fair, effective and proportionate asylum procedures, and we call for the implementation of a permanent system of visits and inspections of detention centres. We must show the reality on the ground and stand up for a right to inspect these centres - something that these kinds of visits permit - and we must do so in order to take action so that things change.

The press has asked me why we did not cite any countries in this summary report. I replied that it was my choice, that it was our choice, since we have a collective responsibility with regard to what goes on in detention centres in Europe, and the purpose of this report is not to rank the Member States.

We will not stop calling for European solidarity in the area of asylum. We cannot leave the Member States, at Europe's borders, on their own to face large migratory flows. I repeat once again: we have a collective responsibility.

(Applause)

Many thanks, Mrs Roure. I can see that even the top jurists here in plenary, or those who see themselves as such, are unaware that the rapporteur is entitled to make a two-minute statement when a report has not been discussed in plenary. Therefore, Mrs Roure has this right, which she has exercised, and everyone should accept this as it is laid down in our Rules of Procedure.

(Applause)

3. European SMEs in international trade (

- Before the vote:

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, please excuse me and accept my thanks for your patience.

As we know, the European Parliament has wished for many years to express its views on small and medium-sized enterprises, which represent 99% of all European companies and 75 million jobs, while today only 3% of these SMEs access the foreign, external market and only 8% access the internal market.

We are therefore asking the Council and the Commission to take account of these facts in multilateral and bilateral negotiations, in access to external markets, in the fight against counterfeiting, in the use of trade protection instruments and in competitive tendering. Trade is the key to greater prosperity.

I would like to thank my colleagues at the Committee on International Trade and, most of all, the shadow rapporteurs of the two largest groups, Mrs Saïfi and Mrs Locatelli, and offer my heartfelt thanks to the secretariat and to Dr Bendini in particular. I believe that after all our work, we are today handing shared thoughts and proposals to the Commission, on a topic close to Mrs Ashton's heart, as we heard from her opening speech as Commissioner, and one that must be tackled without delay if we want to resolve, at least in part, the serious economic and financial crisis that is haunting our workers and citizens.

4. International Trade and the Internet (

5. The placing on the market and use of feed for animals (

6. Development impact of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) (

7. Kosovo (vote) 

Before the vote on Amendment 2:

Mr President, we found that it would not be fair to mention just one of the parties, so we would like to take out the reference to the Kosovo authorities. The amendment would then read: 'Underlines the importance of full regional economic cooperation and the obligation to comply with and fully implement the provisions of the CEFTA Agreement'.

8. Trade and economic relations with China (

Before the vote (concerns Amendment 1):

rapporteur. - Mr President, I would like to move an oral amendment in the form of an addition to paragraph 64a. That addition reads as follows: 'where this does not require statehood, for instance, in the ILO'.

So the last part of paragraph 64a will read as follows: 'supports Taiwan's participation as an observer in relevant international organisations where this does not require statehood, for instance, in the ILO;'.

I would ask colleagues not to oppose this oral amendment, because it is important for the Socialists to give their support to this resolution, and broad support is very important in order to send a strong signal to the Commission and to China.

Voting time

The next item is voting time.

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

- (CS) Mr President, I was delighted to support a report which will lead to administrative and legal simplification, which will increase consumer awareness about the quality and nutritional value of food both in Europe and in third countries, and which will also provide clarification to consumers about the use of safe production methods. I did not agree with the prioritisation of the olive oil or the olive sector and I trust that the Commission will also include the wine sector in the specific programmes in order to improve public awareness of the high quality wines produced in various regions of the European Union.

Mr President, I just wish to say that I supported this report. I was interested to hear during the debate that the Commission confirmed 70% cofinancing funding for the school fruit scheme, which will be hugely significant in the uptake of this scheme, and I clearly welcome it.

Mr President, thank you again for giving me the floor. I supported this report because it makes good sense that we should have a regulation that protects farmers' interests and the interests of those who produce their feed. I think what we now need is to communicate with the stakeholders what it means for them, as either feed operators or as users of animal feed, because it will not be enough that we have this regulation in place until there is good communication between all stakeholders.

(PL) Mr President, I endorsed the report on the placing on the market and use of feed because it represents the interests of farmers and producers, as well as the health security of farm animals, and, by the same token, the health security of those who will later consume consumer the meat - people.

Clear definition of the ingredients of feedstuffs and the Community Register of Feed Additives will make it easier for farmers to make responsible decisions about the choice of the right type of feed. This is a step in the right direction. I will, however, permit myself to point out that protection of a trade secret of producers cannot justify a lack of essential information, and cannot lead to situations like the 'mad cow disease' epidemic or the appearance of dioxins in feedstuffs.

Mr President, in November 2007, I visited Uganda to meet with local entrepreneurs and local NGOs. As we were leaving Kampala on a dusty road, the driver drew my attention to some booths selling pre-paid telephone cards. He turned to me and said: 'Those telephone companies, those private companies, have done more to take people out of poverty in this country than any of your white, Western NGOs'. I thought that was a little unfair at the time, but it highlights the feeling that so many entrepreneurs have towards European Union development policies.

In fact, entrepreneurs in many poor countries have told me that they believe our aid programmes and our NGOs actually have an interest in keeping them poor. I still think that is a little unfair, but it highlights the fact that we need to show that we are supporting entrepreneurs in developing countries, and one of the best ways to do that is through encouraging open markets globally.

Mr President, I am delighted to be able to rise in support of Mr Schröder's excellent report on this issue. Economic Partnership Agreements are very key as a development instrument. It is trade, not aid, which is going to uplift poor countries from poverty.

We are now in a global economic condition with the global recession where there are the beginnings of the whiff of protectionism coming from the developed world, especially from the United States, and I hope not from the European Union. If we create a protectionist climate, then the whole question of trade, not aid, to help alleviate poverty will be blown off course and thrown out of the window. We do not wish the developing countries which do want to trade with us to be stopped by our own selfish needs which are misguided to protect our own markets. In the long term, that would be a disaster for our economies.

(NL) I voted against the resolution on Kosovo for two reasons. First of all, there is a paragraph that states that the Member States that have not yet recognised Kosovo's independence should still do so. Well, a paragraph of this nature is in contravention of the principle of subsidiarity. It is up to the Member States themselves to decide, and they do not need any external pressure from the European Commission, the Council or Parliament.

The second reason why I have voted against the resolution is to do with the paragraph that states that Kosovo, and the entire region, in fact, should have a clear prospect of EU membership. It is wrong, in my view, for Parliament to make promises of this kind. As things stand at the moment, there are many problems related to enlargement, and also related to a number of new Member States, and it would be totally wrong to make promises at this point to countries like Kosovo that they will be able to join the European Union at some stage.

Mr President, whence comes our obsession with preserving multi-ethnic states regardless of the wishes of their inhabitants?

Kosovo had an unquestioned right to self-determination: it was expressed in a referendum with a participation rate and a turnout of more than 90%. However, by an extension of that logic, so, surely, have those Kosovans of Serb extraction, who are clustered conveniently close to the border with Serbia proper. Why not allow them also to enjoy self-government? We do it de facto, so why do we not do it de jure?

The answer is because we would rather keep Kosovo as a European protectorate - as a satrapy, such as it was in Ottoman times. We forced on them a version of our 12-star flag and a version of our national anthem. We have a Kosovan Parliament and institutions subject to the overriding decisions of an appointed European commissar.

We should allow the people of Kosovo to have referendums on partition - if that is what they want - and on ethnic self-determination, and we should allow that same right to the subject peoples of the European Union. Pactio Olisipiensis Censenda Est!

Mr President, China is a very important trade partner for the European Union, as is Taiwan. I wanted to draw attention to a very positive development in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. They voted an opinion which calls on China to respect women and children's rights by ending forced abortion and forced sterilisation. It also calls on China to end political persecution and other human rights abuses.

I think this raises the issue that we cannot separate trade from other factors. I made this point in the Gaza speech about our trade with Israel - if we do not bring up issues of human rights abuse, we are in danger of having our money used to encourage human rights abuse. So I want to congratulate the Committee on Foreign Affairs for recognising the coercive nature of China's one-child policy and bringing this into the trade issue.

(CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, China obtained some enormous advantages when it joined the WTO in 2001. We opened our markets to China but China does not adhere to the terms and conditions it signed up to, and we have basically taken this lying down for a number of years. I am very much in favour of establishing a strategic partnership with this major economic player. However, the strategic partnership must be founded on the obligation of China to respect human rights, because we need partnerships with countries which are democratic, not totalitarian. We in the new Member States are all too familiar with totalitarianism.

(NL) I have voted in favour of the amendment tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, because at least it takes account of the fact that Taiwan is an important economic business entity and supports Taiwan's participation as an observer in the relevant international organisations. In actual fact, this amendment is still far too restrictive. Since Taiwan is a democratic country that enjoys de facto national sovereignty, it is a disgrace, really, that Taiwan is not recognised as a fully-fledged member state in all the different international institutions. The amendment refers to Taiwan's participation in these institutions in the capacity of observer. Well, I think that Taiwan should be able to take part as a fully-fledged member state.

Mr President, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to explain my vote on the EU-China report. Overall, it was a very balanced report and I am very pleased that the rapporteur, on the whole, was able to stick to the issue - which was trade - rather than focus on a number of other issues that I know a number of colleagues wanted her to focus on.

However, I did have one major concern about this report, which was the reference to trade defence instruments. We have to recognise that consumers in my country - Britain - and in many other countries across the European Union, have benefited from open trade with China. It helped us at the time to fight perils such as inflation. However, protecting uncompetitive EU producers at the expense of other parties who benefit is something that we should tackle with care. We should make sure that we get the right balance and do not ignore the benefits of trade with China for consumers, companies with globalised supply chains and the retail sector. On the whole, trade with China is to be welcomed. Eventually, that will lead to all the other issues being tackled, such as better human rights and labour issues.

Mr President, China is one of our most important trading partners. It also contains one quarter of the world's population.

For many years, we have treated China as though it were some sort of small child that needed to be chided and argued about, as though we were some superior institution. We must not forget that China's history exceeds ours by thousands of years. China has maintained her cultural traditions and her values.

We want to have China as a part of our international community, but China is very important for the EU as a trading partner and the way we should treat China is as an equal partner with respect.

If we do that, then China will not only listen to us, but will trade more with us, we will be able to invest more in China and China invest more with us. At the moment, China has an enormous amount of money which will have to be invested outside China. The European Union should be the place where they invest it.

Mr President, I supported Mrs Wortmann-Kool's amendment to consider Taiwan as an economic and commercial entity because Taiwan has been a democracy for a long time and is a viable free market economy. We must make at least political and moral efforts to support the status of Taiwan, and also to provide it with international access to organisations which are not connected with statehood.

Written explanations of vote

I voted in favour of this report because the information provision measures taken by the Community are a response to a real need on the part of Member States to promote the image of their agricultural products both among Community consumers and consumers in other countries, especially as regards quality and nutritional value, as well as food safety and safe production methods. It also helps open up new market outlets and has a multiplier effect for national and private sector initiatives.

This legislative amendment will offer interested Member States the possibility to propose information programmes, including when there are no programmes put forward for third countries. As a result of this amendment, Member States will have the opportunity to expand the area of application of the measures targeted by these programmes and also seek assistance from international organisations in implementing these measures.

in writing. - This proposal aims to extend the reach of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 which enables Member States, in the absence of proposals from industry, to propose information and promotion campaigns in third country territories without the requirement of funding from industry. The present requirements necessitate a 20% industry contribution to funding when the EU provides a maximum of 50% of the funding.

This latitude would provide Member States with the ability to self-start promotional and information campaigns without the financial participation of industry. The potential of this proposal to provide impetus in the fruit and vegetable industry is considerable and also desirable given the current economic conditions. I am accordingly pleased to support this proposal.

Member States need to promote the image of their agricultural products, both among Community consumers and with the consumers of third countries, particularly with regard to quality and nutritional information, food safety and safe production methods.

I agree that, in the absence of programmes put forward by organisations in the agri-food sector, the Member States must be able to draw up programmes and select, by means of an award, an organisation to implement the programme.

The Commission's proposal, inasmuch as it enables the Member States to outline national programmes, will improve the existing legislation.

I support the Dumitriu report and welcome the inclusion of the wine sector within the scope of this proposal.

in writing. - (SV) The June List believes that the common agricultural policy (CAP) should be abolished and that agricultural products should be sold on a free market without the EU investing financial resources in information campaigns and sales-promotion measures for these products. It is a particularly serious matter that the EU is to fund sales-promotion measures in third countries, a policy that will result in unfair competition with the agricultural products of non-EU countries.

What is the EU doing? Is it really reasonable for the EU to use European taxpayers' money in advertising campaigns to convince the same citizens that they should buy the goods that they have already subsidised? Of course not. The whole proposal reeks of concealed protectionism.

In January 2009, a new advertising campaign was initiated in Sweden, Finland and Denmark in which the Swedish people were urged to buy more tulips. According to the newspaper Resumé, the EU is investing a total of SEK 14 million over three years in the tulip campaign in the three countries mentioned. Such a blatant waste of EU money must stop.

I am strongly opposed to this report. I would observe once again that it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision on EU agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of heavy subsidies to all of the groups within the agricultural industry.

in writing. - I support this proposal which seeks to simplify and enhance information programmes on agricultural products. I support this proposal because it will provide funding to third country markets to provide and improve the information on the quality, nutritional value and safety of foodstuffs and the methods of production.

I voted in favour of Mr Dumitriu's report on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries. I share the view expressed many times by the Commission that we need to simplify administrative procedures within the European institutional framework.

This regulation in fact allows the Community to provide information about a number of agricultural products on the internal market and on markets in third countries, while tailoring such activities to each location.

I agree with the political break that has been made, which respects the needs of Member States hoping to encourage consumers both within and outside the EU to view their agricultural produce above all in terms of its quality, nutritional characteristics, food safety and production methods.

in writing. - (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries - C6-0313/2008 -, because I consider that the population needs to be properly informed about the agricultural products which they are consuming. I also feel that good promotion of any product can provide consumers with useful information.

in writing. - The status of refugee is that accorded to a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, due to such fear, is unwilling to avail him- or herself of the protection of their own state. This is a 1951 UN definition.

This review of the 2003 'Reception Conditions Directive', which laid down minimum standards for the reception of people seeking asylum in Europe, aims to enforce the implementation of these rules, such as access to information, education, healthcare and standards regarding reception facilities. The Directive allows Member States to determine the length of time during which an applicant cannot have access to the labour market.

Ireland unfortunately did not opt into the 2003 Directive, and operates a 'direct provision' system, providing accommodation, food and EUR 19.10 per week per adult, designed to discourage asylum seekers from choosing Ireland, and keeping them out of the official labour market for the entirety of their application procedure. Legislation currently before the Oireachtas - the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 - seeks to extend this prohibition, despite grave concerns about the impact of such decisions. Other measures in the Irish legislation include criminalising 'spurious' appeals and the prospect of fines to legal representatives who take on such cases.

As Ireland is not party to the 2003 Directive, I felt obliged to abstain, but commend the aims of the report.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

Mrs Roure is calling for some particularly attractive reception conditions for asylum seekers: convivial, open accommodation centres - it is easier to vanish into thin air that way - widespread access to healthcare, including psychiatric care, to legal advice, to translators and interpreters, to training and even to jobs!

She appears to have forgotten about the way in which immigrants themselves abuse applications for international protection in order to bypass national laws on foreigners entering and residing in our countries, when their true motives are social and economic. She also 'forgets' that they can lie about their origins and languages, and can destroy their papers and so on, so as not to be deported.

She also appears to 'forget' that what she is demanding for these foreigners is often not accessible to our own fellow citizens, starting with decent housing, jobs and access to high-quality public services, particularly in areas in which, as in Mayotte, the tidal wave of immigration creates huge economic and social problems for the inhabitants.

I can understand the distress and the dreams of migrants, but we do not have the scope and even less so the means to accommodate all those who are destitute in the world. This report is harmful, and its effects are perverse.

We are already used to the majority in Parliament approving resolutions without legislative consequences, with content that runs counter to the legislative resolutions it adopts. This propensity is on the increase as the elections to Parliament draw nearer.

We are faced with an example of these 'two faces', the true one and its mask, in this case the latter.

There is no doubt that - and we have consistently maintained this for a long time - it is necessary to guarantee the rights of asylum seekers in terms of their reception, access to information and right to interpretation, free legal aid, healthcare and employment.

It is certainly important to condemn the increase in the number of persons detained within the Dublin System, with the near-routine use of detention measures and limitations on access to reception standards.

It is also necessary, however, to demand the end of detention centres and to reject a Community policy that establishes, by means of the lowest common denominator, reception standards and the procedure for granting asylum.

If Parliament is genuinely concerned about respect for the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, then it should not have approved the 'Return' Directive (which criminalises immigrants and expels them), the 'Blue Card' Directive (which selects them) and the 'Employers' Sanctions' Directive (which also punishes the workers), which the Portuguese Communist Party rejected.

When it comes to the rights granted to migrants on European Union territory, the rule is certainly one of giving more and more. The question must be asked as to whether the one-upmanship within the European institutions is not misplaced.

This report is merely a long list of proposals and recommendations aimed at the Member States so that they grant to the hundreds of thousands of people who each year enter their territory legally or illegally rights that are not only equal to those of their nationals, but also more numerous and effective.

Indeed, the Member States of the Union are, for instance, being called on to remove the barriers to labour market access for these immigrants and to adopt national laws which, moreover, promote such access.

Must one conclude from this that, from now on, nationals will have to step aside in favour of the legitimate suffering of people fleeing their countries of origin, be it for economic, political, climatic or family reasons? Yes, and this is the meaning of selective immigration, which President Sarkozy wholeheartedly recommends.

In contrast to this, we believe - particularly in times of crisis - that jobs, in Europe, should be reserved for Europeans, and, in France, for French nationals. The national recovery of the European nations depends on it.

in writing. - (SV) This report contains several points that I fully support, such as the fact that asylum seekers should be treated with dignity and that human rights should always be guaranteed. The criticism directed at a number of so-called reception centres is justified. A number of European countries fall short when it comes to receiving asylum seekers and refugees in a dignified way.

However, the report contains some points that I am unable to support. The essential aim of the report is that the EU should have a common immigration and asylum policy. Among other things, it calls on the other Member States to support those EU countries that are 'most affected by the challenges of immigration'. The June List believes that asylum and immigration policy is a matter for the Member States, provided that international conventions and agreements are respected. A common immigration and asylum policy would run the risk of leading to 'Fortress Europe', something that we are already seeing clear signs of today.

in writing. - I abstained in the vote on this report as Ireland did not participate in the adoption of the 2003 Directive.

The principal reason for this position relates to access to the labour market for asylum seekers.

The prohibition on asylum seekers entering the labour market is to be re-enacted in a bill currently before the Dáil.

The report does not reflect the true extent of the miserable conditions experienced by refugees and immigrants in the reception and detention centres in the Member States of the EU. It confines itself to noting the tragic conditions in which they survive, but ascribes them to the poor application of EU directives.

Thus, on the one hand, it supports the overall anti-immigration legislation and policy of the EU and governments, as laid down in the Immigration Pact and the Dublin System for asylum and, on the other, it protests about its inhumane results. It is, at the very least, insulting for the political powers of the 'one-way street' in Europe who voted in the European Parliament for the directive providing, apart from anything else, for the detention of 'illegal' immigrants for a full 18 months, to express in this report their alleged regret about their inhumane conditions of detention and to call for them not to be detained.

The European Parliament's 'crocodile tears' cannot acquit the EU of its inhumane, exploitative policy. Even the most fundamental measures, let alone measures of proper support for immigrants and refugees and measures to safeguard their rights, can only be implemented by confronting and overturning the policy of the EU and the structure of the EU itself.

The Member States, including Greece, need to do more, by making use of the demands and proposals of the European Parliament. The European Parliament blames the governments' attitude towards the poor immigrants who pass daily through the gates of the EU, putting their lives at risk.

Countries, such as Greece, which lie on the external borders of the EU, should take advantage of the potential assistance offered by the EU and, on the basis of respect for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, try to secure humane conditions of reception for them.

Even with the unacceptable 'discounts' which the Commission and the Council have been granting recently with respect to immigrants' rights as they continue on their path towards 'Fortress Europe', Greece is well below Community standards for the protection of fundamental rights.

The granting of asylum is the ultimate gesture of a state and an entire community, accepting their inability to defend human rights globally and the will, nevertheless, to act according to that scale of values.

The system governing it must therefore be clearly separate from immigration. The more we try to broaden the concept, including what is not relevant to it, the less value it will have, and the confusion can only harm legitimate asylum seekers. It is therefore important for the rules to be clear, the procedures swift, and treatment dignified in all circumstances. Even though there is a need to coordinate actions and options, asylum, in terms of numbers, size and in conceptual terms, does not raise the same issues as immigration, even in an area without borders. The Member States have their own traditions with regard to asylum and this difference should not be overlooked within the framework of the aforementioned coordination.

As for asylum seekers whose application is or has to be refused, this concept, the result of a generous but narrow notion of asylum, cannot give rise to any less humanity in the reception and treatment of people who will always be vulnerable by virtue of their condition.

I voted against Mrs Roure's report on the implementation in the European Union of Directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees. Indeed, although I deplore the fact that some visits have shown that the current directives were poorly implemented or not applied by certain Member States, I do not agree with the rapporteur's assertion that there are a number of deficiencies regarding the level of reception conditions.

Furthermore, I do not agree that the open accommodation centres set up by certain Member States have low capacity and do not appear to meet migrants' needs. Lastly, I disagree with the call for priority to be given to the reception of asylum seekers in open reception centres rather than in closed units.

Thanks to this report, the European Parliament is reaffirming its commitment to fundamental rights, such as the right to dignity. It is unacceptable that, within the European Union itself, the reception conditions of migrants and asylum seekers are not exemplary.

The detention centre visits by MEPs between 2005 and 2008 have enabled this report to be drafted, under the leadership of Mrs Roure. The report reveals the extent of the irregularities in the migrant detention system in Europe, pointing the finger at problems to do with legal advice, medical care, hygiene, promiscuity and information.

It is therefore an alarm bell that the European Parliament is today sounding. Member States must take note of this and, where necessary, must apply the existing 'reception' and 'procedure' directives as soon as possible, or make progress in implementing them.

in writing. - The European Parliamentary Labour Party abstained on this report not because we are opposed to enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade, but because Mrs Muscardini has produced a Trojan horse that contains within it unacceptable positions on Trade Defence Instruments.

We are disappointed that the Commission has shelved the review because of difficulties in securing a consensus on the way forward. Our view remains that there is an urgent need to amend the Community's trade defence regime so that it takes better account of developments in the global economy. Lack of reform means that our industry is badly placed to take advantage of the benefits of globalisation. While we welcome the Czech Presidency's inclusion in the work programme of improving the transparency of Trade Defence Instruments, this is not enough.

We voted in favour of Mrs Muscardini's report on SMEs. It is a harsh criticism of the European Union's trade policy, even though it is worded in the toned-down and technocratic language that this House holds dear.

It covers everything: policies focused on the needs of large enterprises; the weakness of measures promoting access to foreign markets and ensuring the application of reciprocity by third countries; difficulties in accessing trade protection instruments for small enterprises; the fallibility of measures to protect against counterfeiting and the illicit or fraudulent use of geographical indications of origin; and so on.

Indeed, it is time for the European Union to stop sacrificing its enterprises and its workers on the altar of a form of competitiveness and of free trade that it is the only one in the world to practise. It is time to support SMEs in the export business, to really protect them against unfair competition, and to do what is reasonable to protect our markets.

The fact is that, by remaining committed to the globalisation of enterprises as an end in itself, the rapporteur continues to promote a system based on the absolute freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour, a system that has led us into a profound economic, financial and social crisis, a system with which the European Union absolutely must break.

It is not by chance, with the approach of the elections to Parliament, that resolutions are appearing that attempt to retract the responsibilities of policies adopted by the EU (in particular in the last 5 years) concerning the very serious situation in which micro, small and medium-sized enterprises generally find themselves, especially in Portugal.

It is small and medium-sized enterprises, and not the major transnationals, that are the victims of the market liberalisation promoted by the EU (as if a framework where 'survival of the fittest' rules could work in their favour). There are many small and medium-sized enterprises that 'participate' in 'international trade' by virtue of their dependency on the major transnationals, for which they manufacture at prices that often do not correspond to production costs.

Undoubtedly, it is necessary to provide (and implement) trade defence instruments, intellectual property rights, designation of origin and geographic indications of agricultural products, and to support the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises.

So why is it that the majority of political forces represented in Parliament, which correspond to the majority represented in the Commission and the EU Council, do not adopt the regulation on origin marking, do not apply to imported products the same safety and protection standards required of products produced in the EU, do not use the 2007-2013 Financial Framework to protect production and employment, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises?

I am very pleased that the European Parliament has adopted Mrs Muscardini's report, on which I had occasion to work as a consultant for the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Much is being said at present about the improvement in conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises in the internal market of the European Union, especially in the context of the proposed Small Business Act.

Small and medium-sized enterprises make up over 99% of all enterprises in Europe. However, undertaking business activity which crosses national borders is more the domain of large firms. Barely 8% of small and medium-sized enterprises export to destinations beyond their own national borders. If, however, we are talking about undertaking business activity beyond the borders of the European Union, this step is taken by barely 3% of enterprises.

We should not forget that internationalised enterprises show great innovative ability. And innovativeness is the key to competitiveness and growth of the European economy. I therefore hope that internal market policies will offer SMEs the full range of benefits which the common market brings, and when it is possible, that they will lay the foundations for internationalisation of the activities of SMEs. Small and medium-sized enterprises should also receive greater support from Member States and the European Commission, in areas including the promotion of exports or the search for potential trade partners, in particular, in relation to market-leading products and services and new technologies.

The report which Mrs Muscardini has presented concerns an important economic and social question. It is significant especially now, in the face of economic collapse. The number of SMEs (up to 250 employees; turnover ≤ EUR 50 million) in the EU reaches 23 million, which comprises around 99% of all firms active in our market. Over 75 million people work in these SMEs.

The calls directed to the Commission, Member States and regional and local authorities for effective support of these businesses, including unhindered access to loans, are therefore justified. In addition, trade needs to be made easier and bureaucratic export and import barriers need to be lifted.

In relation to public procurement, whose complicated and not always unequivocal procedures hinder the access of SMEs, the market should be made more open, both inside the EU and in third countries. As I have shown in my report on innovation policy, the role of SMEs in this sector is difficult to overestimate. This is because they are more flexible and open to modern technologies and organisational methods.

Special treatment is required for SMEs in the agriculture and food sector, where care needs to be taken over protection of the designations of origin of products, and imitations which are harmful to the health of consumers need to be resisted. I also endorse the idea of organising European SMP Week in May 2009. This should be a good opportunity to make a wide range of information on the subject available throughout the EU.

in writing. - While we all acknowledge and support the role that SMEs play in international trade, it is a real shame that a large part of this report was dedicated to defending so-called Trade Defence Instruments. In reality, TDIs are being used by inefficient producers as a form of naked protectionism to shelter them from competition, not only from non-EU competitors, but also from more efficient competitors across the EU that have taken advantage of globalisation and established global supply chains.

TDIs punish retailers and consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for goods that they could obtain at better value elsewhere. They also punish the most efficient and innovative SMEs. We all know of many SMEs in our constituencies that are punished by the very same TDIs that this report seeks to praise. It is for this reason that Conservatives reluctantly voted against this report.

SMEs account for 23 million enterprises (99% of the total) and 75 million jobs (70%) within the European Union.

I voted in favour of Mrs Muscardini's report as it reveals the key strategy for the SMEs' survival during a difficult economic period. This relates to political and financial support aimed at fostering product and process innovation and improving access to financial and fiscal information, including internationalisation. It also means the adoption of a firm stance in the negotiations on trade facilitation procedures in order to lower the costs of customs formalities, which can account for up to 15% of the value of the goods traded, as well as effective recording of the origin of goods and updated customs controls.

As far as Romania is concerned, the internationalisation of SMEs is a solution which, in the current economic crisis, will crucially help them to survive and develop their business, thereby playing an essential role in creating new jobs.

I welcome the organisation of a 'European SME Week' in May 2009, the main purpose of which is to provide information to SMEs on how to internationalise their business.

At a time when the world is seeking a response to the global economic crisis, and when protectionist tendencies are proliferating, as was the recent case of the discussion on the 'Buy American' clause in the United States Congress, it is the duty of the governments and the institutions of the Community to look after the interests and guarantee respect of the rules applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises and international trade.

The value of accessibility to international markets for small and medium-sized enterprises is obvious. As studies show, when these companies operate on the extra-Community market, they tend to gain good practice, innovate and be more competitive. Even so, we know that some of them cannot and will not be able to withstand the competition.

Bearing this value in mind, however, and in the knowledge that the bigger companies are better supported in these times of protectionism, it is necessary for the authorities to act in defence of these companies, by monitoring and enforcing compliance with international agreements.

At the same time, this claim has to apply in respect of third countries. International trade will only be fair if it is so for both parties.

I voted in favour of Mrs Muscardini's report on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade. For the European Union, a landscape characterised for the most part by small and medium-sized enterprises, the international presence of SMEs holds considerable importance. Currently, only 8% of SMEs have an international dimension, and the majority of exports remain within the European Union.

The few SMEs that do export outside of the EU tend to focus on developed and basically saturated markets such as the United States, Canada and Switzerland; it is rare for them to take their products to emerging countries. Thus, despite the European Community's good intentions, such as the SBA project, we still have a long way to go before all European companies can be in a position to acquire a truly international dimension.

E-commerce is an excellent commercial opportunity for small and medium-sized enterprises and for young entrepreneurs. It helps to overcome traditional non-technical barriers by providing access to otherwise inaccessible markets.

For the same reason, this kind of commerce also guarantees greater participation by the least developed countries in international trade. Inclusion of these partners, however, depends on the creation of a basic infrastructure, to which we should contribute unconditionally.

We should also take into consideration that piracy, counterfeiting or data violation are not intrinsic to this type of commerce, but rather adaptations of old practices. With the proper adaptations, we need to provide all the guarantees of traditional commerce.

The legal web surrounding e-commerce is caught up in various aspects, preventing us from viewing it with a critical eye: for example, governance of the Internet is yet to be made subject to a suitable, internationally respected structure, and there are issues of international private law or inspections.

When it comes to the WTO, there is confusion over e-commerce, and despite many persistent requests, negotiations on this type of commerce continue to be relegated to dangerous bilateral compartments.

in writing. - (PT) The Internet has assumed an ever more important role in trade relations and also in international trade. There remain, however, serious failings in terms of the protection of users and consumers, in terms of the protection of their personal data, and guaranteeing the quality of service provided or product purchased.

This report, despite mentioning these facts, does not put forward proposals that would make it possible to enhance user protection and the quality of the service provided, based on the use of a service as imminently public as communications.

While it incorporates some aspects that we view positively, its central objective is to promote the development and use of e-commerce as a tool to facilitate international trade and as an instrument to help overcome current difficulties in opening up more markets. This means that its main concern is to facilitate and promote e-commerce, that is, the production, promotion, sale and distribution of products through telecommunications networks, in favour of the liberalisation of world trade.

We therefore abstain.

The Internet has given rise to new possibilities in the trade of goods and services. This also concerns cross-border transactions. The growth in recent years of transactions made over the Internet engenders optimism concerning the level of confidence which consumers have in the Internet.

However, barriers still exist, such as language, which will be difficult to eliminate. Another serious threat to international trade over the Internet is the lack of legal certainty and consumer protection. I hope that the proposed directive on consumer rights will eliminate some of these and will be an additional stimulus to the development of Internet commerce.

It should be noted that the Internet allows small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in international markets with very low costs in comparison with traditional methods, and offers possibilities previously unavailable to them to develop their business.

However, Internet commerce also gives rise to questions, especially about the sale of counterfeit products which are protected by intellectual property rights. Counterfeit products are a serious problem for Internet trade, especially because people who sell counterfeit products internationally cannot easily be brought to justice. Consumers who use the Internet are also often the victims of fraud, such as the theft of money by electronic means. All these phenomena undermine consumer confidence in Internet trade, and this slows down the development of international Internet trade.

in writing. - I commend this report as a wide-ranging and well-balanced report that effectively deals with the influence that the Internet has had on cross-border trading. The Internet has allowed even the smallest companies access to a global market previously unthinkable only a few years ago, boosting trade and allowing the positive aspects of globalisation to come to light. It has opened up new markets and broken down barriers to trade.

The report has rightly pointed out that, although there has been a rise in fraud and counterfeiting, this should not be attributed to the Internet itself, but rather regarded as an issue that existed before and that needs tackling in new and innovative ways, as long as this does not impinge on our civil liberties. It also points out that it should be viewed as an opportunity for cultural diversity rather than a threat. Finally, it recognises that liberalisation of services connected to the Internet, such as telecoms, has led to a boom in infrastructure investment, so I believe we should be cautious about applying further regulation on such industries, as the Commission seems intent on doing at the moment.

in writing. - I welcome this report which highlights the new opportunities and new markets created by the nature and the technological development of the Internet. It acknowledges the role which the Internet could play for bridging the trade gap between North and South in opening up new channels connecting developing countries with advanced commercial systems, and increasing their trade flows. The report states that this should facilitate the harmonious incorporation of developing countries into the world trading system, which I support.

I welcome the report from my colleague on the role played by the Internet in boosting trade. In view of the ever-growing number of Internet users, better regulation needs to be put in place in this expanding area. European policies must encourage e-commerce as an effective alternative to the conventional method of doing business and as a way of boosting cross-border trade within the EU.

A series of Community measures is required to eliminate the potential obstacles hampering better use of the Internet for commercial purposes. This includes measures designed to discourage and prevent fraud and theft of personal data. These Community measures must also encourage users to have greater trust in the online environment.

At the same time, Community standards must be defined for e-commerce transactions. The EU needs to facilitate the implementation of these standards, thereby offering e-commerce agents the opportunity to be recognised as reliable suppliers.

Thanks to the global nature of the Internet and the opportunity to carry out beneficial commercial transactions with third countries, I hope that we will see progress too within the WTO in terms of promoting e-commerce worldwide.

I voted in favour of this report because its aim is to highlight the areas of international trade where the Internet has acted as a catalyst, creating new conditions for developing trade globally.

It also recognises the need for open standards and their important contribution to innovation and competition, as well as for the real possibility of choice for the consumer. The rapporteur proposes that the commercial agreements signed by the EU should promote the open, extensive use of the Internet for e-commerce, provided that consumer access to services, online products and their use are not limited, except where they are banned by national legislation.

I support the rapporteur's request to the Commission to devise an overall strategy that will help eliminate the obstacles which still exist for SMEs in terms of using e-commerce and creating a database designed to offer information support and advice on managing the new participants without any e-commerce experience.

I voted in favour of Mr Papastamkos's report on international trade and the Internet. Indeed, I support the rapporteur's aim to highlight areas of international trade in which the Internet has acted as a catalyst, creating new conditions for international trade to develop at world level.

It is plain to see that international trade and the Internet are mutually beneficial. What is more, I firmly believe that the development of online trade holds considerable advantages for consumers. The main benefits, whether at national, European or world level, are a far wider choice of goods and services, competitive prices, lower living costs and improved quality of life.

Thanks to the increased information available, consumers now have the opportunity to find better goods and services, which can be accessed 24 hours a day, from home or the workplace.

I voted in favour of the compromise reached and I consider the new regulation to be very positive because it will make it possible to harmonise the conditions for the placing on the market and the use of animal feed, and will ensure that adequate information is provided both to livestock farmers and consumers of meat, thereby guaranteeing the proper functioning of the internal market.

I wish to highlight the importance of the 'open declaration', a list of substances used in the feed mixture in decreasing order of their relative weight, which will help to maintain a high level of confidence on the part of farmers and consumers.

Furthermore, producers will now have clearer rules for placing animal feed on the market, enabling possible criminal practices to be more easily avoided.

in writing. - (SV) The European Parliament's report contains some constructive amendments, such as including on the label the fact that meat and meal is contained in certain compound feed for non-ruminants.

However, the report's amendments also include details that should be dealt with by officials at authority level and not by politicians. For example, the wording of the citable text 'oral animal feeding: the introduction of feedingstuffs into an animal's gastrointestinal tract through the mouth with the aim of meeting the animal's nutritional needs and/or maintaining the productivity of normally healthy animals', 'licking buckets containing minerals' or of 'faeces, urine as well as separated digestive tract content resulting from the emptying or removal of digestive tract, irrespective of any form of treatment or admixture'.

These are certainly important issues relating to food safety, but they should be left to national authority experts to take care of.

I have voted in favour of the report, as it contains some proposals that are, in principle, important, but this does not mean that I support its approach in terms of its involvement in specific details.

The Baringdorf report on the placing on the market and use of feed is of major importance to agriculture and the food market, in the light of recent scandals involving animal nutrition, diseases triggered in animals for reasons including a lack of knowledge of the ingredients contained in the feed they were given, the dioxin scandal, mad cow disease, etc.

Greater freedom and responsibility will be given to operators from the fodder sector. However, this means that if a serious problem occurs involving contamination with poisonous substances or harmful feed, this will hugely affect the animals' development or the environment. If the producer does not have sufficient financial resources to resolve the problem, even more serious problems may occur.

I think it is necessary, which is the reason why I have voted in favour of this report, for farmers and agricultural workers in general to be given accurate information about animal feed composition, but also to be sufficiently protected from financial, social and economic loss in the event of a disaster.

I sincerely thank the rapporteur for devoting his attention to such a difficult and controversial subject. Feed labelling and its coordination at Community level requires reconciliation of the interests of consumers, who have the right to know what product they are buying, whether it is safe and what it is made of, and the rights of producers, who want to defend their right to protect their intellectual property.

The appeal of businesses and Member States against the requirement to place 'specific information on request' on feed labels shows the fundamental conflict of interests between these interest groups.

The compromise procedure worked out with the help of the European Court of Justice appears, at first glance, to be reasonable, but it is, however, detached from reality, for it is difficult to imagine a farmer who, while already working night and day in principle, is sufficiently interested in the matter to waste time and money on complicated appeal procedures.

Specific information on the composition of feedstuffs should be available on the label, not only because of the inalienable right of the consumer but, above all, because of the basic objective of the directive, which is to protect health. Who, if not the producer, will guarantee that the feed has not been genetically modified, for example? The protection of intellectual property must not favour abuses.

I voted in favour of Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf's report on the placing on the market and use of feed. I support the proposal, which calls for a complete overhaul of European legislation on animal feed, to involve not only simplifying existing standards, but also bringing this legislation into line with food law.

Among the main points, I am undoubtedly in favour of the listing of feed materials from which compound feed is composed and of its precise quantities (the 'open declaration'), which was one of the key demands of the European Parliament following the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. Lastly, I agree with the rapporteur on protecting consumers' rights to information and on the labelling of feed.

The Commission is making EPAs the alpha and omega of its development strategy. The Schröder report and the European right are doing the same.

Supporting as we do the countries concerned, the European socialists do not endorse this approach. As far as we are concerned, these EPAs are a con. There is still time to promote another way of thinking, to make EPAs real development instruments, by supporting the re-opening of negotiations on the points on which there is most conflict, as Mr Barroso and Mrs Ashton have promised to do; by opting for selective regionalisation, as conducted by the ACP countries themselves; by honouring our commitments concerning the trade-related assistance pledged in 2005 rather than 'plundering' the EDF; by guaranteeing real parliamentary control of the process, with the ACP parliaments taking a leading role, and the involvement of the civil societies in the south; and by rejecting the 'bulldozer strategy' aimed at extending the negotiations on services and the 'Singapore' issues, when the ACP countries are not ready to do so.

This is not the 'road map' described in the Schröder report. That is why I shall vote against it.

Once again, particularly owing to the resistance of various countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), despite being obliged to use 'politically correct' language, the majority in Parliament is unable to conceal the true origin and real intentions of the Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and the ACP countries.

While Article 36(1) of the Cotonou Agreement enshrines the conclusion of 'World Trade Organisation (WTO) compatible trading arrangements, progressively removing barriers to trade between them and enhancing cooperation in all areas relevant to trade', what the EU intends to do is to go beyond what is currently established and reach what, to date, has not yet been achieved in the WTO, even though the 10th European Development Fund is implemented for that purpose while, at the same time, reducing public development aid. In other words, trying to enter through the window after failing to get in through the door.

The EU's aim is the liberalisation of trade, on the basis of which the major financial and economic groups endeavour to ensure the opening up of markets, to sell goods and services, exploit raw materials and impose a production model aimed at export, in accordance with their interests.

Another policy is needed to promote effective independence, sovereignty, cooperation, solidarity, development and social justice.

I voted in favour of Mr Schröder's report on the development impact of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).

The 'stepping stone' agreements signed thus far are just the beginning of a long and fruitful collaboration with these extra-European countries. In the case of the EPAs, a liberalisation process of 15 years was considered acceptable by the EU and the ACP countries. In addition, the minimum requirement for covering 'substantially all trade' would be not less than 80% of trade between partners. I am thus persuaded that the development of further agreements can only improve the economic position of both contracting parties.

in writing. - (NL) The own-initiative report about the influence of economic partnership agreements (EPAs) on development cooperation contains a few valid points. It calls for more government aid (after all, ACP countries take the brunt of the financial crisis) and emphasises that EPAs are a development instrument that should not adversely affect regional integration in the South. Despite this, I back the alternative resolution tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. It would, after all, be more logical if Parliament waited to show its endorsement of the EPAs until the parliaments of the ACP countries involved had determined their positions. In my view, the parliamentary body that monitors the EPAs should be the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and not a body that has been set up for this specific purpose. This would only have a divisive effect and weaken the position of the countries in the South that do not have the financial or personal means at their disposal to attend all these meetings. Moreover, a separate body is non-transparent and would prevent a holistic approach to development-related topics.

in writing. - (FR) Although the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) give a great deal of structure to the EU's relations with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), the European Parliament is sending out a very bad message by adopting this report.

Europe absolutely must reverse the way in which it negotiates and trades with the ACP countries, if it does not wish to contribute to their ruin. This report validates a system based on an alleged equality between the parties, when the EU is, in reality, the world's leading economic power, and the ACP countries have a huge amount of catching up to do. There is now an urgent need to adopt an asymmetric and consensual approach that will finally give these states a chance where global competition is concerned.

My colleagues from the Socialist Party in the European Parliament and I have voted against the report. Its adoption by Parliament is indeed proof that Europe is governed by the right, and that this must change!

in writing. - The recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state by many countries has probably created more problems than it will solve. I am sceptical as to whether Kosovo was ready for independence. The fact that some EU Member States will not recognise Kosovo's independence for fear of setting precedents within their own borders has further complicated Kosovo's future.

The EU has now taken on primary responsibility for assisting Kosovo internally. This commitment should not be open-ended either in terms of time or financial resources. Genuine concerns exist about Kosovo's political stability, the extent of corruption, the influence internally and externally of organised crime and the treatment of minorities, including Serbs.

It is vital that the EU institutions remain vigilant and ready to intervene if Kosovo fails to live up to the high standards that must inevitably accompany sovereign statehood.

Notwithstanding my concerns, I gave my support to this resolution.

There is nothing pleasing about the situation in Kosovo or about the role being played by the European Union there.

EULEX, the Union's mission in Kosovo, is, in the case in point, merely the UN's 'military' arm, in charge of overseeing the implementation of a permanent Kosovar government and administration, in breach of UN Resolution 1244, which recognises Serbia's sovereignty over this province.

The good intentions expressed in this House, the advice and the requests have a hard job of hiding a tragic reality: the oppression of the minorities, in particular, the Serb minority, in a territory now given over - because of the international and, in particular, European community - to corruption, organised crime, the Albanian mafia and perhaps even to Islamist terrorist groups.

The purpose of this resolution is to downplay the EU's support for the illegal unilateral declaration of independence by the Serbian province of Kosovo.

Parliament's aim is, unacceptably, to 'legitimise' the creation of a protectorate created and enforced, through aggression and military occupation, by the US, NATO and the EU, guaranteeing their political, economic and military dominance in this highly important region of Europe. The existence of a 'pseudo-state' under 'supervised sovereignty', protected by the EU/NATO, specifically by means of their 'EULEX' and 'viceroys', the 'International Civilian Representative' and the 'EU Special Representative', who have judicial, police and customs powers, as well as 'executive functions' and monitoring functions, constitute unacceptable acts of neo-colonialism.

With this resolution, we found out that 'the most important of the European Security and Defence Policy (of the EU) missions to date' is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and a dangerous precedent in terms of international law, with unpredictable consequences for the stability of borders, particularly on the European continent.

Some of those who clamoured for respect of international law, and the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Georgia are, in the end, the same ones who promoted and supported the aggression against Yugoslavia.

This resolution merely represents yet another exercise in hypocrisy and cynicism by the majority in Parliament.

For nearly 20 years, this Parliament has stood by and watched while the people of Kosovo gradually bade farewell to Serbia. In this plenary, debates on Kosovo are usually not about Kosovo itself, but mainly about the effect it has on the rest of the world. Those in favour and against independence are mainly concerned about each decision setting a precedent for other regions and about the risk of the European Union indulging in self-aggrandisement as a result.

I have been arguing in favour of the opposite for 30 years, both within and outside this Parliament. Democracy requires us, above all, to look at the needs and desires of the people themselves. After centuries of Turkish rule and the last century of Serbian rule, the last thing they need is coercion from outside. If they are not allowed to annex to Albania, they want true independence.

For the past 10 years, I have been advocating politics from the grassroots up, from the viewpoint of the poor, the disadvantaged, the people who suffer as a result of a lack of democracy and public provisions, the victims of environmental disasters or wars, in short, everyone who is disadvantaged due to a lack of equality for all people. I will be voting against the EULEX project because it does not provide solutions in the interests of the ordinary people of Kosovo.

The resolution by the European Parliament not only recognises Kosovo as a separate state, but also insultingly urges those Member States of the EU which have not yet recognised its independence to do so, in blatant violation of international law and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 itself.

Towards this end, it supports the setting up of a Kosovo Security Force (KSF), in other words, a separate army which, of course, will operate under the aegis of the KFOR occupying NATO force.

The aim of establishing and developing the repressive EULEX police/judicial force in Kosovo and the reforms which it is promoting, such as privatisations and so on, is to impose EU interests and speed up its incorporation into Euro-unifying structures. This will complete the conversion of Kosovo to a Euro-NATO protectorate.

The first bloody cycle of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the re-drawing of new borders is closing with the opening up of new wounds at Balkan and global level with the imperialist law of divide and rule, which will give rise to new tensions and interventions.

The Communist Party of Greece voted against this unacceptable resolution, highlighting the need to step up the anti-imperialist fight and confront the EU and its policies by demanding that the Greek and all the Euro-NATO occupying armies leave Kosovo and the Balkans as a whole.

I voted against this resolution as Romania does not recognise the independence of the province of Kosovo.

I voted against the motion for a resolution on Kosovo, because I disagree with several points contained in it.

Personally, I do not regard the establishment of a functioning witness-protection programme as essential for effective legal action against high-level offenders in Kosovo, in particular, with regard to war crimes. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is vitally important for Kosovo to promote projects aimed, for example, at restoring vandalised graveyards with the direct involvement of local actors: the fact is that such projects would have no practical value for the communities in Kosovo and would not contribute to a better inter-ethnic climate.

in writing. - Members of this House will be well aware of my views in the past with regard not only to Kosovo, but to the whole Balkan region.

In my opinion, the issue of Kosovo can only be resolved through a consensual approach involving not only Serbia primarily, but also neighbouring countries.

There is a lot in this report that I can ally myself with, but the insistence that every EU Member State should recognise an independent Kosovo is not an area that I can support.

Independence for Kosovo is something that can only be achieved by consensus and agreement with Serbia. Failure to recognise this is merely, in my view, harbouring problems for the future and raising an anti-Serbian attitude in this Parliament.

Therefore, the passing of Amendment 3 renders this resolution partisan and seriously undermines the rest of the text. This means that sadly, I cannot support it.

The vote on Amendment 3 and the final vote were, in my view, extremely important. I voted against in both cases. In Amendment 3, the EP is asking EU countries to recognise the independence of Kosovo. In my opinion, the entire independence process is hasty and ill-conceived. I am aware that negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia, even in the presence of international personalities and organisations, were lengthy and many people saw no chance that they would produce a solution or even that they would continue. That is why most EU countries and the USA accepted the Aktisari plan. This notwithstanding, I believe that all unilateral declarations of independence are merely a source of future problems and potential conflicts. The period since the Kosovo declaration of independence only confirms this. If we are to preserve peace in our region, then any time spent in negotiations is neither long nor pointless.

in writing. - This report reflects China's growing power as a trading nation. It also draws attention to trade between China and Taiwan, which looks set to grow following the signature of cross-Straits commercial agreements.

Closer economic ties between China and Taiwan have the potential to facilitate a more positive approach to the wider issue of cross-Straits relations. However, this détente makes little sense unless it is accompanied by Taiwan's integration into international organisations, especially those related to trade, like the World Health Assembly and the International Maritime Organisation.

Parliament should voice strong support for the Council's declared policy of supporting Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations. Parliament should also press China on its continued reluctance to permit Taiwan a voice on the international stage. The prosperity and health of the 23 million citizens of Taiwan should not be held hostage for political purposes.

Given my support for Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations, I voted in favour of this report.

I voted in favour of the Wortmann-Kool report as I support the development of economic relations between the EU and China. This country has seen dramatic economic growth, making it one of the biggest economic actors on the global market. Commercial relations between the EU and China have expanded considerably in recent years, making Europe China's biggest trade partner since 2006. China was number two on the EU's trade partners list in 2007.

Nowadays, we need exceptional cooperation between the EU and China in order to provide a solution to the current economic and financial crisis. I think that as China is one of the engines driving global development, it should fully assume responsibility for guaranteeing the sustainable and balanced development of the global economy. The EU's commercial relations with China should be based on the principles of reciprocity, sustainable development, protection of the environment, prevention of climate change, fair competition, compliance with the World Trade Organisation's rules, not forgetting human rights.

The EU must insist on compliance with consumer protection regulations so that European citizens are no longer at risk of buying products which are dangerous to their health, goods with hidden defects or counterfeit products.

Each year, this Parliament adopts a text on trade and economic relations with China, and each year its findings get worse: violations of human rights, unfair trade practices, dumping, non-compliance with China's international commitments, be it at the WTO or at the ILO (International Labour Organisation), counterfeiting, a patents policy that is as good as theft, and so on. The list is getting longer and it is frightening.

More frightening still is the rapporteur's enduring belief in the myth of 'democratic change through trade', the sharpest contradiction of which is the current situation in China. This myth serves as an alibi for all those who put the commercial interests of a few above respect for the values that they proclaim, so as certainly not to have to take the necessary decisions: implementing trade protection and sanction instruments.

You no doubt believe that China should become the world's workshop, producing at low cost, goods of more or less - the focus being on less - high quality.

We prefer a policy that consists in producing in Europe, with Europeans, the goods that we consume, and in regaining an industrial independence within a European market that is ultimately protected.

Since 2006, the EU has been China's leading trading partner, and since 2007, China has been Europe's second largest trading partner. China currently accounts for 6% of world trade.

The PRC has made great strides since the report that I had the honour of presenting in this House in 2002. It appears, however, that many of the aspects that needed to be remedied at the time still persist, even though, in some respects, they have been resolved by remarkable advances.

In terms of social and environmental impact, there is a clear lack of preparation by Chinese industry, and this requires greater European incentive.

China and the EU have been negotiating a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement since October 2007, with results that have yet to be seen. In view of European support for many aspects of international trade, China should not breach commitments undertaken within the WTO. Obstacles have been introduced in the form of rules and regulations, which restrict access by European companies in strategic sectors.

In November, the PRC declared its intention to abandon the system in place since 2007 of dual control of textile and footwear imports. The available statistics do not facilitate a discussion, but we may be facing a trade controversy.

Since it is not possible to consider the many issues raised by this resolution, we believe it is essential to emphasise that we advocate the strengthening of real and effective cooperation relations between the countries of the EU and China, based on a mutually advantageous response to the needs of the different peoples, and which contribute to reciprocal development, respecting the principle of non-interference and respect for national sovereignties.

On the basis of these principles, and although the resolution contains some aspects that we agree with, we clearly oppose it because it claims the neo-liberal matrix as its own, namely by fighting for the continuation of trade liberalisation, in this case, with China.

The resolution, by disguising the very serious consequences of the liberalisation of world trade, is an incentive to proceed with the opening up of markets between the EU and China, emphasises efforts to accelerate negotiations within the framework of the WTO and 'stresses that the new EU-China PCA should aim to establish free and fair trade'.

As shown in other similar parliamentary resolutions, the aim is to provide a response to the expansion needs of the EU's major economic and financial groups, which runs counter to the response to the needs of the workers and small and medium-sized enterprises in various EU countries, particularly Portugal.

in writing. - I support the recommendations in this report on improving market access to China, lifting barriers to trade by increasing accessibility of foreign companies in China and focusing on creating a level economic playing field.

In the current global economic and financial crisis, relations between the EU and its main external economic partners are assuming much greater importance than in the past. Economic stability and the sustainability of trade flows involving the EU are becoming ever more relevant to our future security. I voted in favour of Mrs Wortmann-Kool's report on economic and commercial relations with China because I believe that this is a step towards a better structure of commercial relations between the European Union and a crucial global partner.

The need for this report is highlighted by the hard reality of the trade deficit of EUR 160 billion. However, most of the elements in this report are not only requests from the European Union in relation to certain aspects of Beijing's economic and trade policy, but also suggestions whose implementation will bring benefits to China internally, as well as looking ahead to its future development. Better regulation and protection of intellectual property, the reduction of the social and environmental impact from our Asian partner's dramatic economic growth and the reduction in the counterfeiting and piracy of goods are areas for action where Beijing has already made notable progress. If this can be maintained in the future it will only help boost China's development.

Based also on my own personal experience obtained during a meeting of a delegation from the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee in China between 16 and 21 March 2008, I voted for the Corien Wortmann-Kool report on commercial and economic relations with China.

Trade between the EU and China has increased dramatically since 2000. The EU is China's largest trading partner and China is the second largest trading partner of the EU.

Although China enjoys significant advantages as a result of its membership of the WTO, European firms must overcome major obstacles in trying to gain access to the Chinese market, the main ones being breaches of patent rights and an ambiguous system of standards. I welcome the intention of launching a 'Gateway to China' programme aimed especially at establishing training programmes for managers in China with a view to supporting access to the Chinese market for European SMEs by 2010.

The report provides recommendations for improving trade relations between Europe and China which must be based on principles of reciprocity, sustainable development, respect for environmental limits, contributions to global targets on combating climate change, fair economic competition and trade that is in accordance with our shared values and with WTO rules. I welcomed the amended proposal in which the EU regards Taiwan as a commercial and trading entity and supports Taiwanese participation as an observer in relevant international organisations.

The debate on trade relations with China always brings us back to the issue of human rights in that country. It is understandable. The objections raised by the relationship with China can be understood in the light of various assessments, which are, in most cases, justifiable.

The perception that Chinese economic growth has no parallel in the respect of human rights and democracy in that country, nor in its actions at international level, the exploitation of workers, a regulatory framework on labour that is incomparably less demanding, disregard for environmental matters and for rules on intellectual property and patents, all these factors are barriers to open trade relations that are marked by respect for international good practice. Nevertheless, this trade is there, and it is growing. China's role in the modern world economy is unequalled and its participation in overcoming the present crisis is vital.

It is therefore necessary to insist on respect for the rules and principles of international trade, for equal access to markets and for the defence of democracy and human rights, without rejecting the reality and our growing interdependency. In fact, we need to make the most of this situation, if only to better influence this great country.

In the vote on the Report on Trade and Economic Relations with China, I voted for its adoption.

China is the second largest trading partner of the EU, and the EU has been China's largest trading partner since 2006. It is a country which is a driving force of world growth. It is very important that the trade relations of European countries with China be based, above all, on the principles of reciprocity, sustainable development, respect for environmental limits and fair competition.

Development of trade relations with China should go hand in hand with political dialogue which should include the subject of human rights. China should increase efforts in the area of enforcement of intellectual property rights and address the problem connected with the production of counterfeit and pirated goods inside China.

The high level of pollution caused by Chinese industry and its growing consumption of natural resources is also disturbing.

The breakdown in negotiations with envoys of the Dalai Lama casts a shadow over relations with China. China should cease all forms of persecution of the Tibetan people.

In order to guarantee the correct level of trade relations with China, they must be based on engagement and strategic partnership that enshrines the principles of reciprocity, fair competition and trade, according to our common values and adherence to WTO rules.

I do not welcome Mrs Wortmann-Kool's proposal on Trade and Economic Relations with China, since I disagree with various points made in the report.

For example, with regard to future steps to be taken by the European Union, I do not agree that it is necessary to prevent problems through bilateral dialogue. The fact is, bringing together senior decision makers from the Chinese leadership and their counterparts from the European Commission cannot adequately address issues of mutual concern, especially in the areas of investment, market access and intellectual property rights protection and other strategic issues related to trade. This is due to a failure, on the part of the Chinese Government, to abide by the economic agreements put in place with the European Union.

in writing. - This report mentions China's growing trade with Taiwan, which I welcome. Under President Ma, Taiwan has made great strides towards normalising its trade relations with China and trying to end the obstructionist attitude that Beijing's communist rulers have previously taken towards commercial relations with Taiwan.

However, if Taiwan is ever to be fully integrated with the regional economies of south-east Asia, it needs to be accepted into international organisations, regardless of whether or not it is recognised as an independent sovereign state.

Given various health scares in East Asia in recent years related to the movement of goods and people - such as SARS, avian influenza and the melamine milk scandal - it is essential that Taiwan is given the status of observer at the World Health Assembly. Such a move would strengthen cross-straits trade, drive up quality standards in the region and elevate Taiwan on the international stage.

The way that China has used its disagreements with Taiwan to play politics with matters of public health is to be deprecated. So too is the shameful silence that so many people in Europe keep in the face of China's pressure.

I voted in favour of this report.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes

Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes

1. Situation in Sri Lanka

The next item is the debate on four motions for resolutions on the situation in Sri Lanka.

Madam President, a humanitarian disaster is currently taking place in the north of Sri Lanka that is receiving relatively little attention. The Sri Lankan army is carrying out attacks on the civilian population that could even be described as massacres. A hospital has even come under fire and, according to humanitarian organisations, the overall situation is disastrous. The Red Cross has raised the alarm.

The situation in Sri Lanka has escalated, and the European Union is not blameless in this, having torpedoed the negotiations that were held under the leadership of Norway by placing the LTTE on the EU list of terrorist organisations. This meant that negotiations within the European Union were no longer possible.

In Sri Lanka itself, freedom of the press no longer exists. Recently, a journalist was killed. The German ambassador, who spoke at his funeral, was described by the President as someone who should leave the country. All he had done was to describe the situation accurately.

There is talk of thousands of refugees in the north, and I must make it quite clear that the whole situation there is one on which we should be focusing much more attention. The European Union should be coming out very much more clearly against what the Sri Lankan Government is currently doing. The attacks by both the Sri Lankan army and the LTTE are wrong; it is clear that it is mainly civilians who are being hit.

We need to help the people trapped in the north and to achieve an immediate cease-fire, as it is quite clear that very large numbers of civilians are being killed there. This is unacceptable, and the European Union shares the blame for this if it fails to state much more clearly that the support for the Sri Lankan Government must end.

author. - Madam President, Sri Lanka's bloody civil war seems finally to be coming to a conclusion. The LTTE, which has been blacklisted by the EU as a terrorist organisation, must now surely lay down its arms and surrender. The EU and other Co-chairs have urged the LTTE to do so. The LTTE's response will show us whether it really has the best interests of Tamils at heart.

The LTTE is using its front organisations in Europe to maximum propaganda effect and raising money by extortion internationally. Some LTTE militants may even try to seek asylum within the European Union.

Throughout this ferocious 26-year civil war, the LTTE has pioneered atrocious terrorist tactics, such as suicide bombings, that are now used in many other parts of the world - regrettably. The Sri Lankan army has had, therefore, to deploy all the means at its disposal to counteract this brutal insurgency. However, it is clear that the casualty figures claimed by the LTTE have been exaggerated. Some have now been withdrawn - for instance, the Agence Presse story of 300 civilians killed, after the supposed author denied authorship. Nevertheless, the death of civilians in a war zone is tragic whenever and wherever it occurs.

Clearly, the Sri Lankan armed forces cannot claim an unblemished record either, but they have not sought to deliberately exploit civilians and put them in harm's way, like the LTTE has allegedly done.

If the war really is soon to be over, it is essential that Sri Lanka turn its attention now to post-conflict disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration. The marginalisation of Tamils, at the expense of the majority Sinhalese, needs to be addressed in an urgent and permanent manner in order to ensure a stable and sustainable multiethnic society with regional devolution.

The EU should also ensure resources are put at Sri Lanka's disposal to support post-conflict development. Although we should support the Government's offer of amnesty for the majority of the LTTE, it is vital that no one responsible for the most serious war crimes is allowed to get away with impunity.

author. - Madam President, Sri Lanka has been afflicted by internal fighting for decades. This tragic situation came about as a result of the armed conflict mainly between separatist insurgent forces in the north and the Sri Lankan army. During this fighting, thousands of innocent people were killed and injured and much destruction to property, infrastructure and the environment has been caused.

This sorry state of affairs has been exacerbated in recent months mainly due to the Government's large-scale military offensive against the Tamil Tigers. Reports coming out of Sri Lanka indicate that the situation in certain areas has, in recent weeks, deteriorated tragically, with hundreds of civilians displaced and caught up in the fighting. According to Amnesty International, there have been violations of international conventions and human rights by both Government and Tamil Tiger forces.

Admittedly, it is very difficult in such circumstances to be absolutely sure as to who is to be blamed for some of the tragic events in Sri Lanka, but we must call on both sides to exercise restraint and to pay utmost attention and respect to innocent civilians, and to observe the conventions of war.

Since the Sri Lankan Government has the upper hand in the situation and is the internationally-recognised authority in the country, our call must, by necessity and logic, go mostly to them. At the same time, we must call on the Tamil Tiger leaders to abide by the calls of the international community, take advantage of the Government's offer of amnesty, renounce violence and seek to achieve their aims through political dialogue.

We must also once again advise emphatically that fighting solves no problems, and that lasting peace and stability can only be achieved at the negotiating table, which will inevitably happen sooner or later. In these negotiations, compromises will have to be made by both sides and a solution found which will be for the benefit of the citizens of this beautiful country. We hope that through this resolution we will help to lessen the suffering of the Sri Lankan people and to bring about much-needed peace in that country.

author. - Madam President, the Socialist Group in this Parliament is formally refusing to take part in this vote on Sri Lanka. Last month, Parliament held a full debate, with Council and Commission statements, on the situation in Gaza. On this side of the House, we attach the same importance to Sri Lanka and believe it deserved equal and proper discussion, but I regret that not one other group supported us in this stand.

A short debate this afternoon with a handful of people on a Thursday is an insult to the thousands of people under attack and dying in the north of Sri Lanka. We wanted to call, as in the joint USA and UK declaration from Washington earlier this week, for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire by both sides, but the PPE refused to include that in the text.

We wanted to condemn, unreservedly, the bombing of hospitals and aid workers, but Mr Van Orden, negotiating for the PPE, refused to condemn it. That is why it is not in the resolution before you. To him - and presumably to Dr Tannock as well - everything the Government of Sri Lanka says is a fact and just about every aid organisation on the ground, from the Red Cross to the UN, can be dismissed. Amnesty International today suggests the Sri Lankan army could be guilty of war crimes for its use of cluster bombs on a hospital - a 16-hour bombardment, according to Amnesty International.

The PSE also wanted to condemn the murders of journalists and other media workers by government agents. Paragraph 4 of the resolution asks the Government - the very same Sri Lankan Government - to investigate their own serious human rights violations.

Colleagues, some of you may want to associate yourselves and your groups with those kinds of sentiments, but we do not. Vote for this text and you are condoning attacks on hospitals and ignoring allegations of war crimes. I note that Mr Van Orden has not even had the courage to stand here and defend his bloody handiwork, but I am hardly surprised. In our negotiations, he just dismissed and laughed off as propaganda allegations of rape by Sri Lankan soldiers, so what you can expect?

In the Middle East, millions of people - including many Jews - were outraged at what Israel did to Gaza, but that did not make them supporters of Hamas. Sadly, anyone who does not support the Sri Lankan Government is labelled an apologist for terrorism and a supporter of the LTTE.

However, our motion was critical of the LTTE and their tactics. We do condemn their attacks and we do want them, the Tamil Tigers, to sit round the negotiating table, but this war must be stopped immediately. The Government must end its military campaign that has brought - as others have said - humanitarian disaster to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in the north of the island.

Sadly, this resolution does not call for an immediate end to the fighting, so we will not endorse that approach by taking part in today's vote. We dissociate ourselves, President and colleagues, from this motion and I urge anyone else with the same views to do likewise.

I would like to start by saying that the resolution finally agreed is absolutely not one that I would have drafted. I believe that it suffers from excessive complacency in relation to the government in Colombo. I fear that it is another case of simplification, criminalisation and continued persecution of a group by simply arguing that it is a terrorist group. In fact, things are much more complex.

However, I do believe that the current situation is such that Parliament should send out clear messages about certain issues. For example, one of the key points that I consider important to emphasise is the Tokyo appeal on the need for both sides, namely the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) and the government, to understand that a cease-fire must be agreed to allow humanitarian aid to get through and for the wounded and ill to be evacuated.

Secondly, I think that it is essential to remember that there cannot be a military solution, Mr Tannock. This cannot happen, it is simply impossible.

Now is therefore the time to negotiate terms for the cessation of violence, demobilisation and disarmament. However, for this to occur, the government must stop seeking a military victory that merely prolongs the suffering of so many people.

A goodwill gesture would be, for example, to allow independent media and humanitarian personnel to enter the north.

Moreover, in relation to the Generalised System of Preferences Plus, the GSP Plus, I am one of those who think that it should never have been granted to a country such as Sri Lanka, given the serious and continuing breaches of fundamental human rights in the country, many of these breaches being instigated by government authorities. I think that we should seriously consider opening an in-depth debate on the relevance of applying this preferential framework and, above all, on the consequences that it has for many groups, including workers.

For these reasons I call upon the European Commission to carry out an in situ investigation to establish the effects of the measure and to review it if necessary.

Madam President, the civil war in Sri Lanka has lasted 25 years. Over 70 000 people have died in the conflict. Today, between the Sri Lankan government army and Tamil Tiger forces, in an area of about 300 km2, around 250 000 civilians are bearing the drastic costs of this war. Hundreds of defenceless people have died in the conflict zone since the middle of January. There were around 500 people in the hospital at the time it was bombarded by artillery.

According to the International Red Cross, the shells hit the paediatric department. The terrified people are afraid to flee, despite the 48-hour cease-fire announced by the government. They fear death or injury. Both sides in the conflict draw attention to human rights violations committed by the other side, and both sides violate these rights. The government predicts that victory over the Tamils is near. The people who are trapped between the two armies may not live to see the end of hostilities.

We call on both sides of the conflict to minimise civilian losses and to commence peace negotiations.

Madam President, as a member of the SAARC Delegation, I was able to visit Sri Lanka several times. I saw for myself on the ground how much the population is suffering as a result of the civil war that has been going on for 25 years and has claimed 70 000 lives. Fighting between government forces and the LTTE has further escalated. Large parts of the north have been brought under control and strongholds of the Tamil rebels have been taken.

What human rights organisations in both Colombo and Jaffna told me at the time is unfortunately confirmed time and again: 'war is an institution'. The humanitarian situation is alarming. There are refugees in their thousands. There is a lack of medical care and of food. Aid agencies must be given unrestricted access to the civilian population in a cease-fire to be agreed. The government has set up corridors to facilitate the evacuation of civilians from the combat areas; it is incomprehensible that the Tamil Tigers have failed to respect this safe zone, are continuing to fire and are using people as human shields.

The Tokyo group, consisting of Japan, the United States, Norway and the European Union, has called on the LTTE leadership to negotiate the details of a cease-fire with the Sri Lankan Government at long last. The launch of a peace process is in the interests of everyone - including the Tamils. I expressly welcome the decision by the government to comply with the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution and hand over the competent provincial council to the elected representatives of the north and the east. We also expect it to respect a guarantee of a careful, neutral investigation into the human rights violations we have just discussed and the violations of press freedom. Security and stability must not remain a pipe dream for Sri Lankans.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what do we know and what do we see in relation to Sri Lanka? What reports do we have to go on when all the NGOs, except the Red Cross, have been evacuated from the country since September? Who should we believe? The Sri Lankan Government or anonymous witnesses?

One thing is certain: the situation is developing into a final assault, into a kill for a government set on using force to put a stop to a rebellion that has lasted too long for its liking. Once again, who is picking up the pieces, ladies and gentlemen? All the civilians, women, children, the elderly, of course, who are stuck in the middle and suffering unbearable violence. This has to stop. It is high time the international community really put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government so that it stops this escalation of violence and killing.

The European Union must adopt a very clear position and not make the Tamil civilians the people history overlooked and the martyrs of indifference. Our European Parliament must not stop at this joint resolution. We must demand an immediate and unconditional cease-fire, which will mark the beginning of a stronger commitment in favour of a peaceful end to this conflict, with respect shown for human rights and cultural identities.

(DE) Madam President, the dramatic images from Sri Lanka reveal that a brutal civil war that has spanned decades is coming to a head. As we all know, whilst it may be possible to end a war by means of weapons, it is not possible to establish lasting peace this way. In addition, there can be no effective, lasting fight against terrorism, in particular, by means of weapons, as terrorism always finds a way. Therefore, it is important to get to grips with the causes.

The next step must be to reach a peace settlement based on the following fundamental elements. Firstly, a clear monopoly of power on the part of the unitary State. No State can allow ethnic groups or sections of the population to arm and engage in armed conflict. This requires, however, that this State comply with democratic rules and the rule of law and actively seek a political solution along the lines of autonomy, one that finally resolves Sri Lanka's nationality problems, which are an old historical legacy and also a legacy of colonial times, and which need to be tackled urgently.

Therefore, I wish to appeal quite clearly to the European Union and all the countries of this earth to help with the development of democracy and the rule of law, with the strengthening of autonomy and of minority rights, and of course also with the economic development of a country that has been bled dry so appallingly by the terror of this civil war.

Therefore, if the guns were to fall silent at long last - unfortunately we are not at that stage yet - this would not mean the end of developments, but only the beginning of movement towards a peace based on the rule of law, freedom, human rights, minority rights and national autonomy.

- (CS) The Tokyo Conference signalled that the crisis in Sri Lanka might end and that there was hope for peace. However, a quarter of a million civilians trapped in the conflict zone need safe passage and they must be provided with humanitarian aid. Foreign observers must have access to the area in order to assess humanitarian needs. However, the recent attacks on journalists provide no guarantee of safety for humanitarian organisations. Although the government has promised to investigate the attack on journalists, that is no solution. We must also put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to sign up to the Ottawa Convention and to remove land mines. I am sorry that MEPs from the socialist group preferred to go home instead of taking part in today's debate and thus defending their different views on how to solve the Sri Lanka problem.

Madam President, I just want to add my support to the approach that Robert Evans has taken. I think it was Mr Posselt who described the conflict as a civil war and, sadly, the people who tabled this joint motion for a resolution refused, according to my colleague, to term it a civil war.

I want to add support to what previous speakers have said about an immediate cease-fire. The recent upsurge in fighting between the LTTE and Sri Lankan government forces has exacerbated the situation, and an estimated 230 000 internally displaced persons are trapped in the Wanni region as we speak. Atrocities such as the shelling of a PTK hospital make the situation on the ground much worse and more perilous.

It is a very sad day, but we cannot support this, and I hope in the next part-session we will see a greater debate with more people participating on this very serious situation in Sri Lanka.

(PL) Madam President, the scenario of tragic events in Sri Lanka is similar to that of other such cases. In speaking of the tragedy of poor people, we forget that people are also the cause of the tragedy - not poor people, but people who come from the same environment. To gain power, they use religious, tribal and ethnic differences, historical misunderstandings and other available means to sow discord between sections of society in the country concerned. This leads to the destruction of usually very weakly rooted elements of democracy and to civil war with all its cruelties, to a disregard for human rights and for information, and to the total destruction of the opponent.

I endorse the resolution as an expression of disapproval towards those who resurrect civil wars and towards those who give them material and political support. One kind of warning to the creators of such inhumane scenarios could be the awareness that they will be captured, for example, by international special forces, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Madam President, Mr Evans makes a speciality of getting his facts wrong and so it has impelled me to stand and correct him. No hospital has been bombed. The press agency that filed the report withdrew that story saying it was erroneous. There are not 230 000 civilians trapped: there are 113 000 who are being used as a human shield by the LTTE. If they really cared about the Tamil people they would not use Tamil people as a human shield to protect themselves. What bravery is this?

Sri Lanka has suffered 25 years of civil war. We need to help that country to remain what it has always been: one of the oldest democracies in the world. It has a longer history of democracy than 22 of the 27 Member States of the EU. It has had 16 general elections, five presidential elections and has conducted itself as a member of the family of nations of democracy. It is a democracy that fought against a terrorist campaign. And it has won.

(NL) I should like to remind you that, a few years back, we held a debate on Sri Lanka in this House and that, at that time, the Sri Lankan Government was in the process of creating room to obtain maximum freedom of movement, including from the European Union, based on the principle of non-interference rather than mediation, to reach a solution.

I note that all the fears I expressed during that debate of what would happen in the future have now come to pass. I therefore believe that we really should return to the position of mediation and fight for autonomy within Sri Lanka on behalf of the Tamil people in the North East. If we do not do this, then Europe is partly to blame for the dreadful bloodbath that is currently taking place over there.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, as one of the Tokyo Co-Chairs of the Sri Lanka peace process, the European Commission is closely following developments in Sri Lanka. We are deeply concerned by the current situation and the tragic humanitarian consequences of the conflict as expressed in the statement issued locally by the Co-Chairs on 3 February 2009.

We look with concern at the difficult situation of thousands of internally displaced persons trapped by fighting in northern Sri Lanka. Both Commissioners Ferrero-Waldner and Michel have already communicated publicly their preoccupation about the consequences of the hostilities on the civilian population and have called on both parties, the LTTE and the Sri Lankan authorities, to protect the civil population, as required under international humanitarian law, and to allow the safe and voluntary movement of people away from the combat zone.

The Commission is concerned about the information it has received concerning the conditions in which internally displaced people are living in the so-called 'welfare centres' once they have escaped from the territory controlled by the Tamil Tigers into Government-controlled areas. It is also important that international standards be respected in these temporary camps. UN agencies, the Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations should have full access to these centres in line with international humanitarian law.

The Commission continues to be alarmed about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, against a background of reports of extrajudicial killings, abductions and serious intimidation of the media. It is very important that the Government follows up on the most prominent high-profile cases. In her recent meeting with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to take decisive action to tackle human rights abuses, including action against the perpetrators, and to guarantee press freedom.

The Commission continues to be convinced that there can be no military solution to Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict. An inclusive dialogue is required to agree on a political settlement so that lasting peace and reconciliation can be achieved by addressing the concerns which led to the insurgency in the first place, and to provide adequate space for all communities.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debates.

2. Situation of Burmese refugees in Thailand

The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the situation of Burmese refugees in Thailand.

author. - (NL) Madam President, Burma is known as a violent military dictatorship in which a caste of profiteers has been able to hang onto power for many years. Oppression and poverty have caused many people to flee the country, or to try to do so.

The country's ethnic diversity both justifies and reinforces this dictatorship. In large areas, minority peoples are in the majority. They pursue autonomy and organise protests against the central dictatorship. The military leaders consider their dictatorship necessary to be able to keep the country together permanently and to subjugate the rebellious people. They are more interested in the territory than in the people who live in it. By issuing major exploitation concessions to foreign businesses, vital sources of income are taken from the indigenous people, with nature and the environment being seriously damaged in the process.

The need to flee the country is further reinforced by the fact that no consideration is given to the regional majority peoples. The regime is keen to eliminate troublesome groups, either by killing them or by chasing them out of the country. Many flee into the sea in makeshift dinghies, running the considerable risk of drowning. Burma's neighbour, Thailand, has seen many refugees cross the border: according to some estimates, as many as two million people have fled over the past 25 years, and tens of thousands who have been refused entry remain homeless in the no man's land along the border.

Unfortunately, feelings of sympathy or solidarity with refugees are even less well developed in South East Asia than they are in Europe. Very often, refugees are sent home, even if this means certain death. Public opinion shows little interest, even if it involves people who share their religion, such as the Muslim boat refugees who ended up in Indonesia from Burma.

Governments also give priority to good relations with their colleagues in dictatorial states, instead of bringing pressure to bear in order to improve the situation there. Some in Europe even tend towards adopting a similar attitude, and we can see the disastrous impact this has in Asia. This is another reason why we should urge the Asian countries to find a solution.

author. - Madam President, this case highlights the plight of a minority in a country where minorities are at best marginalised and at worst brutalised. The Rohingya people have suffered double discrimination for years. As Muslims, they are being denied the right to practise their faith freely, a right that we in the EU recognise as fundamental, and their mosques have been damaged and desecrated. As an ethnic minority, the Rohingya people are systematically denied civil rights that most of the rest of the world take for granted: the right to marry, the right to move freely, the right to citizenship of the country they live in, and the right to a proper education.

In praising our own progressive achievements in the field of human rights, we in the EU can tend to lose sight of the fact that many people in the world lack even these basic entitlements. We in this House are well aware of the plight of the people of Burma generally, but since the riots by Buddhist monks of 2007, that country has rather faded somewhat from the public consciousness.

The appalling fate of the little-known-about Rohingya people, especially those fleeing by boat as refugees that are the subject of this resolution, has renewed our attention on the despotic regime in Burma, a country so rich in human potential otherwise. The brutality of the military junta stands in stark contrast to the action of Thailand, which has only partially, in my view, discharged its responsibility for the Rohingya refugees as it unfortunately alleges that most of them are purely economic refugees which I believe to be highly unlikely, and tried sending them back. Thailand must take more seriously its growing role as a force for stability and humanity in the region.

In contrast, we can expect very little from the brutal Burmese military leaders, impervious as they have been to our many pleas for years. I hope that the junta generals' contempt for civilised opinion one day comes back to haunt them, possibly in an international criminal tribunal, when Burma is finally freed of tyranny.

author. - Madam President, the brutal regime governing Burma has, for some time now, been causing thousands of civilians to leave that country in search of a more secure future and a better standard of living in neighbouring Thailand or, via Thailand, in other South-East Asian countries.

Amongst these destitute people are the indigenous Rohingya community of Western Burma who, in recent years, have been the victims of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Burmese Government. Unfortunately, the Thai authorities have not provided those refugees with the humanitarian assistance they so clearly deserve. Instead, it is reported that these people have been fiercely persecuted. We call on the Thai Government to respect the human rights of Burmese refugees and to treat them with respect, compassion, dignity and humanity.

This resolution also gives me the opportunity to deal with the issue of the 41-year-old Australian writer of Cypriot origin, Harry Nicolaides, who was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in Thailand for allegedly insulting the country's Royal Family in a novel he wrote in 2005. Mr Nicolaides was teaching English at a Thai university at the time, and in his novel he only makes an anonymous reference to a member of the Thai Royal Family, and the incriminated work is clearly fictitious.

During his trial, Mr Nicolaides was paraded in front of the international media in chains and told reporters that he had endured unspeakable suffering. Mr Nicolaides has apologised to the Thai Royal Family and has made an appeal for royal grace.

We believe that Mr Nicolaides has been subjected to enough punishment and ill-treatment by the Thai authorities, who have handled this case most insensitively and inappropriately, and we call on them, as well as the Royal Family, to effect Mr Nicolaides' immediate release and return to his home in Australia. To not do so would be most unwise, pitiful and damaging to Thailand.

Madam President, today we are talking about Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand. During other sessions, we have talked about other countries. However, it is always about unceasing civil wars, about murders, about the violation of basic human rights.

We will never stop these atrocious crimes if we do not recognise the political forces and the unscrupulous external interests which lie behind these wars. These wars would never be able to last indefinitely in poor countries, which would not be able to afford them at all, if there were not external interests behind it all.

Therefore, we must do two things to check this process. Firstly, we must recognise what these interests and political forces are and, using political methods, tell them to stop. Secondly, we must establish an expeditionary, police and military corps which will take preventative measures where political means do not work. The European Union is able to do this.

author. - Madam President, the treatment and discrimination of the Rohingya people appals us all. As a Muslim minority in Buddhist Burma, they are not recognised as one of Burma's ethnic minorities. They have few legal rights and, as Amendment 3 tabled by Glenys Kinnock highlights, they face deliberate impoverishment, denial of citizenship, denial of freedom of movement, arbitrary taxation, land confiscation and the denial of permission to marry.

It is no wonder that many attempt to leave Burma as they have no other option. The shocking reports that a thousand Rohingya boat people over a 12-day period, who, instead of being brought to safety by the Thai authorities who discovered them, were instead towed into international waters without navigational equipment, food and water and left to fend for themselves, sickens anyone with an iota of human decency.

Only yesterday, an article in The Guardian highlighted other incidents. The latest case involved 220 men, who were discovered in an open craft by fishermen. These refugees claimed they were detained by Thai authorities on a remote island for two months, and that they were beaten before being forced onto boats and left to their fate.

The abuse and lack of international coordinated action to help the Rohingya must be addressed. Thailand must also take responsibility. The Thai Prime Minister must act. The problems of abuse at the hands of Thai officials must be seriously addressed. The Thai Government must sign the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 Protocol. As Joel Chamy, Vice-President of Washington-based Refugees International, said, the Rohingya need protection and asylum.

Thailand has said it is unwilling to grant that, but that is a problem that will not go away. There are ongoing reports of the treatment of Burmese refugees who enter Malaysia. Many of these people are sold as slaves, the women and children are forced into sexual slavery and the men are sold as forced labour onto fishing vessels. Some of this fish may even enter the EU market. I hope that today, we can highlight the plight of Burmese refugees and particularly the plight of the Rohingya.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the people of Burma and the border between Thailand and Burma. There I saw with my own eyes the injustice with which we treat some parts of the world in political and media terms.

All too often, we are only moved by headline news. What we have seen in Burma, which is now no longer on the front pages, is a drama that is not so different from what has mobilised us in many other cases.

We have very clear examples of persecution, torture, illegal detention, rape and other atrocities committed by the Burmese military junta. One of the most shameful recent actions has been the adoption of a so-called constitution that violates the most basic democratic principles and guarantees almost complete impunity for all the acts I have just mentioned.

It is quite understandable that people flee from this situation, as the Karen population has been doing for several years and, as we are today reporting in the resolution, the Rohingya people has also done, being intercepted in Thailand.

In this respect, I noted during my visit that both Thailand and the international community have assumed a disturbing attitude of submission to the junta. For example, many lawyers associations, opposition parties, refugees and political prisoners have alerted us to the terrible consequences that would befall the Burmese people if the international community and, in particular, the European Union were to support and endorse the sham elections that have been called by the SPDC for 2010. They warn us that this would give carte blanche to the junta to continue committing a wide range of crimes with impunity.

The political and ethnic groups that oppose the junta are very well organised and have drawn up an alternative constitution that is much more in line with the principles that we say we defend in the European Union. Therefore, for us to abandon them to their fate would be a mistake and would make us accomplices, whether active or passive, to the Burmese dictatorship.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday I saw some images of Rohingya refugees from Burma. It is human suffering that characterises life on board these makeshift boats.

After a brief detention period, the Thai navy guided them out of their territorial waters and left them destitute. And yet, Thailand wants to show itself as being welcoming to refugees and asylum seekers. Moreover, as a direct neighbour of Burma's, Thailand is well aware of the inhumane living conditions created by the junta, which is driving many Burmese to emigrate, risking their lives during crossings that I would describe as death crossings.

We call on Thailand and the other ASEAN countries to search for a lasting solution for the refugees, and mainly for the Rohingya people, whom we are talking about today.

We should also like to call on Thailand to ratify the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.

Madam President, the problem of human rights violations in Burma has been discussed several times during the current term of office of the European Parliament.

Burma, a country known for its wonderful Buddhist temples which abound in gold, is also a prison for thousands of Burmese. They live in one of the biggest political regimes in the world, from which they try to escape - to the USA, Australia, Canada and to European countries and their neighbours. After adopting resolutions calling for the release of thousands of political prisoners, including many opposition leaders and with a Nobel Prize laureate foremost among them, and after protests from international organisations against the conscription of children in Burma, who are then forced to work and are denied proper care, today we are discussing the problem of human rights violations.

During their flight from this Burmese hell, thousands of people - members of the Muslim minority - have been captured in their boats in Thai territorial waters, towed into international waters and left without navigational equipment or food supplies, and some have been imprisoned.

The Muslim ethnic minority is also being persecuted by the ruling military regime in Burma. This includes incidents of denial of citizens' rights, imprisonment, limited access to education, barriers to marriage, restrictions on free movement, and the destruction of mosques, churches and other places of worship. Although we should appreciate the permission granted by the Thai authorities for the temporary stay of refugees there, and also the declaration of the Prime Minister of Thailand in which he has announced an investigation, recent events are nevertheless an obvious example of the violation of human rights by the Thais.

Of course we endorse the resolution which, however, does not alter the human tragedies in the region, where the background to the conflicts is not only the inhumane military regime and religious conflicts, but also the interests of various forces. It is therefore necessary to oppose more effectively both the military junta and the separatist tendencies of groups which persecute people who profess a different faith.

(PL) Madam President, in recent years, thousands of Burmese have left their country for fear of repression by the ruling military regime and because of the spreading hunger, seeking refuge in Thailand or in neighbouring countries of South-East Asia. This problem mainly concerns the Rohingya ethnic minority, who live in the western part of the country. They are systematically denied citizenship, their freedom of speech and freedom of movement are limited, and they are denied other basic human rights.

The problem of Burmese refugees has a regional dimension, and neighbouring countries, such as India, Bangladesh and Indonesia, must work more closely together to resolve the problem and to provide the refugees with suitable care and shelter. International agencies are reporting cases of the inhumane treatment of Burmese refugees and of their brutal deportation, which is synonymous with sentencing them to certain death. When the Thai Coastguard pushed out to open sea a boat with a thousand refugees but no food supplies on board, it was an inhumane act and led to the deaths of many of the refugees.

In addition, the actions of the Burmese military regime and the acts of violence against the Rohingya minority should be strongly condemned, and calls should be made for them to have full citizens' rights restored.

(LT) There are two sides to these tragic events on the Burma-Thailand border. It is regrettable that the Thai authorities have resorted to indefensible measures, all the more so because Thailand is known as a state which respects human rights and which takes in many refugees. The Prime Minister has stated that these events will be investigated and that those who behaved improperly towards the Burmese boat refugees will be punished. Let us hope that these pledges will be fulfilled. On the other hand, it is not the first time we have discussed the brazen and inadmissible conduct of the Burmese regime. I think that the European Union should take stricter measures and, certainly, we expect not just words but actions on the part of the larger states. China, in particular, must put pressure on Burma to respect the rights of the opposition and minorities there.

Madam President, today this House adopted a report on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. This must also be relevant to countries like Burma or Thailand. It is to the credit of representatives of the European Parliament that we are standing up today in defence of the rights of a Muslim minority in Burma.

The situation has become shocking and alarming, with Thai soldiers forcing these Burmese refugees out into the ocean in boats without engines; at least 500 are believed to have died. For Thailand, the survivors' accounts are damning, to say the least. Sending refugees back to danger is bad enough, but casting them adrift to die is much worse. Others have been left to work as slave labour in Thailand.

The Prime Minister, to his credit, has promised a full investigation, but we need to support him in acting independently of his army and following the international norms of human behaviour.

(PL) Madam President, in this Chamber, we have spoken many times of the situation in Burma. Therefore it surprises no one that the endangered Burmese people should make such drastic attempts at escape across the Andaman Sea.

Those who reach the coast of Thailand are often treated in an inhumane manner. They are sent out to sea with tied hands and in boats without engines. Forty-six members of the Rohingya minority have been taken prisoner by the Thailand Internal Security Operations Command after reaching the island of Phrathong. They do not have legal assistance, neither do they have contact with lawyers for refugee affairs. Immediate humanitarian aid and refuge is needed for Burmese refugees.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the European Commission, as a matter of priority, is following the situation in Myanmar and Thailand, including the recent incidents where refugees from Bangladesh and Myanmar were stranded in Thailand.

Thailand hosts approximately 140 000 refugees in nine camps along the border. More than one million Myanmar citizens constitute an important part of the workforce in Thailand in the agricultural sector, in textiles and in the tourism sector. The Rohingya boat people trapped in Thailand are part of the multi-faceted, forced or voluntary emigration from Myanmar. Moreover, Thailand has other refugee issues to settle as well, such as the Hmong people from Laos.

The complexity of these issues requires a comprehensive political, humanitarian, economic and social solution. The Commission is conducting an intensive debate with the international community and the Thai Government, in a search for possible solutions.

Recent political uncertainties in Thailand interrupted the dialogue with the Government on this issue, but that is temporary. Thus, the Commission expects that the EU's initiative vis-à-vis the Government will result in a constructive approach.

On 29 January 2009, the EU Troika, at ambassador level in Bangkok, expressed its concerns to the Thai authorities. It welcomed the Thai Government's intention to investigate the incidents fully, and to share its findings, and urged the Thai Government to treat boat people arriving in Thai waters according to international humanitarian and human rights standards.

The Commission welcomes the Government's intention to allow the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees access to the boat people.

The Commission encourages the Thai Government to seek regional cooperation, involving also the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as the Rohingya issue and the other displacement issues mentioned earlier need a comprehensive response.

In conclusion, a sustainable solution cannot be the result of short-term security considerations, but must take into account long-term humanitarian, political and socio-economic concerns.

Despite the fact that Thailand is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Royal Thai Government has, in the past, displayed a measure of humanitarian concern. The Commission will continue to remind the Thai authorities to strictly adhere to international human rights standards as a prerequisite for any solution.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debates.

3. Refusal of the extradition from Brazil of Cesare Battisti

The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Brazil's refusal to extradite Cesare Battisti.

author. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Antonio Santoro, prison officer, Lino Sabadin, butcher, Perluigi Torregiani, jeweller, and Andrea Campagna, state police officer: these are the names of four citizens who, together with many others, lost their lives between 6 June 1978 and 19 April 1979, killed by the insane homicide of terrorist organisations that attempted to overthrow the democratic order in Italy. And the name of one of the murderers is Cesare Battisti.

First of all, I would like to echo the regret expressed by President Napolitano of Italy at the decision made by Mr Lula, the Brazilian president, to grant political refugee status to the Italian terrorist Cesare Battisti, who was sentenced by the courts to life imprisonment for committing those four murders, during the 'Years of Lead'.

Let me remind you that Battisti was found guilty not only by the Italian judiciary, but also by the French judiciary and by the European Court of Human Rights. This is an inexplicable and extremely serious act, which cannot and must not go unnoticed by the European institutions. We have a duty to the relatives of Battisti's victims, but most importantly, we are also bound because the European Union has, for many years, determined an anti-terrorism strategy to guarantee citizens' safety and to safeguard democratic institutions. To stand by and watch would thus be to thwart the efforts made over the years to fight side by side against an ever-present threat.

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats also hopes that Brazil will reconsider and think hard about what is a very delicate, but utterly rightful and legitimate request. Brazil is a great democratic country and has always enjoyed an excellent relationship with Europe and with Italy, which is precisely why we have been taken by surprise by this door slammed in our face. Indeed, for the sake of the friendship and respect that joins our countries, for the sake of the friendship and cooperation and partnership agreements linking Brazil and the European Union, whether politically or economically, the response of all parties must be decisive and effective.

Europe must unite behind the action of the Italian Government, which is using every legitimate form of political and diplomatic pressure and legal recourse so that justice may be done. The decision taken by Brazil conflicts appallingly with the image of the European Union, since it appears to presume that political persecution and torture is practised within one of its Member States. In short, we are dealing with an unacceptable situation which, above all, has no grounding in reality.

Madam President, I think that Mr Mauro has described the facts very well. This man is a murderer: he has killed four people. He has also been found guilty by the Italian courts of other acts such as belonging to an armed group, possession of firearms - a serious crime in most European countries - and acts of violence.

This man has been found guilty by an Italian court. Yet we find that on 17 December, the Brazilian Government, a democratic government, has granted him political refugee status.

As Mr Mauro said, the European Union must express its solidarity with the Italian government and show Brazil, a friendly, democratic country, that a mistake has been made.

The Brazilian authorities inform us that the matter is still awaiting an appeal before the federal supreme court, but it is lamentable that the case has proceeded in this manner.

It must also be remembered that the European Court of Human Rights rejected Mr Battisti's request for protection and that the European Union now bases its action on the respect of fundamental human rights, which is an essential component of the European Constitution.

Therefore, taking into consideration the bonds of friendship between the European Union and Brazil, the Brazilian authorities should be reminded that the EU is a good ally and friend and that we hope, in return, that they will not act in this manner, as has been the case in the past.

author. - (SV) I wish that we had discussed the Philippines instead, where the EU could have made a real contribution to saving the lives of many people. We are now discussing an individual legal case that is currently being tried in court, in connection with which we have the gall to say that we will stand up for the principle of the rule of law. Where I come from, one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law is that a parliament does not interfere in individual court cases.

My group and I think that it is quite wrong to discuss an ongoing individual court case in a parliament. Unfortunately, this is not even the first or the last time, because we will soon be voting on the Medina report, which does the exact same thing. In an ongoing copyright case against Pirate Bay in a Swedish court, Parliament commented on the question of guilt while the case was still in progress. I really hope that this does not become a habit because, if it does, it would be us here in Europe who would be opposing and resisting our own principles of the rule of law and that would be extremely unfortunate. Thank you.

Sorry, I forgot to mention something important.

If we are not happy with how Brazil and Europe are handling extraditions and if we are not happy with how our laws are interpreted in national courts, we should change the laws so that they are the same for everyone. We should not barge in and try to influence an individual case. That is the job of the judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers, not of Parliament. We make the laws, and the principles of the rule of law dictate that it is the courts which subsequently interpret them.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is truly disgraceful that an MEP should take the floor in this House without having even read the text of a resolution written and signed by all the major groups, and so say things that are not true: the proceedings have been closed for many years.

Allow me to examine our problem. The ravings of a terrorist and multiple murderer, condemned many times, cannot be defended by the government of a friendly country with whom we collaborate. We want to highlight the need, already expressed in a letter to the President-in-Office of the Union, for a debate in the Council that, starting with this incredible situation and taking account of new, internationalised terrorism, will tackle and decide on a shared rule on extradition, whether within the 27 countries of the Union or between the Union and third countries.

Nobody can allow someone who has killed unarmed people and has used every possible means to evade justice and the victims' relatives to assume the attitude of a victim of persecution and to create dangerous precedents to the detriment of the law and society.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, those who are found guilty by our courts of law must face the consequences and not be given refuge by any country in the world.

Cesare Battisti is a convicted murderer in Italy, and the stance taken by the Brazilian authorities to protect him from the reach of EU justice is not only unacceptable but also condemnable and deplorable in the strongest possible terms and we, and any other authority and any other body in the EU, have every right to say so. I hope that the Brazilian Government will come to its senses and, in re-examining this case, will do what is expected of it and extradite Mr Battisti to Italy as soon as possible and before this affair begins to have serious consequences for the otherwise good EU-Brazil relations. Brazil must not become a safe haven for convicted criminals and the EU must never allow murderers to escape punishment.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with this joint motion for a resolution, this Parliament will make its authoritative voice heard, at international level, for reconsideration of the extradition of Cesare Battisti and, above all, it will pay tribute to the memory of the victims and show its solidarity with their families who, for more than 20 years, have been waiting for their fundamental right to justice, denied for so long, to at last be fulfilled. There is no need to say more, and so, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to dedicate the few remaining seconds of my speaking time to observe a moment's silence in remembrance.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Mrs Angelilli, for that important gesture, which illustrates how different the attitude of this House is to that of the European Union, which, like Pontius Pilate, is hypocritically washing its hands of the affair, while in fact there are two countries involved in this case: Italy, which has paid an extraordinarily high price for terrorism with its victims and very difficult years, and France, which is involved up to its neck thanks to the woeful interest of the infamous left-wing 'caviar' lobby, which already distinguished itself in the Petrella case and probably also in the role of the secret services.

In this way, Europe is undermining its anti-terrorism directives and losing all authority in the global strategy for combating terrorism. I wonder whether the same thing would have happened if it had been perhaps a German terrorist from the Red Army Faction? Europe is, however, saying to Brazil that to fail to extradite a common criminal and communist like Battisti, who today even in prison dares to mock his victims, would be to downgrade itself to a country of refuge for the worst criminals and terrorists.

Such behaviour would call into question all partnership agreements and, I believe, participation in the G8. We must emphasise quite clearly: it is not acceptable to make agreements with terrorists. Terrorists, sentenced under lawful proceedings - because our country has a great legal system, where no one is tortured and proceedings are legitimate - must then serve their sentence to the very last day. Terrorists, murderers and communists!

(DE) Madam President, I asked to speak because I was Chairman of the German-Brazilian Parliamentarian Group in the lower house of the German Parliament for 10 years and I know Brazil very well. I am indeed surprised at the refusal of the Lula administration to extradite this convicted murderer to a European Member State. I hope that the proceedings in Brazil will be concluded very quickly.

The Lula administration has made a particular commitment to human rights. One aspect of human rights is that convicted murderers be brought to justice, and so I hope that this motion for a resolution receives strong support. I personally shall make use of my contacts with Brazilian parliamentarians to see to it that pressure is put on the government at domestic level, too, to grant this extradition request.

(PL) Madam President, after the end of the Second World War in Europe, many Nazi criminals fled to South America to escape from justice. Attempts to bring them back and to bring them to court have been extremely difficult. This led to such desperate steps as the actions of Israeli operatives who simply kidnapped Eichmann from South America so that he could be brought to court.

It is evident that the tradition of escapes to South America is not dying out, neither is the conviction that refuge can be found there and that it will be possible to live out one's days peacefully and with impunity despite the crimes which have been committed. Actions of this kind, like those of the Brazilian Government, maintain such a conviction and may, unfortunately, cause the feeling of impunity to spread greatly. Therefore, it is extremely important that this motion for extradition be adopted.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission is aware of the Brazilian Justice Minister's recent decision to grant political asylum to an Italian citizen, Cesare Battisti, condemned in absentia to a life sentence by the Italian judiciary.

We have carefully considered the Commission's role in this situation, especially after Italy's European Affairs Minister, Andrea Ronchi, called on Vice-President Barrot last week for the EU to support Italy's extradition request to the Brazilian Government.

As was also explained to the Italian Government, there is no scope for an involvement of the Commission in this case. The EU Treaty is very clear on this matter: the European Union's and Commission's legal powers in the field of cooperation in criminal matters are restricted to the legal space of the EU-27. The European Union can facilitate extradition between Member States, but has no competences regarding Member States' relations with third countries on criminal cooperation matters. Italy's bilateral relations with Brazil on this matter are governed by a bilateral agreement signed in 1989.

The debate is closed.

We shall now proceed to the vote.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate) 

1. Situation in Sri Lanka (vote) 

Before the vote on paragraph 2:

I am here at this meeting but, as a result of an agreement made by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I will not participate in the vote. However, I am here.

author. - Madam President, I am asking for a last-minute change to the wording of the oral amendment - if the House will allow - because we have now managed to establish what the confusion was in the joint resolution.

The wording originally said 'non-fire period', and that did not make any sense to us, so we changed it to 'cease-fire'. It now transpires that the official text from the Declaration of the Co-Chairs, which includes the European Union, uses the wording - which is strange, but nevertheless they use it in writing - 'no-fire' period. So, could we change the 'non-fire' to 'no-fire' rather than the word 'cease-fire', as this would reflect the official text of the Co-Chairs?

Madam President, I think there is something else further down the line and I think Mr Tannock should tell us about that as well before we vote. There is another small change.

author. - Madam President, including the word 'humanitarian' aid, which is just to make it clear what kind of aid we are talking about.

But the important thing is to declare a 'no-fire period', which is the wording in the Co-Chairs' declaration.

author. - (ES) Yes, there is something, but I do not know if this is a misunderstanding or not. In theory, the version that we have from the oral amendment is that the text should read 'cease-fire', not 'non-fire'. Is this right or have I misunderstood?

The text should read 'cease-fire'.

author. - Madam President, I have just realised that, owing to the order in which the amendments have been printed on the voting list, I was actually reading out the oral amendment to recital K. I apologise for the confusion, but in fact we are now amending paragraph 2. That may explain why there was some confusion. Could we switch the voting list around? I do apologise, but I have things down in the wrong order on my list. I was actually reading out the change I wanted to make to recital K, rather than to paragraph 2, so that is the one we will be voting on next. I do apologise for the confusion.

The amendment to paragraph 2, which should have been the one we took last time, is: 'Believes that a military victory over the LTTE, as envisaged by the Government of Sri Lanka, will not obviate the need to find a political solution in order to ensure a lasting peace'. That is as it is on the voting list.

Madam President, in order to be correct, I think we have to vote on recital K now.

author. - Madam President, I will now repeat it correctly for the sake of Mr Romeva i Rueda.

Recital K, as amended orally, should read now: 'whereas the Tokyo Co-Chairs have called jointly on the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE to declare a no-fire period to allow for evacuation of the sick and wounded and provision of humanitarian aid to civilians,'.

2. Situation of Burmese refugees in Thailand (vote) 

Before the vote on paragraph 2:

author. - Madam President, I notice once again that the officials have not actually written the oral amendments in the same order as they are actually voted on, so I will be very careful to pick the right order myself this time. For paragraph 2, we want to add the words at the end of the paragraph, 'as well as deliberate impoverishment, arbitrary taxation and land confiscation'.

author. - Madam President, amended orally as follows for paragraph 5: 'Welcomes the Thai Government's cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and calls for immediate and full access to all the detained Rohingya boat people in order to define their protection needs; calls, at the same time, on the Government of Thailand to sign the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto;'.

author. - Madam President, I will read out the entire text for paragraph 6 as amended orally: 'Stresses that the boat people issue which affects Thailand and other countries is essentially a regional one; views positively the efforts of the Thai Government to increase cooperation among regional neighbours to address the Rohingya issue; welcomes in this respect the meeting held on 23 January by the Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Kasit Piromya, with the Ambassadors of India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Burma; and appeals to the members of ASEAN and, in particular, the Thai chair and relevant international organisations, to work on a permanent solution to this long-standing problem;'.

author. - Madam President, recital E should read as follows: 'whereas the United Nations refugee agency has voiced its concern about the reports of mistreatment of the Burmese refugees and gained access to some of the 126 Rohingya still kept in custody by the Thai authorities'.

3. Brazil's refusal to extradite Cesare Battisti (vote) 

Voting time

The next item is the vote.

(For outcome of the vote and other information on the vote: see Minutes)

- Before the vote:

(FR) Madam President, you are going to think me bad-tempered, but I feel that such important reports, such important resolutions voted on by so few Members - and it is not those who are here, of course, who are to blame - frankly, I find the situation hopeless and, really, I do question our credibility.

Therefore, personally speaking, I will not be able to accept there being so few of us for much longer, and, at some point, the question will have to be asked as to whether there should be a quorum. I am well aware that there have to be 40 Members before a quorum may be requested. Since there are just over 40 of us, this is difficult, but I still think that something will have to be done.

(Applause)

As fewer than 40 members have raised the matter, we shall proceed to the vote.

Madam President, this has happened for the last five years. It is not just today that it has happened. It is a little bit too late to note it today.

(CS) I would just like to emphasise that this problem applies to socialists and possibly to some other groupings as well, but not to the European People's Party, which is aware of its responsibilities regarding this important topic and it is present here in significantly larger numbers than others.

(FR) Madam President, you are absolutely right. The quorum procedure may be applied only at the request of 40 Members, or by the president of the sitting. Therefore, if you so wish, if you believe, as Mrs Roure said, that this debate is too important to be closed now, you yourself can now call for a quorum and have this vote dropped, if you think it worthwhile.

author. - (IT) Madam President, I thank Mr Onesta but I think yet another attempt to save in extremis a terrorist who has been condemned many times over has been lost.

(DE) Madam President, I just want to say that it is on Thursday afternoons that the most important issues are discussed and that, therefore, on account of their urgency, these important issues must indeed be dealt with on Thursday afternoons. The only ones to blame are those who are absent on Thursdays. They are shirkers, and should give some thought to whether they wish to run for the European Parliament once again.

The matter has a broader political dimension. A great many people are to blame: the political groups and each member. I cannot go against procedure, Mr Onesta. The rule says that I can reply to a request by 40 members, which does not apply at the present moment in time.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

Written declarations included in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes

Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes

Adjournment of the session

(The sitting was closed at 4.35 p.m.)

Resumption of the session

I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 5 February 2009.

Statements by the President

Ladies and gentlemen, two weeks ago, a Polish engineer, Piotr Stańczak, who has been held as a hostage by terrorists in Pakistan since last September, was murdered by his captors. On behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to express my outrage at this abhorrent murder of an innocent man who was a Polish citizen and a citizen of the European Union. The European Parliament denounces this criminal act in the strongest possible terms. We would like to offer the family of the deceased and all his relatives our heartfelt sympathy and condolences.

Terrorism is a direct attack on freedom, human rights and democracy. Terrorism is an attempt to attain one's ends through blind violence and to destroy our common values. It poses a great danger to the security and stability of the international community. Terrorism is a crime, and one which we cannot go soft on.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the mother tongue of this murdered engineer, I would like to say, Niech spoczywa w wiecznym pokoju [May he rest in eternal peace].

In memory of Piotr Stańczak, can I ask you all now to rise to commemorate him.

(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)

Ladies and gentlemen, the forest fires in Australia have led to a tragic loss of life over recent days. These, the worst bushfires in Australia's history, have claimed many lives in horrible circumstances. We were all horrified by the violent power of this natural disaster and its horrendous consequences. I have written to the Australian Prime Minister to convey the sincere sympathy of the European Parliament. On behalf of the European Parliament at today's plenary session, I would like, once again, to express our solidarity with Australia, its people and its authorities in these sad times.

Next week, a delegation from this Parliament will travel to Australia in order to convey our condolences personally. I would like to take this opportunity, however, to express our heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives. Our thoughts are with you.

Ladies and gentlemen, worrying news is again emerging from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Seven leading figures in the Bahá'í religious community were taken into custody in May 2008. For eight months, they were denied the opportunity of legal counsel. Now, these seven dignitaries of the Bahá'í religious community are to be subjected to a trial this week that meets not even the most basic requirements of the rule of law. The Nobel prize-winner and Iranian lawyer Shirin Ebadi, who was prepared to handle the defence of the imprisoned leaders, has herself been on the receiving end of death threats.

The European Parliament calls on the Iranian authorities once again, and in the most urgent terms, to respect human rights and the rights of religious minorities and to reconsider its indictment against the seven leaders of the Bahá'í - Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rasaie, Mahvash Sabet, Behrouz Tavakkoli and Vahid Tizfahm. These people were incarcerated solely as a result of their beliefs and should be released immediately.

(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, last Friday, 13 February 2009, the Spanish Member of this House, Mr Herrero, was arrested by the Venezuelan Government in the capital, Caracas, and subsequently expelled from the country, as a result of comments he had made to the media about the Venezuelan Government. Mr Herrero was in the country as part of the official delegation of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, who had been invited by an opposition party in the context of the constitutional referendum. To arrest him, the police forced their way into his hotel room and they then put him on a scheduled flight to Brazil, without an official explanation or any opportunity to collect his personal belongings. We find this unacceptable!

On behalf of the European Parliament, I protest to the strongest possible degree about these methods. I emphatically condemn this incident, which represents an infringement of human rights and a denigration of the democratic institution that is the European Parliament.

(Applause)

Mr President, I rise as Chair of Parliament's Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand to strongly identify myself with the statement you have just made and to thank you for it. I look forward to delivering that message next week in Australia.

Thank you very much, Mr Chichester.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Follow-up to a request for the defence of immunity: see Minutes

Verification of credentials: see Minutes

Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure: see Minutes

Corrigendum (Rule 204a): see Minutes

Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

Documents received: see Minutes

Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes

Order of business

The final draft of the agenda for this sitting, as agreed by the Conference of Presidents meeting on Thursday, 5 February 2009, in accordance with Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been circulated. The following amendments have been proposed:

Wednesday:

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has requested that Mr Reul's report on possible solutions to the challenges in relation to oil supply be deferred to the next part-session.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we debated this motion long and hard in the committee, and we reached a decision backed by a large majority, but yesterday and today, there has been an abundance of advice and suggestions that have come about primarily because other committees have added extra subjects for discussion.

It seems to me that it would be a good idea not to make the decision today but, instead, to have the opportunity at a later date to find a solution which Parliament is then in a position to support. I therefore ask that you adopt this deferral today. Thank you.

Mr President, we have tabled two motions, neither of which, most probably, will achieve a broad majority in this House. I therefore wish to endorse this motion.

Mr President, with your permission, we will also move to defer Mr Berman's report. If this motion is not accepted due to the lateness of its timing, I would like to say, now, that we will move tomorrow to postpone the vote on the report. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Swoboda.

Does anyone wish to oppose the motion?

Mr President, my group, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, has tabled a resolution which has the support of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and large parts of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. I therefore think that Mr Reul is calling for a deferral out of fear that his position is a minority one.

I find it a little strange that we should have such a long and hard debate and then hear calls for another delay. We are thus against deferral.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard the political contexts. You have also heard what Mr Swoboda had to say. The decision will be taken tomorrow.

(Parliament adopts the motion from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats).

We will vote on Mr Swoboda's motion tomorrow. I would ask you all to remember that in today's vote.

(The order of business was adopted thus amended)

Role of the European Union in the Middle East (debate) 

The next item is the statements from the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and from the Commission on the role of the European Union in the Middle East. It is my pleasure to welcome into our midst the High Representative, Mr Solana, and to ask him to address us.

High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. - Mr President, this is the first time that I have appeared before you this year, 2009. It is a great pleasure to be here and I hope that the good cooperation we have had in the past will continue this year.

The war in Gaza ended a month ago, on 18 January, and I think you would agree with me that it feels like yesterday. The scale of the suffering and destruction was immense and it has left us all with a bitter taste in our mouths. The humanitarian situation today remains heart-breaking. We need to find urgent solutions to get aid in and to reduce the level of suffering of the people.

At the same time, we need to do all we can to end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and between Israel and the Arab world. In fact, the parameters of the solution are well known, and have been known for some time. What matters now is the political will to implement it among Israelis and Palestinians, among Arabs and the wider international community.

The European vocation for peace in the Middle East remains as strong as ever. Our commitment to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state, living side by side with Israel, is total. It is at the heart of our Middle East policy. All our actions have this strategic objective in mind. We will give our firm backing to all who want a peaceful solution to the many challenges across the Middle East region.

This House - Parliament - knows just how difficult and how intractable the situation may seem. Too often, the region has been plagued by cycles of violence, rising extremism and economic hardship. At the same time, the conditions for Europeans and Americans to work together in the search for peace in the Middle East are probably better than ever. I have just returned from Washington where I had good discussions with everybody there in the Obama administration. I think I have the assurance from them that the strong commitment that has been expressed is a reality. We are willing and ready to work with them towards achieving success in this conflict.

I think the appointment of Senator Mitchell as US envoy has given the people in the Middle East and his friends renewed hope. We know him. We have worked with him. I had the privilege of working with him in 2001 on the famous report and just recently, I have had the opportunity to work with him in the region.

I hope very much that these changes will lead to a new approach, one that provides the parties with a greater say in how they manage their affairs. We know that solutions and proposals should be locally inspired. However, at the same time, deeper international engagement remains essential.

This is why the Arab Peace Initiative is so crucial. This initiative is the collective expression of the Arab world on how they could help to end their conflict with Israel. It is their response to the issue that has held back their development and their integration into our global world. It remains, and should remain, on the table.

We have just had important elections in Israel. Of course, it is for the Israeli people, their political leaders, to decide on the composition of their new government. From our side, we hope that the new prime minister and government will be solid interlocutors for peace talks.

Needless to say, the same applies to the Palestinians. They, too, have to get their house in order, including through reconciliation. As everybody knows, we strongly encourage intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind President Abbas and all the efforts by Egypt and the Arab League in that direction. This will be a key to peace, stability and development.

As I said, I know that this Parliament has been deeply preoccupied with the crisis in Gaza, and so have we all. Let me use this occasion to highlight some of the most important international efforts, which focused on trying to end the violence and easing the plight of all civilian populations.

Egypt's role in resolving the situation in Gaza, and indeed with the Palestinians themselves, remains crucial. We hope their efforts will soon lead to a durable and sustainable ceasefire, to the opening of the crossings for all goods and persons, and some sort of intra-Palestinian agreement. Without this, it will be difficult - not to say impossible - to rebuild Gaza.

We are looking forward to welcoming positive announcements on the ceasefire. The day before yesterday, there were good meetings, and let us hope that they will continue today and in the future so that a ceasefire may be called, without delay. As you know, Egypt will also host an important conference on reconstruction on 2 March and we expect all the international community to make a commitment there. The European Union, too, played its role. We immediately expressed our willingness to contribute in concrete ways to a durable ceasefire. We also stated our readiness to re-dispatch our monitors to the Rafah crossing point, in accordance with the agreement that we signed in 2005. We are ready to operate at Rafah, or at any other crossing points where help is needed or requested.

Several European countries also expressed their readiness to help the interdiction of illegal trafficking, in particular, arms smuggling, into Gaza. The activities of the European Parliament in response to the crisis have been significant and are part and parcel of the European Union's overall reaction to the crisis.

As far as the United Nations is concerned, we can warmly commend UNRWA for its work and perseverance and underline that the European Union will continue to support all its efforts.

But it is clear that no single country or organisation can tackle the conflicts in the Middle East alone. The very nature of the difficulties demands multilateral solutions. The Quartet will have a crucial role to play in the months ahead. The new US Administration, in cooperation with us, has confirmed its intention to make full use of the Quartet.

The terrible events in Gaza should also force us to take a more strategic and long-term look at Gaza. The Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967 and, without any doubt, will be part of a Palestinian state. Gaza needs to become economically and politically viable. Gaza needs to become part of a political solution.

The immediate priority remains to secure a durable and fully respected ceasefire and to allow for the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. We need to see the opening of the crossings for humanitarian assistance, for commercial goods and for people, on a regular and predictable basis.

As you know, the diplomatic fall-out of the Gaza conflict in the wider region has been very significant: indirect talks between Syria and Israel have been suspended; Mauritania and Qatar have suspended ties with Israel; a withdrawal of the Arab Peace Initiative was threatened.

Arab divisions, as you know, have deepened. Without Arab unity it will be very difficult to make progress in Gaza and in the wider Middle East peace process. Peace in the Middle East requires a united Arab world. The upcoming Arab League summit will be crucial to restore Arab unity, in particular, behind the Arab Peace Initiative.

In the coming months, we will also have elections in Iran and in Lebanon. On 12 June, the Iranians will vote for a new President. We have repeatedly stated our deep respect for Iran and our desire to forge a completely different kind of relationship with this country. This is clearly in everyone's interests, but to achieve that, we need trust and that trust must be restored.

Let me conclude by saying that 2009 will be critical for the Middle East. We are possibly at a threshold. We can choose to pursue the same policies in the same manner, knowing that they will lead to the same results - the results that we know today. On the other hand, we can try to work with energy, with determination, to adjust our policies, to adjust the way we set about achieving results.

We have to work on both crisis management and conflict resolution - there is no doubt about that. However, the time has come to focus decisively on conflict resolution. It is the only way to end this endless sequence of death and destruction.

(Applause)

Thank you very much, High Representative. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that, this coming Sunday, I will be leading a delegation, in my capacity as President of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, to Gaza, Ramallah, Sderot und Jerusalem for two and a half days. Amongst other things, talks are to be held with President Peres and Prime Minister Olmert in Jerusalem and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Fayyad in Ramallah. In Gaza, preparations will be made for the United Nations visit, which will then be carried out.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, we are at a moment of transition in the Middle East. Soon, most probably, there will be a new Israeli Government. There is already a new US administration, currently defining its foreign policy priorities. And we may soon face transition in the occupied Palestinian territory. So changing dynamics can create opportunities for new engagement.

However, there is no denying that the recent conflict resulted in enormous human suffering and destruction. It has left the Middle East peace process - we have to confess - in a particularly fragile state. This House knows that only too well, and I refer to the discussions and debates that we have already had here.

This is clearly not where we wanted to be at the beginning of 2009. But if there is, some day, to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the only way forward is to do all we can to get the talks back on track. This human tragedy in Gaza has had a huge impact on the region. I returned only last night from a trip to Syria and Lebanon, and I will certainly also say something about that but, in particular, let me say that what we need to do is to make clear to all Israeli leaders that the EU expects sustained commitment to the peace process and to the two-state solution.

We also need to reinforce the message to the Palestinians that a strong Palestinian Authority with effective leadership over the entire occupied Palestinian territory is essential both for the reunification of the West Bank and Gaza and to get the peace process back on track. That is why the European Union is supporting the efforts of Egypt, Turkey and others to achieve this.

With the new US administration, we need to agree a joint way forward. I spoke on the phone to Secretary Clinton to that end only last week. She agreed on the need for a lasting ceasefire and a return to the peace process, which is absolutely crucial. We also agreed that the Quartet should consult closely on these matters before the end of the month. I am glad that the American administration sees the Quartet as a very important institution for going forward on peace.

Finally, we need to step up our own engagement with the Arab League countries. The consensus for peace is weakening, not only in Israel and within the occupied Palestinian territory, but also within the Arab League, where worrying divisions are appearing.

To that end, as I just said, I have just returned from Syria and Lebanon, where I met President Assad in Syria, President Sleiman in Lebanon, and other key partners. The recent conflict has badly damaged negotiations not only on the Palestinian, but also on the Syrian, track. We therefore exchanged views on the peace process at length. I reiterated the very strong support of the European Union for the Arab peace initiative, and I urged partners to maintain their commitment to it, because it offers a serious framework for regional peace talks.

I also stressed the milestone decision taken by Syria and Lebanon to establish diplomatic relations, and pushed for completion of all steps in this process. In both countries, we discussed practical ways in which the European Union could support the process of reform. In Lebanon, I reiterated our readiness in principle to deploy an EU election observation mission, and I have already decided that an exploratory mission should go there immediately.

The European Union as a whole has been extremely active in recent weeks both on the political and practical fronts. On the political front, since I last reported to you in January, we have all pursued our intensive diplomatic activity. We have been at the forefront of calls for a ceasefire and have worked with Egypt and others to make a lasting ceasefire possible.

The Council conclusions in January indicated that the EU is developing a 'work plan' for a lasting ceasefire. This document identifies six areas for action including humanitarian response, the prevention of smuggling to Gaza, the re-opening of the Gaza crossing points, reconstruction, intra-Palestinian reconciliation and the resumption of the peace process.

Much very delicate work is going on. To give but a flavour of the pace of activity we have all been involved in: for instance, I was at a working dinner of the Paris Co-Chairs on 15 January, the Summit meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem on 18 January, and EU ministerial meetings with Israel on 21 January and with a group composed of Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Turkey on 25 January. In addition, Commissioner Louis Michel, who is responsible for humanitarian aid, visited Gaza on 24 and 25 January.

We are in regular contact with Quartet colleagues. We had important meetings as a troika in Moscow. I had this telephone conversation with Clinton; Javier Solana was there in Washington, and we are agreed on the need to renew the peace process. We continue our road map monitoring work, and we also deploy state-building assistance, including in sensitive areas such as the rule of law and border management.

The EU's action strategy for the Middle East also foresees EU support for specific final status issues, for instance, for Jerusalem, refugees and security arrangements.

In practical terms, the EU has prioritised delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza. The Commission has already mobilised EUR 10 million practically overnight, and another EUR 32 million has now been committed for the coming period.

In early March, the Egyptian Government is organising an international conference in Sharm el-Sheikh in support of the Palestinian economy for the reconstruction of Gaza. We, as the Commission, will be a co-sponsor of this event. I am delighted that I had the opportunity to discuss the pledge that the Commission intends to make with the Chairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets at an early stage here in Parliament on 2 February. Thank you again for your support.

The problem at the moment is not only funding, but access, particularly to Gaza. We have been very vocal, both in public and in private, about the unacceptable closure of the Gaza crossings. This House will wish to join me today in calling, once again, for the crossings to be fully opened.

(Applause)

When access does improve - as I have no doubt it will - we may then have to review our financial forecast. At that point, I may need to come back to discuss this with you. I hope I will again be able to count on your support.

Honourable Members, you can count on the commitment of the Commission - and also on my personal commitment - to do everything in our power to help bring peace as swiftly as possible to one of the most troubled parts of the world. We will certainly continue to work very closely with this House.

(Applause)

Mr President, Mr Vondra, Mr Solana, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, ladies and gentlemen, the situation in Gaza is getting a little worse each day. The population is suffering enormously. There is a shortage of everything.

The embargo imposed on Gaza means each delivery of humanitarian aid has to get through an obstacle course. Even when it is delivered, the humanitarian aid is insufficient to meet the needs on the ground. The hospitals can no longer operate properly. The population can no longer be looked after. What is happening today in Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe on a major scale.

The European Union is already playing a major role in the region. The financial support it has given and continues to give to the Palestinians is considerable. It has done a lot upstream to prevent the humanitarian disaster we are witnessing today. Despite the obstacles, it continues to give humanitarian aid and assistance to the population of the Gaza Strip. Just today, the European Union has granted EUR 41 million in aid to the United Nations Agency for Palestine Refugees. This, then, is not the moment for us to start to keep our mouths shut.

For me, the European message must be clear. We cannot tolerate humanitarian aid being taken hostage in this conflict. It is essential that this aid be able to move freely, without restriction, and that the checkpoints be opened.

Moreover, we issue a warning to Hamas. Last month's incidents, when Hamas confiscated, and failed to return, the humanitarian aid distributed by the United Nations Agency in the region are scandalous, intolerable and must not be repeated. All the players involved must anticipate the reconstruction phase and actively prepare it by assessing the damage on the ground and by preparing a plan for the financial, economic and social rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. This rehabilitation is essential for the region's stability. That is the objective of the donor conference that meets in Sharm el-Sheikh on 2 March.

Let us, however, be clear. No reconstruction - yet another one - can take place before a lasting ceasefire has been called. A ceasefire and the cessation of military operations, on the part of Israel too, are absolute prerequisites for the reestablishment of peace in the region. It also begins, with reference to Hamas - and I say this with the utmost firmness - with putting a definitive end to the firing of rockets into Israel from Gaza.

All measures must also be taken to fight against the entry of arms and munitions through the tunnels linking Gaza with Egypt. Restoring dialogue between all sectors of Palestinian society and restarting the current negotiation process are essential. Egypt, which has a particular responsibility due to its location on the border with Gaza, must take an active part in this negotiation process. All our future diplomatic efforts must take this particular role of Egypt into consideration.

We can only hope to find a solution to the conflict by keeping the diplomatic route open. I call on all the parties involved, including the Quartet, the Arab League and the diplomats of the Member States, to continue to engage in the negotiations with firmness and determination.

Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the message from our debate can only be one thing: there is no violent solution in the Middle East. There is no military solution. There is no solution through terrorism.

It may be the case that one party gains a short-term military advantage. It may be the case that a terrorist act causes a great deal of chaos. Yet experience shows that every act of violence generates more violence and pushes the cycle of violence further. What is crucial, therefore, is dialogue, and that is something that is extremely difficult in the Middle East, especially in a time of uncertainty and, to some extent, of asynchronicity.

Yet there is also hope emanating from the United States. President Obama, Hillary Clinton and their team offer a consensus and dialogue-oriented model, something completely different from the previous administration which has now, thankfully, left office. So there is hope in Washington. What about Jerusalem, though? What Benjamin Netanyahu had to say during the election campaign certainly did pose a threat to the peace process, while Avigor Liebermann is also certainly a threat to the peace process in the Middle East. This asynchronicity poses a risk.

What is going on in Lebanon? What influence will Hezbollah have in future? To what extent is it prepared to engage in constructive dialogue, before and after the election in Lebanon? What about the Western-oriented majority? Would that majority be able to react to an election victory by integrating Hezbollah? Is Hezbollah prepared to allow itself to be integrated? This depends, to a crucial degree, on who governs in Tehran. The issue of the election outcome in Iran is of central importance. This is also true for the attitude of Hamas.

The question of whether we have a radical president who denies Israel's right to exist - as the current incumbent does - or whether there is to be a government that is prepared to talk and this readiness to talk stretches from Tehran to Beirut and on to Rafah is a crucial issue for the stabilisation of the whole region. We are in favour of a unity government for the Palestinians. Without a unity government for the Palestinians, the peace process is unmanageable. It is therefore now up to Hamas to show that it is willing and able to join such a government.

The basic precondition for this, however, is to be talking with Hamas, that those amongst the Palestinian people who want to talk with Hamas be supported and that they not be forced onto the defensive by a government in Jerusalem that knows only the politics of continuing the settlements. As a side point, if it is true that 163 hectares have now been re-released for settlement, this is a destabilising element and this is something that we need to be absolutely forthright in making clear to our friends in Israel.

In the Middle East, everything is interconnected. It is not possible to simply pick out individual elements and believe it possible to solve an individual problem by military means. That is why the basis for everything is the readiness to talk. The Arab League's plan, Saudi Arabia's peace plan, envisages an end to violence with simultaneous recognition of Israel's right to exist. This is a bold and ambitious plan, and it is one that needs to be discussed. It is progress in itself that there are people in the Arab League, in the Arab camp, who are prepared to have that debate. That is something that must be supported. Bombers are not the way to support this, and I might add that the way to support the work of the European Union is likewise not for what we build to be destroyed again for whatever military reasons. For this reason, our message can only be that dialogue is the precondition.

High Representative Solana, you said that this is your first time before us this year. This is perhaps also your last visit before our elections in June. As dialogue is very much a sine qua non for success, I would like to say to you, on behalf of my group, that you represent the personification of dialogue. Your work deserves more than respect. It deserves a great degree of admiration, above all, for your continuous advocacy of dialogue. For that, you have our sincere appreciation.

(Applause)

Thank you very much, Mr Schulz. We do, of course, hope - and this is something we can all agree on - that Mr Solana will come before us a few more times before the end of this parliamentary term.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it is with heavy hearts that we debate once again what our Union can do to ease the pain in the Middle East.

Looking at the recent conflict in Gaza, all the old familiar phrases apply: blame on both sides; provocation by Hamas; disproportionate response by Israel. But in the face of the recurring violence, we have recycled those tired phrases so often that they have lost whatever impact they once had. We cannot go on like this. Of course, it is our moral duty to assist in the reconstruction of Gaza. Of course, it makes sense to seek safeguards from Israel. It is bad enough to see the airport, schools and sewerage systems blown up; it is worse to rebuild them with European money knowing that they will likely be destroyed once again.

Is it possible, is it credible, to imagine that Israel can assure us that this will not happen? In any event, reconstruction and humanitarian aid from the European Union will not prevent future conflict. We need a new and positive approach, jointly with the United States, if possible, but without them if not.

Last month's violence and the outcome of this month's election have changed the terms of the debate. Hamas is stronger politically, it is intact militarily, it is holding out against recognising Israel, and the expected coalition in Israel will be more hard-line than ever and broadly resistant to seeing a separate Palestinian state. Meanwhile, the gulf between the West Bank and Gaza grows ever wider, with the threat of a permanent division.

The Council and the Commission have not really said what their response will be to this turn of events, and the Czech Presidency appears to want the matter off the agenda, but we can afford to wait no longer. With the situation in flux and neither Hamas nor the Israelis talking to one another, we must set achievable terms on which we can talk to both. Isolation has led only to despair.

The time has come for diplomacy, delicate but determined. In which forum? In the Quartet, Mr Solana? Well, perhaps, but let us first acknowledge that the policy failures, the dashed hopes and the creeping extremism of the past seven years have taken place under the Quartet's watch. Its envoy, Tony Blair, has never even been to Gaza. If he went there, he could visit the site of the industrial area, which is one of his pet projects, designed to generate jobs, but levelled last month.

(Applause)

The Quartet has to open its mind to a new approach and, if our partners within it cannot take that step, then we should explore ways in which it might.

Lastly, we can only prepare for the future if we acknowledge honestly what has happened in the past. There should be a free and fair international investigation into alleged war crimes in the Gaza conflict. The UNRWA and our own parliamentary committee have both reported alarming evidence of war crimes, and the allegations are serious indeed. If Israel is wrongly accused, its name should be cleared, but if it has committed those crimes, it must face up to its responsibilities. Our aim must be to forge an agreement for a peaceful and prosperous future on both sides of the divide, where enemies can once again become partners. However, the failure of our approach to date is written in spilled blood on the ground. Mr Solana, we must pioneer a new path to peace, and the European Union, if necessary, must take the lead.

(Applause)

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (GA) Mr President, High Representative and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, I warmly welcome today's settlement to provide humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. This is a step in the right direction for the European Parliament.

The current humanitarian situation in Gaza is bad and the European Union has a responsibility to help.

Many words have been spoken with regard to the need for peace, dialogue, understanding, temperance - if one would wish to use that word - with regard to the reactions and the counter-reactions to different events. But three things jump out at us immediately when we speak about the Middle East.

Firstly, it is not a negotiation of equals. There is strength on one side, weakness and division on the other side. Secondly, it is not an equal participation of outside influences and outside media coverage. One side gets more positive protection from international media and countries; the other side suffers under the derogatory terms of 'terrorism' or 'reactionary'.

Thirdly, and most importantly of all, despite all the political disagreements, geographical disagreements and historical disputes, it is the same people who continue to suffer day after day after day: women, children, innocent civilians, people who have no truck with political groups, political organisations or with paramilitary groups or terrorist organisations. These are the poor innocents caught in the middle of the rocket fire, of the bombing and the so-called - and I laugh when I hear these words being used - 'targeted intelligent bombing'. There is no such thing as an 'intelligent' or 'safe' bomb. When it lands, it blows up - it kills people.

We have ample evidence to show that not only the Hamas rockets going into Israel killed innocent people but that, a hundred times more, the bombs and the bullets from the Israeli forces have killed thousands and injured thousands of people within Gaza and within the Occupied Territories. Indeed, we have evidence from an Irishman, John King, who works for UNRWA in Gaza, to show that, when they informed the Israeli authorities that their bombs were landing close to a UN compound in Gaza that was storing fuel and food and was also acting as a refuge to children whose school had been bombed earlier in the day, the bombs came closer; and when they had to phone them a second time, the bombs landed on the fuel dump within the UN compound.

Perhaps it is negligence, misinformation or deliberate targeting, but one way or the other it is an act - maybe not quite a war crime in some people's minds - but it is an act of attack on the institutions of peace, humanity and freedom. At times of war, there are rules of engagement, there are certain things which cannot be done.

Of course, we must get aid and assistance to the Palestinian people for the rebuilding of their areas. Of course we must ensure and insist that talks take place and that peace can be allowed to flourish, but that requires us to take brave moves within Europe as well. Like Martin Schulz, I congratulate Javier Solana on walking that long lonely path of speaking to people that nobody else would speak to, of opening the doors of dialogue, because ultimately only through dialogue between enemies can you make peace, and only through peace can you build the foundations of a solid two-state solution that will guarantee peace, equity, security and justice within the Middle East.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I was a member of the European Parliament delegation that travelled to Gaza last week to see the devastation, and the focus of Parliament's resolution today is humanitarian action, which is desperately needed.

This is a real humanitarian crisis, and how are we going to address that urgently? Ninety per cent of people in Gaza are dependent on UN aid. This is not linked to any negotiations. We have to ensure that that aid gets through, and the key to that is the lifting of the siege and the opening of the crossing points. How can a densely populated area of 1.5 million people that has been bombed for 22 days and in which over 1 000 people were killed even begin to recover when only 15 categories of humanitarian items are being allowed in: food, some medicines and mattresses? You cannot rebuild homes and offices without cement and glass, which are banned. You cannot teach children in schools that have no paper because it is banned. You cannot feed people when there is not enough food being allowed in. It is not that the aid is not there, but it is not being allowed through. We have to put pressure on the Israeli Government to end the blockade and open the crossings.

Any assessment of the damage caused in Gaza must draw attention to the deliberate targeting to destroy the infrastructure and the economy. We saw schools, factories, homes and a hospital deliberately attacked. Once again, we have witnessed the destruction by Israel of projects funded by the European Union and, rather than take action on this, we are talking about upgrading trade relations when conditions on human rights are currently being breached under the current agreements.

Mr Solana talked about how pursuing the same policies can bring us back to the same place. Well, I agree. In 2006, the European Union refused to recognise the Palestinian Unity Government, which included members of Hamas, and yet we are ready to recognise a new Israeli Government, which may include members who reject a two-state solution, who do not support a Palestinian state.

What is crucial now is that the EU must be prepared to work with and recognise an interim Palestinian national government of consensus that should emerge from the Cairo talks in the next few weeks, and we must give out clear signals of our intentions to the international community. We have to support the reconciliation process in Palestine as part of achieving a long-term solution, and that means ensuring that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

(Applause)

Mr President, Mr Solano, Commissioner, as I listened nearly a month ago to the children of Gaza speak, amongst the ruins of their house, of how they had trembled as the bombs fell, or to their parents describe the hell of those 22 days and nights that will forever mark their lives and the memory of future generations, I was not proud of Europe.

I thought of some of the leaders of our Member States, of all those who will answer to history for their lack of political courage, the missed opportunities, for their lack of vision. I asked myself this question: to what extremes must the Israeli leaders push their inhumanity towards the Palestinians and their scorn for law and the most fundamental values before the main European political leaders dare to raise a finger and say finally, 'Enough is enough'?

Those who call themselves friends of Israel to justify the impunity and unlimited accommodation shown towards its current ruling class should reflect on these words from the great Israeli writer David Grossman, whom I wish to quote: 'Amidst the wave of nationalist hyperbole now sweeping the nation, it would not hurt to recall that in the final analysis, this last operation in Gaza is just another stop along a trail blazing with fire, violence and hatred. A trail marked at times by victory, at other times by defeat, but which is leading us inevitably to ruin'.

Or let them ask the same question as Shlomo Sand, the famous Israeli historian, whom I also quote: 'We sowed desolation. We have proved that we have no moral reserve. Have we strengthened the peace camp among Palestinians?' He continues: 'Israel has been pushing the Palestinians to despair.'

For 20 years, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority recognised the State of Israel with nothing to show in return. Israel refused the offer of the Arab League in 2002, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone talks about the Arab League and about the Arab League's peace project. It has been in existence for seven years. What has Europe done to seize this opportunity?

I therefore come back to Shlomo Sand: 'Israel refused the offer of the Arab League in 2002 of full recognition of Israel with the pre-1967 borders.' The Israeli historian concludes thus: 'Israel will make peace only if pressure is brought to bear on its policies'.

This leads to a question, Mr Solano, as you said nothing on the subject of international law. What pressure is the Union prepared to exert on Israel over Gaza and the West Bank, including Jerusalem, to remind its current and future leaders that membership of the international community in general, and the privileged partnership with the European Union in particular, come at a price, that they have no place for military occupation, nor war crimes, nor a policy which pushes each day towards a divorce between Europe and the Arab-Muslim world?

I would wish, as a European, not to have to place the hope for a change in policy towards the Near East solely on the occupant of the White House. I would still like to believe in an about-turn by Europe.

(Applause)

(IND/DEM). - Mr President, today we are debating a resolution about humanitarian aid. Before making my contribution, I would like to stress that I am not speaking on behalf of the IND/DEM Group as it has no position on this topic. Instead, I am speaking as an MEP on behalf of myself and of my people.

The vast majority of the people of Gaza must rely on humanitarian aid for their very survival - food, water, shelter, clothes and, especially, medicine. This is a population that has been under siege for a very long time. All crossing points have been closed for 18 months and now, with the terrible recent aggression visited on the people of Gaza, they are even more desperate. Because the siege has still not been lifted and crossings are still closed, it is very difficult to get essentials to the people.

I note in recital E of this resolution that we Europeans give ourselves a nice pat on the back for our humanitarian aid efforts. You, Commissioner, talked of the political efforts that you are making, but do we deserve this praise? Israel-EU trade is worth EUR 27 billion annually. If we really wanted action on Gaza, we would use the power that this trade gives us by imposing economic sanctions. Our refusal to do this, even at the height of the bombing in January, indicated that we prefer the status quo of business as usual, with our contribution of humanitarian aid possibly being a salve to our conscience. Not only are we unwilling to risk upsetting a good business market for the sake of bringing injustice in Gaza to an end, but we are also unwilling so far to dissolve or even just suspend the EU-Israel agreement.

I have a great love of the Jewish people. In college, I took the opportunity to study several courses of their history and literature under a rabbi. However, friendship does not mean blindness but the willingness to be honest. Actually, judging by demonstrations that took place in the major cities of Israel, there are many Israeli citizens who publicly oppose their Government's action.

To return to the urgency of the humanitarian aid: rebuilding physical infrastructure is important, but it is understandable that agencies may be hesitant to rebuild when it looks as though an even more threatening regime is taking over in Israel. Rebuilding human infrastructure, however, cannot wait. We must get supplies in. I would especially point out that the particularly vicious weaponry used in January has left many people with missing limbs and terrible burns. I myself know what it is like to have a healthy child become disabled.

We must get intervention - medical and educational - to all those thousands of people, especially children who, since the New Year, have become disabled for life. As we help them, we must record their stories, to begin the process of gathering evidence for targeted attacks and possible war crimes.

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly not Europe, still less its High Representative for Foreign Policy, Javier Solana, the former Secretary-General of NATO, who can play the role of mediator between Israel and Palestine. At the most, they will be called on to finance the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, as they are doing today for Kosovo, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

The US and Israel do the bombing while Europe finances reconstruction. That is how tasks are allocated amongst the allies. It should, however, be up to those who do the damage to pay. Egypt is at the centre of the peace talks that are discussing an extended ceasefire with Hamas. However, the challenge is formidable as the new Israeli Government, under pressure from the third man, Mr Liebermann, the far-right leader who is democratically accepted over there, risks seeing its task singularly complicated in this negotiation. In fact, Mr Netanyahu, who is presented as the future prime minister, has always been opposed to a truce with Hamas.

A further difficulty is that the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas has become, in the West Bank, a sort of international protectorate whose legitimacy has greatly diminished amongst the population.

The final factor we have to take into account is that the expansion of the Israeli colonies, which has not stopped since 1967, makes the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank particularly tricky. Today, the ball is in the Israeli court, but will the hawks in each camp accept this truce of God that the two sides demand without providing themselves with the resources?

Allow me to add a thought on France's return to NATO's integrated military structure, which will be debated within the framework of the Vatanen report. This return will result in France taking on heavy obligations. In fact, we are rejoining NATO even though the Cold War has been over since 1990. Mr Sarkozy seems to have forgotten the fall of the Berlin Wall and Russia's return to the ranks of free nations. Is there a need to reinforce the bloc line of thinking at a time when we see multipolarity and the rising power of emerging countries, including on the military level?

Moreover, France's membership of the integrated structure will oblige it to reinforce its contingent in Afghanistan, even though it already has 3 300 men on the ground. Which funds will it use to finance this operation when its defence budget is about to fall below 2% of GDP and over 30 regiments are to be cut?

Paradoxically, we are going to increase our financial participation to rejoin NATO and, at the same time, reduce our military presence in Africa. European defence, so beloved of President Sarkozy, will therefore be a pillar of the Atlantic Alliance. You only have to read the Treaty of Lisbon and its additional protocols to convince yourselves of this.

Whether it be in terms of foreign policy or common security, the European road is a dead end that can only lead to an alignment with the US and its allies. It is this logic of retraction that we reject in the name of national sovereignty and independence, which rest in particular on our independent nuclear deterrent.

Other members have also overrun slightly, and we must accord the same treatment to everyone.

High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. - (ES) Mr President, I will not be able to answer all those who have spoken during this debate in the little time available to me. Allow me to express my most heartfelt thanks for what you said about me personally and what I do. I would just like to tell you that you can be sure that I will continue to work just as determinedly - even more so if possible - because the situation is becoming more difficult every day.

I believe that there are five issues on which a consensus could be reached between all those who have spoken before me.

First, humanitarian issues: there can be no doubt that the most pressing and important question is the humanitarian one. The violence of recent days and weeks has thrown into sharp relief some enormous gaps in what is needed to alleviate the population's suffering, in particular, amongst the people of Gaza. Therefore, we will do everything in our power to alleviate the great hardships of daily life in Gaza. The Commission will do so - without the slightest hesitation - as will the Member States of the Council; the entire international community will do so.

Second, the opening of the border crossings between Gaza and Israel and between Gaza and Egypt is absolutely essential to this. Moreover, these must be opened quickly, without delay. From our point of view, all aid will be supplied wherever it is needed and, as far as Rafah is concerned in particular, we will be ready for deployment as soon as possible. There are already European Union observers there, available, so that as soon as the frontier is opened at Rafah, we will be ready to deploy.

Third, the issue - and it is a very important one - of Palestinian unity. Honourable Members, I believe that it is clear that there will be no solution at the moment without the beginnings of reconciliation between Palestinians. Therefore, as stated in the Resolution of the most recent General Affairs Council, the European Union supports, and will continue to support, the efforts that are being made, whether by President Abbas or by President Mubarak, to make progress towards reconciliation between Palestinians.

Many speakers have mentioned the obligations that we may assume, depending on whether there is a new Palestinian consensus government. It seems to me, honourable Members - and this is my personal opinion - that if there is a Palestinian consensus government, a government whose goal is the Two States, a government whose goal is to build these Two States through peaceful means, a government that has a programme of reconstruction in Gaza, and a government that attempts to build an electoral process in 2009, I believe that such a government is one that the European Union should support.

Fourth, on the question of Israel: there are two important issues following the elections. Firstly, that the government that has emerged from the elections, or that will emerge from the majority produced by the elections, is obliged, as far as we can see, to carry on with a peace process. For this reason, whatever government does emerge from the elections, we will continue working and doing everything we can to ensure that it becomes established, and that it works and contributes towards carrying on a peace process, doing everything in its power to conclude that process as far as possible during 2009.

Fifth, in our view, the settlements issue is absolutely fundamental. I believe that the most recent data concerning the state of the settlements in 2008, published by the Government of Israel, ought to make all of us feel responsible.

I would like to tell you that in 2001, I worked with the then Senator Mitchell on the famous report that bears his name. I was one of the four people who worked on that programme. I would like you, honourable Members, to be so good as to re-read that report, published in 2001, in which things were said that, unfortunately, still have to be said today; for example, on the subject of the settlements. If we in the European Union are incapable of trying to change the way in which the settlements are being established, there is little chance of any peace initiative having credibility. Therefore, this issue must be taken seriously. We must talk seriously with our friends in Israel to ensure that the issue of the settlements is dealt with in a radically different way.

Finally, Mr President, honourable Members: the Arab League. Unity among the Arab states is vital. It is essential that we cooperate with all the countries of the Arab League to ensure that the peace initiative signed by the Arab League remains in force. Crucially, this peace process must end with reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis, but also between the Arabs and Israel. Therefore, we fully support those who are working to make the peace initiative a reality.

We see deep divisions within the Arab League. We will have to do everything that we can diplomatically to prevent a deepening of these differences and instead encourage the rebuilding of a process of harmony and cooperation within the great Arab family.

Mr President, honourable Members, as I have said, 2009 will be an enormously important year. We will have to continue to manage the crisis, bring humanitarian aid, do everything in our power to ensure that there is a ceasefire, and do everything in our power to ensure that negotiation takes place between Israel and Gaza and between Egypt and Gaza. However, honourable Members, if we do not change our mentality from a position of crisis-management to one deeply rooted in conflict-resolution, we will be in the same situation to which we have unfortunately returned at the start of 2009.

Mr President, I hope that, in the end, if we all work together, 2009 will be a year in which we can actually resolve this enormous conflict which has unfortunately been weighing down on us for too long.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I just wanted to say again that last year we clearly said that failure is not an option. We were all hopeful for the Annapolis process and we were hopeful for a peace process. Unfortunately, the military incursion into Gaza after the rockets launched from Gaza into Israel have changed the equation. Now we all know that there is a series of elements that is absolutely necessary so that we can come back to peace agreements. In any case, however, one thing is sure: a military solution is no solution. On this I agree with all of you. Therefore, whatever the cost, we will all have to work in order to bring about peace.

Many actors are there: in the European Union, in the international community - be it the United States of America, the UN or Russia - but there are also many Arab friends and colleagues. I can only hope that, when a new Israeli Government is in place, all those actors will want to come together for peace. Our rationale is clear, but whether the emotions will then bring us to the right path, we will have to see. Be assured that we will work for that.

(Applause)

A motion for a resolution to wind up the debate has been tabled under Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today.

Written statements (Rule 142)

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is unacceptable. Eighty-eight percent of the population are in need of food aid, there is a lack of essential medical supplies in the hospitals, and thousands of tons of aid cannot be brought into Gaza because not enough trucks are being allowed in.

People all over the world were horrified at the low level of international response when more than 1 000 Palestinians - including more than 300 children - were killed during the recent Israeli attack on Gaza.

A proactive, long-term strategy from Europe and from the new US Government must include the right of Palestinians to a sustainable state - based on the borders that were there before 1967. It must stop settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and it must demolish the apartheid wall.

The security of Israel and a free state of Palestine must be achieved, but the situation where Israel is using security as an excuse to destroy the lives of innocent Palestinians must be ended. A genuine process of negotiation must be begun.

The EU must cancel the Association Agreement between the European Union and Israel while Israel does not comply with international law and humanitarian law.

What should the 'role of the European Union in the Middle East' be (or not be)? What are the principles by which it should be guided?

It must demand an end to the aggression and to the inhumane blockade of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and it must ensure that urgent humanitarian aid is provided to them.

It must condemn the brutal aggression, crimes, violations of the most basic human rights and state terrorism perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people, which nothing can justify.

It must unequivocally denounce the fact that in Palestine, there are colonisers and colonised, aggressors and victims, oppressors and oppressed, and exploiters and exploited.

It must suspend the Association Agreement and any strengthening of bilateral relations with Israel, such as those advocated by the External Relations Council on 8 and 9 December.

It must demand compliance by Israel with international law and the UN resolutions, and an end to the occupation, settlements, security fence, assassinations, detentions and innumerable humiliations inflicted on the Palestinian people.

It must demand and fight for respect for the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent and sovereign state, with the 1967 borders and a capital in East Jerusalem.

In essence, it must stop being complicit in the impunity of Israeli colonialism.

The recent elections in Israel and the new US administration offer the opportunity for a new beginning in the Middle East peace process. I believe that the EU must convey a clear message of support to the new cabinet in Tel Aviv while, at the same time, clearly expressing what is expected of its Israeli partners in terms of pursuing measures which will facilitate a lasting peace, which includes shutting down the settlements on the West Bank and offering strong support for a dual-state solution, and help avoid military excesses and the serious humanitarian repercussions they entail.

The EU's approach to the Middle East must be based on several strong principles. The first principle is close cooperation with the US without which we cannot achieve a long-term solution in the region. The second is that our approach must be aimed at avoiding, as far as possible, violence by both sides, condemning Palestinian extremism and excessive measures adopted by Israel, as well as supporting moderate governance solutions from both sides which are capable of facilitating the peace process.

I wish to express my support for the European Parliament resolution voted on today, which confirms the EU's commitment to the process of reconstruction in Gaza and provides the basis for the discussions which will be conducted in Cairo in March at the time of the international donors' conference.

Democracy, peace and respect for human rights are fundamental values for the European Union which has the role and obligation to defend and promote them, both inside the EU and in its relations with other states too.

The situation affecting Gaza's population is tragic and must be resolved urgently. The flagrant violation of human rights and freedoms in this region is a cause for concern for the European Union, from the perspective of both its relations with Israel and of security and stability in the Middle East.

The European Union must adopt urgent measures to provide humanitarian assistance to the population in the Gaza region, while also thinking in the medium and long term about measures designed to promote peace, security and stability in the area.

With this in mind, the EU must step up its diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflicts and encourage dialogue and reconciliation in the region. At the same time, it must impose without hesitation tough sanctions against any anti-democratic stance or violation of human rights and freedoms.

In order to achieve an EU-Middle East agreement, the attempt to restore stability, and assistance in realising the peace programme in the Gaza Strip, should, for the present, continue to be the priority.

The European Union should also do everything in its power to bring about an end to the dispute in which innocent citizens are losing their lives. Furthermore, efforts should concentrate on bringing assistance to people, on ensuring that they have the basic means to live. The population of the Gaza Strip have only 60% of their daily food needs available, which means that they are even more at risk of disease and exposed to difficult conditions. The lack of drinking water constitutes no less a threat than the lack of food. I do not, I think, need to mention the lack of medical care or the destruction of schools and public institutions, which is significantly hindering the establishment of order and a return to normality.

We should remember that only when many basic problems of everyday life have been solved will we be able to concentrate on the economic development of the Middle East and on close commercial cooperation with the region. The European Union has an opportunity to help the Arab world, and all the countries of the Middle East, to become a region where prosperity prevails, which will, in turn, create a framework for closer cooperation between the Middle East and the EU.

1. Role of the European Union in the Middle East (vote) 

Before the vote on paragraph 5:

(IT) Mr President, at the beginning of paragraph 5, after the word 'believes', the following phrase would be added:

'inter alia with a view to the International Conference in support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh on 2 March 2009'.

(IT) Mr President, the amendment is the same. It refers to the International Conference in support of the Palestinian Economy, to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh on 2 March, and would be added to the recital.

Voting time

Welcome

I have been asked to welcome a visiting delegation in the gallery from the region of Piedmont. Normally, we only welcome delegations from nation States but, since we do wish to bolster the regions, I will make an exception and wish a warm welcome to the delegation from Piedmont.

Explanations of vote

Written explanations of vote

I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the role of the European Union in the Middle East as I agree that we need to support the reconstruction plans for the Gaza Strip.

This resolution seeks to grant immediately rapid and unrestricted humanitarian aid, a measure which is a moral obligation. This aid must be provided without any conditions or restrictions. The Israeli authorities are being requested to allow an adequate, continuous flow of humanitarian aid, including all the necessary materials so that the UN agencies such as UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) and international organisations can carry out their activities and tend to the population's needs.

With the European Parliament resolution on humanitarian aid to Gaza, the EU is endeavouring, driven by the principle of treating the slaughtering Israelis on equal terms with the resisting Palestinians, to conceal its huge responsibility for the slaughter of the Palestinian people during the murderous Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip which resulted in over 1 300 dead, the majority of whom were children, women and the elderly, and over 5 000 injured. The complete destruction of thousands of homes and every social infrastructure, in conjunction with the complete economic isolation imposed by Israel, has resulted in the Palestinian population living under tragic and inhumane conditions.

The avoidance of any form of reference to and condemnation of Israel and the causes of the tragic situation of the Palestinian people confirms, once again, the support of the EU for the criminal action by Israel in its effort to upgrade its role in the escalating infighting between the imperialists in the Middle East.

What the heroic Palestinian people need more than anything is not charity from the imperialists. It is the foundation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, in keeping with the UN resolutions on the 1967 borders, and undivided solidarity from other peoples in its struggle.

in writing. - (SV) The situation in the Gaza Strip is extremely serious, as the ongoing conflict is depriving the civilian population of food, medicines and fuel. The situation is so serious that immediate external help is required. We have therefore voted in favour of the resolution.

However, we feel that it is extremely regrettable - though unfortunately not particularly surprising - that the European Parliament is once again using a disaster to slowly but surely advance its position.

After more than 18 months of an inhumane blockade, the 22 days of brutal Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip have led to the deaths of at least 1 324 people and over 5 000 wounded, most of whom are children. Over 100 000 people have been displaced and more than 15 000 homes have been destroyed. Basic infrastructures and key public services have been destroyed or dismantled, threatening the response to the most basic needs of the Palestinian population.

Faced with this shocking crime, the European Parliament does not have a single word of condemnation for Israel.

There is no doubt that the Palestinian population urgently needs aid. There is no doubt that we must recognise the suffering of the Palestinian population. However, it is also essential to denounce the aggressors and hold them responsible. Instead, the resolution insists on whitewashing the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip, hiding it behind the term 'conflict'. This aggression is part of the strategy to overcome the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian people to the occupation and to undermine the conditions required for building a Palestinian state.

The EU, which is always so quick to invoke human rights, is 'forgetting' them with regard to Israel which, for more than 40 years, has been colonising the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution of 18 February 2009 on humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, as the civilian population is in great need of aid because of the situation created in this area.

I feel that an assessment must be carried out of the needs of the population in the Gaza Strip and plans for the area's reconstruction must be initiated.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Annual Report (2007) on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP - European Security Strategy and ESDP - The role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on:

the report by Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the annual report on the main aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in 2007, presented to the European Parliament in application of point G, paragraph 43 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006,

the report by Karl von Wogau, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the European Security Strategy and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), and

the report by Ari Vatanen, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are not interested in following our debates, our rapporteur asks, rightly so, and for the dignity of our work, if you could please leave the Chamber in silence.

Thank you, Mr President. Indeed, I believe that the Union's foreign policy is worthy of attention.

Mr President, we have a special debate today on three major reports on foreign policy, on security and defence, and on EU-NATO relations.

Our annual report on the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) has become an important vehicle through which Parliament expresses its strategic view on EU foreign policy. In this year's report, we have decided to focus on policy making and policy shaping. We have focused on the need to establish a true dialogue with the Council on the main objectives of the EU's common foreign and security policy. We have recognised that it is in progress, namely that for the first time, the Council's report systematically refers to the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament. We are grateful: this is a real achievement. However, we have expressed also our regret that the Council does not engage in a full dialogue with the views advanced by Parliament, nor does it refer to those resolutions in operational documents as joint actions or common positions.

We expect that the Council's annual report will provide opportunities to establish a dialogue with Parliament aimed at developing a more strategic approach to the common foreign and security policy. We have reiterated the most important principles in our report which should underscore our foreign policy. In our view, the CFSP must be underpinned and guided by the values which the European Union and its Member States cherish, notably democracy, the rule of law, respect for the dignity of the human person, for human rights and for fundamental freedoms, and the promotion of peace and effective multilateralism.

We believe that the European Union can make an impact, but only if it speaks with one voice and if it is equipped with appropriate instruments like those stemming from the Lisbon Treaty and a more generous budget. We can undertake effective action only when it is legitimised by both the European and national parliaments acting at their respective levels and in accordance with their own mandates.

In order to be credible and to respond to the expectations of EU citizens - and I say this on the eve of new parliamentary elections coming soon - the CFSP must be allocated resources commensurate with the objectives and specific targets. We regret, therefore, that as in previous years, the CFSP budget is seriously under-funded.

We address horizontal and geographical issues in our report. On horizontal issues, let me just enumerate the most important ones we touched upon: first, upholding human rights and promoting peace and security in Europe's neighbourhood and at global level; second, support for effective multilateralism and respect for international law; third, the fight against terrorism; fourth, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and disarmament; fifth, climate change, energy security and issues like cyber security.

In this report, we are intentionally selective. We concentrate, therefore, on some strategic and geographical priority areas such as the Western Balkans, the Middle East and the broader Middle East, South Caucasus, Africa and Asia, and obviously relations with our strategic partner, the USA, as well as relations with Russia.

This report should be seen in conjunction with, and complementary to, Parliament's more detailed reports. It should not be trying to duplicate them.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House from the different political groups for their understanding and excellent cooperation. We have tried to take most of the concerns on board, and I hope that the report will be endorsed by a handsome majority of our House.

Finally, to our partners from the Council and the Commission, I would like to say that we hope that this occasion can help us to develop a deeper strategic dialogue between Parliament, the Council and the Commission which will bring more democratic legitimacy to the hard work you are doing, Mr Solana and Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, in order to have more cooperation in our triangle.

I hope that you will treat this as a possibility to develop more synergy, to strengthen our common voice - the voice of all three actors - and to give more democratic and parliamentary legitimacy to our common goal which is: foreign policy; one voice; European Union.

Mr President, High Representative, Commissioner, this report should provide us with an opportunity to consider how far we have come with the European Union's security and defence policy, where we are now, and what part the European Parliament has to play in this.

In so doing, we must observe that there have so far been 22 deployments within the framework of the European security and defence policy, of which 16 were civilian deployments and 6 military ones. This means that a very strong emphasis has been placed on the civilian side of things. This civilian side, of course, comes complete with functional democratic control as the civilian operations under the ESDP are funded from the European budget and are therefore scrutinised by the European Parliament. There are other things that are funded from the European Union's budget that are directly linked to security policy. Examples include security research - EUR 1.3 billion over 7 years; Galileo, which we say there are security aspects to - EUR 3.4 billion; and GMES/Kopernikus, a project for which another EUR 1 billion is available. We also now have, and this is a new development, legislation in the European Parliament in the field of security and defence. We have adopted a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the intra-Community transfer of defence equipment and on tendering in the field of security and defence. This is an important first step along the road.

Of particular importance, however, is the information for the European Parliament. In this regard, our special committee, which also has access to secret information, is of particular importance, as are the regular discussions that we hold in this committee with the Special Representative on these subjects. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the High Representative and his colleagues for the constructive cooperation that has developed.

I shall turn now to the individual points of this report. This report calls for the European Union to define its own security interests more clearly. We always speak of the security interests of the individual countries, but we do have common security interests. The protection of our citizens within and beyond the Union, peace in our neighbourhood, the protection of our external borders, the protection of our critical infrastructures, energy security, the security of our trade routes, the security of our assets at the global level and many other things represent, in reality, individual security interests and common security interests of the European Union.

We also need to consider what the security and defence-related ambitions of the European Union actually are. The draft report states very clearly that we have no ambition to become a superpower like the United States. It is also made very clear that we must concentrate on the geographical surroundings of the European Union. Our priorities are the Balkans - the European Union's main assignments - North Africa, the frozen conflicts in the East and our contribution to resolving the conflict in Palestine. We must put our focus quite clearly on these areas.

I feel compelled to observe that, at the end of the French Presidency, the Council set very ambitious objectives, namely acquiring the ability to carry out certain operations in parallel. If that is what we want, we will need the funds to bring it about. This will involve the establishment of an autonomous and permanent headquarters in Brussels. This is a first, very clear demand from this Parliament. There was a very broad majority in favour of this in the committee. Secondly, we need to bear in mind that the 27 Member States have 2 million soldiers at their disposal. Three per cent of these soldiers should be made available to the European Union on a permanent basis. That would be 60 000 soldiers. This is why the report also calls for the Eurocorps to also be permanently assigned to the European Union. This call is aimed at the six Member States that make up the Eurocorps.

We then make clear statements about the capabilities that we need to develop. The 27 Member States of the European Union spend EUR 200 billion per annum on defence, and this EUR 200 billion must be better spent than it has been in the past. We cannot afford to re-invent the wheel 27 times and we are therefore asking you today to ensure that, in future, where the European Union's and the taxpayers' money is spent on defence, it is better spent than it was in the past. Thank you very much.

rapporteur. - Mr President, 70 years ago, Mr Chamberlain came back from Munich waving a piece of paper and saying 'peace for our time'. Well, we know how wrong he was, and we also know that wishful thinking is a deadly substitute for realism. Today, on this issue, we have to be brutally honest. The EU has been incredibly successful in peacemaking. The events of the Second World War gave birth to the EU.

I am very happy that Mr Solana is here today because finally we have this phone number for the EU. Mr Solana has this number, which Mr Kissinger asked for years ago.

But what kinds of means are we - Member States and politicians - giving to Mr Solana? That is the question.

We have a financial crisis now, which did not fall on us from the sky. It was very much self-inflicted. We are talking about the toxic assets of banks and how we have to clear them. Perhaps this is also the time to ask: what are the toxic assets and what are the obstacles to our peacemaking, our raison d'être?

We have to move on - the EU has to move on in its peacebuilding. The world is changing so fast around us. The biggest obstacle is that we simply do not have a vision. We are day-to-day politicians who are short-sighted. Immobility is our big problem. The world is changing around us, faster than we can react. What is the result of inefficient and failing security policies? Human suffering, dead bodies, mutilated people and atrocities. Even if those people do not vote for us, we have to care for them because they are our brothers and sisters in the human family.

On 2 April 1917, President Wilson said, 'a steadfast concert of peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations'. President Wilson was awarded a Nobel Prize - which he deserved much more than Al Gore.

We in the EU do not realise what kinds of tools we have in our mosaic composition of 27 countries. That gives us a unique tool in peacemaking. Perhaps some people do not like the French, others do not like the Germans, and perhaps some people do not like the Finns, even - but I think everybody likes the Finns! - but, when we are together, 27 countries, nobody can say that they hate the EU. Therefore, the unique ability we have enables us to go to any crisis spot and be a doctor or a referee. But without the military capacity, without military credibility, we are like a dog whose bark is worse than its bite. We have idealism but we do not equip ourselves with the means to reach those targets.

Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot: Il faut battre le fer tant qu'il est chaud, as the French say. Now, Mr Obama is the new President of the United States and he values Europe - he says that we are important allies. What do we have to do? We have to get our act together.

Already, 94% of the European population is in NATO, and only 6% are outside. Why do we not use it more efficiently? We owe that to the people, because it is our duty to alleviate human suffering; it is our ethical duty and it is in our long-term interest. Only by following in the footsteps of our forefathers can we be faithful to the EU's inheritance and make the inevitable inconceivable - and that is what peacemaking means.

High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. - Mr President, thank you for inviting me once again to this important debate on the CFSP. I think that it is becoming a tradition once a year to hold this debate and I am very happy to participate. I would like to thank the three rapporteurs, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Mr von Wogau and Mr Vatanen, for their reports. I found in them a lot of things that resonate with what we are thinking and doing. I have taken note of many of the things said in the reports and I hope very much that they will play a part in updating our thinking, with your cooperation.

Speaking today, at the beginning of 2009, at the European Parliament, reminds me of where we were 10 years ago, in 1999. That was really when we began working on ESDP. And when I look at where we are today and compare this to where we were on the day that we began to work on ESDP, a lot of progress has really been made. Nobody can fail to see what has been achieved.

As has been mentioned, more than 20 civilian and military operations are, or have been, deployed on just about every continent, from Europe to Asia, from the Middle East to Africa. Thousands of European men and women are engaged in these operations, ranging from military to police, from border guards to monitors, from judges to prosecutors, a good range of people doing good for the stability of the world.

I think this is the European way of doing things. A comprehensive approach to crisis prevention and to crisis management; a large and diversified tool box where we can take whatever is necessary; a rapid response capability; trying to be what we deserve to be, a global actor, as is asked of us by third countries. Obviously, if the Lisbon Treaty were to be ratified, and I hope it will be, we would, without any doubt, be much more effective.

I should like to thank Parliament for the support we have obtained over recent years, for the good cooperation that I have always enjoyed from you, the representatives of the citizens of the European Union. Without the engagement, without the understanding, without the support, not only of the Members of this distinguished House, but also of the citizens of the European Union through other mechanisms - their own parliaments - it would be very difficult to play the role that we try to play with the number of operations that we have and with the number of citizens of the European Union who are engaged in them.

The CFSP is more than an instrument. The CFSP relates to our values, to your values, to the values of our people. I really feel attached to these values that are represented in the core of all the 27 Member States of the European Union: human rights, the rule of law, international law and effective multilateralism; all those words and concepts are probably a constructive representation of what we are. But the CFSP also helps shape our internal cooperation among the Member States of the European Union. By working together, by acting together, we define who we are. And so the CFSP is also a way in which the European Union keeps on, every day, defining itself.

I think that what I have said will resonate with the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This really is what we do and what we are about: values and action and, at the same time, construction of the European Union. We act because of who we are, and who we are is shaped by our actions. I think this is an important concept to keep in mind.

The Security Strategy of 2003 was a basic document that allowed us to map the way ahead. The three reports make reference to that document. As you know, we have updated it in cooperation with the Commission and Parliament in 2008. That document does not replace the 2003 document but it certainly reinforces it and brings it up to date, incorporating the threats and challenges that we face in the world in which we are living today, from climate change to terrorism, from energy security to piracy.

Let me say a word about piracy because that relates to our youngest operation, Atalanta. I would like to underline that this is the first time that the ESDP has engaged in a maritime operation. It is quite a step forward, quite a step in the right direction to have this type of operation. This maritime operation against piracy is conducted from a European operational headquarters in the United Kingdom. It involves a significant number of countries and a significant number of third countries want to join it. I had lunch today with the Swiss Foreign Minister and they want to participate in this operation because they share our concerns on piracy. This is very important. You probably think, and I agree with you, that this offshore operation is very important but that the problems onshore need to be solved as well as the problems offshore.

Let me say a word about structures - internal structures relating to ESDP. As you know, during the last month of the French Presidency, we were working on a document to reorganise and set up something very dear to me. I tried to do it from the very beginning and we have the support to do it now, namely to develop a strategic planning capability which is, at the same time, both civilian and military. This is the modern approach to crisis management. I think that we are relatively new to these actions and because of this, we can be even more efficient, more flexible, and more able to adapt to new realities than others. And so I think that what we are doing, in having military and civilian cooperation at the strategic planning level, is very important.

I have to say, and I hope you will agree with me, that military action alone cannot solve the conflicts of today. Civilian action is not possible without a secure environment. This is the equilibrium we have to find and this is what we are seeing everywhere - in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, wherever you look. It is a very important concept of symbiosis between political, civilian and security aspects of our lives.

As has been said very eloquently by the three rapporteurs, we need capabilities. Without capabilities we only have documents, and with documents alone we do not solve conflicts.

That was stressed very much at the December European Council and I would like to thank the three rapporteurs for having made this point clearly. We have problems sometimes with force generation and this is something that is very important for you to know. Without more rapid force generation, be it police, prosecutors, or military, it will be very difficult to act at the rhythm, at the speed, that is required in crisis management.

Let me say a word about NATO-European Union relations because they are covered in the report by Mr Vatanen. As you know, we have a framework for cooperation that we call Berlin Plus. However, not all the operations that we conduct on behalf of the European Union fall within this framework, for cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance. We still have problems, as you know, because this relationship has not been able to overcome some of the difficulties we have in really cooperating in operations with NATO that fall outside the framework of Berlin Plus. We have problems in Kosovo that have still not been resolved and we have problems in Afghanistan. I hope very much that in the run-up to the NATO summit, we will be able to resolve these problems.

Let me say a word on Afghanistan. Without any doubt, this is going to be one of the most important issues facing us in 2009. You have seen the position of President Obama on this theatre - Afghanistan-Pakistan - and the appointment of a special representative. We have to deliver and to deliver in a sensible manner. More engagement will be needed. This does not necessarily mean military engagement but we have to engage in a more efficient manner and in a more coordinated manner amongst ourselves and with others - the United States, the international community at large, the United Nations. I have had the opportunity to meet Richard Holbrooke already a couple of times, and General Petraeus. We are going to re-examine this concept in the coming weeks and it will be very good if, by that time, we are ready to respond in a constructive manner to a very important problem on which we are engaged, the European Union is engaged, the Member States are engaged, and I think we should maintain this engagement.

We could talk for hours about many other issues - energy, non-proliferation, you name it, but I think the important thing is that we have this fundamental agreement in the three reports that have been presented today on what we have been doing over the last period of time. I would like to finish and say thank you very much for your cooperation. My thanks to those who work with me more intensively on some of the specific dossiers in which we are engaged. As I said, I think how we act in the international arena on behalf of the European Union will also define who we are. At this point, it is very important that we do better because we want to be better.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I appreciate this opportunity to participate once again in this comprehensive debate on foreign and security policy matters.

Let me thank the authors of the three reports, which are the basis of today's debate. I would like to say that Javier Solana's services and my own worked very well together on the report on the European security strategy (ESS), and I believe that this shows in the result. The report reflects well the new security challenges the EU faces and gives a broad definition of security.

Let me first say a few words on the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The reports before us today, and the European security strategy report, all conclude that the European Union can make a difference if everyone works together to ensure that we have a fully coherent policy, one which embraces the CFSP, the Community dimension and, of course, actions by Member States. Not only do we need to speak with one voice, but we also need to act together in a coherent and coordinated way.

This requires bringing together the best mix of EU policy instruments, from ESDP operations to conflict prevention and crisis response measures through the Instrument for Stability, development assistance, humanitarian aid, or democracy and human rights tools. Let me give you a few examples: Afghanistan, Georgia, Kosovo and Chad could show how we do this in practice.

In Afghanistan, we have given a prominent place to security sector reform and governance within our overall assistance strategy. Since 2007, the Commission has embarked on a new programme reforming the justice sector. On policing, the EUPOL mission of the Council is doing the mentoring and training on the ground, whilst the Commission supports the Afghan national police through the Law and Order Trust Fund (LOTFA). The Commission is also the main paymaster for the running costs of the Afghan police - over EUR 200 million to date since 2002.

In Georgia, additional EU post-conflict financial support is being provided. Up to now, a total of EUR 120 million - out of a EUR 500 million package from 2008 to 2010 - has been provided to the Government. This exceptional EC assistance has contributed to preventing a major humanitarian crisis.

In Kosovo, the Commission has played its role in getting the EULEX Kosovo mission staffed and equipped in time. In addition to ongoing assistance, we will this year prepare a study, which should identify means to advance Kosovo's political and socio-economic development, and its progress towards integration with the European Union.

In Chad, we have committed a total of EUR 311 million under the 10th European Development Fund. There, our goal is to contribute to the reduction of poverty and facilitate economic development. Our priorities are good governance, including the judiciary and police, infrastructure and rural development. Furthermore, we are supporting the training of 850 Chadian police by the UN mission MINURCAT through the Instrument for Stability with EUR 10 million. We are also facilitating the voluntary return of Chadian IDPs and refugees and providing EUR 30 million in humanitarian assistance.

I think this is the right approach, and it needs to be pursued systematically each time the EU is faced with a new crisis.

This flexibility in our policy mix is emphasised in the report on the European security strategy of last December and referred to in all three reports that we have before us. In the ESS report, it is rightly said that the links between internal and external EU policies have become more pronounced, which is clearly essential when we are considering issues such as energy security and climate change, or the focus on the security and development nexus and recognition of the importance of long-term poverty reduction as a means to reducing security threats.

The report recognises the need to communicate better with our citizens on all the aspects of security which are of particular concern to them so that we can maintain support for our global engagement, and emphasises that everything the EU has done in the field of security is based on our values and principles and has been linked to UN objectives. We must continue to bring this message to the people, also on issues such as terrorism, and we have to say that it is firmly founded on respect for human rights and international law.

We also recognise the role of civil society and NGOs and of women in building peace, thereby reflecting a truly European approach.

I was pleased to note that the EP report on the ESS stressed the need to further implement UN Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women and conflict.

Turning to energy, the gas crisis affecting the EU this year was unprecedented in its effect. With regard to energy security, it is clear that we have lessons to draw. For instance, the need for a functioning EU internal energy market, for interconnection and infrastructure projects, for the development of mechanisms to handle supply crises and for the EU to have a strong external energy policy is now clear, and we support this broad approach.

The report calls for a greater role for the European Union in its neighbourhood, but I shall not talk about that now.

Our relations with Russia, which have been tested lately, play an important role and have a great security impact.

The transatlantic link remains fundamental to our common security, and here we will soon be working with President Obama on issues that are of high priority.

Let me conclude with a few words on a particular element of the Commission's contribution to the EU crisis response, namely the Instrument for Stability. The first two years of the new instrument have been successful, both in terms of budget implementation, operational quality and political coordination with Council and Parliament. So far, EUR 220 million have been committed for 59 actions worldwide in 2007 and 2008, with the main share in Africa, followed by Asia and the Middle East, plus Kosovo and Georgia. Our priorities for 2009 will, as Javier Solana has already said, certainly include Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East.

Let me say that we, through the Instrument for Stability, and in close cooperation with the Council secretariat, are engaged in a number of activities and are playing an increasingly important role in providing training for mission staff on procurement and financial administration and on ESDP-related training for civilian response teams. We have trained 600 police experts on civilian crisis management in line with UN training standards, so that the robustness, the flexibility and the interoperability of the EU police elements have been improved.

I would like to add - and I think it is a very important point, for instance on Afghanistan - that we also need to ensure that the terms and conditions of service for seconded staff from Member States and contracted staff are sufficiently attractive to bring forward qualified candidates in sufficient numbers to staff our missions. I think we will have to work in that direction. That means that our input into crisis management is increasingly in demand, and expectations of what the EU can deliver are high. But we will try to go and do what these expectations require from us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in relation to the annual report (2007) on the main aspects and basic choices of the common foreign and security policy, I would like to emphasise some of the important issues from the viewpoint of the Committee on Budgets. Firstly, I would like to talk about the transparency of budget expenditure on the common foreign and security policy. The practice implemented by the European Commission of carrying over to the following year unused appropriations from the common foreign and security policy chapter, which the European Commission considers to be allocated revenue, gives a certain cause for concern. The Committee on Budgets has asked the Commission to provide information on this financial practice and recommends that the issue be examined in one of the regular common foreign and security policy meetings. Secondly, I would like to discuss the transfer of appropriations between different budget chapter headings within the common foreign and security policy. Certainly, here we need to have some flexibility, in order to be able to react quickly to crises in non-EU countries. The Commission could, however, improve transparency and, hence, democratic scrutiny in the field of the common foreign and security policy, by informing Parliament of internal transfers in good time. This is particularly important because the majority of common foreign and security policy missions, such as, in particular, the European Union's monitoring mission in Georgia and EULEX in Kosovo, are politically sensitive. Thirdly, in relation to the regular common foreign and security policy meetings held pursuant to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, the Committee on Budgets considers that much more effective use could be made of these meetings, by assessing planned measures in the common foreign and security policy sphere and the European Union's medium and long-term strategies in non-EU countries, and also by preparing a budgetary authority position prior to the conciliation meeting. Thank you for your attention.

Mr President, I wish to thank the European Parliament's three rapporteurs - Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Mr von Wogau and Mr Vatanen - for their reports and to stress, as Mrs Ferrero-Waldner and Mr Solana did, that they are a significant contribution by Parliament to the task of developing a strong, visible and effective foreign security and defence policy. This policy must guarantee the defence of our interests in the world and protect and provide security for our citizens. It must contribute towards creating a European Union that plays its part in an effective multilateral system and, above all, Mr President, it must help to ensure that human rights and democratic values prevail in every part of the world.

I believe we can see from the Treaty of Lisbon and the news that reaches us today from the Republic of Ireland - where the polls show 60% in favour of the Treaty - and the Czech Republic - with the Czech Parliament's ratification of the Treaty - that the European Union is coming of age in terms of its foreign and security policy. Above all, this must also contribute to making our governments think in a more European way when facing crises.

I believe that the European Union has to develop its own strategic considerations - this is obvious, and it is covered in the new security strategy - but without forgetting that the transatlantic link is written into the European Union's genetic code. The United States, through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, has been the guarantor of Europe's security and, for the time being, there is still no alternative to this link.

Furthermore, I believe that it will only be possible to establish Europe as a 'power' if this is done by asserting itself, not against the United States, but alongside the United States, as two partners who share the same vision of the world and have a mutual respect for each other. Of course, this does not mean that the European Union has to give the United States a carte blanche: we must defend our interests and our values whenever we consider it appropriate. The United States must also learn to respect the positions of the European Union because, as the work of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner and Mr Solana assumes, we are an institution that can be respected internationally and that has significant potential as an interlocutor in every region of the world.

Mr President, it is not true of the Council, but we here in Parliament and, as a result, also the Commission, are edging towards the finishing straight for this electoral term. For that reason, I think it makes sense that we should act not merely as the accounts clerk checking the balance sheet of the European security and defence policy's progress, but in a much more fundamental capacity.

I must admit that I am absolutely torn between two ways of looking at this. I tear my hair out when we have to deal with the day-to-day necessities, when a mission is threatening to fail for want of six helicopters, when there is no political will in the various capitals or when there are splits on technology projects.

When I look at things from a historical perspective, however, everything looks different, and Mr Solana, in fact, deserves a great deal of praise in this regard. The European security and defence policy has only been in existence for around ten years, we should remember, and the document on the security strategy was only produced in 2003. On that basis, the progress made is really quite great, from a historical point of view. As a historical optimist, I choose the latter point of view in case of doubt.

The second point that I, as a social democrat, would like to address, relates to something for which neither the European Union nor NATO is responsible, but which affects us all as Europeans. It relates to developments in connection with the missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic. We, as social democrats, are very pleased to hear that things that we have put forward are now being implemented in connection with changes in the United States.

We have always said that it does not make sense to rush the decision on the stationing of equipment, as there is not, at this time, any threat from, for example, Iran. Hillary Clinton said last week that further decisions at the US end will be taken in the context of what happens in Iran. Joe Biden has said that it is dependent on technical capabilities and financial considerations. These are things that we welcome. We will, at least, not be the last doomed brigade left fluttering the flag of this missile defence system.

Today's debate, which is based on the three reports, proves that, contrary to what many euro-pessimists and euro sceptics claim, European defence and security policy and a European foreign policy are indeed taking more and more shape and are showing more and more signs of consistency. This has been abundantly demonstrated by the speakers before me.

I should first and foremost like to thank the three rapporteurs for the way in which they have taken the opinions of the liberal shadow rapporteurs into consideration when writing their reports. We are pleased that many of our opinions are reflected in these reports. It is a little unfortunate, in my view, that for the NATO report by Mr Vatanen, who went out of his way to take as many opinions and approaches into consideration as possible, amendments were tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group of the European Parliament at the very last minute, as if these two groups wanted to place their own stamp on the report.

We will be endorsing it nevertheless, because we believe - and this is with reference to the report - that it does highlight the right aspects and that it also shows sufficient realism. For example, it is recognised, albeit in an elegant manner, that there is definitely competition between the European Union and NATO. Things like this are usually completely ignored, even though that is just the way it is.

Secondly, the amendment put forward by Mr Duff and myself, in which we clearly set out the difficulties that are caused by the respective attitudes of Turkey, Greece and Cyprus in NATO and the European Union, has been accepted. Usually, we do not get much further than elegant allusions.

Finally, there is a plea for complementarity between the strategies of the European Union and NATO in relation to defence and security which, ladies and gentlemen, is absolutely vital.

Mr President, the liberal end of history foretold in the nineteen nineties has turned out to be a fantasy. We are entitled to feel increasingly isolated. Therefore, there is no alternative to cooperation between the European Union and NATO. There is no alternative to a greater engagement of Europe and the USA in matters of international security. Otherwise the principles of international order will de facto be dictated by Korea, Iran or the terrorists of Hamas.

Energy, raw materials, piracy and Internet security require special attention. Recently in Poland, we learned that better coordination of the rescue of hostages is also a huge problem. However, the fact that decisions are taken jointly does not mean they will be good ones. Therefore, I would not overrate the role of the Lisbon Treaty. The limitations of our effectiveness are to be found in European capitals. It is there that we should seek the political will to pursue a joint world policy, and not in procedures.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is the case that, in recent years, there has been rapid development of the European foreign and security policy. We must ensure, however, that there is equally rapid development and change in relation to threats and crises of whatever kind.

My group is opposed to glossing over our own work. For that reason, I am likewise not prepared to talk up the reports before us today. Mr Saryusz-Wolski has produced a sound report, and it is one that we will support. That said, the strategic dilemma is clear. Mr Solana, you are absolutely right. You have just told us that European cooperation must be strengthened at the strategic level. First and foremost, though, what we have to strive for, and what we need to come up with, is a common European strategy in foreign and security policy - something that we still do not have.

I say this because we are at a historic juncture. These reports - in particular that of Mr Vatanen - on NATO, limp along in the shadow of the new US Government. Mr Vatanen declined to deal with the question of nuclear disarmament - which we will be voting on once again tomorrow - in his report. So what is it that we are talking about, then?

I will turn now to Mr von Wogau's report. This report discusses a new concept: SAFE. This is a nice play on words - Synchronised Armed Forces Europe - but this concept simply does not exist. We, furthermore, do not see why we should support this, when this concept is just not on the table. Mr von Wogau has neglected to discuss human security in his report. My group insists that we, as the European Union, must clearly set out this objective in international politics. He has neglected to ensure that we speak about the peacebuilding partnership or the development of a civilian peace corps. For these reasons, I feel entitled to say that this report is completely inadequate if we believe that Europe must act now, in the coming months, from today - and that is something that became clear at the security conference in Munich.

There is a window of opportunity after the election in the United States. I do not know how long that window will stay open. As Europeans, we must now formulate our strategic interests and incorporate them into the alliance - NATO - and we must also now stipulate our definitions of security, as Mrs Ferrero-Waldner pointed out, with regard to Russia. Otherwise, what will happen is that, in a few months time, the US administration will be more forward looking than us in the European Union and will decide, in bilateral talks with Russia, on crucial security strategy positions without European power - political power, conflict-prevention power - being able to have any influence on this re-stabilisation of transatlantic security policy.

For that reason, I call on us, and on others, to truly leave behind the old mindsets of the cold war and choosing one camp over the other and sticking with it and to move on. Europe has the obligation to its citizens to create a security partnership now that brings peace, rather than the opposite.

Mr President, the reports by Mr von Wogau and Mr Vatanen are explicit and clear and push forward still further the militarisation of the European Union. The reports require the de facto transformation of the EU into a military power. Mr von Wogau's report on the European Security Strategy requires an 'integrated European Armed Force'. We do not share the view that this is the way forward. What is more, the report advocates, inter alia, an EU Operational Headquarters and a common market in defence equipment.

The von Wogau report even lends its retrospective support to the dreadfully overpriced Eurofighter programme. The report states that the Treaty of Lisbon, which 'will introduce major innovations in the field of the ESDP,' is of key importance. This is a key reason behind our opposition to the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Vatanen report calls for permanent structures of cooperation between the EU and NATO. We believe this is wrong. Each new EU military mission is problematic. NATO is not an alliance for peace - it is a prosecutor of wars, in Yugoslavia and now in Afghanistan. What wars will be next? NATO stands for the politics of war. The report labels NATO as 'the core of European security'. No! NATO stands for insecurity! A mixing together of NATO and the EU would be highly problematic, especially with regard to the two strategies.

We in the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left stand for a civilian European Union and oppose NATO. What is needed is the disbandment of NATO. NATO wants to hold celebrations of its 60-year existence in Strasbourg, Baden-Baden and Kehl. I issue the call from here at the European Parliament today for protests against this NATO summit! Sixty years of NATO is sixty years too many.

As a group, we have submitted minority reports in response to the reports of Messrs von Wogau and Vatanen, and my colleagues will elaborate on the specific problems in relation to Russia. As before, we reject the missile defence system and we reject wordings in this report that make reference to Cyprus. We will therefore be voting against these two reports.

When, less than a year ago, I, along with an EP delegation, learnt about the activities of the EU police mission on the West Bank, I nursed a glimmer of hope of a Palestinian Authority actually enforcing its authority by means of an effective policing and security system. Paragraph 25 of this Saryusz-Wolski report therefore welcomes the extension of the mandate of the EU police mission in the Palestinian regions.

Meanwhile, I have very recently seen a few very unfavourable reports on public safety on the West Bank, including extortion practices by members of the Palestinian security system who operate like mafia leaders at night, or even the names of terrorist group members who are on the Palestinian Authority's payroll.

I would like to ask the Council and Commission whether these reports are true. Is it fiction? In short, what is the latest on the EU police mission in the Palestinian regions? This is essential, after all. If they are pursuing a viable Palestinian state, law and order must first be restored on the West Bank.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would argue that the Atlantic Alliance is an obsolete defence instrument and that in certain recent cases it has not in fact helped relations, for example, with Russia. I believe that we should maintain our relations with Russia and use them to pave the way for a privileged partnership.

I agree with Mrs Ferrero-Waldner's statement that common security policies should not overlook the fact that in recent times, NATO has not proved to be the most useful instrument of dissuasion or peacemaking.

I believe that Europe now has the maturity and political need to outline its own independent security strategy. This does not mean adopting an opposite position. We can be alongside - as other Members have argued - without continuing to be subject to what are often non-European interests. For this reason, I cannot support the reports put forward.

High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. - (ES) Mr President, as quickly as possible and given that the contributions of the various speakers have, in general terms, been along the same lines, allow me to mention to the House three or four issues that come to mind having heard the speeches.

To begin with, resources and means. The rapporteurs of the various reports have said that it is true that we have problems with resources and with means, and that better utilisation of national resources could be a good route for us to take. However, I would say that we also have available to us some means of which we are not making the best possible use, and I would like to highlight this for you.

I believe that it was a good idea to create the European Defence Agency by agreement of the European Council, without the need to apply or adopt the Treaty of Lisbon. I believe that the Agency can carry out great work in coordinating national policies, to give greater added value to all policies that are put in place.

Someone spoke about helicopters. Helicopters are needed for all kinds of missions: civilian missions, military missions, all sorts of missions; for transport. The helicopter has today become an essential crisis management tool.

Better coordination of what we have, both in terms of hardware and in terms of making better use of software for helicopters, would allow us to make better use of them and would, in fact, give us more than we have in day-to-day use.

I would also like to say that in recent weeks, our strategic relationships with the United States and with the Russian Federation have taken great steps forward.

Mrs Beer spoke about the Munich Security Conference; it was, I believe, an important event, at which progress was made in unscheduled talks because it was not a political forum for decision making, but an extremely important forum for reflection. I believe that the issue which will be under discussion in the coming years and months will be our relationships both with the United States, from the point-of-view of strategy in the coming years, and with Russia. That was the case in Munich, as well as later on when Mrs Ferrero-Waldner and I were in Moscow, discussing the fundamental theme of new ideas on European security with the leaders of the Russian Federation.

Europe does not want to be a military power. I believe that Europe - the European Union - is a civilian power with military means, which is very different from a military power, and I believe that this should continue to be the case. This work and all the documents that we produce, and which both Parliament and the Commission - or I myself - produce, are working towards that goal.

A few words about the police in the Palestinian territories, which is a subject we looked at in the previous session. EUPOL is one of the most important assets we have as regards credibility and work in the field of security with the Palestinians and in the occupied territories, and it will continue to be an important asset of the European Union, winning recognition from all: from the Palestinians, the Israelis and the surrounding countries. Therefore, be sure that we will do whatever we can to continue working towards that goal.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Solana, I should like to thank the three rapporteurs, and wish to comment on just a few part aspects. I should like to say in particular, however, that 60 years of NATO have meant 60 years of peace and freedom for my generation: this should be noted.

If we now succeed in strengthening EU foreign, security and defence policy at a time when multilateralism is increasing again - as the High Representative, Mr Solana, has just said - that is, if we manage to incorporate our vision of preventive measures and soft power into a common transatlantic strategy to a greater extent at this time of multilateralism, we shall have a good future ahead.

At the same time, France's return to military integration strengthens Europe's position. The Munich Security Conference was telling: following explanations by Prime Minister Tusk, Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy - in the presence of Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States - a European corps within NATO went practically unchallenged. In my eyes, at least, it was a sensational discovery that there were no protests from the Americans. In transatlantic relations, we can step up the development of common positions in the military field, too, so that these can then be portrayed credibly within the framework of NATO. For this reason, we should use our vision of military capabilities with an emphasis on soft power and prevention to tackle a new agenda, one that had already existed, but which became clear in Munich, for President Obama's policies make it possible for us to enter a new era of disarmament negotiations. We Europeans can play a role in this with START, with the NPT, which needs to be renegotiated, and particularly with the CFE Treaty, which is of particular importance in Europe as we also have certain problems with Russia.

If all of this is incorporated, including the missile shield, it will give us new - better - opportunities to conduct common transatlantic policy, with the United States as our ally and Russia as our strategic partner: a policy towards Europe's interest in peace. We can take this opportunity only if we ourselves become stronger and more influential, and therefore this policy goes in the right direction.

Mr President, the report on NATO's role in the EU's security architecture reflected different approaches in the European Parliament between, on the one hand, opinions which continue to look at NATO as the organisation offering the strongest security guarantee to its members, and opinions which, on the contrary, see less and less need for NATO in a world in which apparently there are no major threats - at least not comparable to the former Soviet one.

However, until now, there was no member in both organisations willing to give up the NATO security guarantee, even if the EU is putting weight behind its defence and security effort and has introduced its equivalent of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: the solidarity clause in the Lisbon Treaty.

To my mind, the relationship between NATO and the EU - the most important component of the larger transatlantic relationship - should be one that is naturally complementary and mutually advantageous to two partners who are compelled to work together in responding to today's multiplying and increasingly complex challenges. To that effect, existing mechanisms - see the Berlin Plus agreements - could be improved; new ones - see the proposal for an EU operational headquarters - should be contemplated; obstacles - see the negative impact of the Cyprus problem - should be overcome; and, most important, mutual perceptions should be definitely improved. Thus, on the one hand, one should stop considering NATO as an adversary and, on the other, the EU as an appendix to NATO.

As mentioned, the truth is that in practice, the two partners could very well cooperate with each other, mutually complementing one another. For that, the report has been amended and hopefully the end result has become acceptable to many of us.

Mr President, several speakers are putting a brave face on things this afternoon. The fact is that not all of the ESDP missions are proving to be a success: several failed to have clarity of purpose, several are poorly funded and it is possible that we could still fail in the Afghan campaign. So it is a good thing that Parliament is putting forward a strong contribution to defining common security, and we need now to establish far clearer criteria for the ESDP missions.

On the question of the integration of our forces, progress is feeble, and I cannot think that colliding French and British submarines is quite what we had expected!

(PL) Mr President, when there are too many Presidents, there are, in fact, none at all. When we are talking about the question of security, we should speak very clearly and precisely about something which is a most urgent and significant matter. What happened last year in Caucasia, in the closest proximity to the European Union, shows that we must certainly place importance on eastern policy, and treat it as a specific investment in the security of Europe and the EU. This is also why partnership with countries to the east of the EU is, I think, absolutely fundamental, and while I am pleased that this partnership exists, I am also concerned, because the budget allocated to Eastern Partnership has been reduced almost three-fold. I think this is an absolutely fundamental question and I believe that it will be a specific banner of the European Union, not only for its nearest neighbours, but also for countries that lie a long way beyond Belarus, Ukraine or Georgia.

(FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to the three rapporteurs. Unfortunately, however, I have to say that I do not share the uncritical view of NATO that Mr Vatanen's report, in particular, represents.

Of course, NATO is not the same as it was during the Cold War, and neither is Europe, and cooperation between NATO and the EU is an excellent thing. I do not, however, share the view that it would be a problem if not all of the Member States of the EU were members of NATO.

We must recognise the fact that some have been able to make a worthwhile contribution to peacebuilding precisely because they have remained outside military alliances, as is the case with my country, Finland. Since Finland does not belong to any military alliances, hardly anywhere is it perceived as hostile or a spokesman for the enemy. This has helped many Finns to act as peacebuilders. Examples are our former Prime Minister Holker in Northern Ireland, our former President Ahtisaari in Namibia, Indonesia, Aceh and Kosovo, and our former minister, Mr Haavisto, in Sudan.

Although the majority of EU nationals live in member countries of NATO, we nevertheless also have to recognise that the existence of non-aligned countries is a valuable resource for peacebuilding. It cannot be dismissed in the name of some aim to harmonise military policy within the EU.

(CS) I originally wanted to talk about the dangers of the militarisation of space because I feel, as a former astronaut, that I have a particular understanding of this. However, the documents presented highlight, among other things, the need to utilise security policy for the benefit of EU citizens. At the same time we are completely ignoring, for example, their opinion on the planned construction of new foreign bases on EU territory. Specifically, in Poland and the Czech Republic, preparations are continuing for the installation of components of the American missile defence system. And particularly in my own country, the Czech Republic, the views and interests of the public are being completely ignored. Not a single official voice has been heard from the EU in support of the interests of citizens, for whom the EU perhaps does not exist in this respect. At the same time, two thirds of people in the Czech Republic consistently reject the foreign base, in spite of an information and promotional campaign that has been going on for more than two years. In my view, there is something wrong with the EU when the interests of the people are not reflected in our documents and when people's views can be ignored in the interests of democracy. It is no wonder then that people turn away from EU politics, regarding it as something that does not belong to them or when they flatly reject it.

Mr President, the citizens of Europe need a strong Union with a competitive foreign, security and defence policy. This will not happen if our Union keeps idle in one place. China and India are growing, not only in economic power, but also in military might.

Europe's competitive advantage should be based on knowledge and innovation. This should be nurtured and supported by all of us. In an effective security strategy, our European forces should have access to equipment and resources of the highest quality. While the United States spends trillions of dollars on security, we in Europe are slow or idle in developing our own strategy. In a time of crisis, we are closing firearms factories, like the factory in Radom, Poland. We should instead be investing in advanced technologies, such as the recoilless technologies being developed in Poland as we speak. Innovation creates new business and jobs. We cannot build European capabilities by shutting down our own factories.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in principle I am certainly in favour of the idea of a European army, but we must define what kind of army it would be and with what limits.

Indeed, it is highly incongruous that we have two forces armed against each other - the Turkish army and the Greek army - that are part of the same alliance. I am sure that the Council has visited Northern Cyprus and has been able to appreciate the damage done by the Turkish soldiers and Turkish occupation to an island that is surely European.

It must also be said that the alliance with the United States is clearly an alliance that very often brings great problems. The US has dragged us into several wars, into several conflicts - I am thinking of Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan - at the heart of which lay interests that were certainly not European.

Instead, we should ally ourselves with Russia and Belarus which are, in fact, historically, religiously, militarily and geopolitically European. This is the future of the European army: an army, therefore, certainly not at war with the United States, but keeping a respectful distance; an army without Turkey, because until we have evidence to the contrary, Turkey is part of Asia, and in the Mediterranean is unfortunately in conflict with a European country; and an army allied with and closely linked to Russia and Belarus.

Mr President, you will not be surprised if I express concern about the thrust of the reports relating to ESDP, in particular Mr von Wogau's report, which is full of false assumptions concerning the nature of the European Union and the ambition to create a European army under EU control. It sees, and I quote this expression, 'Synchronised Armed Forces Europe' as a step on the way to 'an integrated European Armed Force'. Surely, in other words, a European army. As we all know, ESDP produces no military added value. It is a political tool in the advancement of an integrated Europe. It should be seen for what it is.

For a long time, I have argued that the European Union could play a useful role in providing civil instruments for crisis management and post-conflict reconstruction. This would actually be helpful. By the way, no military officers that I know imagine that conflicts such as Afghanistan can be tackled by military means alone. There is nothing new in what is now fashionably called 'the comprehensive approach'. We used to call it 'hearts and minds'. So it is quite wrong - a deceit in fact - for the EU to try and justify its involvement in military matters by claiming the comprehensive approach somehow rather for itself - some sort of EU-unique selling point. For the EU, the honest and sensible approach would be to drop the defence ambition from ESDP and to concentrate on its civil contribution. Then, perhaps, Europe and her allies would be able to focus on their military contributions to NATO, revitalising the transatlantic alliance for the difficult years ahead, without being distracted by the EU's duplicative agenda.

The immediate problem is that the EU's ambitions are now beginning to contaminate NATO, and I am seriously concerned that this will affect the way the 60th anniversary goes. Meanwhile, back in the UK, we have government ministers in a state of denial that any of this is happening.

(ES) Commissioner, Mr Solana, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank the three rapporteurs for their work. As a shadow rapporteur for the report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), I will refer specifically to that document, beginning by congratulating Mr Saryusz-Wolski on the results of his work and his collaboration with other groups in order to obtain a consensual result.

In the same way as Parliament has demanded many times that the European Union be provided with the tools necessary to give it a single voice in the world, this House itself is also able to present a united front when evaluating and giving impetus to the great priorities of common foreign and security policy.

The efforts of our group - the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - have been towards twin goals. First, introducing or reinforcing the big issues that we believe to be instrumental across all areas of foreign policy, such as the fight against climate change, the promotion of peace across the globe, or a commitment to human development. Second, proposing ways to restore the balance between the geographical priorities of the CFSP as they appeared originally in the text, if they did appear, or introducing them as a new element if they were absent.

That is why we have championed, for example, greater clarification of the actions between the institutional and cooperative frameworks involved in the recently defined Eastern Dimension. We have argued for greater diversification of and greater emphasis to be placed on relationships with Africa, a continent that we often only remember when particularly violent wars break out, and much of the time not even then.

As regards Latin America, we wanted the current negotiation processes for association agreements - the first bi-regional talks that the European Union will conclude in its history - to be given consideration.

Concerning the Mediterranean, we have objected to a reductionist approximation that only talks about security. Instead, we want to include the rich political, economic and socio-cultural heritage contained in the Barcelona Process.

As far as amendments for plenary are concerned, our group has not presented any because we believe that in that way, the balance achieved by the compromises is somehow strengthened. We will therefore oppose the majority of amendments, so as not to damage the compromise reached in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(PL) Mr President, as Tony Blair once said, although the European Union should not be a superstate, it should be a superpower. We might add: not only an economic superpower, for it already is that, but an important player on the world stage, because this is required by the interests, including the economic interests, of all the Member States.

Henry Kissinger is said to have once asked for the telephone number to call to find out what the position of the European Union was in important matters of international policy. Today that is the number of the High Representative. The problem is, however, that when the telephone rings, Mr Solana has to know what to say. It is, therefore, essential to build a common foreign policy, to include a security and energy policy, and therefore also a common policy towards Russia.

I would like to return to the constantly repeated proposal concerning the necessity for all the countries of the European Union to speak with one voice when engaging in dialogue with Russia. For this to happen, a precisely defined policy towards Russia should be developed as quickly as possible, a policy maintained in common and founded on solidarity. This will create a clear framework not only for talks between the EU and Russia, but also for bipartite talks with individual Member States. In developing this policy, a very important role should be granted to the European Parliament, in view of the mandate it has obtained in democratic elections, and of which it may be proud.

(EL) The report on the role of ΝΑΤΟ in the European Union has been used as an excuse to slip in the question of Cyprus's joining the Partnership for Peace and ΝΑΤΟ. Respect is needed for the position of the Republic of Cyprus. Intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign Member State to obtain an integration which is not dictated by any treaty is not legitimate.

At a time when the Republic of Cyprus is in the middle of negotiations to resolve the Cyprus question, fronts are being opened which have a very adverse effect on the process. The full demilitarisation of a homeland occupied by Turkey and the safeguarding of the sustainability of a future solution must be everyone's sole objective. Moreover, this is the position taken by the European Parliament in other reports.

We call on you to support Amendments 22, 23 and 24 and to vote against those points which constitute intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. We call on you to confirm that the principle of respect for the sovereign rights of the Member States is inviolate, independent of your overall opinion on the Partnership or on ΝΑΤΟ. Our choice is demilitarisation and adherence to the principles of international law.

(EL) Mr President, under international law 'I have a state' means I control certain territories over which I instate a government which exercises a defence and foreign policy. I ask you now about the 'state of Europe' which various people are preaching about and I wonder, where are its borders, what are these certain territories and where is its defence when its defence is in the hands of a large - unfortunately American - army and where is its foreign policy when we have a Middle East in flames, a terrorist greenhouse exporting terrorism, the refugees and victims of which are not on their way to Alabama or Arizona or Kentucky but, unfortunately, are coming to Greece, to Cyprus, to Germany and to Spain?

That is why I have to say that I have started to doubt the possibility of supporting the idea to come out of these proposals by the gentlemen who have tabled their reports before us and am thinking of voting against them tomorrow.

Madam President, those who pretend that an EU superstate is not being built before our eyes have a lot of explaining to do in terms of the contents of these empire building reports.

Affirmations that a common defence policy - now taken as a given - and what is called the EU's strategic autonomy, require an integrated European armed force, and demands for an autonomous and permanent EU operational headquarters - along with demands for equivalence with NATO - leave no room for doubt but that, under our common foreign and security policy, those pushing the European project demand not just political power but also military power, all of which must come from diminishing the powers, the rights and the independence of the Member States. Such super-statehood and a centralised army for Europe I repudiate, as I do the Lisbon Treaty, which would make it all possible.

Madam President, the message of our rapporteurs today could be that a vibrant Euro-Atlantic partnership is the best guarantee for European security and stability.

Indeed, I support adopting a new transatlantic agenda and bringing about a new set of Euro-Atlantic institutions, resulting finally in a comprehensive transatlantic common market.

Ari Vatanen has urged the involvement of all EU and NATO members in closer cooperation, regardless of which organisation they belong to. I think that is a very practical idea, as is his idea of a permanent EU operational headquarters complementing - and, of course, not competing with - NATO's command structures.

Another very important point is that we draw on the same pool of national resources. Jacek Saryusz-Wolski has said that the CFSP is seriously underfinanced, so it is crucial to avoid duplication and to increase efficiency. The question for the Member States is: What are they offering Mr Solana to carry out our common defence policies?

Thirdly, it is time to address new challenges to our security. In fact, future conflicts will be fought and perhaps decided in cyberspace, where every state has to react and defend itself, sometimes in a timeframe that does not exceed a second. The European Parliament, too, needs to take the initiative to contribute to this dramatic challenge of the new century, a challenge that is based on the democratisation of modern technology.

(DE) Madam President, the nationalists, the narrow-minded Members of this House, no doubt really believe that the risks and problems of this world can be dealt with by nations alone on an individual basis.

Mr Allister is a typical example. Does he really believe that terrorism in the world can be combated by counting on his country's national defence alone? Does he really believe that the problems of energy security can be solved if everyone tackles them on their own? That approach is antiquated. Of course, the Treaty of Lisbon, so frequently criticised, would bring the great benefit of enabling us to work together a bit more, for example, in the matter of energy policy and of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to address effectively the dangers and risks of this world.

The new United States Government under President Obama is pleased that this common European policy exists, as it means that the United States has a partner in tackling a number of these problems. In addition - something made clear by the frequent presence of Russian representatives in this House - Russia, too, has now realised that the old approach of talking only to individual countries and then playing them off against each other simply no longer works. Russia has realised that it must talk to the European Union if common solutions are to be reached, for example, in the matter of energy security.

Indeed, this is also mentioned repeatedly in the report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski. How can we try to solve these problems together: that of energy security, for example? I am delighted that the High Representative and one of his staff are to further intensify their efforts on this in future, as this will enable us to demonstrate to our citizens how the Common Foreign and Security Policy takes into account their specific interests, and how we mean to prevent Europeans having to shiver again in future. That is what this is about, and that is why we favour a common foreign and security policy over nationalist foreign policy.

(FR) Madam President, I congratulate our three rapporteurs for this quite remarkable summary that they have given of the current state of our common foreign and security policy.

Mr Solano, you know better than anyone that Europe is expected to take its place on the world stage, as dictated by its economic and demographic power and its wealth of democratic and humanist values.

It has to be said that despite the will shown regularly by over two-thirds of our fellow European citizens, as you said, some progress has been made over ten years, I will grant you that, but it has to be said also that this Europe still does not exist.

If one were needed, Europe's reticence with regard to resolving the new tragedy in the Middle East would be a recent example of this. There was, and there still is, a need for the presence in Gaza of a Europe that plays an active role, helping the population to survive and rebuild the country, and helping in the fight against arms smuggling, which has allowed this territory to be transformed into a base for the launching of rockets of all sizes.

Despite the verbal outpourings in Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem, nothing has yet been done in this respect. I would like to ask again a question already asked at the time of the Lebanese crisis: when can we expect, Mr Solano, the deployment of a European fleet in the Mediterranean like the one you have introduced to deal with piracy? We have the resources. Will we, one day, have the will?

(PL) Madam President, the European Union must act in the interests of the security of citizens of all Member States. Above all, it should accept part of the responsibility for the war on terrorism and should react sharply to any manifestations of terrorism.

The murder of a Polish engineer - being held hostage in Pakistan - by the local Taliban has had far-reaching repercussions recently. The so-called European diplomacy did not join the prior talks aimed at securing his release. This shocking incident, which is an element of the broader problem of security, should be the subject of a separate Parliamentary debate and should result in specific steps being taken, and I appeal for this. A priority at the moment is to achieve the return of the body of the murdered Pole and to help his family. These essential but short-term measures cannot, however, take the place of a comprehensive approach to terrorism and of increasing diplomatic pressure on countries such as Pakistan.

(PT) In international relations, Portugal abides by the principles of national independence, respect for human and peoples' rights, equality between states, the peaceful resolution of international conflicts, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and cooperation with all other peoples to bring about the emancipation and progress of humankind.

Portugal advocates the abolition of imperialism, colonialism and any other forms of aggression, control and exploitation in relations between peoples, and also comprehensive, simultaneous and controlled disarmament, dissolution of political and military blocs and the establishment of a system of collective security aimed at creating an international order capable of ensuring peace and justice in relations between peoples.

I would point to the text of Article 7 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic to show how far away the European Union is from these principles. By assuming the role of the European pillar of NATO, in partnership with the US, and by increasingly promoting the militarisation of international relations, the arms race, interference and aggression aimed at ensuring that the major powers control and share the market and natural resources, it is acting in total contradiction to these principles.

Madam President, these are own-initiative reports and therefore they might be dismissed as so much hot air. But we know that such reports are sometimes used as a means of introducing the policy aspirations of the EU.

Mr von Wogau was once the Chair of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and was instrumental in bringing about the European single currency. He is now Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, and, when he writes a report saying that the European Union needed its own armed forces, then we can be confident that that is precisely what the European Union intends to bring about in due course.

These reports call for the EU to develop its own armed forces by means of common weapons procurement, a common communication system and an autonomous common command and control structure. Mr von Wogau advocates an EU standing army of 60 000 soldiers permanently available for deployment. The EU wants its own soldiers, guns, tanks, aeroplanes and bombs in order to 'fulfil its responsibilities in the world'.

What are those responsibilities exactly? To find out, you will have to wait to see if the Lisbon Treaty is fully ratified and brings about 'a common foreign and security policy, leading to a common defence'. No one can say that they were not warned of the EU's military aspirations.

(FR) Madam President, however much friendship we feel for the rapporteurs, Mr Vatanen and Mr von Wogau, we are unable to approve their reports.

Firstly, because NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, was created in 1949 in response to the terrible threat posed by communism towards Western Europe. It played a useful, even essential role. Today, however, this dreadful communist system has collapsed and the Warsaw Pact has been dissolved.

NATO, however, is constantly expanding. Its activities extend beyond its geographical framework. Afghanistan, as far as I am aware, does not have a North Atlantic coastline. Neither does Kosovo, where it contributed to the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in an unjust war that solved nothing. NATO is thus violating the United Nations Charter.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are completely inconsistent. You wish to create a strong, independent Europe and you absorb European defence into a US-dominated command system. How can Russia and other nations fail to see in all that anything but an aggressive attitude?

NATO has subjugated us to the policy of the United States of America. We are their friends, but we do not wish to be their vassals and still less their lackeys. We have to put an end to this and get out of it. NATO has had its time.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Solana, as we all know, risk scenarios are constantly changing. The Treaty is also changing, and with it the opportunities for the European Security and Defence Policy. What will always be the same, however, is people's desire for security and stability, for a strong Union and for disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament.

With the three reports under discussion today, the European Parliament is giving a very strong indication of how it means to achieve these objectives and guarantee security. Firstly, there is the report on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which focuses on security in the Balkans, stability in Africa and peace in the Palestinian territories. Secondly, there is the report on cooperation with NATO, with its clear emphasis on closer cooperation between the EU and NATO and on better coordination. At the heart of the third report is the further development of the European Security and Defence Policy, with the aim of achieving greater efficiency and better coordination in connection with defence expenditure, and of achieving strategic autonomy for the whole Union and thus, also easing the burden on our Member States.

If we have all these objectives in mind, we must support the calls of these reports: for shared research and development, for the development of common standards and for common procurement systems, for example - all with the objective of interoperability. This will also mean optimum cooperation between the military in the Member States, cooperation between the police and the military, and also the creation of permanent military structures and the establishment of an Operational Headquarters and/or a Council of Ministers for Defence.

I am convinced that this gives us a crucial opportunity to make our Union into a political union and to develop a security union that gives the public what it expects of the Union: lasting security, stability and peace.

Ladies and gentlemen, up to now the speakers have kept to their speaking times. We really are pushed for time. I would therefore ask you to please keep to your speaking times.

Madam President, the CFSP has become almost everything, so you can say almost everything in a debate like this. In the past, we discussed only security issues and now we even discuss climate change, energy, etc. Therefore, I have to be selective and say something about EU-US relations and about the disarmament agenda, which I think we can move forward this year.

The new administration has made a very positive start, also symbolically by the announcement to close down Guantánamo. I think we should work on this issue and try to work together to solve some of the problems with which the Americans are confronted.

The second basic debate this year will be about economic security: are the United States and Europe able together to do things about the crisis or will they try to do it on their own, which will mean a rapid development of protectionist measures?

Afghanistan is also an important issue. Will we be able to match the increased efforts of the Americans or not, and under what conditions? There, the positive sign is that the Americans have said that they are aware that there should be a political solution as this cannot be solved in a military way. This brings the European Union in immediately.

Then on the disarmament agenda: last December, Mr Solana, you gave a very good speech here in Parliament on your ideas and those of the Council and the Union on promoting an agenda that is positive, by starting to support the Americans and the Russians to renegotiate the START Treaty and to work with the Americans on the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We will also be in favour of the removal of the remaining technical nuclear weapons in Europe and it would be helpful in supporting ideas to bring the fuel cycle under international control in order to make sure that countries that want to develop nuclear energy have peaceful access but will not be able to abuse that militarily.

We would like the European Union to support this kind of agenda, knowing that President Obama has ambitions. In his inaugural speech, when he talked about foreign affairs, he first mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan, but then he mentioned his ambitions to do something about nuclear disarmament.

(FI) Madam President, I will speak about Mr Vatanen's report and I would first of all like to thank him for the open way in which he prepared it.

I think, however, Parliament is sending a dangerous signal if it insists on strengthening its military organisation and highlights the importance of a military power reliant on NATO in the way proposed in the report. Cooperation and partnership, democracy and human rights as a guarantee of peace and stability is a viable European model which should be used in all the world's crisis hotspots. Furthermore, we are facing a deepening economic crisis, environmental problems and the challenges brought by climate change, none of which can be resolved by military force.

In my opinion, it would be more important to stress the importance of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and to concentrate on the prevention of conflicts and eliminating the causes of crises: the elimination of poverty, for example, and the promotion of democracy, human rights and civil society.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone that in the Union there are Member States that are not in NATO and which have their own reasons for that. These countries must be allowed to decide themselves on their security policy solutions, without any pressure from outside. For example, Finland has dealt well with its own defence issues and has been involved in peacekeeping operations in various parts of the world for decades. There have been a lot of amendments to the report that improve it, but they do not alter its basic tone.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, does Europe have its own geopolitics? It does not appear that way to me! If Karl Haushofer were alive, he would teach this somewhat spineless Europe that it needs a maritime strategy in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans and with the countries of the north, where the Arctic Ocean holds immense and extremely valuable energy resources. It is the superpowers of the United States and Russia who are active in these areas, not Europe!

The fight against terrorism also means fighting against those who circulate instruments of terrorism; people who can be used by terrorists. As we speak, Lampedusa is in flames because someone has set fire to the detention centres for illegal immigrants. Europe should concern itself with supporting the Italian Government, which is trying to prevent the invasion of illegal immigrants who can be used by the mafia and by terrorists. However, I can see no evidence of the firm, practical approach needed. Europe must defend itself from this threat, not with words but with action, as Mr Maroni and the Italian Government are doing.

(LV) Madam President, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, Mr Solana, all three of the reports by our fellow Members are very professional, balanced and, most importantly, have been prepared at the right time. Without going into the great number of precise facts, assessments and proposals that are set out in the reports, I would like to stress two points. Firstly, it is important to review Europe's security strategy every five years, since we can see that in recent years, such security issues as energy security, cyber security and climate security have become very topical, and also the possible conflict zones have moved from one region to another. Secondly, the European Union must significantly step up its conflict prevention efforts. I think that this would also have been possible in the South Caucasus but, in my view, the European Union's position prior to the armed conflict was too restrained. The European Union has a right and a duty to carry out preventive activities and intermediary missions, since the European Union is a project to create peace, a task it has been carrying out for the past 50 years. In order to be able to react to challenges and to take preventive measures, we need, first of all, the political will and, secondly, to create and improve a common foreign and security policy together with European security and defence policy institutional instruments. One of these instruments is the Eastern Partnership mentioned in the report by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, including the creation of the EURONEST joint parliamentary assembly. That could enhance understanding and also the development of democracy beyond our eastern borders. Finally, I would like to express my satisfaction with the inclusion of paragraph 33 in the report by Mr von Wogau, since in my country, events in the Caucasus and growing nationalism in our neighbour state are giving rise to grave concerns. As a wise old saying of my people has it: 'always hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and God helps those who help themselves!' Thank you.

(PT) I should like to thank the rapporteurs, Ari Vatanen and Karl von Wogau, for their work and efforts to achieve a consensus, particularly on the difficult issue of the nuclear policies, which must be urgently revised by the European Union and NATO at a time when President Obama is reviving the objective of freeing the world from nuclear weapons and when two European nuclear submarines almost caused a disaster.

The Vatanen and von Wogau reports highlight the need for a politically, strategically and operationally independent European Union, through an ambitious European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). We need institutional, financial and operational instruments to achieve these objectives. We therefore need close cooperation between NATO and the EU, based on respect for the political independence of each of these organisations, which are complementary. We therefore call for the setting-up of a permanent EU Operational Headquarters in Brussels, with the capacity to independently plan and conduct ESDP military operations. We therefore call on the Member States of the EU to increase efforts to spend their national defence budgets more wisely, more efficiently, and in a more European manner, which they cannot properly do separately.

The message from this Parliament is unequivocal and serves as a warning. Without a Europe of defence, defence in Europe will be threatened. Our defence industries may be threatened. The capacities that Europe needs in order to fulfil its responsibility of protecting civilian populations and preventing massacres and genocides may be threatened. Europe's role as a global player in crisis management may be threatened. The extension of European political integration to security and defence, as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, is urgent and needs to be speeded up. This is not only in the interests of the European Union, but also in the interest of NATO, as both organisations will reap the rewards of a Europe that is better equipped to tackle the increasing challenges to the security of Europeans and to global security.

(PL) Madam President, NATO has proved useful as an international security organisation during a time of relative peace in Europe. Of course, the sense of security which it gives us is significantly limited by the pace of decision making in the bodies which command the Alliance and also by the decisions themselves. In spite of this, NATO has a stabilising effect on world security. Attempts at 'softening' NATO - weakening its position by enlarging the military structures of the European Union - are a mistake. The European Union today has a problem reaching agreement on difficult political decisions, let alone military ones.

The EU should concentrate on strengthening internal security and increasing the defensive capabilities of its members, especially Member States which share a border with countries where extreme nationalist ideologies are popular, and also Member States which have attracted the interest of terrorist groups. The EU should not become too involved in measures which are aimed at the creation of large expeditionary forces intended for operations outside Europe.

(SL) Mr Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, has rightly reminded us of where we were at in 1990. It would be even more interesting to ask ourselves what kind of a common policy we had at the beginning of the 1990s.

At the time, the European Community was powerless. We subsequently saw wishes being replaced by visions, strategies, political will and capabilities, which also prompted us into action, not just on a European level, but also on a global level. During those years, particularly after the historic enlargement of 2004, the context and the ambitions of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) changed greatly.

Ten years ago, we were still largely immersed in our own concerns. Today, however, we can look back at the successes which we have achieved and it is impossible to envisage a CFSP or a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) without a global dimension. With this in mind, I am not surprised that all three of the reports and many of our fellow members have called our attention to the new situation, the need for strategy amendments, greater unity and greater interinstitutional cooperation.

All this has been backed up by concrete proposals for the improvement of our operational structures and our political decision-making process, which I heartily endorse. I agree that we have reached a new stage as regards our common policy and would like to point out two issues in this regard.

Firstly, we need to look in detail at how the financial, or economic, crisis might affect the context of our common policy. I firmly believe that we need to be very attentive to the possible political consequences of the crisis, in particular, those which may arise if we face an even deeper monetary crisis.

Secondly, over the course of a number of years, I have witnessed the surprising fact that many of our partners want the European Union to have a uniform foreign policy and defence identity which is better defined and more powerful. In other words, the European Union as a global player is the desired solution. In that spirit, it seems important to me that we should view our bilateral partnerships from a more global perspective than that which we have adopted to date and that we should also develop innovative approaches to multilateral partnerships, which not only take into account bilateral interests, but also serve to stabilise wider regions.

(EL) Madam President, the international system is in a transitional phase and there are huge challenges for all of us. We therefore need to reassess and improve relations between the European Union and ΝΑΤΟ in order to address common threats, such as terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the increase in international piracy and the new problems caused by climate change.

At the same time, however, I consider that this is the right time for us to confirm the role of the UN Security Council as the basic guarantor of international peace and security. There is now an urgent need to reform the organisation and we have undertaken to advance this reform, so that the UN can respond more effectively to its important task.

It is also important for us to stress that all states and international organisations, including ΝΑΤΟ, should refrain from the threat and use of any manner of violence, which is out of keeping with the aims and principles of the charter founding the UN. ΝΑΤΟ and the European Union have common interests and their relations should not be competitive. We need a more balanced partnership with better coordination of actions and stronger cooperation. However, each side should respect the independence of the other in terms of decision taking and ensure there is mutual understanding when military assessments differ.

Finally, I should like to emphasise the need for respect for the states' right of neutrality and, at this point, to ask for the call for the Republic of Cyprus to join the Partnership for Peace to be deleted. This decision is a sovereign right of every state and Cyprus is an independent and sovereign state able to decide its own future.

(CS) Let us celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of NATO. There will soon be some major US-EU-NATO summits. The return of France to the military structures of NATO, together with the energies devoted to European security and defence policies, provide an excellent opportunity for harmonising European security strategies and potential new strategies for NATO. Today's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Parliament marks a step change for European defence and security. Let us construct a joint European leadership. Let us rationalise the European defence market. Let us put resources into science and research, into the European Defence Agency, let us create a law for the European soldier, let us prevent duplicities and let us literally bypass the Turkish syndrome. Let us seize the chance offered by the new American administration for genuine cooperation in Afghanistan and for missile defences in Europe. We have before us an enormous opportunity for European security and defence policy to become the motor of further integration and security in Europe. Let us not waste it.

(CS) I would like to say a few words on EU-Russia relations. In my opinion, the creation of a joint foreign and security policy cannot be achieved in the absence of dialogue with Russia. The European security agency, which brings together the US, NATO, the OSCE and international disarmament agreements, should include dialogue with Russia as well.

I would therefore like to call on both the Council and the Commission to adopt an open and constructive position towards possible negotiations between the EU, the US and Russia on the renewal of transatlantic dialogue on security matters based on the Helsinki process.

It is my view that these negotiations should also include discussions on the topic of missile defence. The EU should play a much greater role in this issue than it has done to date. In my opinion, the agreement must not be left to the US and Russia alone. The European public expects this from us.

(PL) Madam President, Parliament is in agreement over common foreign and security policy for the European Union. Consensus exists about this among the main political forces. The problem, the real political problem, is how to achieve the essential aim.

Firstly, ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is needed as quickly as possible. Those political leaders who are delaying the ratification process of the treaty are weakening the development of the common European Union foreign and security policy. It is difficult to talk seriously about common European Union security policy without the Lisbon Treaty.

Secondly, I would like to emphasise the question of human rights in the development of EU external policy. The policy should support international law - international humanitarian law, liberal democracy and the rule of law.

Thirdly, the policy requires the serious development of a European defence policy, the development of European Union military structures and the development of the European defence industry.

Madam President, I want to make two points. Firstly, on values. The European Union is a Union of values. These values are criteria for accession. They guide us in our behaviour. They are a means to build interoperability with our external partners. However, we should not make the scope of our external policy from exporting our values. On the contrary, we have to learn to operate in a diversified world and even to respect the other's right to be wrong.

Secondly, on institutions. The international institutions and international law of today were shaped and created in a completely different world. Each day, we realise that they are not adapted to the new challenges, new opportunities and new threats of today's world. I believe, therefore, that the European Union should support the idea of a new conference on security and cooperation in Europe in a larger Europe - from Vancouver to Shanghai, not only to Vladivostok - in order to create a new space of security, of freedom and of cooperation. I think that this should be one of our top priorities, and we should not be afraid that others perhaps have other ideas on that.

(ES) Madam President, first of all I wish to express my general support for the three reports that we are debating.

Second, I would like to congratulate Mrs FerreroWaldner, above all, on what she has said about the close cooperation and collaboration between her team and that of Mr Solana. Third, I wish to congratulate Mr Solana because, without his character and creativity, the Common Foreign and Security Policy probably would not be what it is today: the legal and documentary basis, even with the advance of the 2003 strategy paper, would not have been enough to make so much progress on this Common Foreign and Security Policy in the last few years. Fourth, I would like to say that the Treaty of Lisbon - about which, as has been said today, there is good news that it may be ratified soon - will doubtless be a much greater and much better tool in his hands and in those of the European Union to turn the Union into what it should be: a global actor, in the full sense of the word.

I close with the idea that he himself expressed: Europe must be a civilian actor and power with military means, and not a military power.

Madam President, having returned at the weekend from a visit to Gaza, I am going to spend my 60 seconds talking about what I believe to be a serious problem there. Our principle of human security is one which obliges us to respond to the humanitarian crisis, but it also obliges us to respond and tell Israel that enough is enough and that no more can Europe turn a blind eye to the abuse of the Palestinian right to self-determination.

The most significant abuse of that right is the relentless and deliberate colonisation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Israel. There are now 500 000 settlers squatting on territory which is supposed to comprise the main territory of the proposed independent Palestinian state. It is increasingly difficult to believe that Israel really favours an independent Palestinian state, while proceeding to annex more and more Palestinian territory - and does so up to the present date.

Declarations that Europe and the USA are committed to a two-state solution, which includes a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, are not really worth the paper they are written on unless we say 'stop' to Israel in relation to settlements. They must be frozen now and eventually dismantled, otherwise there will never be a sustainable peace in the Middle East, Mr Solana.

(RO) I wish to express my appreciation to the three rapporteurs. NATO's role in Europe's security architecture has proved to be essential, not only up until now, but also offers real prospects for the rest of the 21st century. I feel that the European Union and NATO must cooperate with each other, avoiding any potential rivalry.

Powerful, productive transatlantic relations can provide the best guarantee for peace, security and stability in Europe, along with respect for the principles of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance. We are at an historic juncture when transatlantic cooperation has become vital with a view to jointly drawing up a new security strategy for the European Union and the new strategic concept for NATO.

At the NATO summit held in Bucharest in April 2008, the allies welcomed the political role which the European Union can have if it develops an action capability in the area of security and defence. The Partnership for Peace promoted by NATO and the Eastern Partnership project promoted by the European Union are of vital importance to the development of democracy and the rule of law, as well as for the transition to an efficient market economy in certain countries in the Black Sea region.

(ES) Mr Solana, I have been here since 3 p.m. just to speak to you about maritime piracy and to be able to congratulate you on launching the European naval operation against maritime piracy in the waters of the Indian Ocean. You know that the government of my country is fully involved in this mission. I wish to remind you that in April, the fishing season begins and that our fishers are concerned about how the forces in the Indian Ocean are currently distributed geographically. They would like some protection closer to the area where they will be fishing; that is, further south. I would like to hear something from you on this subject.

I would also like to tell you that I am interested in this operation enduring beyond the established timeframe. I believe it would be a shame if so much joint effort involving all three pillars at once were to finish abruptly at the end of one year, especially considering that the situation in Somalia and in the region does not seem likely to change or improve in the short or medium-term.

Madam President, NATO is the backbone of European defence, and we rely on NATO forces for the security of our Union. But NATO forces in Cyprus - Turkish NATO forces - are not a force of freedom, but one of occupation: occupation of EU territory. Not only did these Turkish forces cause death and destruction on the island when Turkey invaded in 1974, but they today continue to keep an EU Member State divided, causing fear and oppression among both Greek and Turkish Cypriots and obstructing the current negotiations between the two Community leaders on the island.

So, in discussing NATO's important role in European defence, it is fair to remember that the EU has not yet put the necessary pressure on Turkey to get its NATO invasion army out of Cyprus unconditionally and immediately. Do you not agree with me, Mr Solana? Perhaps he is not listening. Do you not agree that the Turkish army should leave Cyprus immediately, Mr Solana?

(FR) Madam President, I would like to quote the example of Georgia to show you how far we are from our stated ambition for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, despite the efforts of our High Representative and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner.

Now, of course, Mr Solana, you are asking for more capabilities and more aid. For my part, I would ask you the following question: is the European Union currently able to meet its commitments, particularly in relation to the ceasefire agreement that we have proposed with Russia?

Obviously I understand Commissioner. We know to what extent the European Union has been present and how it intervened quickly, but today we must also be aware that the Georgians are confronted by the Russian army, based on the territory of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I am certainly not questioning the remarkable work of the civilian observer mission on the ground. However, what can our observers do to defend civilians against the daily violence? Not much, apart from act as witnesses.

Moreover, the ambition of the CFSP, in this case in Georgia, will be judged against our courage finally to send peacekeeping forces to stabilise a region that we have included in our neighbourhood policy.

(RO) In the three reports which we have debated today, I have come across some relevant, useful points for defining the European Union's future policies as a global player.

I would like to make three observations. Firstly, I would like to stress the importance of the transatlantic aspect to the EU's foreign policy. We must capitalise on the current climate in relations with the US to open up a new chapter in this area to boost our power at a global level.

Secondly, the European Union's security dimension must be harmonised with NATO's to prevent any duplication of effort and shortage of resources.

Thirdly, I believe that the EU must use the European security and cooperation policy to strengthen stability in the Western Balkans, following the clarification of Kosovo's status. Kosovo is now in a phase of 'supervised independence', according to the EU's special representative, Peter Faith. Even though Mr Faith rejected during a recent hearing of the European Parliament the use of the term 'EU protectorate' for Kosovo, he acknowledged that the path to 'total independence' is long and difficult. 'It would be a miracle if we completed our mission in two years,' says Mr Faith.

However, I believe that we need to evaluate a clear timeframe for the EU's involvement in Kosovo. This is why I welcome the Commission's initiative to carry out a study on Kosovo, as long as it contributes to the success of the EULEX mission.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, let me just make a few remarks, and one in particular: I think this debate has shown that there is a growing acceptance of the approach Europe follows in crisis management and conflict prevention. The Munich Conference on Security confirmed the comprehensive approach, because security and development go together - you cannot have one without the other. I believe this European approach is a core element of our strategy to promote peace and security in our neighbourhood, but also beyond.

It works, but it must be adequately resourced, so we have to work on building our capacities and capabilities in both the civilian and military fields, and we will try at least to play our part as much as we can.

But I would also like to answer your questions, in particular that of Mr Saryusz-Wolski, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the under funding of the CFSP budget. It is true that the budget has been reduced this year, but this should, we hope, not be an impediment to our political ambitions in civilian ESDP, provided that there are no new significant missions this year. It is important to remember that only certain costs are covered by the CFSP budget - equipment costs, contracted staff, special allowances, for instance, the EU special representatives - but Member States also pay for the cost of their seconded staff. The budget will increase - as you know, not this year but in 2013 - to EUR 400 million.

Concerning transfers between budget articles, which Mr Dombrovskis mentioned, the Commission includes information on transfers within the CFSP budget with its quarterly reports to the budgetary authority, and in recent years, all appropriations under the CFSP budget have been committed.

Let me comment on two specific issues: firstly, on human security. Human security is something which I am personally very fond of, because it must be promoted: freedom from want and freedom from fear as a good of foreign and security policy. This is also recognised in our 2008 report on European security strategy (ESS), that we both mentioned before. Furthermore, the ESS report recognises that without development and poverty eradication, there will be no sustainable peace. Therefore, this is very important, and the promotion of human rights is also a part of this equation.

Finally, let me say a word on early warning and conflict prevention, which Mr Pīks spoke about. I agree in general that as a European Union, we must work more on the early parts of the conflict cycle, which means early warning, conflict prevention and preventive diplomacy. From the Commission side, one initiative we are taking in this field is to strengthen links with NGOs as part of a peacebuilding partnership, and also improving our uses of open sources of information. However, we will try to reinforce the early prevention side in the future. We know this is a very important part.

High Representative for CFSP. - Madam President, I shall be very brief. I would like to thank those Members of Parliament who have intervened, and I have taken note of their remarks and their questions. I will certainly be in touch with you to respond to those who have to be responded to properly.

I would like to say that this is the second time that we have had a debate of this nature in the European Parliament, an almost three-hour discussion on European security. I think this is very important, and I hope very much that this idea will be maintained in the future. To the three rapporteurs, thank you very much for your work, and you can be sure that we will continue cooperating with you in the future.

rapporteur. - Madam President, this is a very broad and, for me, satisfactory, debate about successes, gaps and actions in progress. Roughly speaking, I would say that it is the syndrome of the half-empty/half-full glass, depending on who is looking at it.

Some questions were answered at least by the mainstream of those who spoke. Is there progress in this area? Yes. Is it enough? No. Is there more convergence between institutions like Parliament, Council, the Commission and Member States? Yes, there is more progress, although this broadband of foreign policy of the Union is not sufficiently big enough, and here I refer to your words, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, on money. If we had more money, or at least as much as the Commission proposed for broadband in rural areas - EUR 1.5 billion - perhaps Member States, without having to pay, would more willingly participate in CFSP actions. You know well that this House is appealing for the Union budget to pay for that.

Do the citizens value this foreign policy? The answer is, again, 'yes'. Do we make sufficient use of foreign policy to legitimise the Union? The answer is 'no'. Capabilities: in the broader sense of the term, everything that is crisis prevention management and rapid response, we have what we could get and - I could expect that Mr Solana will nod - more. I have already touched upon finance. In terms of legal and institutional instruments - Lisbon - everyone agrees that we need more and better equipped instruments under the Treaty rules.

This convergence is being worked out in a discreet manner, and I would like to pay tribute to the discreet action and diplomacy of the High Representative, not only outside, but also within. How does this like-mindedness come about? When you are able, Mr Solana, to speak on behalf of the whole Union, there has to be, beforehand, action to persuade everybody and to get everybody on board.

The question of values was raised. Do we agree on values? Yes, we do, but we have different practices and this axis of values vis-à-vis interest is also present, and the best example is how to deliver it in Central Asia: it was present in the debate on the Central Asia strategy.

To close, I would say that I was touched by what Mr Solana said - that, through foreign policy, the EU identifies itself. It gets more identity. What we are adding in our approach in Parliament is that it gives more legitimacy, which means it gives more power. For that reason it can be an integral part of European integration. The dominant debate has shown that there is hunger for more Europe in foreign policy and that more pooling of European political and material capital is needed.

We are allowing the rapporteurs a little more time, but now we are short of time and we cannot continue to do so.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to comment on a few points.

Firstly, I wish to explain why I did not include the principles of 'human security' and 'responsibility to protect' in my report. This has been very controversial. In my personal opinion, these concepts that we have developed, whilst very important, are not suitable for a security policy, as they can be misused to justify military intervention all around the world. This is a very real risk I can envisage. Therefore, I do support these two concepts, but not for the security policy.

It has also been said that I am in the process of creating a European army and am calling for this in my report. I would ask you to read the whole report through once again - you will most certainly not find the words 'European army' in it. What the report says is that taxpayers' money should be spent better in this field than has been the case up to now.

Then there is the European Security Strategy, which now has everyone's support. The work that needed to be done on this took several years and was very successful. In my opinion, the next step must be to produce a work on the implementation of the security policy, a white paper on the security policy. This is a job for the next parliamentary term.

Last but not least, I believe that the next talks we hold on this subject must deal with the issue of EUBAM Rafah: how to revive this mission and how it can possibly be extended.

rapporteur. - Madam President, I shall just repeat what President Wilson said in 1917 and what, for example, our honourable colleague Mr Swoboda said half an hour ago: the nation alone cannot solve problems. This House, and the EU, are testimony to that. We have to learn from our mistakes. In whatever walk of life, we must work together: there is no cherry-picking, there is no free riding in the real world. We cannot let the burden be borne by just some shoulders: we have to share it, because we are democratic nations. That is a noble cause.

Sometimes I have difficulty in understanding why, immediately the word 'NATO' is mentioned, people - perhaps because of their anti-American feelings, or because they have anti-military leanings - are against it. Yes, we are pacifists. Who is not a pacifist? Anybody of sound mind is a pacifist. Who wants suffering; who wants war? But we must have the means to prevent it. We must be proactive. Wars come and go if there is this kind of attitude, but we must build peace actively.

I really give credit to the majority of Members in this House who again proved tonight that constructive, responsible common sense will prevail; that this House is what it is meant to be: a House that looks forward, because, unless we work together, peace will become a casualty.

Let me make one last comment. Mr Platini - a maestro of football - is speaking in another hall at this very moment. I was in France when the massacre in Rwanda took place - and this is not directed against France, but is a comment on how the media report information - and the fact that Mr Zidane, the football star, had a wart on his knee literally drew more attention than the massacre in Rwanda. No, we cannot be silent: we must be proactive; otherwise we condone these kinds of events in the world.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

How should Europe react to the fact that on its eastern borders, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a regional organisation comprised of several emerging superpowers and states rich in energy resources, is getting stronger? Through Russia, the SCO borders the EU, and therefore the organisation inevitably deserves the EU's substantive attention. By assaying the members and observers of the SCO, we can safely conclude that these countries own a significant proportion of the world's oil and gas reserves.

In light of this, addressing the question of a new strategy on Russia and Central Asia is unavoidable, and it must also include a political risk assessment specific to each country.

Let me also point out that, as illustrated by the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute, the EU's current vulnerability and considerable energy dependency undermines the development of an authentic, efficient and consistent joint foreign and security policy.

In addition, countries react differently based on their historical experience and financial interest. More so than at any other time in the past, it is especially important today to take uniform political action and to harmonise discordant national interests and positions.

It is indispensable for the EU to improve the efficiency and consistency of its actions on the global scene. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the foreign policy tools outlined therein may contribute greatly to this goal.

The increasing need for the EU to operate more efficiently and promptly, and events demanding intellectual answers with increasing urgency, call for a review of the organisational and decision-making mechanisms for governing our foreign policy, and for the provision of suitable structural answers.

in writing. - I congratulate Mr Vatanen on his report which I endorse. In particular, I support the idea of an EU Operational Military Headquarters being established. Of course, NATO should be, and is, our first port of call when security is threatened. Yet during the Bush-Gore debates just over a decade ago, George Bush said that had he been President he would not have intervened in Kosovo.

Now despite my antipathy to the Bush Administration's foreign policy, it seems to me that it is a perfectly reasonable position for Bush to take on the basis of US self-interest. Yet it is not a position that Europe could or should have followed. Apart from the strong moral argument that we had a responsibility to protect those facing the genocide of the Serbs, we also had the consequences of tens/hundreds of thousands of refugees. We, in our own and their interests, must have the capacity to engage without the Americans. To do this, it is a small price we pay to have a permanent EU Operational Military HQ ready for such a future eventuality.

Madam President, Finland does not need to be ashamed of its security policy solutions. Finland outside NATO is in good company with Sweden, Austria and Switzerland. It is easy to identify with them. Non-alignment with respect to NATO is the modern alternative for a mature state.

We have started to speak about a softer NATO, as the 'bellicose' President was exchanged for a 'peaceful' one in the United States of America. It is to be supposed that the ecstatic speeches about a soft NATO under Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will become a more common phenomenon. Let us allow some time to pass, however, and just see how NATO develops.

My own view is that NATO's fundamental nature has not changed at all, ever since the bipolar security system failed. On the other hand, the propaganda about a soft NATO has been a success.

Simply gazing in the direction of Russia (Russia, Russia, Russia) or waiting around for a new Winter War will lead nowhere. Neither is NATO the proper answer to the bigger problems facing Finland in the near future, which are mainly economic in nature.

The evaluation of the role of the NATO-EU alliance must start with the acknowledgement that the political landscape in both Europe and the US has fundamentally changed recently, with the European Union now having a legitimate role to play in global security.

This situation requires the alliance to become 'repoliticised' so that it becomes a forum for open dialogue discussing the major issues in which it is bound to get involved. An honest transatlantic dialogue about, for example, the necessary approach to tackling terrorism is an absolute must, precisely because the allies have different perspectives about the way in which they must respond when faced with this common challenge.

In the current situation where Member States are facing an ever-increasing variety of challenges to global security, ranging from interethnic conflicts in the immediate vicinity of allied territory to global terrorist networks and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, they must attach particular importance to the process of reflection and dialogue on this issue and support the alliance reform processes. I am referring, in particular, to the security problems affecting the areas in the immediate vicinity where the alliance can play a key role in the creation of democratic defence and security institutions in the Balkans and extended region of the Black Sea.

We need a common, coherent and up-to-date European security policy which will help strengthen our European identity and allow the EU to speak with a single, credible voice in the international arena.

The current reality we are facing, fraught with major challenges such as the economic crisis, energy security, climate change and migration management, requires cooperation and responsibility from the Member States in order to protect their common interests and promote peace, security and respect for territorial integration.

The EU can only have an impact if it speaks with a single voice and has available and uses effectively the necessary instruments, helping to strengthen cooperation with neighbouring states.

We need to think strategically, become actively involved and act consistently at a global level. We also need regional security and close ties with the relevant regional players.

Strategic partnerships with neighbouring countries to the east of the EU are a necessity, and we must invest in relations with Russia, deploying a coherent strategy with common, mutually beneficial commitments.

We need to invest in neighbouring countries, especially those to the east of the EU, and offer them the necessary incentives to continue with their reforms and be able to strengthen the EU's presence in the area. We have new instruments available, such as the Eastern Partnership, which will help us establish a new consolidated approach at a higher level with our partners in the region.

International security is one of the greatest values for all the subjects of international relations. Nowadays, we are witnessing a redefinition of that concept and a shifting of the centre of gravity to non-military factors which threaten stability and international security. Examples of such threats are organised crime, Internet terrorism, piracy (we can see this off the coast of Somalia), climate changes and the dangers arising from the world economic crisis. The European Union, while directing its attention to building common military instruments, such as Eurocorps, the European Air Transport Fleet and the permanent EU Operations Headquarters, must not, however, forget about other threats which are no less important. More attention should be paid to building bodies and institutions which would allow us to overcome the financial situation caused by the world economic crisis, and to protect the natural environment and biological diversity. Internal threats, such as drugs, poverty in society, and Internet crime, must not be forgotten either.

All these elements are important factors which influence international security, the security of the European Union, and of every nation. Without a solution to these fundamental questions, creation of a stable European security strategy is not possible.

The common security policy is a topic which has been debated many times and about which a great deal has been written. The European Union is an increasingly important facilitator at regional and global level. It is precisely for this reason that I feel that the European Union must be visibly active within its borders and proactive in any area of the world.

After examining the three reports today: the 2007 Annual report on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, the European Security Strategy and ESDP and the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU, I believe that we can come to three conclusions:

1. The European Union must have a common security policy capable of supporting the democracies within its borders and the partnerships with the countries neighbouring it.

2. The European Union must project the image of being a unitary whole and needs a rapid-reaction force capable of intervening at any time to support peace, democracy and human rights.

3. The European Union must consolidate its position globally and continue to act as a facilitator for stability and balance between the major powers in the world.

in writing. - (ET) Mr President, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr Vatanen, for his good report on synergy between the EU and NATO. The all-round intensification of cooperation and partnership, the reasonable use of resources and the avoidance of duplication, an appeal to members of both to be more flexible, goal-oriented and pragmatic - this report contains everything that we in Europe, and also in the European Parliament, have always emphasised in our positions.

Among other important features of the report, I found the recommendation that the candidate countries of the European Union that are also member states of NATO should be granted some temporary status in the European Defence Agency (EDA). This would definitely be a solution for the Turkey issue from NATO's point of view.

The report on the ESDP and ESS by our colleague, Mr von Wogau, generally hits the mark. The ESS report, which was approved by the Council in December, answered most of the questions that had been raised. The new aspects presented in the report and the positions guiding EU security-related activities will help the EU to stand up for its security interests more effectively, as the von Wogau report recommends. The orientation of the report towards the EU seeking cooperation with other partners is to be commended.

Thank you!

I wish to express my support for Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report which rightly emphasises that the task of guaranteeing energy security for Europe's citizens must become a major priority in the EU's common foreign and security policy.

I would like to say loud and clear: the security of our energy supplies and, in particular, diversification of the gas supply sources, will remain just a beautiful dream unless we build the Nabucco pipeline.

The Nabucco project must be adopted as a strategic goal by the whole EU. It requires both a serious amount of financial investment and, in particular, an effective European foreign and security policy. An effective policy provides guarantees of regional stability in the area through which this gas pipeline is going to run. With this goal in mind, we must make every effort to provide our Common Foreign and Security Policy with the coherent and effective structure that it so desperately requires in order to achieve tangible results.

For instance, I think that the EU needs a Senior Official for foreign energy policy who will enjoy strong political support and have at his disposal the necessary instruments to take action.

I appreciate that the EU needs to allocate sufficient financial and human resources to its Common Foreign and Security Policy in order to achieve the concrete results which European citizens are expecting from us.

I fundamentally reject the report on European security strategy and a European security and defence policy in its current form. This report is a typical example of the militarisation of the EU and proof of the fact that in the security sphere of the EU, military resources and measures have to replace and even supplant necessary measures of a political nature. Many of the findings and recommendations contained in the report are in direct conflict with the fact that the EU is supposed to be developed as a project for peace. It is no wonder that EU citizens, whenever they get a chance to express their opinion, take a stand against the Lisbon Treaty for reasons that include the way it establishes the militaristic nature of the EU. There is a highly aberrant and dangerous position included in the report which, on the one hand, talks about the security interests of the EU while, on the other, criticising Russia for defending its own perfectly legitimate security interests in the Caucasus.

Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that we are discussing three reports relating to security and defence in this House is an expression of our great political responsibility to the citizens of Europe on the eve of the NATO summit. The established practice of adopting resolutions on the main aspects and decisions of the Council report on common foreign policy and security is an excellent opportunity to appeal to Member States to apply this practice at national level.

It is especially important to develop independent academic capacity for analysing and assessing European security and defence policy in tandem with national security policies. This will form the basis for a public debate on ESDP through a network of analysis centres based in the Member States.

It is not possible to work on an EU security and defence white paper if the Member States do not transpose the document into their national strategies. This includes strengthening national analytical capacity and the ability for computer-based learning and training to test and grasp new concepts in the area of civil-military cooperation.

We must encourage Member States to conduct a joint strategic review in the field of security to establish a sound basis for interaction between the EU and NATO in the process of developing a new strategic concept for NATO in the context of ESDP.

The Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mrs Napoletano, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean.

Madam President, Mrs FerreroWaldner, Mr Vondra, ladies and gentlemen, with this report, Parliament is proposing to make a constructive contribution to the prospect of strengthening the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

The proposals resulting from the Paris summit on 14 July last year put forward two objectives that are worthy of our support. The first of these is to give practical shape to economic, regional and environmental integration projects and to make them more effective, by creating a secretariat entrusted with this task, receiving public and private funding; the second is to strengthen political dialogue within the whole process, through new institutions such as the co-presidency, the summit of Heads of State or Government and the regular Foreign Ministers meetings. In this context, I would like to emphasise the role of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, which was recognised in the Paris text and then in the Marseille document.

Parliament wants to help find a way out of the serious stalemate that has followed the tragic events in Gaza. Much depends, however, on the policies that the new Israeli Government formed after the elections will adopt. Nonetheless, I would like to point out that the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly will meet in the near future and demonstrate the role that parliaments have to play, even in this difficult situation.

We wish to highlight the value of institutions that involve both the European Union and the countries in the south and east of the Mediterranean while, at the same time, signalling that it is essential not to reduce the entire process to a solely intergovernmental approach. We hope for widespread involvement of civil society and social partners, not least because the economic crisis can worsen the already endemic and terrible problems such as unemployment and increasing migratory pressure, making this phenomenon even more difficult to manage. We are calling for greater attention to be paid to the issues of human rights that affect the behaviour of all the partner countries to a greater or lesser degree.

As regards the institutions, let us remember that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union may be assured of coherent and structured representation through the new figures of the President of the Council and the European Foreign Minister. In the meantime, it would be beneficial to ensure continuity in the European presence, at least in the co-presidency. We know that the Czech Presidency has been sensitive to this, and hope that the Swedish Presidency, too, will be willing to accept this message.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all my fellow Members and the officials of the various political groups and committees that have given their opinion. They have all contributed to the drafting of this report, which I believe enjoys widespread support.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to today's discussion on the issue of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean. I know that Parliament follows this with particular interest. Pasqualina Napoletano is to be commended in particular. As a result, the motion for a resolution on which you will be voting later constitutes a valuable contribution to our work together.

The Paris Summit last July created the Union for the Mediterranean and established a partnership built on the existing Barcelona Process. The current rotating presidency gives priority to strengthening this partnership. Even though the Lisbon Treaty has not yet come into force, I can assure you that, in the spirit of co-ownership, we are placing a particular focus on the development of this initiative and, in particular, the regional projects. These are important. They offer concrete signs to the citizens of the region that the partnership works in their interest.

The Union for the Mediterranean is not the only mechanism for cooperation. The bilateral dimension continues under the European neighbourhood policy, and is complemented in some cases by the pre-accession framework - as well as, in the case of Mauritania, the ACP framework.

These approaches together encourage reform within individual countries, and reinforce regional cooperation. The neighbourhood policy, of course, also has an important eastern dimension, and we very much welcome the parallel development of this policy.

The Paris Summit agreed to take work forward in four key areas: de-pollution of the Mediterranean; maritime and land highways; civil protection; and the development of alternative energies through, for example, the Mediterranean Solar Plan.

There is also particular focus on higher education and research, as well as on support for business through the Mediterranean Business Development Initiative. The technical aspects of project proposals put forward in this area will be handled by the secretariat to be established in Barcelona, as was agreed in Marseilles last year.

In addition to these specific project areas, the ministerial conferences of the Union for the Mediterranean will address a number of global challenges that affect us all. These include the search for peace and security in the region, the social and geopolitical impact of the economic crisis, environmental concerns, the management of migratory flows, and the role of women in our respective societies.

There are two particular areas of cooperation which I know are important to this Parliament and which we also fully support. The first is interparliamentary cooperation through the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and its committees. This initiative is key to developing a strong parliamentary dimension to the Union for the Mediterranean. It will, as is pointed out in your resolution, serve to reinforce its democratic legitimacy. It will also help promote the basic values which lie at the heart of the European Union. We very much welcome the way in which you and your President have embraced this particular initiative, and offer you our full support.

The second area which I believe should be a particular priority for us is the development of intercultural relations. This is absolutely crucial if we are to encourage greater understanding between cultures in the Mediterranean region. Civil society, local social and regional partners all need to be involved. The Anna Lindh Foundation has a particularly important role to play in this area.

The Union for the Mediterranean offers us the potential for developing better relations among its members. Recent events have shown that this is not an easy enterprise, but they have also underlined the importance of our continuing to work to this end. We are only too aware of the difficulties faced by the populations in the region as a result of the crisis in Gaza. As you know, this has led to the postponement of meetings of the Union for the Mediterranean, but the Presidency believes that regional cooperation and dialogue is the way to achieve peace, build confidence and create prosperity and we certainly expect to resume work within the Union for the Mediterranean as soon as possible.

Therefore, a démarche of the Czech EU Presidency and the French Union for the Mediterranean Co-Presidency, on behalf of the EU members of the Union for the Mediterranean, possibly together with the Egyptian Co-Presidency, addressed to our Arab partners, is just being prepared. Its purpose is to appeal for a resumption of all Union for the Mediterranean activities automatically and without any conditionality immediately after the League of Arab States Doha Summit at the end of March. We intend to use the opportunity of the Donor Conference on Gaza, which will be held on 2 March in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt, for further consideration by the three Ministers of Foreign Affairs: Karel Schwarzenberg, the Czech Foreign Minister; Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister; and the Foreign Minister of Egypt.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Napoletano, first allow me to congratulate you on the work done, since it has allowed a report to be produced that is genuinely important on several levels.

Firstly, because it is a truly positive and constructive contribution from the European Parliament to the definition of a coherent Euro-Mediterranean policy, a challenge to which we are deeply committed.

Then, as you rightly point out, the Union for the Mediterranean must be supplemented. It must not be purely intergovernmental, but must be rightly supplemented by opening it up to the participation of other players, such as local and regional authorities. It is important to intensify the parliamentary dimension by reinforcing the role of the Parliamentary Assembly, and to establish a lasting involvement for civil society.

It is true the Union for the Mediterranean's role is to develop the joint nature, at an institutional and political level, of a regional partnership in need of a relaunch. However, it is all also true that this can only be done on the basis of the Barcelona acquis, which needs to be extended and consolidated.

Regional cooperation financed by the Commission is part of this acquis. There is, therefore, no reason to call it into question today. On the contrary, it supports and guarantees the coherence of the European Union's action in the region, especially as its objectives are perfectly compatible with the ambitions of the European neighbourhood policy, the main framework for our bilateral relations with the countries of the region.

The same is true for compliance with Community methods applied to the mechanisms for making decisions and setting priorities within the European Union, as the Union for the Mediterranean is an initiative that forms an integral part of the European framework.

Mr President, the constituent summit of the Union for the Mediterranean had, as you know, the triple objective of reinjecting political vigour into Euro-Mediterranean relations, of changing the institutional governance of these relations in favour of a joint leadership of the initiative and, finally, of crystallising multilateral cooperation between the European Union and its Mediterranean partners around structural projects, which will bring sub-regional integration and are likely to reduce the discrepancies in development between the two sides of the Mediterranean.

Indeed, we must reduce these discrepancies via social economic development, more trade and increased investments. We must counter ideological radicalism, for which the lack of development and a sense of injustice provide fertile ground, with dialogue and political solutions to conflicts. We must pursue responsible and concerted migration policies, as you said, to benefit from demographic stabilisation in Europe and the demographic growth of the Mediterranean countries. There you have several examples of the challenges we must face together with our partners in the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean.

Indeed, we know that we cannot achieve these objectives without parliamentary support, both from the European Parliament and the Euromed Parliamentary Assembly. This is the spirit in which we are working, with the firm conviction that, on all these issues, the European Commission will be able to rely on your collaboration, and I would like to thank you for this in advance.

However we also know, of course, that, faced with the most worrying situation in the Middle East following the war in Gaza - we discussed this today - we do indeed have a problem: we cannot leave the Union for the Mediterranean in a political vacuum. It is what we have always said. Indeed, it is a fact.

This has given rise to the current suspension of the work that, personally, I regret greatly, but, of course, we hope to get to work again at some stage. The meeting to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh, where the Commission will, of course, have an important role to play as cosponsor, will be very important. I hope that various other meetings will be held afterwards. A lot of work has been done already, in fact, and when the Commission is working, it takes it very seriously.

Moreover, much has been done on the rules governing the secretariat which are in place and which should allow Barcelona to start its work.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. - (DE) Mr President, Mrs Napoletano, ladies and gentlemen, the Union for the Mediterranean should revive the Barcelona Process, which was launched in 1995. Unfortunately, we must face the fact today that the recent Middle East crisis has meant the project has not come to fruition. The opening of the secretariat in Barcelona has been postponed indefinitely, and the money promised cannot come in.

Thus, there have been no tangible results so far, which I greatly regret. I ask myself whether we have been concentrating too much on institutions, and whether this is the reason for the current impasse. Have we underestimated the influence of political crises on the Union for the Mediterranean?

How can we ensure the continuation of the projects? In the history of European integration, we have been very successful in the economic and commercial fields. It is for this very reason that we in the Committee on International Trade have considered how our successful mechanisms could be applied to our neighbours in southern Europe. One objective is the creation of a free trade area by 2010, but this, too, has ground to a halt. It is precisely because political conflicts are blocking this process that we should strengthen the economic field.

International trade could have a beneficial effect not only on the economic but also - and particularly - on the political and social situation in the region. Regional economic integration is crucial in this regard. Our southern neighbours must also cooperate more closely with one other.

At the same time, the countries that have already developed a network of bilateral trade relations should be convinced of the added value of a multilateral dimension. Communicating the benefits of economic integration to local citizens will play an important role in this. This would be one step towards stabilising the situation in the southern Mediterranean. I wish to see this for the sake of us all, particularly the citizens in the region.

A poem is never finished, only abandoned, said a Mediterranean poet born in Sète. I believe that something similar happened to the Barcelona Process: it was not finished, but it was abandoned - in part at least.

That is why Parliament believes that the efforts made under the French Presidency to breathe new life into the Barcelona Process are important. That is also why, in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, we have actively collaborated on the report by Mrs Napoletano, whom I wish to thank for her patience and understanding.

Why was the Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerned with this subject, Mr President? For several reasons. First, to guarantee the continuity of the Barcelona Process with the Union for the Mediterranean. Second, to avoid duplicating structures and embed this process into the institutional framework of the Union. Third, as Mrs Ferrero-Waldner has already said, to say that it is not simply an intergovernmental process but to emphasise the parliamentary dimension.

That is why, in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, we have been insistent on issues already raised by President Pöttering on 13 July 2008. These refer to how the Parliamentary Assembly must meet once a year, be organised into groups on the basis of political families and produce consultative reports.

We also tried to help the Council with the important decisions that it had to make. Mr Vondra, this House wishes to cooperate with the Council and we laid down the criteria that the headquarters of this new Union for the Mediterranean needed to meet. Coincidentally, these criteria coincided with a city in a country that I know very well; in fact, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs decided that Barcelona could be a good headquarters. Moreover, the ministers recognised it shortly afterwards, which, Mr President, reflects once again this desire to cooperate with the Council.

I began by quoting Paul Valéry; permit me to finish by citing a verse by Paul Valéry as well: 'Tu n'as que moi pour contenir tes craintes!'.

I believe that to soothe the fears that there could be on both shores of the Mediterranean, there could be nothing better than the success of this Union for the Mediterranean. Let us hope so, Mr President, and thanks, once again, to Mrs Napoletano for your understanding and help.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate Mrs Napoletano for her efforts and the balance she has brought to this issue, and thank Mrs FerreroWaldner, who is always attentive to our work, for the important job she is doing around the world.

We must all demonstrate great unity because the problems and challenges we have to face in the Mediterranean are particularly difficult. We must strive for a stronger, more influential role for Europe, given that strategically we are side by side with the United States.

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has gone to great lengths, over the years, to build an ever-stronger, ever-more active role for Europe. Funding is not enough; funding alone is no longer sufficient; what is required is substantial renewed political action. One of the many shared challenges is that of tackling immigration into Europe. This problem cannot be addressed through cooperation with political opponents, nor can it be addressed through populism; rather it requires rigorous controls to ensure compliance with the law and the Convention on Human Rights.

The Union for the Mediterranean, the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and the common foreign policy in relation to the south are all excellent and legitimate tools that can be used to carve out a stronger, more significant and credible role for Europe.

For this reason, my political group will vote against the amendments tabled by the far left; we believe that they are excessively controversial and not very constructive. My political wing seeks to give renewed impetus to this valuable activity, which will become essential in the near future, and therefore we support the re-launch of the EMPA, no longer as a mere discussion forum, but as a place where important joint decisions can be made for our future and the future of all those living on the shores of the Mediterranean.

On behalf of the Socialist Group, I would first of all like to congratulate Mrs Napoletano on the excellent report that she is presenting to us this afternoon, but above all, and most importantly, because she has been a Euro-Mediterranean da prima ora. Without her work and her impetus, we would not have been able to imagine firstly a Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum, or subsequently a Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, and we would not now be in a position to demand the role that the representatives of citizens should have in what we are trying to set up.

I would like to follow on from my colleague Mr Méndez de Vigo, who always quotes great literary figures, by recalling a phrase from Shakespeare's King Lear, in which it is said that 'The worst is not, so long as we can say, "This is the worst”'. We have strived to do the opposite, because at a time when the situation in the Middle East is worse than ever, we have established an instrument whose aim is for the region as a whole to contribute to political, economic and social development, as a basic framework for resolving conflicts. This is what the Union for the Mediterranean is, after all. This is a Union for the Mediterranean that is not ex novo, but has come from the deep roots of the Barcelona Process, creating new institutions such as the Permanent Secretariat, which will be in Barcelona. It is something that we welcome as Europeans, as Mediterraneans, as Spaniards and as the parliamentary representatives who asked for it at the time. It is also an acceptance of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly as what it should be: a way for parliamentarians and citizens to express themselves within this Union.

The EMPA does need to be given what it deserves: the tasks of consultation, monitoring and proposal. The Union for the Mediterranean needs to be based on joint management, it needs to have sufficient funding and be focused on regional integration and provide for the needs of citizens. In this way, we will be able to build a Mediterranean of peace, solidarity and also an alliance of civilisations.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I also wish to congratulate Ms Napoletano, not only on the excellent report she has produced, but also for the valuable cooperation she has offered to the shadow rapporteurs. The subject matter of the report is extremely important as it deals with the prospect of having a Euro-Mediterranean Union of states bound together through friendship and cooperation and aiming at the common goal of achieving peace, stability and prosperity for their citizens.

This is not an easy task, not least because regional conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian problem, are not easy to resolve - or even to cope with, sometimes. Nevertheless, hope must never be given up and the Union for the Mediterranean can only be of help in keeping such hope alive. And who knows? Perhaps it would help to turn hope into reality in the form of long-term stability and lasting solutions to regional problems.

It is important to note in this debate the valuable contribution made to the initiation of the proposed project by the French Government, and it is also important to reiterate that the formation of the Union for the Mediterranean is not offered as an alternative to Turkey's planned accession to the EU. We should make sure that the Turkish people know and understand that there is no such hidden aim or trickery.

Finally, with regard to the amendments before us, the ALDE Group, with the PSE Group, have agreed on five compromise amendments aiming to improve further the report. The additional five amendments submitted by the GUE/NGL Group are not thought to be very helpful and will not be supported by my group.

My congratulations once again to the rapporteur.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wholeheartedly support any initiative aimed at developing the Union for the Mediterranean.

From this perspective, I hope to see the parliamentary role of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly strengthened, including by stepping up the Assembly's relations with the Mediterranean partners and enabling it to make recommendations to meetings of Foreign Ministers and to participate as an observer at meetings of Heads of State or Government, ministerial meetings and preparatory meetings held by senior officials.

I would like to emphasise the need to strengthen the role and initiatives of the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership and to create a EuroMediterranean Investment Bank, which was announced some time ago but which has not yet been carried out.

I support the proposal to create a Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly along the lines of similar, European, institutions, in order to involve regions and cities further, and a Euro-Mediterranean Economic and Social Committee to involve the social partners and civil society.

I also welcome the proposal to establish a Euro-Mediterranean Energy Community within the framework of a policy aimed at implementing large-scale projects in the fields of renewable energy and energy infrastructure.

Furthermore, I hope that the Union will play an ever-more effective role in the search for peace, in conflict resolution, in the strengthening of democracy, in the defence of religious freedom and in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime and people trafficking.

Lastly, the Union cannot evade the task of taking concerted action with the states involved to manage migratory policies and flows in the Mediterranean area. It can no longer focus solely on security, the rule of law and repressing illegal immigration, but must also, and above all, direct its attention to active policies, sources of shared rules and targeted and sustainable employment.

Thank you, Mrs Napoletano, for this excellent report. A couple of days before the war broke out in Gaza, I was representing Parliament and the EMPA in Jordan, at the last ministerial conference that took place before activities were once again suspended due to the violence in the Middle East. It was a conference on water. It was a ministerial conference on one of the key issues on which there needs to be cooperation across the Mediterranean, which is going to create conflicts, is a question of survival and is also the target of some possible large projects in the Mediterranean, involving solar energy, transferring water and many other things.

This is how crucial it is. These activities have been suspended and I hope that soon the Union's activities for the Mediterranean will resume and that there will be progress in the Middle East.

We have had some very ambitious objectives in the Mediterranean. The results have been much more modest, especially in the fields of human rights, democracy and the environment.

We also need to promote the South-South market and cooperation between the countries of the South, and not just be obsessed with a big free market in the Mediterranean, which is not preceded by cooperation between countries that have deeply entrenched conflicts, one after the other.

At the same time, we need to deal with the energy crisis. The energy crisis and the current economic crisis could represent an opportunity to move forward with very important projects, both for Europe and for our neighbours to the South, such as plans for thermosolar plants (high-temperature solar energy) and the creation of intelligent, clean networks to connect North Africa, the Middle East and Europe in a vast, clean plan to fight climate change and the economic crisis.

Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Napoletano for her work. Secondly, I would like to say that as shadow rapporteur, I have asked my group not to vote in favour of this report, for two fundamental reasons.

Firstly, because the most recent conflict, the most recent Israeli attack on Gaza, is of such magnitude that it cannot go unpunished. Everything has a limit, it is not the first time, but this attack on Palestinian sovereignty is of such magnitude that it genuinely prevents the Annapolis agreement from becoming a reality and blocks the prospect of the creation of a Palestinian State, which is the only possibility of having a Union for the Mediterranean in peace and solidarity.

The second reason why I have recommended that we do not vote in favour is because with regard to the free trade area, regional differences are not taken into account. We feel that it is essential that trade issues be taken into account in terms of treating everyone equally, taking into account regional differences and the particular characteristics of each country.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that I, on the other hand, will vote in favour of Mrs Napoletano's motion for a resolution, because in my opinion, it is undoubtedly strategic to identify major projects to be carried out and equally useful to highlight the need to adopt a 'programme agreements' approach in order to do so. These agreements should, however, be based - and I believe it is very important to emphasise this - on the principle of subsidiarity.

Frankly, I am somewhat puzzled by the call to give fresh impetus to the management of common migration policies, although I recognise the importance of collaboration between the Member States, and not only this; collaboration with the countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean is certainly important and should be implemented.

In all honesty, I also have some doubts about the economic and commercial initiatives intended to pave the way for the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area. This is not because I am prejudiced, but because I would appreciate some clarification on how it could be mutually beneficial.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Ms Napoletano on her report. Certainly, the Union for the Mediterranean is a significant step forward in the efforts for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. One of the impediments to this partnership so far has been visibility: the capability of the populations of the partners to acknowledge the impact of the Barcelona Process and our Union for the Mediterranean.

Let me give you an example. When I was asked to prepare a report on de-pollution of the Mediterranean, the programmes involved are the following: the Mediterranean Hotspot Investment Programme, the Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean, the EU Marine Strategy, the UNEP/MAP, the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development, the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Programme, the Mediterranean EU water initiative and the MYIS, which have been running under the umbrella of the Horizon 2020 programme. This fragmentation makes visibility suffer.

The other impediment is the Middle East problem. I salute the position of Mr Solana that the Quartet will this time operate in a different way to the past. This is not due to the lack of will on the part of the European Union, but due to the previous policy of the American Administration. I hope that, this time, with the dispatch of Mr Mitchell to the area, political progress will be made. We have done a lot on this issue. I visited Lebanon very recently, and I saw there that UNIFIL, with the presence of the European contingents, makes a repeat of hostilities in southern Lebanon and Israel impossible.

(PT) My thanks go to my colleague, Pasqualina Napoletano, for her excellent report. Fourteen years after Barcelona and five years after the first Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, we have the Union for the Mediterranean with economic and parliamentary power, with civil society, and with the heads of government deciding together. Everyone wants to do more and better in this territory where 720 million citizens represent real potential for development and peace in the world. Restricting ourselves solely to the economic and business dimensions is clearly a mistake. Responding to the growth crises naturally requires a political response, but responding to the humanitarian crises, to emergency situations and to military crises, such as the one witnessed at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, is crucial.

Politicians and citizens must respond to the world's problems. The world asked them for answers and yet, months later, we, the citizens and politicians, particularly in a platform such as the Union for the Mediterranean, are still taking time to react. I hope that, at the very least, this time of crisis will make us learn and progress. Although we can only learn through our mistakes, making progress by speeding up the reaction is absolutely crucial.

(PT) In her speech, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner summarised the objectives of the new Union. In truth, this Union was born during the French Presidency under the star sign of mistakes. The first mistake was to remove from its agenda the conflicts in the region, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Western Sahara conflict. The second mistake is for the Union to try and assert itself by sharing economic and environmental projects, without questioning the free trade context in which it sits. The third mistake is to insinuate that there is a possibility of transferring to this Union Turkey's application for accession to the European Union.

Mrs Napoletano's report does not tackle the first mistake, and that limits its scope. No economic and regional integration will come to fruition if the Union does not have the courage to tackle existing conflicts and to do this based on international law. On the other hand, the report does contain clear recommendations on the second and third mistakes, and these are all heading in the right direction.

The Union for the Mediterranean cannot act as the waiting room or back door for Turkey, provided that it meets the accession criteria, and the Union for the Mediterranean cannot be an add-on to the European free trade strategy, without any social integration policies.

The report's recommendations are important: a Union with a citizen and representative dimension involving the League of Arab States; regional projects with a social dimension; and the extension of projects to areas essential to people's lives, namely water, agriculture and education. There are also clear rules on the programme agreements and a Euro-Mediterranean Investment Bank.

The Union was born with mistakes, but at least it exists. I support this report because I believe that this Union will end up being what we manage to make of it. I therefore give it the benefit of my support.

(PT) Many of the issues of greater political importance to Europe involve the Mediterranean Basin. The 'Union for the Mediterranean' initiative therefore deserves our support as it can give new impetus to a process that is necessary and useful, but which has not had the requisite success or visibility. The question raised concerns how we can pursue this strategy. The model followed in Barcelona has not had the expected results. Can this new partnership bear fruit?

Mrs Napoletano's report goes against this perception. However, we do not want the Union to suffer the same problem as the Barcelona Process. It apparently encompasses many projects and many areas of action, but the priorities are not correctly ranked. Relegating intercultural and inter-societal understanding among the peoples on both shores to paragraph 26 and leaving the issue of democratising and promoting human rights to paragraph 27 and migratory flows to paragraph 28, after having talked so much about other sectors and other issues, leaves a mistaken impression of what the priorities of this partnership are, or must be.

There must be a clear strategy. In our opinion, this strategy must involve offering more benefits and more cooperation to our neighbours, but also asking them for more results at the economic, social and democratic levels, and concentrating on well-defined and perhaps a smaller number of sectors to prevent all areas having equal priority, which runs the risk of nothing ultimately being a priority. Clearly, this can only be achieved with appropriate support and funding. Recognising the need for an investment bank for the Mediterranean must ultimately be favourably received. It is essential to be ambitious, which means properly doing everything within our power.

Finally, Mr President, I must mention the Middle East conflict. This process, although not an alternative to peace negotiations, can, and must, make a contribution to better understanding, interdependence and mutual respect between the opposing sides. These are essential factors - as we are all well aware - for bringing peace to the region.

The list of speakers has been exhausted. There are four requests from the Chamber for leave to speak under the 'catch the eye' procedure.

Mr President, would the Commissioner, in her reply to Parliament, explain exactly how the newly phrased 'Union for the Mediterranean' - as opposed to 'Mediterranean Union' - remains an EU policy? I think it is very important that she also considers two other EU seas: the Black Sea, and its synergy, and the Baltic Sea, and its strategy.

My country has an interest in the Mediterranean. I think we have observer status too. Member States are Commonwealth members, and - though I do not wish to irritate my Spanish colleagues - Gibraltar, as far as I know, still is technically part of Her Majesty's Dominions.

It is very important that this is not just some sort of regional hive-off in which the rest of the EU is not fully involved - as I hope they will be fully involved in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.

(RO) The economic and social development and prosperity of the citizens from the states in the Union for the Mediterranean must be sustainable. I feel that the newly created Union for the Mediterranean must also tackle the issue of climate change.

Approximately one billion citizens live in the Euro-Mediterranean region, which produces a third of the world's GDP. Regional cooperation is most needed in the area of tackling threats to the environment.

Population growth and the reduction in the amount of precipitation in this region, due to climate change, make drinking water one of the main elements at risk in this area. Water shortages, water pollution, shortage of water treatment plants, oil spills caused by maritime accidents, forest clearances and soil erosion must feature among the concerns of the partnership for the Mediterranean.

I believe that one of the fundamental values promoted by the Union for the Mediterranean must be environmental protection and the fight against climate change, both in terms of adapting to it and of reducing the causes contributing to it.

(FR) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, I would also like to thank Mrs Napoletano since, during the first discussion on the Union for the Mediterranean, I was rather sceptical and whilst this may still be the case, I now believe that there is hope.

The challenges are absolutely enormous. Do we have the resources to confront them? We know that we do not. The objectives are certainly noble: environment, energy, the fight against desertification, immigration, etc. We must not, however, just descend into a disconnected list that would only lead to disappointments on the other side of the Mediterranean.

However, if you would allow me, Commissioner, I would like to mention a particular country that is not a Mediterranean coastal state but has been included; it is an ACP country and also a member of the Union for the Mediterranean. This country, Mauritania, is today going through a very serious political crisis. I think that, as a partner in the Union for the Mediterranean, as an ACP country and in the name of the neighbourhood policy, this country deserves our support to help it get out of this crisis.

I believe that this is what the two parties to the conflict are asking us to do and we have a responsibility to commit ourselves to help it out of this major political crisis.

Mr President, water is a key issue of cooperation across the Mediterranean. So too, I hope, is a pan-European super-grid, or HVDC interconnection, including a connector between Spain and the north-western coast of Africa.

It is of critical importance to mainstream the use of renewable energy including wind, hydro, various solar technologies and others. Being able to rely on it at peak demand depends entirely on spreading the input into our grids from as many sources as possible so that the output can always respond to demand. If the wind is not blowing off the north-west coast of Ireland - and Ireland has been described as the Saudi Arabia of Europe in terms of wind energy! - it will be off the north-west coast of Africa, or the solar thermal operations in the Mediterranean, especially Spain, will be feeding the grid, or the range of PV installations across the region will be inputting.

This scenario is a win-win for the Mediterranean region, for energy security, for energy politics and, above all, for a serious regional decrease in our carbon dioxide emissions from our current dependence on fossil fuels for industries, transport and heating and cooling.

Mrs Figueiredo has joined us and will present the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality under the 'catch-the-eye' procedure.

The opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality highlights the need for all Member States to pay closer attention to ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and all other United Nations and International Labour Organisation human rights instruments. It also draws attention to the situation of women, regretting that no special consideration has been given to this issue in the Commission communication, particularly in the 'projects' dimension, which should include the promotion of geographical, economic and social cohesion and which should always take into account the issue of equal opportunities for men and women and the gender perspective.

Finally, I simply want to stress the concern about poverty and social exclusion, which seriously affect women. I will end with a final word on the serious cases of Palestine and the Western Sahara, where women and children are the main victims of war and exploitation, in short the whole process of discrimination that affects these people and which seriously affects women and children.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, first of all, thank you very much for this useful debate, which brought forward a number of ideas. You have prepared a really interesting document.

Where are we now? We know why we are doing this: the Mediterranean region is the cradle of our civilisation and therefore it is logical that we in the European Union want to give it special attention. Last year, there was a French initiative, and we need to keep this process in motion and to develop its full potential.

So we know why we are doing this and what we want to achieve. Many of you have stressed how important it is that the Mediterranean becomes an area of peace, stability and security, where democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms - including gender equality and the role of women in society - are upheld and fully respected.

We also know how we want to achieve that, so we have the Union for the Mediterranean and a broad spectrum of activities. You are very well aware of the most important areas, the emphasis on renewables, the solar programme and the water management programme. I was in Portugal just a week ago and that country could serve as an example of how to develop a sustainable, dynamic programme for a renewable source of energy, which is very important for the Mediterranean region.

We just need to move. When we met last year, both in Paris and in Marseilles, we could not have anticipated the situation that would arise in Gaza, but the Presidency, together with the Commission, is doing enough to be able to start with the implementation of all the agreements which we reached last year. So I think we can reasonably expect to move on after the end of March, as I informed you, with the latest activity of the Presidency.

The programme of our activities for 2009 is very substantial: about nine sectoral ministerial conferences are scheduled. There are the resources which, as far as I know, come to over EUR 1 billion. So I think we are ready. There are certain realities related to the situation in Gaza which have caused some delays, but I believe we will be able to overcome that.

Thank you very much for a useful debate. We are certainly ready to assist you further.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, much remains to be said, of course, but I will start with the following question: what is the Community dimension in all this?

Firstly, I can tell you that the Community dimension is important in this issue, because the Union for the Mediterranean project is based on the Barcelona process and has also inherited the acquis of the Barcelona process. All the acquis is there then. We have worked a great deal on that.

Secondly, the Union for the Mediterranean is part of the framework of the neighbourhood policy. The neighbourhood policy represents the bilateral policy and the Barcelona process, while the Union for the Mediterranean constitutes the multilateral part. Of course, I can also tell you that the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea are part of the same framework, although they are in the North. Do not worry then. Fortunately, everything is there. This, in fact, is what the French Presidency wanted, in other words, to share the copresidency with the Mediterranean countries - as I said before - and to work together.

Now, we - the Commission - are also managing all the future Community projects, because it is necessary and because we are also under Parliament's control. Only those projects that may be financed by private funding are managed differently.

The secretariat, which will be located in Barcelona, will promote the projects. That is how we imagine the promotion, then we will try promotion using private funding because, for the rest, that will remain under the Commission's control. The decision will be taken initially by the 27, as always, and afterwards, once again, the copresidency will be able to work in cooperation with the 143, the South and the North.

As for Mauritania, Mrs Isler Béguin, it participates only in multilateral relations, namely the Union for the Mediterranean, but is not involved in the neighbourhood policy. That is the only difference.

That said, I might add that, despite this temporary suspension, we are working at the Commission in a constructive spirit, of course, to implement the four to six projects that have been put forward as priorities. These are civil protection, de-pollution of the Mediterranean sea, maritime highways and also a solar plan, within the framework of which we are doing a lot of work on renewable energy, particularly solar energy, as the latter, along with wind energy and other energy sources, is very important.

In total, the Union for the Mediterranean can now benefit from financial support worth EUR 60 million in the 2008-2009 budget, particularly via regional programmes. Moreover, EUR 50 million has already been committed to the Neighbourhood Investment Fund to support investment projects in the region.

We also wanted to support the promotion of university exchanges and that is why, for example, I decided to extend the Erasmus Mundus programme to the countries of the southern Mediterranean to offer them extra university grants.

As regards the issue of women, Mrs Isler Béguin, we are naturally also involved as it appears in the Barcelona acquis. I remember that I was at the first women's conference for the Mediterranean, held in 2007 in Istanbul. We continue, of course, to deal with this issue.

However there is still, as you know, on the one hand, the bilateral aspect, concerning the relations with each country and, on the other, the multilateral aspect, which is now one of the core concerns of the Union for the Mediterranean.

I would just like to say a quick word about the secretariat: we envisage the creation of a drafting committee that will soon be handed the responsibility, in particular, of preparing the secretariat's legal statutes. The Commission has already made much progress in the preparatory work. These statutes will confer a legal personality on the secretariat; then they will need to be formally approved by the senior officials of the Union for the Mediterranean.

To conclude, I would like to tell you again that the participation of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly as an observer at all the meetings of the Union for the Mediterranean is very important and we support the reinforcement of this role within the Union for the Mediterranean. Moreover, when Mrs Kratsa went to Marseille, we gave her a lot of support on this issue.

I believe that I have raised the most important points. Of course, there is still a lot to be said on the subject.

Mr President, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, Mr Vondra, ladies and gentlemen, I think this debate has been very useful and has clarified certain aspects of our fairly complicated system of instruments for bilateral and multilateral partnership with the countries of the south.

I subscribe to the explanation Mrs Ferrero-Waldner gave, pointing out that the Barcelona acquis remains in place, and that for precisely this reason, we in Parliament would perhaps have preferred the first definition, which was: 'The Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean'. Perhaps it would then have been clearer that we were reinforcing a system for which there was already an established basis.

Similarly, I hope - I say so quite openly, I will no longer be rapporteur - but I hope that Europe's institutional framework can itself evolve. Why? Because once we have a European Foreign Minister who will, in part, represent the Commission and the Council, I hope that this minister will not be a 28th foreign minister to add to all the others but, at least on the European side, the Member States will feel that they are represented by this person. There will then perhaps be no need to add more states to the Union, but if we have a senior representative in the Foreign Minister, we may be able to consolidate the role of the European Union. This is something we have all worked towards, and so we give our wholehearted support not only to the fact that the regional programmes should continue but also, as the Commissioner knows, that Parliament attaches great importance to these programmes, which have arguably produced better results.

Thank you all for this debate.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Close partnership between the European Union and the countries of the Mediterranean Basin should be based, first and foremost, on respect for human rights and the rule of law. The proposal entitled 'Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean', adopted in Paris on 13 July 2008, contributes towards peace and prosperity and may be an important step towards economic and territorial integration, as well as ecological and climatic cooperation.

It is a pity that since the launching of the Barcelona Process, no substantial progress has been made in some of the partner countries as regards adherence to, and respect for, some of the common values and principles highlighted in the 1995 Barcelona Declaration, to which they subscribed (especially as regards democracy, human rights and the rule of law).

In the countries of the Mediterranean Basin, the incidence of poverty and social exclusion, which seriously affect women and children, is disturbing. It is essential that Member States and partners engaged in the Barcelona Process emphasise inclusion of the gender perspective in all policies and specific measures which promote equal opportunities for men and women. All States taking part in the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean should ratify both the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and all other United Nations and International Labour Organisation human rights instruments as soon as possible.

in writing. - I welcome the efforts made to further develop the EU's relations in the Euromed region, but I would like also to underline that the EU should not neglect its two other seas - the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. The Baltic Sea strategy will be one of the priorities under the Swedish Presidency. Also, the Black Sea Synergy carries strategic importance. The EU has to take care and find a common spirit in developing all these regions in a balanced manner. The EU is an integrated community and the long-term strategic development of all its regions has equal importance.

There is clearly a need to have a close partnership with non-EU countries in the Mediterranean based on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Regrettably, there are still several countries that have serious problems in this domain. I urge the EU Member States to address these issues with the utmost seriousness.

Involving the Arab League is a significant opportunity to bring all states together to jointly find solutions for conflicts in the region. I call on the EU Member States to take a balanced stand and play the role of negotiator rather than taking sides in different conflict situations. Only by being balanced can we contribute to achieving long-term peace in Middle-East.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

(HU) In Romania, the history of Székely Land's autonomy goes back several hundred years. The founding documents of the modern Romanian state guaranteed the regional autonomy of Székely Land, which existed even during communist times.

Taking into consideration the different forms of autonomy guaranteed in EU states, on 8 February 2009, in Sepsiszentgyörgy (Sfântu Gheorghe), a crowd several thousand strong demanded that the President withdraw his offensive statements toward Hungarians in Transylvania, guarantee representation in state institutions commensurate to ethnic populations, cease targeted relocations into the area, stop deliberately crippling the economy of Székely Land, expedite the return of ecclesiastical and public property, halt the expansion of military units, establish state-funded independent Hungarian universities, recognise Hungarian as an official language of the region and recognise collective rights and the regional autonomy of Székely Land.

(BG) We must congratulate the Lower House of the Czech Parliament for ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. This is yet another victory for the European idea and further proof that ever more people believe in European values. And for that reason, I appeal to us to set ourselves apart from those who would encroach upon these values and destroy our belief in them.

How can we write up our fundamental rights in gold in the Charter on the one hand, while tolerate them being scorned and denounced at the same time? We speak of religious and ethnic tolerance, and the rights of the elderly to a dignified life and to participate actively in it while, at the same time, the leader of a Bulgarian political party, a full member of the European People's Party, demarcates various ethnic and age groups, and imposes the idea of different classes of people. How should we treat such leaders? My question is addressed to the right side of this House, because the president of the EPP, Mr Martens, has recommended that same person for the next prime minister of my country. Let us reject double standards and respect our own actions and words, and remember that what brought us together more than 50 years ago were human rights.

(BG) The European Economic Recovery Plan is now in place. The crisis is a general problem, but protectionism and the promotion of national industries and employment is creeping in. The fundamental freedoms of free movement of labour and free trade are being put to the test. The crisis is following different paths in different countries. In the recently emerging economic tigers of the European Union, which include Bulgaria, the banking system is relatively stable, unemployment levels are not high, there are highly-skilled workforces and stable currencies. In view of the dynamics of the crisis, I appeal for the recovery plan to be updated to be more in tune with the real economy. At times of crisis, capital looks for low-risk areas, and there is the chance to invest in new greenfield technologies rather than in unviable industries. The potential of the last economies to fall into recession should be used to revive them first and, with the help of this funding and know-how, they can become centres of stability around which the economic and financial system of the European Union can more quickly recover.

(PL) Mr President, at a time of spreading crisis, I would like to congratulate the European Commission on the destruction of Polish shipyards. The egoistic approach of the European elite, their joy at the loss of the jobs of over 100 000 people in the shipyards and the firms which work with them will surely result in a large part of these workers appearing on the job market in western Europe in the near future. This decision has only deepened the European crisis.

I am curious to know how the European elite will behave; will they show solidarity with Member States where the crisis has grown to a huge scale, or will they only look after their own interests? It is precisely at a time of crisis that European society will see if the declarations and principles which lie at the foundation of the European Union are true, or if it is only a game being played by some States against others within an institution which was founded on noble principles. In this context, I am surprised by the lack of reaction from the Commission to measures currently being taken by many members of the EU which break prevailing principles, while Poland has been punished for taking similar measures.

Mr President, I received some strange news from Northern Ireland last week. It was that Mr Sammy Wilson, the Environment Minister in the regional government, banned a UK information campaign organised by the UK Government on energy efficiency. I cannot believe that the good reasons behind our common climate and energy targets - 20% less CO2, 20% renewables and 20% more energy efficiency - are not accepted in the regional government of a Member State.

I am therefore asking the Commission to find out what the reasons are behind this strange and quite bizarre ban in Northern Ireland. I think even a climate sceptic like Mr Wilson should take care of citizens and support energy efficiency and efforts to decrease the energy bill.

(PT) Today, I should like to highlight a scandalous situation involving Corticeira Amorim in Portugal. This company's profits, in the last two years combined, were in excess of EUR 30 million, with more than EUR 6 million being recorded in 2008. However, this month Corticeira Amorim has announced that nearly 200 workers will be laid off. It has blamed the effects of the crisis. However, the company is forgetting that it was these workers who helped to build the group, which is worth millions and which has received public aid, including Community funds, in order to generate the millions in profits that it is still making. I therefore want to protest in this House and express my indignation at this announcement, which is a scandal, and I hope that everyone will join together to condemn companies that are taking advantage of this crisis in order to lay off workers, even though they are still making large profits.

Just before I call the next speaker, let me announce with pleasure that Dr Ayman Nour, the Egyptian parliamentarian who was imprisoned some years ago for reasons which the EU Council said were not serious, has been released today. He has been the subject of many resolutions in the European Parliament, so I am very pleased to announce that he has now been released.

(PL) Mr President, Poland returns Members to the European Parliament, but their ability to act in their own country is limited. Polish legislation does not give MEPs any legal instruments which ensure the effective fulfilment of their mandate. This concerns significant issues, such as exerting an effective influence on the administrative authorities of central and local government.

Senators and Members of the national Parliament have a series of rights: the right to be given information by state bodies, the right to request information from the administrative authorities of central and local government and a statutory 40-day period within which an answer must be given. In Poland, hardly anyone sets any store by an MEP, except the media when they are looking for a cheap sensation. On my website, I have informed electors of the lack of statutory forms of action open to MEPs. The legislative slovenliness of successive groups of legislators in Poland is, in this case, well known. I believe that the European Parliament should demand greater possibilities for its representatives to act in their own countries.

Mr President, EU funds distributed by the lottery of 'first come, first served' is wrong. Yet that is what we have seen in Northern Ireland this week. The minister who decided on cavalier distribution of EU rural development funds on this basis, leading to the demeaning and bizarre spectacle of farmers queuing for two days to get some of their own modulated money back, is a minister not fit to hold office. In that, at a stroke, she both humiliated hard-working farmers and displayed crass ignorance of basic requirements for the distribution of EU funds.

The source of this embarrassment is the wanton refusal of the minister to allocate sufficient funds to rural development. The pitiful GBP 50 million she put into Axis 1 - and only GBP 15 million of that into the modernisation fund - is what caused the spectacle of Tuesday.

Let me say on another matter, in defence of Mr Wilson, the Minister of the Environment in Northern Ireland, that I am glad he does not fit the stereotype that unthinking climate-change hysterics expect in this House.

Mr President, the recent poll in the Irish Times on Monday showed growing support for the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, with 51% of voters now saying they would vote 'yes', particularly at this moment of Irish economic fragility. This is an increase of eight points since the last poll was taken by the Irish Times in November of last year. The 'no' vote has also dropped six points to 33%.

Concerning our current strained relationship with the European Union, in the absence of leadership from the present government, an attempt must be made to address the root causes of the Irish electorate's periodic disenchantment with the EU. There must be a meaningful engagement with the Irish people to rebuild an understanding of, and support for, the European process. This communication shortfall can be breached by allowing more positive information to flow freely about the advantages of being part of the EU.

I believe it is important that the positive role of Europe must be highlighted through our education systems. This should not apply to Ireland alone, but also to all Member States. I would urge that the communication deficit be tackled at the earliest possible date.

(BG) I should like to draw your attention to the problem of the renewed schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. This schism arose at a time when the country was highly politicised, at a time when the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, like many other structures, had to uphold its position in the democratic face of Bulgaria. Unfortunately, this led to the so-called 'Second Synod' of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, despite the Bulgarian Religious Denominations Act. This legislation is very liberal, which allows any religion to be registered in Bulgaria provided it does not serve inhumane purposes. However the so-called 'Second Synod' wants to register as 'the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church'. The Act states that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is traditional to Bulgaria and exempt from registration. The election of the patriarch and members of the Holy Synod is not subject to legislative action. I appeal to all those who value the freedom to worship in accordance with one's personal spiritual needs not to succumb to the manipulative definitions of the so-called 'Second Synod'. This Synod cannot be registered and has no legal basis.

Mr President, last week's elections in Israel showed that the majority of citizens support the parties that see the reinforcement of the military as the best way to protect the country. Even though the centrist party, Kadima, received the largest number of votes, the fact that the right-wing parties now hold 65 seats in the Knesset, compared to 50 in the previous elections, reflects the changing views of the Israeli citizens about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Those parties are in favour of taking a hard line rather than relying on seemingly endless and ineffective peace talks.

The Middle East must be one of the top priorities in the European Union's common foreign and security policy and the stability of the whole region depends largely on Israel-Palestinian relations. It is absolutely crucial, therefore, for the European Union to continue pursuing the peace talks and to restore hope to Israelis and Palestinians that a peaceful coexistence is possible.

(PL) Mr President, tomorrow Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, will visit the European Parliament. Mindful of the scandal which has developed in Prague, we hope that the President of the State which is the holder of the European Union Presidency will be received properly and accorded due respect. The justified opinions expressed by President Klaus about the Treaty of Lisbon have become the subject of attempts to cover them up with an uproar in order to conceal the fact that the main source of opposition to introducing the treaty may turn out to be Germany. The decision of the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe will be pivotal. According to media reports, half its bench have serious doubts and think that the treaty may breach the national constitution. This shows that no one should be in a hurry where such an important decision is concerned, and this is understood not only by the visiting Czech President.

(RO) After the autumn elections in Romania and the formation of the new government, we have seen the return with a vengeance to political life in Romania, just like in Slovakia, of anti-Hungarian incitement.

The demonstration that took place on 9 February in Sfântu Gheorghe, organised by the Hungarian churches, was precisely in protest against this incitement. In the petition raised at the demonstration, thousands of local residents of the Szekély Land region protested against the change in the ethnic proportions in the area through directly populating the region with groups of Romanians from other areas.

President Traian Băsescu has absurdly accused the Hungarians in this region of ethnic cleansing. At the same time as this, during the municipal elections in Cluj, the democrats' flyers were inciting hatred against the Hungarian candidates, using the same slander. After decades of discrimination and denial of rights, who is accusing who?

I would like to draw Parliament's attention to the fact that in Romania, even now, there is an ongoing process, using subtle methods, of homogenising and making Transylvania Romanian by artificially altering the ethnic proportions.

Mr President, on 12 February 2009, the Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, was refused entry to the United Kingdom by order of the Home Secretary. Never before has a democratically elected politician, representing a democratic party from a democratic European country, been denied entry.

It seems odd that the British Government can find the legal means to ban Mr Wilders, but is powerless to prevent the entry of assorted terrorists, political and religious extremists, gangsters, criminals, rapists and paedophiles from the European Union and, indeed, the wider world.

Perhaps Mr Wilders' banning had something to do with the alleged threat by a British peer, Lord Ahmed, that, were Mr Wilders to appear in the House of Lords, 10 000 Islamist demonstrators would appear outside. This was an act of appeasement to a Dark Age ideology and it seems that we do not quite have the free movement of ideas across European Union borders.

Mr President, on the theme of the Lisbon Treaty, my colleague has spoken about the increase in support among the Irish electorate for the Treaty, but I would warn that one swallow does not make a summer. I think that must be taken against a background of a recent Eurobarometer poll, which shows that support for Irish membership of the EU has dropped by 10 percentage points from 77% in the spring of 2006 to 67% in the autumn of 2008. Yes, there is a job to be done to persuade the Irish electorate about the positive benefits of the European Union.

That is why I would be concerned about those who want an earlier date for a second referendum in Ireland. I believe that we need to be cautious, we need to give time for the clarifications to be given on the issues of concern to the Irish voters and we need time for those issues to be debated in full and in public - and in due time allow the electorate to give their view.

(RO) The current economic and financial crisis is an important test for Europe which, now more than ever, must show unity in taking measures which will facilitate the economy's recovery in the shortest time possible.

Member States' budgets are under great pressure in facing up to these challenges, which is why the best instruments and actions need to be found to prevent them from greatly exceeding the limits envisaged by the Commission for the budgetary deficit and to prevent protectionist measures from being adopted by some Member States or in favour of private manufacturers.

Such decisions must pass quickly through the adoption procedures to avoid prolonging the crisis and, above all, to make it possible to restore confidence in the financial markets and avoid prolonging the crisis from a political perspective too, bearing in mind as well the approaching European Parliament elections.

One possible solution for financing public expenditure could be to issue euro bonds. However, we need to factor in the risk that, based on the measures taken, we are indebting ourselves to the hilt and it is difficult for us to avoid reaching the situation where we are leaving future generations to shoulder the payment of these debts.

(ES) Mr President, a year and a half ago, we adopted the Audiovisual Media Directive. That text had at its heart the principle of respect for the country of origin, which we established as essential for ensuring free movement of audiovisual information within the European Union.

However, the Directive cannot be applied within my country, Spain, because it is within a Member State. The Community of Valencia imposes exactly the opposite principle, and for political reasons it is forcing the closure of the relays which, hitherto, enabled its citizens to receive public television signals from Catalonia.

In other words, there is complete freedom of circulation of audiovisual information between the Member States of the European Union but, at the same time, it must be reported that in Spain, there are authorities that are fearful of this same cultural freedom, which is so essential. It is so essential that it has been imposed across Europe and nevertheless, within Spain, some are prevented from receiving the television programmes broadcast by others. This was the paradox that I wanted to share with you.

(PL) (initially the microphone was turned off) tragic periods in the history of humanity. During its course, tens of millions of people met their deaths. Many of those victims had their lives taken in one of over twelve thousand German extermination camps and concentration camps which operated on the territory of the Third Reich and in occupied countries. Today, attempts are being made to distort the truth about those tragic years, and information is being disseminated that these camps were Polish or Latvian camps, and not German. A leading force in this is the German press. Recently, Die Welt wrote that Majdanek was a Polish concentration camp.

In connection with this, I have prepared a draft resolution which intends to standardise the nomenclature of concentration camps by adding to their names the words 'German' or 'Nazi' concentration camp. My initiative has been taken up by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, but unfortunately, I have received information that it has been blocked by the Conference of Presidents.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union can endure and develop only when it is guided by historical truth and respect for human rights. I therefore address a request to my fellow Members for support of the UEN initiative, so that no one will ever again distort history or make executioners of the victims and victims of the executioners.

(RO) As some of my Hungarian fellow Members have been complaining recently that their rights are not respected in Romania, I would like to state a couple of facts.

The approaching electoral campaign should not give rise to attacks and insults targeted at a legitimate state which, through its legislation, has offered a model in the area of interethnic relations. Respect for minorities' rights is guaranteed by the Romanian constitution.

Citizens of Hungarian origin are represented proportionally in the local administrative structures. For instance, the Hungarian minority's parties have 195 mayors and four chairmen of county councils, 2 684 local councillors and 108 county councillors. As they hold the majority in the local and county councils mentioned above, they manage local budgets according to their discretion. This is what local autonomy means.

At parliamentary level, the Hungarian minority have three MEPs in the European Parliament, 22 MPs and nine senators in the national parliament and have participated in governing Romania during the last 12 years. The complaints that have been heard are outright political electioneering.

(ES) Mr President, the referendum in Venezuela has ended in a victory for the 'yes' campaign, which has been graciously acknowledged by the democratic opposition.

It is also true that there has not been equality of opportunities during the campaign, and that the ruling party has had the overwhelming support of the entire State apparatus, while the opposition has suffered constant harassment and coercion.

Even under these conditions, the country has been practically split down the middle, and it will be very difficult to build a future with just one of these groups. The European Union must promote dialogue, inclusion and consensus between the Venezuelan political and social leaders for the good of the country.

Visceral attitudes, condemnation and insults will not be the way to help Venezuela to find the way onto a democratic, pluralist and free pathway.

We therefore criticise the decision of the Venezuelan Government to expel a Spanish Member, and especially the way in which this was done. However, we urge this House to prevent our representatives, when visiting third countries, from making statements that violate current local legislation and especially that insult a head of state, however worthy of criticism he might be. Such attitudes are compromising future European Parliament missions to other countries.

Mr President, I want to refer to the issue of transparent and accurate food labelling and, in particular, I refer to poultry and pigmeat.

Right now, meat can be transported from outside the EU into the EU, substantially transformed - and by that I mean encased in breadcrumbs or batter - and then labelled and sold as EU produce. This is an absolute nonsense, and the labelling is designed to fool the consumers. We need country-of-origin labelling so consumers are able to make informed choices.

We also have the situation where pigmeat and poultry meat has been frozen, then defrosted, labelled and sold as fresh. Not only is this an example of inaccurate labelling, it is potentially dangerous for human health.

I note that Hilary Benn, the UK Environment Secretary, and the Shadow Secretary, have called for clearer labelling. I am sure that many across the EU would support this, as nobody would want to fool consumers. I would ask the Commission to deal with this matter as a matter of urgency.

(PL) Mr President, at a meeting today, the Union for Europe of the Nations Group unanimously adopted a draft resolution calling for 25 May to be established as Heroes of the Fight against Totalitarianism Day. Its text will soon be sent to representatives of the highest authorities of the EU, including Mr Pöttering. The choice of 25 May is not incidental - it was on that day, in 1948, that the Soviet authorities murdered cavalry Captain Witold Pilecki, the Polish soldier who voluntarily became a prisoner in the Auschwitz extermination camp in order to build the resistance movement there. He later escaped and up to the end of the war, fought against the Nazis, and then, after the Soviet armies entered Poland, he began an underground fight against the successive occupants. Pilecki was only one of many Europeans who lost their lives in the fight against brutal totalitarian systems. Many remain unknown, but the bravery and devotion of all of them deserve to be remembered. Therefore I ask you, Mr President, to support the initiative of our group.

(RO) The recent history of the European Union offers a record of the success stories in terms of protecting minorities' rights. This also applies to the Hungarian minority in Romania. This minority enjoys a variety of rights, including administrative posts, and these rights have been continually supported by Romania's President Traian Băsescu.

However, in other areas we still have a great deal to do, and I would like to speak now about the problem of the Roma community. This offers a test of the European Union's ability to integrate groups at a high risk of exclusion.

The case of the Romanian handball player Marian Cozma, brutally murdered by two members of Hungary's Roma community, shows us once again that crime knows no borders and that ignoring the problems of this community is counterproductive.

The situation of this minority, which is inherently transnational and at great risk of exclusion, can only be improved through adopting a concerted policy at European level. With this in mind, I have tabled, along with my colleague Rareş Niculescu, a resolution on creating a European agency for Roma. The EU has a strategy for the Roma minority but does not have any agency to implement it coherently and effectively.

In order to remain a relevant force on the international stage, while preserving internal cohesion, the EU needs to be able to create a pan-European environment of tolerance.

(ES) Mr President, I have just come back from Venezuela, where I was invited by its electoral authority as a member of an international electoral support group for the referendum on 15 February.

The European members of the group have submitted a report to the National Electoral Council with a positive overall evaluation of the process in terms of its organisation, transparency, participation, freedom and secrecy of voting and security in all its phases.

Regarding the statements that Mr Herrero made on Venezuelan television, I can tell you that they served to delegitimise the electoral process, made serious accusations against democratic institutions in that country, and bordered on interference in the internal politics of a sovereign country.

Parliament should not encourage any type of confrontation with the democratic institutions in Venezuela. However, it is up to Mr Herrero himself to give explanations to the House for an action that affects us all.

(RO) I refute the accusations levelled by my fellow Members, Csaba Sógor and László Tőkés, against Romania.

Romania is a Member State of the European Union, NATO, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and respects, in accordance with European standards, human rights and the rights of persons belonging to national minorities. Romania applies the letter and spirit of all the relevant international treaties in this area.

The Hungarian language is used by law for administrative matters in any location and county where those belonging to the Hungarian minority account for more than 20% of the population. This is a de facto and de jure situation. Romania offers extensive educational opportunities for Hungarians in their mother tongue in nurseries, primary schools, secondary schools, vocational colleges, university faculties, right up to master and doctorate level. In the areas where ethnic Hungarians live alongside Romanians, it is a well-observed rule that schools operate sections where the language of instruction is Hungarian for all children of Hungarian origin. Just in case they have also somehow forgotten, the Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca has three sections offering instruction in Romanian, Hungarian and German respectively, plus the flourishing development of Jewish studies at the institution, as well as special places for Roma.

(HU) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the makers of the official homepage of the European Parliament, the EP press service, for respecting multilingualism, and for indicating place names in the national language of each webpage. This allows EU citizens to acquire information in their mother tongue about the other 26 countries. The Czech page about Germany displays Köln as Kolín, while the French page displays Cologne. The Slovak pages about Hungary indicate town names in Slovak, as they should. It should be just as natural for Hungarians living in Slovakia to refer to the village or town where they were born in their mother tongue, Hungarian.

Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Slovak Parliament has passed legislation on public education providing for geographical names to be presented in minority language textbooks in the minority's language. Thus, if the law is implemented, the former status quo may be restored, and Hungarians will be able to use Hungarian place names once again.

Mr President, I would like to draw to your attention the situation that occurred in my constituency yesterday morning when farmers were forced to queue outside government offices, in some cases for two nights, in order to apply for a European Union farm modernisation grant scheme.

Our local Agriculture Minister decided to allocate these grants on a 'first come, first served' basis. This can only be described as an inadequate way to deal with the allocation of EU rural development money. I was glad to hear, therefore, that a Commission official yesterday questioned the validity of this allocation procedure.

We are aware that not every farmer can benefit from this particular funding package. However, I feel the situation clearly demonstrates the dire straits of the agriculture industry, certainly in my region, if farmers have to queue for days outside, during winter months, in an attempt to secure modest sums of EU funding.

(RO) The implementation of the energy and climate change package assumes significant investments in measures aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Buildings are responsible for 40% of the consumption of primary energy. Increasing buildings' energy efficiency helps reduce the consumption of primary energy and the level of carbon dioxide emissions.

Next year, the Commission along with Member States, will evaluate, in the middle of the 2007-2013 period, the operational programmes and the degree of absorption of structural funds. I call on Member States to review the method for using structural funds, giving priority to energy efficiency in buildings and urban mobility for the 2010-2013 period.

I urge the European Commission and Member States to increase from 3% to 15% the amount allocated to each Member State from the ERDF for costs linked to boosting energy efficiency in buildings and using renewable energy. This increase will offer Member States greater flexibility in using the structural funds, thereby speeding up their absorption, especially during the current economic crisis.

(PL) Mr President, it is with great sadness and anger that I would like to say that one of our countrymen, a Polish engineer, died recently in Pakistan, but he was yet another citizen of an EU country to die in that region. It is yet another death which shows the existence of a world of anti-values, a world of people who do not acknowledge something which, in other civilisations, is considered sacred - human life.

I think that this dramatic fact and, indeed, this successive fact, should be for us another significant signal and inducement to unite in the fight against the world of anti-values, and also to unite in the political fight and in context - and this should be said directly - in a common front against terrorism. I think that those politicians in the European Union who feel that terror can be fought without violence are mistaken.

(CS) The mounting economic crisis is affecting all countries of the European Union. However, rising unemployment is not a reason for us to start violating the basic principles of the common market. I would like to register a protest here in this house against the statements made by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in which he called for the French brand Peugeot to shift a plant in the Czech town of Kolín back to France. Such statements by politicians who want to protect and constrain firms during times of crisis are completely unjustifiable. Attempts at protectionism and closing a country in on itself are undesirable and undermine the meaning of the European Union.

The president of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve Bank, Richard Fisher, has said:

'Protectionism is like a dose of cocaine for an economy. It can pick you up but it is addictive and leads to economic death.' Let us bear that in mind, let us resist populist pressures and let us not lose our cool in the face of the crisis. Let us focus on sticking to the priorities of the Czech Presidency and let us promote the idea of an open Europe without barriers.

Mr President, a large coalition government was set up in Romania after the elections in November of last year, with a parliamentary share of 73% in the two houses of the Romanian Parliament.

One of the first measures taken by this coalition was to work out a scheme to divide among themselves the leading positions of state-controlled public institutions and the public administration of Romania.

This is an unacceptable situation for two reasons. Firstly, it leads to renewed partisanship in state administration, which contravenes the law on the public servants' statute. Secondly, in the regions where the Hungarian population forms a large majority, the measure has an anti-minority facet as well: ethnic Hungarian public servants are being replaced by ethnic Romanian persons. On 8 February, a public gathering in Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy, Romania, was attended by more than 3 000 people protesting against the political games of the Romanian parties and requesting that the Hungarian communities' rights be respected.

Mr President, regarding the report on patients' rights in cross-border health care, I would like to emphasise the issue of the right of patients to be informed about the available medication and treatment options. European patients should have access to quality health information regarding the latest medication available, the treatment options home and abroad, the legal and financial implications of being treated abroad, the reimbursement of the treatment costs and many other areas. For the moment, we do not have this type of quality information. We may have some national initiatives, but nothing that could be effective at European level.

The problems we face are European. I therefore support the idea of setting up a European health literacy network. Such a network should consist of patients' organisations from all the Member States and should work closely with the health sector and the policy makers. In the hope of making the Commission aware of the need to better inform the 150 million European patients, I have initiated a written declaration on health literacy. We have all been patients at some point, and we never know when it will happen again.

(RO) Today and tomorrow, you will come across in our building some young students from the Republic of Moldova. They have come to the European Parliament because in their own country, they cannot speak out, or if they do, they can expect reprisals.

All the European Commission's reports, our hearings in the Commission on human rights and the reports from civil society in Moldova indicate to us that the freedom of expression is frequently violated and that the mass media cannot be independent. Dozens of young people who were using Internet forums to express their opinions were investigated and threatened with criminal records in 2008.

Please show an interest in them, invite them into your offices, listen to them and sign written declaration No 13/2009 which was created for them in order to give them the freedom to express themselves, this generation from the eastern border of our united Europe.

Mr President, under Directive 2000/84/EC, summer time begins on the final Sunday in March and ends on the last Sunday in October. I would like to propose that this period be expanded in order to maximise many economic, safety and environmental benefits which are associated with the summer time period.

In 2005, the United States implemented a programme of extending daylight saving time by four weeks - an additional three weeks in the spring and an additional week in the autumn. There is already clear evidence that this has helped reduce both energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, a report by the United States Department of Energy found that extending daylight saving time by four weeks saved enough electricity to power some 100 000 homes per annum. Similarly, a recent study by the University of Cambridge also suggests that increasing summer time would lead to a decrease in both energy consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions as, during the peak demand period from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. each day, many of the more expensive and carbon-emitting ancillary power stations are switched on.

As the rapporteur of the review of the EU ETS, which formed the cornerstone of the EU's climate and energy package adopted last December by this House, I urge you to consider this proposal as a contribution to meeting the 2 °C target. So I would like a review, please, of the Daylight Saving Time Directive.

(DE) Mr President, I should like to put forward two suggestions. The Treaty of Lisbon has been mentioned repeatedly today. The least we should expect of this House is that it be able to distinguish between an opponent of the Treaty of Lisbon and an opponent of the EU. In addition, if the Irish should have to vote once again, it is desirable that they be given a fair chance rather than there being manoeuvring to undermine the rules that have applied up to now, according to which 'yes' and 'no' have an equal chance to appear in public, and this then being hailed as a triumph of democracy - or of what?

My second point is that, of course, this House is being noticeably boastful with regard to the forthcoming elections. I would suggest an investigation into the specific approach this House has taken to the problems of the global financial crisis over the years, and into who voted which way, for then we shall discover that most of those who are now acting as fire-fighters actually helped start the fire.

(LT) This January, the European Commission provided a package of additional proposals on the funding of energy and broadband network projects laid out in the European plan for economic revival. It is proposed that EUR 5 billion be allocated to these projects, using EUR 3.5 billion from the 2008 agricultural budget. However, last week 6 states blocked the Commission's proposal. Apparently, these are the very countries which are forming the current financial perspective and have demanded a reduction in payments to the EU budget to 1% of GDP. We are returning to nationalism and protectionism, which have been consistently rejected for 50 years, ever since the Community was first founded. Fellow Members, only solidarity among states can help us face the challenges of the financial and economic crisis and ensure the future of the EU.

That concludes the item.

The review of the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (debate) 

The next item is the report by Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the review of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.

Mr President, I would very much like to address myself to a representative of the Council as well, but the Council did not decide to send anyone to this debate. I think that this is a pity, and that it is a bad habit. And I think that the President should react to this situation.

Returning to the subject of neighbourhood, we must admit, we must be aware, that the countries which surround the European Union are changing very dynamically. Therefore, we need changes in neighbourhood policy. The Union for the Mediterranean is our answer to the needs of the south, and the Black Sea Synergy answers the challenge which intensified with the last enlargement of the European Union. The Eastern Partnership is a timely answer to the expectations of our European neighbours to the east.

In order to achieve the objectives which we have set in recent years for neighbourhood policy, citizens of neighbouring countries must feel a real political and economic rapprochement with the EU. This is why such importance is attached to establishing a deep free trade area and to rapid action to reduce visa fees, with the proposal of visa liberalisation for a significant part of these countries as the ultimate goal. Inclusion of energy in the most important objectives of neighbourhood policy should be our common goal, our mutual interest, and this includes engagement of our money in the modernisation of independent energy transfer networks, especially in the east and the south. Only in this way will we achieve political rapprochement with Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia and, ultimately, with Azerbaijan, and in the future - also maintaining appropriate balance - with the five republics of Central Asia.

When we talk about the eastern aspect of neighbourhood, we inevitably come to the problem of Russia and our partnership with this country. Today, as we stand at the threshold of negotiations over a new agreement, we can, however, say only one thing - Russia is a challenge for security in our common neighbourhood. It is very difficult to see Russia as a partner in this area. Here, we come to the fundamental political problem of expansion of the EU to the east. The neighbourhood process does not, of course, replace accession, but it cannot be separated from the perspective of membership in the case of European countries. Without that perspective, our efforts will be significantly impaired.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to give many thanks to all the coordinators of foreign affairs of the political groups, the co-rapporteurs, and also the Secretariat of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, without whose help it would not have been possible to prepare a report which today enjoys broad support, as can be seen by the very small number of amendments submitted in the plenary session. This will significantly facilitate voting tomorrow.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, two and a half years ago, Parliament and the Council adopted the Commission proposal for a simplification of the external financial instruments. We streamlined many different instruments, one of which was the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). This is a highly important instrument because it makes our external cooperation stronger, more 'policy driven', and better targets our funding in support of key sectors.

I was very pleased to read Mr Szymański's comments and to see that he considers that the ENPI regulation is adequate and valid for the purpose of cooperation with our neighbouring countries. The preliminary findings of our review point exactly in the same direction.

The ENPI country programmes underpin the implementation of ENPI action plans and reflect the ambition of the EU and the partner countries. In a way, they have been transmission belts for the political and economic reforms that we seek to encourage through the ENPI. Moreover, instruments such as twinning and TAIEX provide support for institution building, legislative approximation and regulatory alignment. Sector and budget support operations are used to promote the agreed reform agenda. The different ENPI regional approaches and dimensions are supported through specific regional programmes. A multi-country programme was created, particularly to implement highly visible initiatives common to all neighbouring countries such as TEMPUS, Erasmus Mundus or CIUDAD. The innovative cross-border cooperation component has been successfully launched.

All of this clearly shows that the 2006 agreement on the ENPI regulation gave us a tool which allows us to deliver and produce tangible results. There is always room for improvement and I am always grateful for suggestions.

Let me also say that the report, firstly, underlines the need to further develop consultations with civil society and local authorities, which is what we are already doing.

Secondly, I have noted your call for even more ambitious actions in the fields of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. As you know, these topics are already at the forefront of our cooperation with partner countries, and political reforms and good governance are at the very heart of the ENP. We have also targeted projects to strengthen the judiciary.

However, let us be honest. First, because our partners face important structural challenges, we cannot expect things to change overnight and, as Lord Patten once said: 'democracy is not instant coffee'. I think that is really true.

Thirdly, I see that the report calls for more resources. Clearly, more resources improve our leverage - that is true. In the first two years, we had to come back to the budgetary authority several times, asking for sufficient supplementary funds, for instance, for Palestine and Georgia. Therefore, we have proposed to draw on fresh funds for an ambitious Eastern Partnership, which we will soon be discussing in Parliament.

Finally, let me say that I am very pleased to see that the report welcomes the recent Commission proposal on the Eastern Partnership, which we consider has a very important multilateral dimension, together with the Union for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. I hope that I will continue to have your support and understanding in the future.

The ENPI established after EU enlargement in 2004 applies to 17 countries, of which 15 are classed as developing countries. The instrument includes the EU's new Eastern neighbours Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus.

The security of our Eastern neighbours, in particular, energy security in Ukraine and Belarus, also constitutes EU security. This was demonstrated by the Ukraine/Russia gas crisis in the New Year which has already become a tradition. Last summer's military conflict in Georgia forced us all to consider the security of EU States and the threat to independence.

Faced with such a situation, I propose, as I did before, that an Eastern Neighbourhood assembly, Euroeast, with the participation of the European Parliament and based on the principles of the Euromed and EuroLat assemblies, be created with a view to implementing the ENPI in the countries of Eastern Europe.

I am delighted that this has also been approved in the report.

Euroeast would give the European Parliament the opportunity to devote equal attention to all neighbours and developing countries.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. - Mr President, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Szymański, on his very good report. On behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, I welcome the inclusion of cross-border cooperation within the scope of the ENPI Regulation as an instrument to develop common projects and to strengthen relations between ENP countries and EU Member States.

At the same time, I would like to highlight the necessity of regularly monitoring the management and implementation of joint operational programmes on both sides of EU borders. Cross-border cooperation should contribute to integrated sustainable development between neighbouring regions. We ask the Commission to prepare a detailed overview of all joint operational programmes approved for the current financial period, with an assessment of how the principles of transparency, efficiency and partnership have been respected. Such an assessment, together with an inventory of the most frequent problems faced by the managing authorities, should contribute to finding more appropriate solutions for the next programming period.

I would also encourage the Commission to facilitate the exchange of experiences and best practices in cross-border cooperation between ENP programmes and projects, on the one hand, and actions taken under the European Territorial Cooperation objective and under the already completed Interreg IIIA Community Initiative, on the other.

Finally, the Regional Development Committee considers that ENPI should focus on a balanced strategy between the east and the south, with specific approaches for both areas.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Szymański on his comprehensive report, which will have the support of our group in the vote tomorrow.

I would also like to congratulate Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, both on the success of the ENPI and of the projects that lie ahead, with the need for an Eastern partnership concerning, in particular, our Eastern neighbours and partners, as well as the Black Sea Synergy. Once these are constituted and take on their own identity - for example, with a parliamentary assembly, etc., as we are doing for the Mediterranean - perhaps they will all assume a distinct identity, even in the way they are financed.

I discern some kind of rivalry - or, let us say, anxiety - among Members. We have just heard about not creating one thing to the financial detriment of another. That should not happen. We know that the Union for the Mediterranean, the Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea Synergy, etc. are in the interests of the European Union. Those arrangements should not be a reason for countries aspiring to join the European Union to have to be told time and time again that this is not the alternative to membership that some are worrying about.

Mr President, the neighbourhood and partnership instrument needs to be revised so as to secure simpler procedures and, at the same time, improve transparency. The basis for the European neighbourhood policy is the creation of a climate of trust in the immediate vicinity of the European Union.

It is in everyone's interest for there to be stronger economic growth and stability in all neighbouring countries, both to the east and in the Mediterranean area. However, criteria and approaches specific to each country need to be defined, depending on its political priorities in terms of human rights, democracy, the rule of law, minority rights and so forth. It is also important for Community aid to reach all the interested groups of citizens. That is why the capabilities of the neighbourhood instrument need to be promoted in the right way.

In order for these ambitious targets to be achieved, the distribution of funds between the countries of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean countries needs to be equally weighted, as provided for under the financial framework for 2007-2013. The Barcelona process should be supplemented by the European neighbourhood policy and the objectives must be clearly defined.

At this time in particular, with the economic crisis now affecting all the countries which benefit from the neighbourhood instrument, it must be made clear that the European Union is helping to address the crisis through this financial aid. That is why the European Commission should publish evaluations on this question.

Finally, I should like to mention the Black Sea Synergy: this region needs to be included in the European neighbourhood policy. The support being given by the European Union to this regional cooperation must target the production of tangible results in certain priority sectors such as energy, transport, immigration and the fight against organised crime.

Mr President, I fully support Mr Szymański's report, particularly the proposal to increase the financial envelope in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. We need to engage more with our neighbouring countries, particularly after the three conflicts that have occurred in the last six months, in Gaza, Ukraine and Georgia.

A considerable number of amendments proposed by our group, including the 11 amendments I suggested as shadow rapporteur, have been adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, now I wish to submit two additional amendments on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Whilst I agree with the idea of further cooperation with Turkey and Russia to resolve certain ongoing conflicts and to strengthen the links between the Black Sea countries, the wording of Paragraph 39 could lead to confusion. Cooperation on the Black Sea is carried out on four different levels: the member countries, candidates for accession, the countries covered by the European neighbourhood policy and Russia, as a strategic partner.

As Turkey is a candidate for accession, it is not a part of the European neighbourhood policy and benefits from the pre-accession aid instrument rather than the European Neighbourhood Instrument. Therefore, the European neighbourhood policy will certainly not provide an appropriate basis for cooperation with Turkey.

Platforms for cooperation with the Black Sea countries already exist. We should perhaps try to create links with these regional initiatives to reinforce this synergy instead of looking for new forms of cooperation.

The second amendment deals with the energy issue. Paragraph 44 of the report only refers to Ukraine and Moldova, although most of our neighbours are important countries for the energy sector, as source countries or as transit countries. I am thinking, in particular, of Georgia and Azerbaijan, whose importance will grow with the launch of the Nabucco project, which was the subject of an international conference in January. It therefore appears to me that the measures in the energy field should include all the countries in our neighbourhood.

Mr President, the European Neighbourhood Policy was developed with the objective of integrating the countries included in the programme with the structures of the European Union. This assumes strong cooperation in the areas of economy, culture and politics, without favouring some countries at the cost of others. With this in mind, it is difficult to understand the differences which occur in the division of financial means between Mediterranean and eastern states, to the disadvantage of this second group.

The idea of separating European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) according to these regions is justified in view of the different problems which these regions face. It cannot, however, be a justification for inequality in the distribution of financial means. This seems especially unfounded in view of the tragedy which recently hit one of the countries included in the ENP - Georgia. It is now, especially, that the citizens of Georgia require our help and the feeling that they are being treated in the same way as other countries which are working with the European Union.

Another important objective which the ENP was supposed to achieve is energy security. The present crisis in Europe is, however, an evident manifestation of the incoherence of the principles of cooperation within the framework of neighbourhood policy. Without doubt, the crisis has shown the need to identify measures within the framework of this policy and the need to strengthen the energy sector as part of the Eastern Partnership. I am glad that the European Commission has noticed this problem and wants to introduce just such a policy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Szymański, for a very good report. The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) can be an effective instrument only if it provides incentives for democratic reform and promotes sustainable - ecological and fair - development.

To make it possible to verify the effectiveness of this instrument, clear, specific, measurable objectives must be defined for all the action plans under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance make a particular call for coherence in all the human rights instruments in the context of the ENP action plans, and also a thorough investigation of the 'Justice' projects promoted by means of the ENPI.

A further important point also rightly emphasised in the report is the increased involvement of civil society in the design and monitoring process with regard to the ENPI. The war in Georgia in the summer of 2008 made it clear that, up to then, the European Union had not developed and implemented a sustainable conflict resolution policy for the Caucasus region.

Frozen conflicts, such as the one in Nagorno-Karabakh, still hinder the further development of the ENP in the South Caucasus region. Therefore, we call on the Council to work more actively in the field of conflict resolution. This instrument gives the European Union the opportunity to play an active role in its neighbouring region, in order to take forward democratic reform and sustainable development.

Particularly with a view to preserving its - our - credibility, the European Union must finally start taking the democracy and human rights clauses in its agreements with third countries seriously and taking the appropriate action - ideally positive but, if necessary, negative.

(PL) Mr President, in thanking our fellow Member Mr Szymański for a good report, I should like to share a reflection on the subject of why neighbourhood policy is so important for us. We must answer this question. Firstly, because neither the European Union nor Europe is a kind of isolated island. The EU is located in Europe and this is important for us, all the more so because we are ambitious and we want to 'export' our values, our ideas and our experiences to other countries.

I think that alongside the larger decisions - concerning transport, energy, free trade and mutual exchange - there are also smaller matters which are very significant, such as education, and scientific and cultural exchange, and, above all, interpersonal contacts. I see the European Union as a family of people who communicate with each other. Europe - at least this is how I see things - will be strong when every part of it has a role to play and is able to fulfil that role, and so this must include not only the countries of the EU, but also its neighbours.

Commissioner, I think that, for today, we have in large measure finished building Euromed, which is an interesting structure. We are giving a great deal of money, perhaps too much, as our fellow Member from the Union for Europe of the Nations Group said, and now we should strengthen the idea of Euroeast. This is very important, and I think that after the recent energy crisis, no one has any doubts that this is a dimension which is very, very significant for us. The issue here is one of the Community and regional programmes, which should be supported, but which, unfortunately, require financial support. Appropriate amounts should be set aside for this. We are making good decisions here, which countries and neighbours will put into effect in cooperation and while working on joint projects.

Mr President, in 2008, several new regional initiatives were launched under the umbrella of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Although the financial instrument was designed in 2006, it proved a sufficiently effective tool as it was oriented towards the future.

The EU has decided to strengthen multilateral and regional cooperation with and between its neighbouring countries. The instrument already allows the EU to receive co-funding from other international organisations and to cooperate with other multilateral organisations in its neighbourhood. Let us actively use these opportunities.

My second point concerns the distribution of financial allocations between our neighbours on the south and eastern shores of the Mediterranean and our neighbours to the east. Ultimately, it amounts to a question of credibility of EU policy. Therefore, the EU needs to stick to its commitments and maintain the geographical distribution of financial allocations, as laid down in the financial perspective for the years 2007-2013.

However, there is another important allocation gap between the neighbours. I am speaking about the gap in allocations spent on programmes in the future democracies relating to the rule of law and human rights. Between 2007 and 2010, 21% of the total funding for the Eastern neighbours is spent on allocations to support democratic development, but for the Southern neighbours, this amounts to only 5%. I ask the Commission to take this concern into consideration.

(PL) Mr President, financing initiatives for the Mediterranean Basin and the future Eastern Partnership under the European neighbourhood instrument should not take place, as it does today, to the detriment of either of these regions. What is important is to take into consideration the specific nature of both the eastern and the southern partner countries.

Recent geopolitical events involving our eastern neighbours have clearly demonstrated that there is also a need to better adapt the European Neighbourhood Policy to the needs of the region. Ukraine may serve as an example. The largest eastern neighbour of the European Union should be offered specific incentives and advantages under the Eastern Partnership which will have a motivating influence on a country with European ambitions. In addition to this, it would also be important to accelerate the establishment of a free-trade zone and to conclude talks with Ukraine on the subject of visa freedom.

The ENP does not merely involve the activities of governments and national politicians. I am, therefore, glad that the need for greater social engagement on the part of the citizens and local authorities, in terms of planning and implementing the ENP, has been stressed in the report. We should also remember that in order to ensure good, effective and mutually beneficial cooperation with our neighbours, it is extremely important and valuable to have an exchange of experiences and best practices, as well as training initiatives, including programmes for learning the languages of neighbouring countries.

(FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating my fellow Member, Mr Szymański, for his balanced report on the review of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.

Let us remember that the main objective of this report is to avoid the emergence of new dividing lines, or worse, splits, between the enlarged European Union and its immediate geographical neighbours, but also to enhance the stability and security of the area under consideration as a whole.

Spreading peace is an oft-repeated desire but one that, very often, is hindered along the way by the reality of hatred and intolerance. Consequently, the proper functioning of this policy determines, in part, Europe's international geopolitical standing.

How can we effectively review this neighbourhood and partnership instrument? The main point can be summed up by just one word: ambition.

More ambition, indeed, in dialogues with civil society and local authorities, to enhance their involvement in the conception and control of the implementation of this instrument.

More ambition in aid support, with the aim of enhancing administrative, local and regional capabilities in neighbouring countries and, also, of promoting exchange programmes for civil society.

More ambition in the areas of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

This budget support, however, must be subject to a selection process so as to make it accessible only to those who can make use of it, with a country-specific approach, under political conditionality, without forgetting to improve evaluation of policies. It is also imperative to clarify the relationship between European neighbourhood policy, a framework policy par excellence, and regional initiatives, such as the Black Sea Synergy, the Union for the Mediterranean, and the future Eastern Partnership.

Indeed, by reducing policies to increasingly limited geographical areas, we run the risk of losing the overall direction, visibility and transparency of the neighbourhood policy that the European Union wants to pursue.

That is the price at which we will enhance the Union's cohesion and synchronisation, our dedicated budget will be deployed, comprehensively, in the desired directions, and the European Union will, at last, fully assume its role as a centre of stability.

(RO) The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument has made a significant contribution to the development of relations with states neighbouring the European Union.

One financing option is the Neighbourhood Investment Facility which, on top of the sum allocated from the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, EU Member States have the opportunity to participate in by making donations. We are aware that in this study, the funding which the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument benefits from is not sufficient to meet the ambitious objectives for this area.

We urge the European Commission to conduct an analysis regarding the allocation in the future of more consistent sums to this instrument, especially in the situation where other initiatives, like the Black Sea Synergy need to be supported too with adequate funding. Romania has supported and will continue to support the relevance of the Black Sea region for the European Union, based on the obvious opportunities the region offers for stability, economic development, energy security, security of its citizens and environmental protection.

(RO) The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument can and must be used more in the Black Sea region. In my view, the synergy in the Black Sea region is positive, but I feel that this region is of special geostrategic importance and merits a more structured cooperation framework, based on a model of the same scope as the Nordic one or of the Union for the Mediterranean.

The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument should contribute more to developing transport links between the European Union and the Black Sea, as well as between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. Romania would like to develop more cooperation programmes between towns in Romania and the Republic of Moldova. I welcome the launch of the CIUDAD programme which encourages the development of dialogue between towns.

The development of Community ports located on the Black Sea, the construction of liquefied gas terminals, as well as the development of rail and road links between states in the Black Sea region and Member States, must feature among the priorities which this instrument will be used for. In addition, I feel that this instrument must also be used for cooperation in the energy sector, as well as for expanding and integrating the infrastructure for transporting electricity to the Western Balkans region.

I must apologise to Mr Alexandru Nazare as, due to an error by the Bureau, we did not give him the floor during the normal period, although he was on the list. I will give him the floor after the 'catch-the-eye' period.

(PL) Mr President, I should like to draw attention to three issues in this debate. Firstly, it is essential to maintain a geographical division with respect to financial aid from the EU budget for Mediterranean countries and the countries of Eastern Europe, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Perspective for 2007-2013, and also to continue providing support to these countries in the form of European Investment Bank loans. The sub-ceilings for loans to these countries anticipated by the EIB for the years 2007-2013 - EUR 8.7 billion for Mediterranean countries and only EUR 3.7 billion for Eastern countries and Russia - appear to be unfavourable from the point of view of Eastern European countries in the sense of being disproportionate to their needs.

Secondly, it is essential to foster cooperation in the field of energy with these countries, under the auspices of the Eastern Partnership, and to create conditions which will ensure the supply of energy resources from these countries to Europe, thereby providing Europe with alternatives in terms of its energy supply. Thirdly and finally, it is essential to deepen the EU's economic integration with the Eastern Partnership countries by extending the free-trade area to include these countries, as well as through social integration, the ultimate objective of which should be the abolition of visa requirements for residents of ENPI countries.

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we draw up a policy for the neighbouring states of the European Union, we must not ignore the democratic deficit in these countries. It is a democratic deficit that stems from their history. Well, in order to establish a democratic society, we need all the citizens of these countries to have an awareness of democracy.

The report discusses - and, moreover, rightly so - people-to-people contacts, and I would ask you what better way of establishing these people-to-people contacts is there than by allowing the citizens of these countries to travel freely to the European Union?

I therefore call on the Council to allow the citizens of the Republic of Moldova which, by the way, is the only country to share an official language of the European Union, to travel within the European Union without a visa. Of course, pending such a measure, I would ask the Commission to do everything necessary to get the 'common visa centre' in Chişinău, up and running. We must set a real example.

(RO) During the last six months, the European Union has faced a series of challenges which have raised question marks about its role, cohesion and capacity to act and react.

The crisis in Georgia and the gas crisis highlighted to us that we cannot continually face threats from the east which target international stability and our energy security.

I welcome an eastern partnership as ambitious as the one proposed in this report, all the more so as it is aimed at more effective cooperation and supporting the reconstruction of Georgia, while also suggesting for the future setting up a free trade area and lifting visa requirements for the European Union.

However, I think that we must attach more importance to the situation in the Republic of Moldova from where we are getting worrying signals about the freedom of expression and the integrity of the elections which are due to take place this spring.

(RO) The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument is of fundamental importance to the success of the European Neighbourhood Policy, especially the Eastern Partnership and cooperation in the Black Sea region.

The Eastern Partnership project can only be successful if it has the funding required to achieve clear objectives. At the same time, we must streamline the mechanisms for evaluating the impact of the actions and finances involved in the Eastern Partnership so that European assistance is not misappropriated and misused by some governments against the political opposition.

Our actions must always be well conceived so that citizens can see specific benefits from them. I feel that the European funding offered by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument should give priority to the measures aimed at cross-border cooperation in the area targeted by the Eastern Partnership.

Cross-border cooperation has the specified mission of making a decisive contribution to regional development, building trust between neighbouring states and interethnic harmony, while facilitating the cross-border movement of people and trade flows can have particularly beneficial multiplier effects.

(RO) The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument is vital for ensuring stability, democracy and prosperity in the area. In addition, this instrument transforms the concept of a border, an area of confinement and exclusion into an area of cooperation and political ties.

Recent events in the area to the east of the EU, which have been mentioned previously in the house, namely the gas crisis and the crisis in Georgia, have demonstrated once again the need for a strategy capable of ensuring that the European Union plays an active role in this geopolitical area. We need to adopt a more coherent approach in dealing with the area to the east of our borders. We need clear objectives which meet the interests of the EU and the specific needs of our partners.

I fully applaud initiatives such as the Black Sea Synergy and Eastern Partnership which consolidate cooperation with the countries in the region, especially the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, as well as states from the Caucasus and the Caspian Region. We also need more active involvement in the Black Sea area, to provide a basis for consolidating relations with Turkey and Russia as this area is in the vicinity of the European Union, Turkey and Russia.

The partnership is also a welcome incentive for the participating countries which will want to apply for Member State status of the European Union, such as the Republic of Moldova. This partnership significantly raises the level of commitment by both sides.

Furthermore, I would like to say a few words about the EURONEST initiative as well, which is only one example of a specific solution for improving the application of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument in states such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine or Belarus.

The application of this policy cannot be improved without raising the level of financial assistance. Apart from the need to increase this financial package, we must also pay as much attention to the way in which these funds are spent.

I feel it is imperative to guarantee transparency with regard to the financial mechanisms for allocating funds. I also think that resources must be allocated with a view to involving civil society in the partner countries in common projects and to supporting the mobility of citizens in these countries, which includes easing visa requirements.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I think this discussion on the ENPI has in fact already pre-empted the next Commission communication on the Eastern Partnership. Many of the ideas that you have put forward are in the Eastern Partnership communication and I am sure that when you get this, you will, hopefully, be quite satisfied.

Let me just say a few things. I am, of course, very thankful for many of the suggestions. In this Eastern Partnership, the idea is that we want to work with our Eastern partners - Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus - if necessary on democracy and human rights, but also with the three Caucasian countries, on trade, to try to make more profound association agreements, secondly, on energy, and thirdly, on more mobility. With regard to your suggestions on being visa-free, we will start with visa facilitation, although even that is not easy, as many Member States here are still very reluctant. Then, of course, there are all kinds of different platforms which I have already mentioned - for instance a platform for civil society, on energy and on transport - or indeed where best practices can be exchanged.

With regard to financing, I can only tell you that, unfortunately, I do not have more funds available. Of course - as I always say as a mother of the neighbourhood policy - I would love to have more. You are a very important budget authority so please give us a chance in the future and really support us on that. This goes for both the Union for the Mediterranean in the south and for the Eastern Partnership and the ENPI in the east.

The funding figures are currently EUR 3.6 per capita per annum to the east and EUR 3.4 per capita per annum to the south. So, as you can see, we are nearly at the same level. At the same time, however, it is never enough, because there are huge necessities and challenges. Therefore, we have also established the idea of a so-called NIF - the Neighbourhood Investment Facility - that can be used for bigger projects.

This is all I can tell you at this stage, but perhaps at a later stage, when we start to discuss the Eastern Partnership, we can go into all the details. In any case, thank you for this debate and for your suggestions. They are very much in line with the direction in which we are going.

Mr President, I would like to make a few comments in reference to this debate. The simplification of procedures, the monitoring of how the neighbourhood policy is implemented and the supervisory role of the European Parliament are issues with which we have been grappling since 2005, and it seems there is not much more we can do in this regard. Today, however, it is certainly important to add political content to our neighbourhood policy. That political content includes issues such as visas, a common market and energy. If we do not overcome these challenges, we may lose the opportunity to create our neighbourhood on our own terms. Time is against us. Countries which today are part of our neighbourhood may lose their stability and slide towards other principles for establishing regional order. We will not be happy with this kind of outcome and history may never give us such an opportunity again. Such events will also affect our own security and we should, therefore, also think of the problem in entirely selfish terms, namely the interests of the European Union, so that our neighbourhood will be an area of stability and affluence.

As far as the budget is concerned, I know very well that, with regard to reforming the neighbourhood policy, many sections of this Chamber agree on matters concerning the financing of specific areas of the policy, as well as particular regions, but we should remember that the neighbourhood policy is only one section of the budget and that nothing will change during the next financial perspective. If we manage to finance the Mediterranean, Eastern and Black Sea neighbourhoods well, we will all be winners. We cannot achieve success in any part of the neighbourhood at the cost of another part, because the EU budget has been structured to prevent this. We should, rather, concentrate on reforming the EU budget so that all the parts (Mediterranean, Eastern and Black Sea) will benefit from the future financial perspective.

(PL) Mr President, I regret that Mr Szymański's summary of his excellent report could not, unfortunately, be heard by Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, because she continues to be occupied with other matters.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - (RO) I wholeheartedly support the provisions in the report aimed at raising the level of the European Union's political commitment to the states targeted by the ENPI, along with the prospect of signing association agreements which are tailored to each country.

In order to implement this policy effectively, the states concerned must fully commit to the process of democratic reform in society. Effective implementation of the reforms, especially those relating to the areas of democracy, rule of law and freedom of expression, remains a serious problem for these states and is dependent both on the political will of their authorities and on the degree of commitment from civil society and their citizens.

It is important that the populations of these countries understand that European integration offers not only the opportunity to legally cross borders, but also a real chance to get the country out of its impasse. In this context, European projects must provide for more specific provisos and special funds for informing the population.

Familiarising the population with both the benefits of integration and with the commitments which they assume once a country has joined the EU will have the effect of involving them actively in the democratisation process in society and considerably reduce the ability of the elite who are in power to use coercive measures against opposition political parties and civil society.

Mr President, the initiative which Poland and Sweden were advocating only last year is today no longer a matter of debate. Closer cooperation with our neighbours from across the eastern border is not only beneficial for both sides, but it is also essential and strategic in terms of Europe's security.

The political and economic situation beyond our eastern border has a direct influence on the situation in the entire EU, and on our economic equilibrium and security. Last year was a test of Russia's credibility in terms of relations with its neighbours, a test which the Kremlin quite simply failed.

This is why the development of the European Neighbourhood Policy requires our active involvement in the situation in the Southern Caucasus region, and in events concerning our closest neighbours. That involvement is the prerequisite for our cooperation in specific areas. I am thinking here of support for civil society and for democratic and institutional reforms, and guaranteeing Europe's energy security. Let us show that we can be the main player in the East and not allow Russia to implement its own neo-imperialistic game plan.

Use of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument to finance both the southern and eastern European Neighbourhood Policies should not be implemented to the detriment of either of these regions. With regards to the use of this funding, it is particularly important to ensure the transparency of other sources, including private finance.

During negotiations on a new EU-Russia agreement, we should focus on greater cooperation on the part of Russia, in terms of identifying clear financial cooperation priorities which would lead to better planning and multi-annual programming for aid, on guarantees that any financial assistance granted to the Russian authorities contributes to strengthening democratic standards in Russia and on ensuring that there are more jointly-owned projects earmarked for funding.

I should also like to emphasise the need for effective political conditions and guarantees to be established, in order to ensure that assistance for Belarus will have an immediate and direct impact on citizens and will not be misused by the authorities to attack their political opponents. The European Union should give more effective support to civil society and to political parties which are defending democracy.

Recent geopolitical events in the European Union's Eastern neighbourhood underscore the importance of developing the European Neighbourhood Policy further by adapting it more effectively to the needs of the partners, which includes enhanced EU involvement in the Black Sea region.

As the head of the European Parliament's Moldova delegation, I am naturally interested in the development of the ENPI's Eastern dimension.

I fully understand and support the interests of the southern Member States of the European Union in promoting the development of the ENPI's southern dimension. At the same time, I am convinced that we cannot neglect our neighbours in the east. From the point of view of the security and welfare of our common home, both eastern and southern neighbours are equally important to us.

On the basis of the present system, which is in effect until 2010, the ENPI's funds are divided unequally - 70% goes to the southern dimension and just 30% to the eastern dimension countries. New financing discussions will begin this year. I sincerely hope that the present system will be amended during these discussions, and that in future funds will justifiably be divided equally.

Due to the events of the past summer - here I refer to the Russo-Georgian conflict - our eastern neighbours in my opinion justifiably expect a greater contribution from the EU to the safeguarding of stability. The EU's involvement must not be limited just to declarative political support, but must also contain very real cooperation and assistance with the implementation of reforms.

I am incredibly happy that Estonia is one of the 15 founding members of the recently founded Neighbourhood Investment Facility. During the present economic recession, the allocation of EUR 1 million is quite a big act - and a concrete one.

in writing. - Mr President, I welcome the notion that 'the Eastern Partnership should not hinder the European Union membership for neighbouring countries wishing to apply', as it was stated in the report. The possible future membership incentive is an integral part of the Eastern Partnership as it forms the basis for a successful conditional approach.

Although the progress towards a completed democratic transition varies from country to country - in Belarus there have been only minor advances, while in Ukraine and Georgia, some significant steps have been taken - the European Union should always sustain the possibility for the Eastern Neighbourhood countries to accede to the EU, since the efforts to establish functional democracy, rule of law and respect of human rights can sometimes be exhausting to the point of relapse.

The primary objective of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument as well as the accession incentive vis-à-vis Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus is to ensure continuous progress towards consolidated democracies in those countries.

Financing of actions other than Official Development Assistance in countries falling under Regulation (EC) 1905/2006 (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Berman, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on financing of actions other than Official Development Assistance in countries falling under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006.

I, too, am pleased that Mr Deva has taken a seat, for now Mrs Ferrero-Waldner will be able to hear me, which is a great relief.

This unprecedented economic crisis, which is biting hard, spells renewed disaster for developing countries. The crisis leads to a drop in prices for raw materials, fewer investments, less trade credit and less money being sent home by immigrants. Meanwhile, the gross domestic products of all the rich countries are dwindling fast, which means that the budget for development cooperation is also being decimated as this is 0.7% of GDP, or at least that is what it is supposed to be, and even then, most countries fail to live up to their promises.

This is the context of the discussion about the new policy instrument that is being held here. If Spanish students receive a grant to study in Latin America for a few months, or vice versa, then such an exchange is useful, necessary and desirable, but a project such as this cannot be exclusively financed with funds that are intended to fight poverty. Whilst EU funding in this area is to be welcomed, it is not fighting poverty. It is frustrating to have to withdraw projects like this simply because there is no legal basis on which to back them.

That is why we have been looking for a modest instrument with which the EU can implement policy in developing countries that does not, strictly speaking, fall within the scope of fighting poverty. A financial source and a legal basis that do not come under development policy will need to be found. The legal basis cannot, therefore, lie in Article 179 of the Treaty of Nice, because that is precisely the statutory basis for development policy that should be avoided here.

The EU's own interests - European students making study trips - may not be financed under Article 179. Moreover, the EU, when spending development funds, has to meet the criteria legally prescribed in respect of development cooperation, namely those of fighting poverty.

With a little bit of creativity, there are other sources. Extending the Industrialised Countries Instrument is an option which the Committee on Foreign Affairs has put forward and which is also backed by my own committee. What is also an option, though, is a combination of Articles 150, 151 and 170, education, culture and research. With this combined legal basis, the European Parliament would maintain complete codecision with regard to this instrument, and the money, about EUR 13 million at the moment, is not taken out of the development policy kitty. Neither is it taken out of the foreign policy kitty.

As rapporteur - and the Committee on Development will back me up on this - I cannot agree to Article 179 as the legal basis. If it was, this new instrument would become ineffective, seeing as its exact aim is to prevent development funds from being used for other purposes. There should not, therefore, be a legal basis for this instrument that could make this compulsory.

For this reason, I plead with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to withdraw its amendment as a matter of extreme urgency. It flies in the face of our shared desire to protect the budget for development cooperation, even in times of economic crisis.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, I would like to confirm the undertaking I gave, on behalf of the Commission, to carry out the mid-term review of the financial instruments in 2009. This was in response to Parliament's request during the final negotiations on the instruments.

That review will take the form of a communication, accompanied by legislative proposals where appropriate. The adoption of the communication is foreseen for April 2009 and is included in the Commission's legislative work programme.

The review is about the implementation of the instruments. It should be distinguished from the other mid-term review currently underway - and also foreseen in the regulations - which relates to the programming documents and the strategy papers for 2011-2013. This new programming will give rise to a round of democratic scrutiny, as for the first programming exercise covering 2007-2010.

The two exercises are different, but they are complementary. It is important to fix issues related to instruments before the new programming period. The strategy and programming review will take place during 2009 in order to be ready in 2010 for democratic scrutiny by Parliament.

As regards the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), our preliminary reflections confirm an issue that will be at the core of the review: the legislative gap as regards non-ODA activities for countries covered by the DCI.

What are these non-ODA activities? They are of various natures, but the current four preparatory actions initiated by this Parliament give a good outlook on what we are talking about: cooperation with middle-income countries in Asia and Latin America, which is not covered by the DCI, and business and scientific exchanges with China and India.

On these kinds of activities, we agree with you on the need to have legislation to cover measures which promote EU concerns in DCI countries. This could be done either through a new legal instrument or through amending the existing Industrialised Countries Instrument (ICI) Regulation.

When we prepared the new external relations instruments in 2006, we agreed that they should also cover the external dimension of our internal policies. We agreed that this could be done under the legal basis for external actions. This represented a considerable simplification compared to the previous situation.

It will be difficult for the Commission to follow this approach. We consider that the legal basis must reflect the objectives and content of the instrument. We recognise that there is a problem with non-ODA activities. By their nature, such activities do not qualify as development assistance. Therefore, a proposal that deals only with such activities cannot fall under development cooperation - under Article 179, as you mentioned.

Given that we want to cover known ODA activities, it seems likely that Article 181a of the Treaty will be the most appropriate legal basis, since it covers economic, financial and technical cooperation. However, before making any proposal, the Commission will consider the question carefully in the light of the position expressed by Parliament. It would be helpful to have Parliament's position so that we can finalise our proposals before the elections, as we promised.

Finally, I see that the report calls for more resources. We will have to look into it. You know the very tight situation of Heading 4 of the financial framework. One could argue that emerging countries are in transition and that the current assistance envelope should accompany that transition - that is, with a gradual shift from the development focus to non-ODA activity. We will examine this as part of the review.

These are the Commission's initial considerations on the report that we are discussing today. We consider it to be a good basis for our common work, and I look forward to hearing what the Members have to say.

Mr President, the Committee on Budgets believes that it is of the utmost importance that each of the budgetary instruments be clearly demarcated. Therefore, the most realistic option seems to be the creation of a new instrument for actions other than public development aid for countries falling under the Regulation.

From a budgetary point of view, the financing proposal from the Committee on Development does not appear to be adequate, as this money does not exist and these lines do not have funds allocated on a multiannual basis. There is funding for 2009, but not beyond that.

In any case, given that the financing of this new cooperation instrument must be compatible with the 2007-2013 financial framework, it is worth pointing out the importance of the mid-term review of the financial framework. This should allow an adjustment of the different headings' ceilings.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I welcome very warmly the statement made by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner just now, and I ask my political group to withdraw its amendment so that this report can go through. If not, I am in a rather difficult position, but I will have to support the Socialist rapporteur on this issue.

I have to say that I believe the development instrument is for development purposes. But if one looks at what the development instrument - particularly Article 179 - gives, even with all the constraints, the ODA instrument allows the promotion of museums, libraries, the arts, music in schools, sports training facilities and venues - all these count as ODA. But, of course, sponsoring concert tours or athletes' travel costs does not. Cultural programmes in developing countries, whose main purpose is to promote the cultural values of the donor, are not reportable as ODA. It excludes military aid but it does not exclude peacekeeping. It covers a wide variety of activities - even civil police work to supply and increase the capacity of training of policemen, the demobilisation of soldiers, monitoring of elections, removal of mines and landmines - all this is ODA.

So here we are asking ourselves, in this Parliament, how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin when, in fact, the main area of the work is covered by the ODA instrument. So, I welcome Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner's statement that Article 181a is there to make it possible to look for the funds to do what some of my colleagues are hoping to do.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, it is crucial to solve the current legislative gap concerning the financing of non-ODA actions in countries covered by the DCI. This proposal for an instrument to address this gap must preserve the DCI unequivocally as an instrument for ODA and it must allow for a clear separation between financial sources allocated to pure ODA development cooperation and those allocated to other types of non-ODA development cooperation with developing countries. This separation is a very relevant political message in itself and it would give proper visibility to the EU's development cooperation policy.

The new or revised instrument should also be sufficiently broad to cover a wide range of actions that do not comply with the OECD DAC guidelines, but which are crucial for the EU's cooperation with developing countries, for instance, the development of the Akkas gas fields in Iraq or cooperation on aviation security with India. This is why I am not in full agreement with the restrictive legal basis proposed. I fully back Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner in finding Article 181a, possibly, a more adequate legal basis, which would provide for these kinds of concerns that I am highlighting. However, I am not convinced either by the alternative presented by the PPE-DE Group amendment that we are supposed to vote on tomorrow.

Therefore, I hope that, under the guidance of our rapporteur, Thijs Berman, we may find more time to have a thorough discussion on this matter and consider what is the best legal basis, namely, the proposal made by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank Thijs Berman for his report. It points out an important aspect in development aid that the Commission should, in my opinion, seriously consider. Activities such as cultural, scientific and economic exchange programmes, citizen-to-citizen contacts or political dialogue are regrettably not covered by existing European legislation, those being just a few examples.

The European Union has set up numerous programmes and financial instruments under the auspices of different agencies, each covering only certain limited aspects of the problems that the developing countries are currently facing. I find that, without a central European Union agency and a comprehensive and coherent policy, the efforts that we are making to improve the situation in developing countries are not of notable extent.

We all agree that the purpose of the European Union development cooperation policy is to reach as many people in need as possible, but yet we have chosen a rather inconvenient path to that goal. At the moment, the European Union is both institutionally fragmented and legally hindered as far as development aid is concerned. This much appreciated report deals with the results of those deficiencies.

The European Union and its Member States have contributed immensely to the official development assistance and it should never be underestimated, but much remains to be done to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the institutional framework as well as congruence of the legislation covering development aid.

(DE) Mr President, to be quite honest, I was somewhat surprised to find that the Berman report had already been drawn up and a proposal was being presented before the completion of the Mitchell report, the actual report that is to assess the experience gained with the DCI.

My fellow Member is right in terms of the substance of his proposal. Given the design of the DCI, the legislative gap was inevitable. I support the conclusion that a different instrument is needed to close this gap for non-ODA (Official Development Assistance) activities. I can conceive of both the alternatives he proposes in paragraph 3 of his report.

I should like to make it clear, however, that non-ODA actions are also relevant to a country's development: it is only the choice of legal basis that is in dispute. In my opinion, it is the rapporteur and his committee against the rest of the world in this regard. The Committee on Development opts for a narrow interpretation of Article 179 and must therefore resort to articles intended for domestic policies as a legal basis. The Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Legal Affairs, Parliament's Legal Service, the ECJ, the Council and the Commission all read Article 179 differently.

Therefore we, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, decided today not to withdraw this motion tomorrow, but to table an amendment to change the legal basis envisaged, nor shall we be supporting the postponement, as we agree that only the legal basis is at issue in this matter. I am therefore sure that we will achieve clarity in the matter tomorrow.

(RO) The report from our fellow Member, Mr Berman, offers a clear solution for plugging the gap in the legislative structure for financing external actions which are not an emergency and which do not come under the category of development actions as defined by the Development Cooperation Instrument.

Financing actions of this kind is important from a political perspective as it can ensure continuity of the European Union's presence in the countries and regions which have already gone beyond the initial development stage. However, it is vitally important that the funds used to finance these actions do not come from sources earmarked for development, but from different budget lines.

The purpose of the legislative proposal requested by this report is to encourage development and not to restrict it by reducing the funds available for development policies in favour of other measures. This is why it is vital for the distinction between actions provided for under the Development Cooperation Instrument's scope and those provided for by the new legislative provision to be reflected when determining the funds earmarked for financing them.

Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for this report. I endorse his first comment about the economic crisis, its particular impact on the developing world and, indeed, the fact that we are not reaching our target of 0.7% in aid. This is very regrettable because, when the developed world shrinks, the developing world really takes the brunt of it.

I came to this debate because I was anxious to hear the arguments about legal bases. It seems to me that, underneath all of this, there is a fear that the budget will be spread too thinly. Let us just call a spade a spade. Let me quote the comments made by an aid agency which contacted me today: 'While we support Parliament's request for a financing instrument for non-ODA activities in developing countries, we strongly believe that it must be established on a legal basis which is appropriate to the activities which it intends to finance. The use of Article 179 as the legal basis for non-development activities is clearly not appropriate and, as such, would contravene both the EC Treaty and the acquis communautaire. It also opens the possibility that, in future, non-ODA activities may be financed from budget lines which are intended for genuine development activities. We very much hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.'

So, as a member of the PPE-DE Group, I am here tonight to listen to both sides of this argument, but also to put forward some of the lobbying that I am receiving from very genuine people in the development area, whose concerns I need to address.

I repeat the point that, if we were awash with funds, our legal basis might not cause us so much grief. The difficulty is that we are not. There is concern among those involved with the development agenda - the focus of concern - who are fearful that the money available will be spread over too many activities. However, I remain to be convinced.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to discuss not the legal basis but the basis for survival. Small and medium-sized enterprises have a very special role to play in this. Creditworthiness is particularly important during financial crises, so that these enterprises can still obtain microcredit.

I wish to point out in particular that the instrument of microcredit has actually very much proved its worth worldwide and that, particularly within the framework of the WTO round, which is hopefully approaching the final stages, we should consider how to bring about the relevant trade facilitation for the affected families in these areas.

After all, prosperity is created where something is produced, where people can live off the proceeds themselves and feed their families. If, in addition, they manage to sell something, prosperity is assured. It is with this in mind that I hope development policy takes the right course.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, after hearing all the different contributions, it is clear that the Members' main concern is the choice of the legal basis.

I stated in my introduction the direction in which the Commission seeks to go, but I will certainly be very happy to take up your suggestions also.

You know that we want the best development assistance for all countries, and this is the main thrust of our thinking. So let us work together in order to find the right solution.

rapporteur. - Mr President, I am not a lawyer, and I am not well versed in law, but I know that one should avoid stretching the interpretation of legal texts. That is my fear if we use Article 181a, because it talks about economic and technical cooperation, whereas we are talking about students who go abroad on exchanges between universities. It is a bit hazardous. I am not against this if the Commission sees it as a way out for the non-ODA activities we all deem necessary and important, and I will go along with it. Perhaps I am concerned because I am a journalist. I like texts and I take words seriously, which is the essence of Europe - its humanism, taking texts seriously and taking language seriously. You have to be very careful when using words, so Article 181a is a maybe, but I am not very happy about it.

I was happy, however, with the comment made by Mairead McGuinness, to the effect that she needed to be convinced. She is Irish, she has her convictions and she is firm in her principles, as indeed we all are. If it is impossible tomorrow to reach agreement on the right legal basis, then I would prefer to refer this back to my committee and to take time to decide on a proper legal basis, because we all know that non-ODA actions are necessary.

I thank the Commission for its comment that non-ODA actions will, over time, become more and more important in developing countries and in middle-income countries, etc. We all agree on their necessity, and we all agree on the need to find a legal basis. Some of us agree that Article 179 is not the basis we are looking for.

If I cannot reach agreement with the PPE-DE Group before we vote tomorrow at noon - which will be a pity - I shall ask for a referral back to my committee. I am ready to do that and I will do so when the amendment is voted on tomorrow. I would be very sorry if this is the position of the PPE-DE Group, because we all agree on the need to maintain development aid at the level it is today, and we all know that it is shrinking with the economic crisis.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

The review of the new foreign policy financing instruments has revealed defects in cooperation with third countries, and so we propose reforming the industrial instrument.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs does not consider it desirable to limit the new legal basis for the instrument to a few areas of cooperation. In addition, the policy fields currently envisaged (culture, youth, research) are borrowed from European domestic policy and have not, up to now, been intended to define cooperation with third countries. This is just one of the uncertainties that worries the Committee on Foreign Affairs. What happens, for example, if, in the near future, it becomes desirable to cooperate with other countries in matters of climate policy? Do we have to create a new legal basis for the instrument each time? Do we mean to do that every time there is a change in the area of cooperation?

The reform of the foreign policy instruments is very important to us all, and so it should be made clear that we are not fighting against one another.

This is the only reason why the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, together with the second rapporteur from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, withdrew the amendment on Monday.

In terms of content, we believe our proposal is more far-sighted and that it is the one that enables a coherent foreign policy. However, this report is just a recommendation to the Commission. We shall see what it does with it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is the world's largest donor of development aid, accounting for 60% of all funding. The Union's central role as a key actor in development cooperation should be strengthened even further in the future.

In order to stabilise the economies of the developing countries and bring peace to them, it is vitally important that the Union keeps to its target to increase its share of development aid by 0.7% of GDP by the year 2015. This alone, however, will not be enough.

It is essential to achieve general coherence in development cooperation among the different institutions. Financial investment and projects intended to build infrastructure and for more satisfactory adherence to the notion of human rights need to be undertaken in such a way that they support one another. The EU needs to establish the necessary instruments for implementing coherent development policy measures.

The Union's current legal basis for development cooperation, however, is flawed in terms of legislation, and that is why I would like to thank the rapporteur for raising what is an important issue. Projects aimed at improving the transport, technology and energy sectors and the dialogue between the scientific community and NGOs are essential for the social viability of developing countries. The main goal of such projects is not, however, to foster economic development and prosperity in the developing countries, and they do not therefore meet the criteria for official development aid as set by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In future, official development aid should focus specifically on the elimination of poverty and improving people's living conditions.

Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI) (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mrs Riera Madurell, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI) - C6-0306/2008 -.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to point out that unanimity was achieved in the ITRE Committee regarding this report. Unanimity was possible thanks to the good work and cooperation of the shadow rapporteurs, whose contributions also largely helped to achieve a useful report on a subject as important as the European research infrastructure.

I must say that Parliament agrees with the Commission that, in view of the globalisation of research and the emergence of new scientific and technological powers such as China and India, we urgently need to speed up, and, to that end, incentivise, the construction of a new European research area.

It is very important that we ensure as soon as possible that the European Union is an area in which researchers, technologies and knowledge can move freely, where there is effective coordination of research activities and where the best possible use is made of resources. This requires, amongst other things, that we have large research infrastructures at the European level.

These infrastructures can also provide an excellent opportunity for cooperation between the different Member States, with significant effects on the scientific education of our young people and a strong economic impact on European industry. They are therefore essential to the progress of science in Europe and consequently, we must facilitate their development. Parliament therefore applauds the Commission's initiative in proposing a legal framework and the conditions for it.

In fact, from the beginning, we considered the development of European research infrastructures to be one of the pillars of the European Research Area. However, we were always aware of the difficulties that needed to be overcome, not only because they required significant financial resources - it should be remembered that the ESFRI roadmap identifies 44 projects that should be implemented in the next ten years - but also due to the technical and organisational complexity of the issue.

On this point I would like to say once again that in an initiative of this calibre, Parliament should have played a much more decisive role. However, the urgency of these measures and the absence of a better legal basis in the current Treaty sufficiently justify the use of Article 171, which does not take away from the fact that this is one more reason to proclaim the need to have a new Treaty as soon as possible.

I will briefly point out some of the contributions that the report makes. Firstly, it clarifies the definition of 'European research infrastructure' in order to avoid confusions between the legal entity and the actual research infrastructure. It also clarifies and completes the requirements for a piece of research infrastructure to be considered European, adding important issues such as an impact assessment for the proposal at the European level, justifying its financing capacity and ensuring that there is a good policy of access to the whole European scientific community.

We also propose extending this initiative to existing infrastructure, and we give our full support to the Commission's proposal for exemption from VAT, which we think is the key element of this initiative.

We therefore want to send a clear message to the Council to resolve its problems on this issue as soon as possible and to say once again that if we want to promote research in Europe, we must release it from tax burdens. This is something that we have recommended on several occasions in order to encourage SMEs to participate in R&D tasks, and which we now need to support in relation with the creation of large research infrastructures at European level, because they are essential for the progress of science.

To conclude, I would once again like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission for their excellent contribution, and also the services of the ITRE Committee for the help that they have given me in drawing up this report.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first and foremost, I wish to express my gratitude to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and particularly to the rapporteur, Ms Riera Madurell, for supporting our proposal for the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure. Listening to you was music to my ears!

Let me also thank the ITRE shadow rapporteurs for their constructive support.

Together, we are coming an important step closer to a legal framework which will allow Member States to collaborate on the construction of new large research infrastructures, which are becoming increasingly complex and expensive, and which can only be built if several European countries work together.

You have discussed the new legal instrument in depth, and you have made many amendments which will help to clarify the text and give it a better structure, notably regarding definition, scope and status, and by introducing references to the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI).

The Commission will make all possible efforts to support the implementation of these amendments by the Council.

We are especially glad to see that we agree on the most vital aspect of the discussions taking place right now in Council, and which risks blocking adoption - I mean the VAT issue.

As you know, all Member States agree that it is necessary to exempt research infrastructures set up by several countries from taxes in the host country.

Many times, for working purposes, it is addressed as a tax exemption issue, which creates some confusion. In reality, it concerns only the implementation of the existing VAT Directive, which has already been agreed and adopted by the Council. The real question is whether European research infrastructure should be given the status of international organisations, as defined in the VAT Directive and, as such, be exempt from the VAT payment. Therefore, we are not talking about fiscal harmonisation but about setting up the legal entities related to research infrastructures.

Both the legal services of the Commission and of the Council have clearly stated that this is the right place. This is consequently purely a political decision on how important Member States consider the setting up of new world-class research facilities in Europe to be.

Your unwavering support in this issue could be of great importance!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr van Nistelrooij once said that this was about defining the 'fifth freedom'. The fifth freedom is simply the freedom of researchers, who cannot be tied to regional, national or international level.

We simply need to create the grouping and legal framework for researchers to do the job society expects of them. We are talking here not only about research carried out at universities - academic research - or in industry but also, in particular, about research carried out in small and medium-sized enterprises. After all, it is also important that these research results continue to be presented and made available.

Last year, we introduced the Energy Club in this House - which Vice-President Onesta attended - where the scientific community and those responsible radiated enthusiasm for inventions with the potential to bring us all very great benefits. Creating such research instruments is the right answer, particularly in the present economic and energy crisis, so as to enable the development of new products and services that can then be marketed worldwide. The Commission's initiative on this is particularly to be welcomed, therefore, as the organisation of such initiatives of course reinforces the international possibilities. International cooperation, in particular, is increasingly important for us in Europe, as it is for our partners. After all, we in Europe have made ourselves the part of the world with the greatest purchasing power, and our 500 million citizens have the right to have the research results drawn up as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thank you.

Mr President, the aim of the European Research Infrastructure (ERI) is to create unique research centres managed by the most distinguished specialists working in specific fields. They should, in my opinion, possess a great deal of expensive, cutting-edge equipment, and be staffed by a team of scientists. The ERI will be used for the experimental study, mainly using inductive methods, of phenomena in the world around us, with the aim of producing practical solutions. The ERI should also serve to train young scientists.

I think that the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures is not intended to copy present centres of excellence but, by using structural and national funds, to create different research units which will complement the centres of excellence and create an infrastructure of specialist research units, a uniform network spanning the entire EU. Young, ambitious European researchers will not be forced to travel across the ocean to implement their ideas. Thus, I think that the preconditions for the effective functioning of the ERI include a high degree of specialisation and mobility in terms of the research environment. Research will become more effective if time constraints are introduced and if it is spread across several locations, i.e. if basic research tasks are carried out simultaneously in various international specialist ERI units which, as they are not economic entities, would be exempt from tax.

In thanking you for your attention, I congratulate Mrs Madurell, and I wish the Commission a speedy realisation of this concept for a regulation which, while interesting, requires further specification.

I would like to congratulate Teresa Riera Madurell on this report, which brings us closer to successfully establishing a European Research Area. I am convinced that by setting up a network of scientific research partnerships among Member States, we will be able to achieve a competitive and profitable economy based on knowledge and innovation. It would not be possible to exchange knowledge without the relevant infrastructure, because it plays a key role in establishing an effective environment for carrying out up-to-date and extremely necessary research.

Currently, all activity is limited to cooperation between individual research establishments. We also have not had the relevant legal instruments which would make it possible to set up a suitable partnership with participants from various states which is, in fact, the key to success in this area. The lack of such legal instruments has greatly held back the processes of research integration of the new Member States, and these Member States have a huge research potential which needs to be incorporated into the European Union.

This report is not merely a step towards establishing the legal groundwork for setting up a research infrastructure. It would be instrumental in achieving the movement of knowledge in the European Union, increasing the prestige and authority of European research centres at a world level and increasing employment, and will contribute in the search for adequate solutions to new environmental challenges. I would once again like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Riera Madurell.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Do we need a European economic legal entity in the research sector or is this yet another example of the EU's persistent fight against European pluralism? The truth is, of course, that institutional competition is necessary for successful institutional reforms. Imagine if an international legal research framework had been established 50 years ago. Development in this area would have ceased. Changing international treaties is difficult and proceeds far too slowly. Progress is made if countries can easily reform their national institutions. Successful reforms then spread to other countries.

The Commission's proposal is certainly not a straightjacket. It offers an alternative to existing national proposals and, to that extent, represents an improvement. However, the proposal is ruined completely by the fact that the Commission also wishes to regulate the taxation of this legal entity at EU level. This proposal must therefore be rejected.

(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I feel that this is a very significant step forward in European research policy. It is a result of the evaluation report of the Sixth Framework Programme, but it is also a consideration that has been retained throughout the drafting of the seventh.

You said, Commissioner, that some Member States are now allowed to join forces. It is absurd, to say the least, to note that special permission is required from the European Union for that but still, it is progress. What concerns me is your statement that VAT will be applied at its minimum rate and that the situation regarding international status is not yet absolutely clear, at least that is how I understood it.

Article 171 was cited for the vote on the SESAR Joint Undertaking. We have voted twice on this draft since, in the initial version, the international status had not been confirmed and, therefore, it was not possible to establish the joint undertaking. Another joint undertaking, Galileo, has not been established at all.

My questions are as follows. What will be the share of Community funding? Will funding be provided for those who work together to prevent the squandering of resources intended for research infrastructures and to encourage them? Will it finally be possible to tap into the cohesion fund for research so as to combine excellence and cohesion?

(RO) 2009 is the European Year of Creativity and Innovation.

Setting up a European research infrastructure to operate on a non-economic basis will help to streamline the Community's research programmes, as well as distribute and optimise the results in the field of research, technological development and demonstration activities at Community level.

I welcome the fact that these infrastructures can receive cofinancing through Cohesion Policy financial instruments, in accordance with the regulations on the European Regional Development Fund, the Social Fund and Cohesion Fund.

I want to emphasise that it is vitally important that these infrastructures establish the link between research institutes and structures, universities, academia and the private sector, with industrial sectors benefiting from the use of research results.

However, I would like to mention that, above all during the current crisis, we need to make sure that at least 1% of a Member State's GDP is allocated to research.

(RO) The notion of a common European Research Area and of a Community legal framework that is applicable to European research infrastructures has been the basic principle for achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy relating to economic growth, the creation of jobs and establishing a dynamic, knowledge-based economy.

Research infrastructures are playing an ever greater role in the advancement of knowledge and technology, thanks to their ability to mobilise human resources and investments so that a critical mass is achieved, thereby successfully making a crucial contribution to European economic development. We have proposed to provide research with competitive financing, adequate infrastructures and intellectual property regulations, as well as efficient mobility for researchers in our desire for the European Union to be a top international research partner.

Today, through this proposal for a regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure, we are consolidating the creation of the fifth freedom in Europe: the free movement of knowledge. The current regulation will be a pillar of European research development as the European Research Infrastructure will guarantee scientific excellence in Community research and competitiveness of the Community's economy, based on medium and long-term forecasts and through effective support for European research activities.

In the current economic crisis, the quickest possible implementation of this regulation, combined with encouraging investment in research and development, establishing common standards in the knowledge sector, and modernising national education systems, will provide real solutions aimed at overcoming this crisis.

I feel that at this time, we need to promptly focus our attention on the existing differences in the area of developing an infrastructure for innovation and research between developed Member States and those with a developing economy so that we do not trigger a major migration of researchers from the economies of the states which have recently joined to the Member States whose economies are at the forefront of the global economy. Homogenous distribution of these infrastructures and of research opportunities within the European Union would be beneficial to the whole European Union and would help to combat the migration of scientists from East to West.

I would like to conclude by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Riera Madurell, and her colleagues from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for their contribution in compiling this report.

Mr President, could you share the five minutes between the two applications that have been made? I would be interested in taking two minutes, if that was in order?

Well, you present me with a quandary. The Rules of Procedure state one minute. One minute.

Mr President, with the greatest respect, we have already wasted two minutes talking about it. There are five minutes from the floor under 'catch the eye'. I have participated in other debates where there were perhaps one, two or three speakers and we share the time. I want just two minutes - I do not know about the other colleagues.

Thank you for allowing me to trespass on your patience, Mr President.

I fully support the establishment of legal status for new European research infrastructures for pan-European research projects and pan-European funding.

I have two quick points. I have in front of me - and I would like to compliment the Commissioner and his staff - a publication entitled 'A more research-intensive and integrated European Research Area: Science, Technology and Competitiveness key figures report 2008/2009'. I think the figures may be well out of date, given the collapse in GDP across the EU and elsewhere. I particularly pick up the point that public funding of R&D can be counter-cyclical, as happened in Japan and the US in the early 1990s and early noughties respectively. When there were collapses in their GDP, the public sector investment in R&D went up.

Could you extrapolate from what we are experiencing at the moment in the EU, with what we have available in FP7 and from Member States, in view of the collapse of economic growth throughout the EU at the moment - we are not alone globally - whether we will be able to compensate with increased public sector funding in R&D?

My second point concerns the frightening prospect as regards the EU's world share in patent applications, which has declined by an alarming figure. The high costs of patents in Europe, you say, might possibly explain this. In Europe, the costs and corresponding costs for patent applications are over 20% higher than in the US, 13 times higher than in the Japan Patent Office, while the costs of maintaining a patent protection in the 27 Member States is over 60 times higher in the EU than the US - frightening implications. Perhaps you could tell us, Commissioner, how we could resolve this as soon as possible?

I should like to congratulate you once again, Commissioner, on a fascinating publication.

(PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work. I will refer here to a statement made by Mrs Doyle. At a time when we are experiencing economic collapse, we should not allow ourselves to make the mistake of neglecting research and development or the people who work in these areas. Therefore, I endorse the measures concerning the establishment of a legal framework for the European Research Infrastructure.

We must be aware that for the ERI, it is necessary to have legal frameworks and also adequate funding, but that this money cannot come from contributions made by individual regions, or even countries. The question of appropriate taxation is also important in this case. I also think that better cooperation is needed between research centres and the economy, including small and medium-sized enterprises. I am convinced that the ERI will also contribute, if it is properly correlated with the framework programmes, to improving the situation of the people who work in research, and especially young people, as Mr Gierek has said. This may also prevent a brain drain in Europe. We should remember that the Lisbon Strategy provides for a share of three per cent of GDP for expenditure on research and development. In the European Union today - my figures are for the year 2007 - that indicator stands at 1.84%. I trust, therefore, that the ERI will improve this situation.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, firstly I would like to thank you for your support. I think we all understand how important it is that we talk. I may not follow the order of the questions but will try to respond briefly to what you asked.

Ms Doyle, as regards public funding, the experience of the past has shown that, in times of crisis, private financing most likely goes down. That is why public financing should not make the terrible mistake of following that pattern because that would be the way which, after the crisis, would lead us to a completely improper situation. That is why public financing has to act counter-cyclically and that is why, even in Europe, we have had that kind of example. Finland was the case at the beginning of the 1990s. I think we should do something like that and we should follow that path.

On the cost of patent application, it is very striking. I think there is no simple answer. 'Better' would certainly be an answer which would be more horizontal than anything which we could do. Last year, we tried to do our best by proposing to clarify this patent picture in relations between private and public institutions, but certainly that is not the answer to the depth of the problem which we are facing in patent application.

Now I turn to the proposal about the questions about the financing from the Seventh Framework Programme. What we have financed until now is the preparatory phase of the projects which are released. It is not intended that we finance institutionally the infrastructure. This will be done by the Member States and also Member States will decide, for example, where this will be located. When this is finished, however, we will certainly, as for any other infrastructure, finance the grants.

That is really the only way ahead. I can remind you that, when we discussed the issue of the budget of the research infrastructure, this was the budget which, in percentage points, was really mostly cut for the Seventh Framework Programme. I am, however, quite optimistic. We are well ahead, and I think that legislation is bringing good solutions.

Concerning VAT, I would like to be precise. We do not propose VAT exemption in the legislation. We believe that if more countries are joining in efforts to build a common infrastructure, say between Germany and Slovenia or the United Kingdom or anywhere, then at the end of the day, none of the countries will agree to pay VAT in that country. That is the case also today - but what exactly is the case today? Today, the countries are individually negotiating with the host country on that kind of exemption. What we are trying to do, via that legislation, is to guarantee the status of an international organisation which would, as a consequence, due to the VAT legislation which exists today, guarantee VAT exemption.

That would, in essence, be the end of the story anyway, but time was mentioned. Time is the crucial question here, so we are talking about whether we can speed up and simplify how we are building the research infrastructure together. Unfortunately, today's situation in research infrastructure is so complex that we are losing time and thus money also. In essence, that is the story.

I have forgotten cohesion. The answer is yes.

To finish, that is exactly the point which we have to underline. We need infrastructure. We need it as soon as possible. This is the step to speed up the whole process. I thank you for understanding that and I thank you for your support in that context.

Before giving the floor to our rapporteur, I would like to clarify something for Mrs Doyle. We have looked into the technicalities.

A little over a year ago, on 8 January 2008, you received a communication from the Deputy Secretary-General, on a decision of the Conference of Presidents of 27 October 2007. Point 3(B) very clearly states that 'catch the eye' time is a maximum of five minutes, and is limited to a maximum of one minute per speaker.

That is the rule, but it was such a pleasure to listen to you that we took great delight in hearing what you had to say. We now come to our rapporteur, Mrs Riera-Madurell.

Mr President, I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate for their contributions, and also I would like to thank the Commissioner for his words and say that I entirely agree with his very clear explanation regarding the VAT issue. To conclude, I would simply like to say that the majority of us are in agreement with the basics. The message is clear: excellence in research requires high quality research infrastructure and, basically due to high construction and operational costs, it is important to share a large proportion of this research infrastructure. In other words, it is more than reasonable to think about creating European infrastructure that can serve the whole European scientific community.

The roadmap drawn up by ESFRI was certainly a step forward towards better planning of research infrastructure at European level. What we need to do now is implement this roadmap. One of the main problems is certainly funding, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, because despite the increase in the funding allocated to the Seventh Framework Programme and the possibilities of support for the infrastructures in the cohesion policy programmes, which some of my colleagues have also mentioned, the European Union budget is not sufficient to fund all of the necessary infrastructure. It is therefore essential that we mobilise sources of funding, both national and private, as far as possible, especially from industry, although as the Commissioner rightly said, this is not a very good time.

Another difficulty, which is no less important, was the lack of a legal structure. This was the Commission's objective when putting forward this proposal: to establish a legal framework and the necessary conditions for developing European research infrastructures. This is a good proposal, which we are convinced has been strengthened by Parliament, as the Commissioner has already said.

I would like to ask the Council once again to listen to our message.

(DE) Mr President, may I ask that the heating be kept on until the end of the sitting, as it is too cold in the House.

We take note of this comment. Perhaps our evening debates should be more animated and more heated so as to warm up the atmosphere. It is true, though, that the Chamber is large.

On this fundamental issue, which will do a great deal to advance European research, the debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

At times when the economy is in a downward spiral, the authorities are tempted to cut funds for research. However, I am pleased that by discussing this report on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure, we are sending out an important signal that research remains a priority activity for the European Union.

I firmly believe that by establishing this institutional framework for supporting research activity, we will see results which will bolster the European economy. The reason for this is that research is not a fad, but a necessity which guarantees the European economy's competitiveness at a global level.

I would like to stress one extremely important area where research can play an important role. In the next 25 years, as a result of urbanisation, it is expected that almost 25% of land will be withdrawn from agricultural use. To compensate for this reduction in area, we need greater productivity from smaller areas, with a lower use of water or pesticides. The solutions may emerge through research, particularly biotechnology, bearing in mind, of course, the principle of food security.

This is yet another reason for supporting greater research activity and ensuring a uniform European framework.

I welcome the report on establishing a legal framework for the European Research Infrastructure (ERI), as well as the Commission's proposal for a regulation in this area.

ERI is a response to a real need on the part of European researchers and will undoubtedly help boost competitiveness in European science.

One of the important elements in this regulation is the opportunity for the European Union to hold a stake in an ERI type entity. This gives the Community the ability to participate in and guide Trans-European research policies.

Based on this element, I am calling on the European Commission to bear in mind three points when it comes to providing financial support for the ERI:

1) The Community's involvement exclusively in projects with an extremely high scientific potential.

2) Encouraging the formation of ERIs in regions which have traditionally been victims of the brain drain, both within and outside the Community.

3) Facilitating the access of companies in the private sector to the ERI.

Community policies in this area must combine scientific excellence with triggering an influx of researchers and effective infrastructures into countries, such as the new members of the European Union from the accession rounds in 2004 and 2007.

The report compiled by Teresa Riera Madurell is particularly important as it creates the legal framework required to develop research infrastructures.

Establishing European research infrastructures guarantees that research will reach a high level.

In addition, it will create new opportunities for closer collaboration between teams of European researchers which may also be joined by numerous students and technical staff, thereby helping attract young people into hi-tech research.

This legal framework must also ensure better cooperation between industry and academic research, thereby facilitating the implementation of innovations.

I support the rapporteur's proposal which asks the Commission to regularly report to the European Parliament on the status regarding the development of the European research infrastructures.

The cost of establishing large-scale research infrastructures requires several countries to join forces.

Establishing a common legal framework is absolutely necessary in order to facilitate and accelerate the development of these infrastructures.

A special place for children in EU external action (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Kinnock, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on a special place for children in EU external action.

rapporteur. - Mr President, I have to say at the outset that I very much welcome the communication which has been prepared by the Commission. I think it is both comprehensive and ambitious.

In my report, Commissioner, I recommend which practical actions, investments and processes are needed if we are to identify that very special place for children in external action. The Commission and the Council communication and conclusions on external action will build upon the external dimension of the EU strategy on the rights of the child. I believe that this is essential work for the European Union.

Commissioner, I now look forward very much to seeing actions intended to match the ambition which I see. We need to see substance backing up the rhetoric. That means that resources must be available and, of course - as I am sure you will agree - there must be no backtracking by the European Union Member States on the commitments they have made to fund the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). What we know is that, for most of the world's two billion children, it is a daily struggle against poverty and vulnerability. As we know, 98% of the children in our world living in extreme poverty are living in developing countries.

Furthermore, it is now clear that the impact of the financial crisis will be severely felt by children and young people, for instance when the budgets are cut back on health and education. That is why I think it is right that we make a political commitment, at the highest level, on behalf of and with children. The EU must see in its partnership with the developing countries the opportunity to influence public policy to save children's lives. Priority actions for children must be promoted when the European Commission negotiates the country strategy papers' regional and thematic strategies, when they are drawn up, and subsequently when they are reviewed.

When there is budget support, including MDG budget contracts, specific objectives and indicators on children must and should be included. I welcome the Commission's intention to draw up partner national action plans for children. We need assurances that even the most marginalised children - including children with disabilities and orphans - have access to equitable health, welfare and judicial services.

I believe there needs to be more and better training of Commission staff - both in Brussels and in delegations - particularly in how they manage the participation of children. We need to see a radical rethink in the European Union about how we ensure that we listen to children and invite children to participate, because we understand that it is children themselves who give lives to the values that are enshrined in international law through the Convention on the Rights of the Child agreed in 1989. It is my experience that the children themselves - the young people - have a wealth of understanding and experience - which we must tap into - on how to tackle poverty and environmental degradation.

I welcome the fact that the Commission recognises the importance of consultation during the preparation of the EU strategy on the rights of the child. I also understand that this has been planned for the first half of 2009. Commissioner, would the Commission be able to confirm when this process will begin? I trust there will not be any decision that the public consultation - including with children - will be put on hold until a new Commission and Parliament is in place.

Finally, to quote Kofi Annan, 'There is no trust more sacred than the one the world holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they grow up in peace.' I think all of us would agree that those are fine objectives.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, it is a pleasure to be here today to talk about children and also about the report you will adopt shortly.

Let me talk for a few minutes about how we got to where we are today, and what will come in the future, and about child participation, which is most likely our biggest challenge regarding children.

Today is an important step in a long process that started several years ago internally in the Commission. We recognise that the EU needs a strategy on children. We need a strategy on how we, the European Union, will implement the commitments. We and the rest of the world have signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The first step was the Commission communication 'Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child' in 2006. This was followed in 2008 by the communication package on children in external actions, which outlined a comprehensive approach to children by the EU using all available instruments in external cooperation.

Let me digress for a moment, since I am convinced that some of you will be asking the question: what about the EU strategy on the rights of the child, which was announced in the above-mentioned communication? I can confirm that the Commission is working on such a strategy, which will be presented under the next Commission.

During the Slovenian Presidency in May 2008, the Council adopted conclusions on the promotion and protection of the rights of the child in the European Union's external action - the development of humanitarian dimensions.

The Committee on Development then started drafting a report. We are now at the end of this process and tomorrow, you will be voting on this excellent report.

In addition, the EU's policy on children is based on the two EU guidelines - the Guidelines on Children in Armed Conflicts and the Guidelines on the Rights of the Child - both being implemented in a number of selected priority and pilot countries. The Commission welcomes the report - which is an excellent complement to our communication - the Council conclusions and the guidelines. We will surely use it in our work on children.

Let me focus my final comments on what is probably our biggest challenge today: child participation. How do we ensure that we involve children in decisions that concern them? How do we ensure that children have access to pertinent information? How do we ensure equal access for children to express their views? We have to recognise that, amongst everything that we all agreed to in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this might be the major challenge.

We have to admit that we are still far from achieving anything significant in the area of child participation. In the Commission, we are starting to reflect on how to design and implement proper child participation that is not just tokenism. It should be relevant, meaningful and informed child participation. We have also ensured relevant funding for child participation under the thematic programme 'Investing in People'.

Why is this difficult for us adults? Essentially, because it questions what is fundamental to us: the way we behave.

What will the Commission do in its external action to promote this participation? The Commission will make the tools available for our delegations to consult children, but these tools will be used not only by our delegations but also by partner countries. We are also developing a tool kit, together with UNICEF, that should not only address child participation but also overall child protection, legal reform, child budgeting.

In addition to the tool kit, we are also recasting and strengthening our collaboration with UNICEF in general in order to be able to improve our support to partner countries in their efforts to ensure that children have a voice at country level.

We also cooperate closely with various NGOs to learn from them about possible formats, often involving children and having meaningful child participation. Let me be honest: it is not going to happen tomorrow. This is just the start of a long process.

Let me just make one comment on the report. The report underlines how the Commission should pay attention to child participation, but, colleagues, you will also have to do so, and I can assure you that the Commission will be happy to work with you on advancing this. We should build on the collective force of the two institutions to advance this important issue.

Let me once again express the Commission's appreciation of the report and underline that we will do our utmost to carry out these recommendations. We are counting on the continued support of Parliament in this area.

In answer to Ms Kinnock's question, I am happy to confirm that the position of the Commission has not changed. The idea of using 2009 for consultations was launched in the Commission itself and we are working to put in place the conditions for a process of consultation with children that avails itself of all existing tools.

Let me also underline that the Commission is keen to ensure a process of consultation that fully respects the rights of the child.

Finally, let me thank you, Ms Kinnock, for a very fruitful collaboration on children and child-related issues, not only as regards this report, but also over the years. I know that I was too long, but you can never be too long when you are talking about children's rights.

Many thanks, Commissioner. Indeed, your speech was very interesting and on an issue that is also very important.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - It is a sad day when we have to acknowledge that every day, more than 26 000 children under the age of five die around the world, mostly from preventable causes.

It is tragic that many lives can be saved with the appropriate measures, be they medical or financial, and still the situation is aggravating. Special attention has to be given to the most vulnerable and socially excluded girls and boys, including disabled children, migrant children and children from minorities.

The report is commendable. I only disagree with those aspects which refer to abortion.

The Committee on Development adopted this own-initiative report (drafted by Glenys Kinnock (PES, UK) on a special place of children in EU external action in response to the Commission communication on the subject. The committee welcomed the communication and the four guiding principles of the Commission's Action Plan on Children's Rights in External Action, which include a holistic and coherent child-rights-based approach.

Without loosing any more time we must:

undertake a thorough analysis of children's rights;

build up existing youth and children's networks as sustainable platforms for consulting children;

ensure that international agreements between the EU and third countries should contain a legally binding clause on the protection of children's rights.

It is our duty to ensure that we are the ones who build a better future, not only for Europeans, but also for the developing countries.

It is children who represent the future and we must ensure that their rights are enforced and respected in third countries which receive European funding.

It is a matter of priority that in relations with third countries, the European Union ensures that children's rights to education and access to medical services are guaranteed.

It is true that we are going through a period of financial crisis, but we cannot overlook the fact that somewhere in the world, a child dies every three seconds and every minute a woman dies in childbirth.

Given that children make up half of the world's population, we must consider that the rights of children are a priority in the European Union's development policy.

Every Member State, according to its possibilities, should get involved in the policies for cooperating with developing countries. In fact, the European Commission should exert pressure on developing countries to transpose into national legislation the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am pleased that I was able to write an opinion on this report in the Committee on Women's Rights. I have taken a particular interest in the issue of children's rights in the context of foreign relations.

My opinion was unanimously approved. It states above all that the EU foreign strategy as regards children's rights should be based on the values and principles set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 3, 16, 18, 23, 25, 26 and 29. These are particularly important for the wellbeing of individuals and society as a whole. My opinion stresses that all measures in the interests of children's rights should give priority status to parents and immediate relatives of children.

The fact that the European Parliament has adopted my opinion underlines the importance of protecting human life right from the outset, and of giving each child its own identity. I succeeded in introducing statements condemning gender-based eugenic discrimination, which is increasingly common in some countries. The opinion asks the Commission to emphasise the importance of the need to register every child at birth in all third countries as part of the Commission's development policy, and to make its aid programmes dependent on this requirement.

I support any attempt to promote development aid. I do, however, insist that humanitarian organisations and international bodies responsible for allocating aid guarantee that the aid and funding allocated actually reaches the children it is destined for, and is not squandered.

Implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Cottigny, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank the various shadow rapporteurs for their open-minded work during our collaboration on this text in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

The Member States must improve the implementation of the directive on informing and consulting employees, particularly in the current context of the financial crisis and of its consequences for companies as they restructure, merge or move abroad. This is the message the Committee on Employment was seeking to send out in this initiative report.

The European Union has 23 million companies with fewer than 250 employees. They represent 99% of companies and employ over 100 million people. Workers' rights to information and consultation are essential components of the social market economy.

The transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC has been considerably delayed in some Member States. In this own-initiative report, we point out that the impact of this directive is evident in the countries where no general system of worker information and consultation existed.

I am calling for an improved transposition of the directive in the Member States. We ask that the Commission takes measures, as soon as possible, to ensure the proper transposition of this directive by the Member States, and to bring infringement proceedings against those that have either not transposed it at all or have done so incorrectly.

The report also emphasises that, in their transposition measures, some Member States have not included some young workers, women working part-time or workers employed for a short period on temporary contracts.

We ask that the Member States define precisely the term 'information' by allowing workers' representatives to examine the data supplied and not to content themselves with awaiting the end of the information procedure if the companies' decisions have direct consequences for the workers. Member States without effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions are asked to introduce them. Finally, in an improved coordination of the different legislative instruments, we also invite the Commission to examine what is required to coordinate the six directives and the regulation on informing employees, so that any amendments to get rid of overlaps and contradictions can be made.

As this type of advance in workers' rights is more than beneficial, the Union owes it to itself to guarantee that the Member States transpose the obligations of the directive correctly and in full. It is essential that all European workers know that Europe supports them in their involvement in the life of their company, in their daily lives as workers, and especially at the present time.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I take due note of Mr Cottigny's report on what is an important directive which consolidates at European level a fundamental social right of employees. The Commission attaches great importance to informing and consulting employees at both national and transnational level, particularly in the current difficult context of the financial crisis.

We proposed the recasting of the directive on European work councils. This has been successfully completed. We are continuing our work on the anticipation and socially responsible management of restructuring and the questions arising at European level from the negotiation of transnational agreements.

As explained in its communication of 17 March 2008, the Commission's prime concern for the implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC is that it should be comprehensive and effective in collaboration with the Member States and the two sides of industry, which have an extremely important role to play, as you know. It should be borne in mind that the directive only establishes a general framework that can be implemented and expanded by the two sides of industry, particularly at company level.

The Commission conducts and supports activities for raising awareness, promoting the exchange of best practices and boosting the capacities of all the parties involved by means of seminars, training courses, studies and financial aid for projects particularly under a specific budget line.

The Commission also monitors the correct application of the directive in its capacity as Guardian of the Treaties: for example, if complaints are made by trade union organisations. So far, however, the Commission has received very few complaints concerning the implementation of this directive.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

The transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community has been subject to considerable delay in certain Member States.

I feel that there is a need to increase the democratic involvement of workers in making decisions which have an impact on the company, bearing in mind the global nature of the current financial crisis, which is affecting Member States indiscriminately in their economic network and is generating fears about restructuring, mergers or relocation.

In the case of restructuring enterprises, I would call on European funds to be made available and for assistance to be provided to workers, not only enterprises. I also feel that it must become an obligatory practice in the situation where a multinational company is being restructured for trade-union representatives from all branches of the company to be invited to negotiations and consulted, not only those from the Member State in which the company has its head office.

I feel that it is important to regularly update the legislation concerning the rights of workers to be informed and consulted and include this item on the agenda for European social dialogue, both at an interprofessional and industrial level.

Social economy (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Toia, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on Social Economy.

rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased and proud that the European Parliament is looking at the social market economy and laying down practical proposals to provide real support for this sector.

My report has three objectives. The first is to draw attention to and shed light on a sector that has a great impact on many areas, including the economy; 10% of European businesses belong to this sector, as well as 9% to 10% of jobs. It is a sector comprised of different operators - cooperatives, mutual societies, foundations, social enterprises and associations - which share specific values and make a significant contribution to GDP. We thus hope to give it greater institutional visibility.

The second objective is to confirm that this is not a marginal sector or an exception; rather it is firmly established in the market economy, with its own rules that the internal market must recognise and respect. It represents an alternative way of doing business, of producing, consuming and providing employment, that has nonetheless earned the right to be part of the market. It is a method characterised by a number of distinctive traits that must not be smoothed over and that consist primarily of the desire to combine and reconcile production and employment with values of solidarity, responsibility and human dignity in all areas including the world of work.

As someone once said, in my opinion quite rightly, these enterprises operate with capital but not for capital. These are concepts that form part of the ideological heritage of the European Union - one need only think of Delors - since we have often acknowledged the social economy as the keystone of the European social model, but then done very little about it.

Now is the ideal time to rediscover the relevance of these businesses, as the current crisis in manufacturing has shown many traditional economic actors to be very fragile, very weak and sometimes very unscrupulous. The world of the social economy is, by contrast, more locally rooted, closer to the real economy and to people and therefore protected from speculation, as has proved the case. It is also a sector with a wide range of actors who do a lot of welfare work, and constitutes a recognised hub of social utility. It can, I believe, help to sustain our social systems when times are hard.

The third objective is to decide what we can do in practice to support this sector. I will very briefly describe one or two proposals. First of all, we need a clear definition to accurately understand the profiles and definitions of these highly diverse entities. It is also crucial to record the contribution made by this sector accurately in national statistics in different countries. It does not belong to either the capitalist economy or the public economy, and therefore requires its own definition. The Commission has gone some way towards this with its handbook, but it needs to be applied. I believe that the world of academia, research and universities can also help with this.

Finally, some legislative initiatives are called for. A number of things have been done, such as the cooperative statute and the foundation statute, and I see that the Commission has reopened its consultation. So, we need to understand what is useful and whether it is worthwhile continuing along this route. We do not want to bog down a sector that thrives on ideas, motivation and freedom with paperwork, but where Community laws are needed, or will be needed in future, it would be wise to create them.

One final request is to involve this sector in social dialogue. Where and at what level should consultation and dialogue with the European Commission take place? And lastly, what direct support should be provided by European programmes - should we have ad hoc programmes for the social economy, or create space within existing programmes for these operators? It is up to the Commission to assess this.

Before I finish, I would like to thank the national associations and European networks that have lent me much support in this work, Parliament's intergroup on the social economy, which is working well, the shadow rapporteurs, and also Mr Verheugen and Mr Špidla, with whom we have had a frank and thorough exchange of views.

We pass on this report, to which social actors and associations have contributed a great deal, to the Commission, in the hope that despite the short time remaining before the end of this electoral term, it will find the time, Commissioner - you represent the whole Commission here today - to put together some initiatives, and give a clear signal, so that the next Parliament and the next Commission do not have to start again from scratch but have something solid to build on.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes Parliament's initiative to formulate an own-initiative opinion on the social economy. Especially in the context of the present financial and economic crisis, this important sector deserves to be promoted more.

Social economy enterprises have a unique way of doing business since they combine economic performance mutually between members, and often also the achievement of social and societal objectives, as a business purpose. Thus, they are well placed to contribute to Community policies and objectives, particularly in the field of employment, social cohesion, regional and rural development, environmental protection, consumer protection and social security. Social economy enterprises are an integral part of the Commission's enterprise policy. Since, in the majority, they are micro, small or medium-sized enterprises, they already benefit from the Small Business Act and all actions targeting small enterprises.

With regard to the social economy, our objective is to create a legal and administrative environment, at European level and in every Member State, in which social economy enterprises of whatever form and size can thrive and meet the challenges posed by globalisation and the economic downturn. More specifically, the Commission's policy aims to guarantee that social economy enterprises can grow and prosper alongside other forms of company. To this end, the Commission pays particular attention to ensuring that all other Community policies in areas such as competition, accounting, company law, public procurement, health, social affairs, agriculture, fisheries, banking, insurance, public and private partnerships and regional development, do take into account the specific needs, particular goals, efforts and working style of this kind of enterprise.

To conclude, the Commission services are currently working on a document which will take stock of the progress made since 2004 on the promotion of cooperatives. It will also assess the situation of other social economy enterprises and propose new actions if necessary.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - (IT) Non-lucrative activities and not-for-profit organisations are experiencing continual growth in Europe.

At this time of economic and financial crisis, which has serious repercussions at social level, strengthening an economy founded on social benefits rather than profit is a strategic choice that allows us to alleviate the impact of the crisis and to pursue the development of the Lisbon strategy by realising one of its primary objectives, namely the call to social responsibility.

Secondly, the social economy is able to initiate action at local level, becoming a reliable partner for public administrations which need to plan measures to support the vulnerable in society.

We should therefore welcome the move by the European Parliament to recognise, in legislation and statistics, those organisations that operate and are deeply rooted in the European fabric due to their ability to achieve social objectives.

This is a grass-roots vision that represents a fundamental contribution to the European social model.

The social economy can play a vital role in the European economy, by establishing a new type of economy based on democratic values, an economy which puts people first and supports sustainable development.

However, the social economy is facing a huge obstacle: the lack of institutional visibility due to the fact that it is not recognised as an economic sector which is distinct from the main two: public and private.

We call on the Commission and Member States to develop a legal framework which will recognise the social economy as a third sector and apply regulations that clearly stipulate which entities can operate in this sector so that no other type of organisation can benefit from the funding or public policies intended to encourage enterprises in the social economy.

We also call on the Commission and Member States to offer financial support, training and consultancy and also to simplify the procedures for setting up enterprises in the social sector.

In this way, the social economy will fulfil its effective role against the general backdrop of the European economy, by not only helping combat poverty, but also by facilitating access to resources, rights and services which citizens need to be able to participate in society.

in writing. - First of all, I would like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Patrizia Toia, for the quality of the report she presents today. As a matter of fact, it is important to provide some clarity in defining the concept of social economy and ensuring its legal status through the wide range of national experiences. Social economy indeed requires visibility - through better knowledge of EU-wide data - for better achieving the objectives of solidarity, employment, entrepreneurship, growth, competitiveness social cohesion and social dialogue in the Union as a whole. Social economy is increasingly becoming an important actor at local and regional levels and has now, more than ever - due to the serious impacts of the financial crisis - a major role to play in European social and economic development. The Union needs to concentrate its efforts in supporting the social and economic dynamics to overcome the mere separation of public and private sectors if we really want to find new and innovative solutions to provide our citizens with sustainable jobs and a better living environment with quality services of general interest in an inclusive society.

We have been trying to mobilise all the EU institutions and resources for several months in order to alleviate the effects of the growing crisis. The silver lining of this dark cloud is that Mrs Patrizia Toia's report is now on the agenda of the plenary session, since initiatives focusing on solidarity, as well as on social and regional cohesion, are especially important these days. This is the focus of the social economy, as the latter is a conglomeration of organisational forms whose goal is solidarity and common financial interest, instead of profit. Such institutions cannot be replaced by any market-oriented organisation. They provide an opportunity to reduce the effects of economic stratification on the marginalised members of society, provide honourable work, and with their various forms ranging from self-employment to social cooperatives, they are able to reapply the fruits of their labours to the benefit of the community.

We have talked and written a lot about the social economy, but without a European statistical base it will not become visible in our everyday lives. If this concept is unknown to society, its solidarity is unable to help. Participating organisations, on the other hand, are too small to become known on a macro-economic level.

Mrs Patrizia Toia's report can help eliminate the suspicion legislators and market stakeholders have that the money and products generated by the social economy are simply organisations seeking to evade competition rules.

Here and now, the report may provide an opportunity for the social economy to manage the crisis efficiently, and with relatively little effort, to prevent job losses and guard against the loss of means of subsistence.

The social economy ensures job stability as it is not subject to delocalisation. I feel that the European Union and Member States should encourage and support forms of implementation of the social economy, e.g. cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations, in their legislation and policies.

It is important to devise a series of measures aimed at developing microcredits and tailored EU funding as the values of the social economy correspond to the European objectives of social integration and contribute to establishing a work-life balance, as well as improving gender equality and the quality of life for the elderly or disabled. I feel that the role of women in the social economy must be reinforced, given their involvement in associations and voluntary organisations.

I urge the Commission to integrate the social economy in the other policies and strategies for social and economic development, especially in light of the Small Business Act, as the structures of the social economy are primarily targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises and services of general interest. These efforts could also be supported by creating a statistical register of enterprises in the social economy in each European Union Member State and by inputting the data into the EUROSTAT European statistics system.

Mental health (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Tzampazi, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on Mental Health.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is now an ever-increasing awareness that there is no health without mental health. We realise that mental health problems frequently have an impact, from a humanitarian and financial point of view, both on the personal, family, professional and social lives of the individuals and their families and on society as a whole.

The figures speak for themselves: one in four people will experience some form of mental disorder. Depression is one of the most common disorders and, by 2020, will be the most common illness in the developed world. Some 59 000 suicides are committed in the European Union every year, 90% of which are attributable to mental disorder. Vulnerable and marginalised groups, such as disabled people, are more likely to suffer mental health problems.

Also, in an ageing Europe, neurodegenerative disorders are becoming ever more common. We will therefore all agree that there is a need to take a concerted approach to the challenges posed by mental health and that it concerns us all. We all have an obligation to defend mental health and safeguarding the rights of mental patients and their families is an ideological and political position whereby the state provides social support and protection to those who need it. The first step was the Commission's Green Paper; the next step was the European Conference 'Together for Mental Health and Wellbeing', which also established the European Pact for Mental Health and Wellbeing.

In keeping with this, the report on mental health, which was approved unanimously by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, includes a series of recommendations to promote the mental health and wellbeing of the populace, to combat the stigma of discrimination and social exclusion, to strengthen preventive action and self-help, and to provide support and adequate treatment to people with mental health problems and to their families and carers.

In the report, we stress the need to provide high-quality, accessible, effective and universal mental health services and up-to-date legislation. We call for emphasis to be placed on the training of everyone in key positions. We call for access to appropriate education, training and employment and for the creation of a supportive environment, with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups. We call for emphasis to be placed on the prevention of mental ill-health through social intervention. We call for the Member States to empower organisations which represent people with mental health problems. We propose the adoption of a platform to monitor the implementation of the Pact. We call on the Commission to present the conclusions of the thematic conferences. We stress the need to produce appropriate indicators with a view to improving the assessment of needs at national and European level.

At the same time, we are formulating proposals within the framework of the five priority areas of the Pact. Within this framework, we stress that, in order to prevent depression and suicide, we need to implement multi-sectoral programmes and set up networks, to develop a healthy climate in schools, to improve working conditions, to adopt measures to improve the quality of life and, finally, as regards combating stigma and social exclusion, we stress that public information and awareness campaigns are needed. For this, I should like to thank the members who contributed with their proposals and I hope that we shall send out a message that mental health is a valuable social commodity and that we all need to work to promote it.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I congratulate the European Parliament and its rapporteur, Ms Tzampazi, on this own-initiative report on mental health. The report quite rightly underlines the great impact mental health has on general wellbeing, on education, on learning, and on social cohesion in the European Union.

The fact that Parliament is adopting this report only two years after a resolution responding to the Commission's Green Paper on mental health signals the urgent need for more action in this field.

In my view, there is some reason for optimism. There is more awareness of the importance of mental health and wellbeing across all sectors, compared to a few years ago. This was evident from the great support for the Commission's high-level conference 'Together for mental health and wellbeing' and the European Pact for Mental Health and Wellbeing, both of which were mentioned by the rapporteur.

Further positive developments include the fact that many Member States have revised their mental health strategies or are setting up action plans, for example, in Finland and Hungary. Socio-economic learning has been included in school curricula. In the United Kingdom, life issues are now a subject in their own right in many schools.

Employers are increasingly aware of the links between wellbeing and productivity. CSR Europe has even created a toolkit for wellbeing in the workplace. However, let us be clear. There can certainly be no reason for complacency, and much more remains to be done. There could be new risks for mental health as a result of the current financial and economic crisis. Member States could be tempted to reduce budgets for mental health or to reduce their efforts to build up modern mental health systems with community-based services instead of outdated asylums.

The economic downturn worsens the future prospects of young people, especially school leavers. Job insecurity in the workplace, and its ensuing concerns over the stability of incomes and rising levels of unemployment, create new major threats for mental health.

Over the next two years, the Commission will organise a series of thematic conferences on the five priorities of the mental health pact. These will be joint events with Council Presidencies and Member States. A first international conference on stigma and psychiatric care will be organised by the Czech Presidency on 29 May this year. The first thematic conference on mental health in youth and education will take place in Stockholm on 29-30 September, in cooperation with the Swedish Presidency. The second thematic conference on the prevention of depression and suicide will be organised with Hungary in December. In the first semester of 2010, the Spanish Presidency will host a thematic conference on the mental health of older people. Furthermore, we are in contact with Member States regarding two further conferences on mental health in workplace settings and on combating stigma and social exclusion.

Parliament's report includes many concrete suggestions which constitute a valuable contribution to future debates in these conferences. The report not only highlights the relevance of mental health in the European Union, but also demonstrates that there are many opportunities to act in the area of mental health at European Union level.

One of the suggestions in the report is to set up a structure to oversee the implementation of the European Pact for Mental Health and Wellbeing. I agree that there would be significant added value in periodically reviewing progress against the objectives of the pact.

We will seriously consider how we can best put such an idea into practice. Once again, I would like to thank Parliament and its rapporteur for this very supportive report and its very important recommendations.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - Mental health is a key factor in people's lives and there is increasing evidence of its impact on our social, economic and legal systems. I support this report since it entails a comprehensive approach to the challenges we face in the mental health sector, such as combating stigma, discrimination and social exclusion, but also recognising the need for preventive programs, public support and adequate treatment of people.

As a relatively new science, mental health is not widely recognised as a priority, but recent technological developments have allowed us to explore more of the human brain, showing the way to new, life-changing treatments for individuals. I believe we should strongly support further research in this area, with special attention to the growing elderly population in Europe, which is hoping for a healthy, dignified and active ageing.

We need accessible structures for care and treatment of mental illnesses, but it is also very important to have a supportive environment such as labour market integration programmes. Mental health is also very relevant in workplace settings where it can severely hamper performance, so we need to promote good practices among employers that reduce unnecessary stress and preserve the mental wellbeing of their employees.

I would like to thank Mrs Tzampazi for her report on mental health, which I voted in favour of.

One in four people suffer from mental health problems at least once in their life. It is estimated that by the year 2020, depression will have become the most common illness in the developed world and the second main reason for incapacity for work. External factors, such as the consequences of the present financial crisis, will tend to make people vulnerable to these problems. Not only does mental ill-health entail an expense that is a burden on the healthcare sector and the entire social and economic system; it also detracts from the quality of life of sufferers and their families to an unnecessary degree.

Although there have been dramatic leaps forward as regards standards of care and general attitude, people who suffer from mental health problems and their families are being marginalised more and more often. The differences in standards that apply to prevention and the guarantee of first-rate care are too great, both among the EU countries and regionally within countries.

I am pleased that special mention was made of the matter of mental health in young people in Mrs Tzampazi's report, which proposes that there should be cross-sectoral programmes to address it. We should not forget, however, that the most important preventive mental health work is always the responsibility of educators and agencies outside the family and home. This entails promoting healthy lifestyles, and listening to children and young people and paying attention to them.

I consider the high quality, easy accessibility and effectiveness of universal mental health services called for in Mrs Tzampazi's report to be especially important, as I do greater investment in top quality research. There should be more funding in particular for medical research into the links between prevention and mental and physical health problems.

Mental health disorders are national health problems in many countries, as they have a significant influence on the people involved, their families and society in general. Mental health disorders also often lead to disability and can thus cause a significant economic burden on society.

In accordance with the World Bank's 1993 development report, four of the ten most common causes of disability were mental health and/or neurological disorders. Whereas in 1993, depression was in fourth place among illnesses causing disability, if present tendencies continue, by 2020, depression may become the second most significant cause among the total population, and even the most significant cause of disability for women.

Despite the extent and seriousness of the consequences of mental health disorders, there are still countries in the world and in Europe today where insufficient attention is devoted to the problem. Such a situation is often caused by the prevalent partly negative public and political attitude in society and the stigmatisation of the mentally ill. This, in turn, leads to insufficient attention being devoted to mental health, limited availability of services, the shortage of alternative treatment methods and insufficient information about treatment possibilities.

Regardless of the fact that the solution of mental health problems falls within the competence of the Member States, it is important that the volume of financial assistance and knowledge-based assistance provided to Member States by the EU be further increased, in order to help them develop and improve the necessary health, social, care and educational services and preventive measures.

I believe that the promotion of individuals' mental health and welfare must become a high-priority objective in all Member States of the European Union, because individuals' mental health has the most direct effect on Member States' economic productivity and employment.

As we know, mental health is a fundamental value for every person, and we, the representatives of the nations of Europe, must not forget this fact. I think it is a good thing that, today, we have turned to this issue in the forum of the European Parliament. Mental illnesses, a flood of suicides and depression have become a threat to contemporary society. These problems do not only affect people who live under constant stress, but also children, young people and the elderly. I think that we should take far-reaching steps to defeat these diseases of civilisation. This is also why I support research and free access to the results of this research, as well as specialists.

In expressing my thanks for the Report on Mental Health, I would, at the same time, like to express my concern regarding whether it is possible, in addition to providing assistance to the elderly, and action to combat stigmatisation and social exclusion, to also include projects aimed at reaching people who are socially marginalised. Such people very often display antipathy towards others, feel alienated, and have a fear of the censure of society. In my opinion, the first problem we should focus on is an extensive education programme so that everyone who is in need will know where to turn, what kind of help can be obtained and, most importantly, that it is possible to return to a normal life.

Mental health and wellbeing are a major challenge during this century we are living in. The World Health Organisation estimates that mental disorders will account for 15% of all illness by 2020.

I am particularly concerned about the future of adolescents and children, which is why I have proposed action to make citizens aware of the deterioration in the state of mental health in children whose parents have emigrated, along with the introduction of programmes in schools designed to help these young people face the psychological problems linked to their parents' absence.

I have insisted on this matter due to the large number of children abandoned by parents who have gone off to work abroad, a situation encountered increasingly often in Central and Eastern Europe. Still with the support of these young people in mind, I have proposed action to promote setting up counselling functions in every secondary school and offer alternative options which are confidential and which will not stigmatise these children, in order to meet their social and emotional needs.

Bearing in mind that mental health determines the quality of life of the European Union's citizens, this issue must be dealt with just as seriously as physical health matters. In fact, a European action plan for this is required in order to respond to the challenges posed by mental disorders.

When we talk about health, we are usually referring to physical wellbeing. Yet mental illness can be as much of a handicap to the daily lives of sufferers, and has extensive adverse social effects. Parliament's initiative to improve information on mental health is a very positive step, therefore. There should be more public discussion of approaches to mental disorders and, in addition, methods for preventing mental illness should be made accessible to the general public.

The workplace setting should be particularly emphasised in this connection. Since working people spend a very great deal of time at their workplace and are exposed to stress in connection with their work, it is necessary to promote mental health in that particular setting. Only motivated, balanced workers are in a position to meet the demands made of them.

Awareness of this issue should therefore be raised among businesses and public bodies. On the whole, by recognising mental disorders, Parliament is indicating a modern understanding of health and offering many sufferers a positive perspective in the long term.

Follow-up of the energy efficiency national action plans: a first assessment (short presentation) 

You pointed out that we have slightly dimmed the lighting in the Chamber. I imagine that it is in order to make energy savings.

That is fitting, since the next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Gyürk, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on follow-up of the energy efficiency national action plans: a first assessment.

Thank you for the floor, Mr President. Commissioner, the gas crisis in January certainly had one positive outcome. It enlivened the dialogue on energy policy in every Member State.

Likewise, here in the European Parliament, there has been a lot of discussion about various alternative transportation routes, the expansion of storage capacities, as well as the future role of nuclear energy. However, we have devoted unduly scant attention to energy efficiency. I am particularly pleased that the report on the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans has provided an opportunity to discuss this topic during the last few weeks.

The significance of energy efficiency lies in its ability to achieve perceptible results faster than by any other means. As Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs has recently pointed out, EU measures on off mode devices could reduce standby losses by the equivalent of Hungary's annual energy consumption.

We cannot emphasise enough that energy efficiency may remedy all problems concerning energy policy. First and foremost, it may help moderate Europe's energy dependence on third countries. In addition, energy efficiency may also have a beneficial influence on the competitiveness of European industry, and may reduce the burden on our environment. Let us also remember that improving energy efficiency can also reduce the burden on the most vulnerable consumers.

Naturally, there are great differences in circumstance and potential as well as in legislative initiatives among the Member States. Therefore, we agree with the 2006 EU Directive setting out measures for the Member States to summarise in National Action Plans their planned measures for improving energy efficiency.

In the current report, we attempted to draw general conclusions regarding the aforementioned Action Plans. At the same time, our goal was to define necessary future steps in EU legislation. I would like to draw attention to a few crucial points in the report.

First of all, the report calls on the Commission to take stronger action against delays in preparing National Energy Efficiency Action Plans. This time, it must be thoroughly examined whether the plans are accompanied by practical steps taken by the Member States. A major shortcoming of several National Action Plans is that they are a far cry from their governments' policies.

Secondly, resources dedicated to improving energy efficiency need to be increased at both national and Community levels. As a result of the financial crisis, there are very few European citizens who can afford to invest in their energy efficiency. Therefore, existing energy efficiency incentive projects must be expanded at once. This leads us to the next seven-year Community budget, in which energy efficiency must be further emphasised, and tax breaks may also contribute towards genuine improvements.

Thirdly, there is a continued need for legislation in energy efficiency in the European Union. I believe that the European Commission's recommendations have set the right direction in this area. Stricter legislation on the energy consumption of buildings could result in considerable savings, for instance.

Fourthly, national governments must take on a pioneering role in the development of energy efficient solutions. These efforts should be mirrored in extensive education campaigns. Consumers will only set out to invest in their energy efficiency if they are fully aware of its benefits to them.

Lastly, I would like to share one more thought. It is my belief that energy efficiency cannot be treated as a second-rate cause even during a time of recession. What is more, energy efficiency programmes can create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Europe. In a year of massive layoffs, this aspect is hardly beside the point.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to address this part-session of the European Parliament covering, inter alia, the subject of the Commission's assessment of the National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs), which was presented in the Second Strategic Energy Review package in November 2008 and the earlier Commission communication of January 2008.

A more detailed technical synthesis of the Commission's assessment of the NEEAPs will be presented in the Commission's NEEAP document this spring.

I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gyürk, on his work, as well as the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) for its valuable discussions and comments.

In the past few years, the Commission has stated very clearly that energy efficiency is the first priority of the European Union energy policy and a very important cornerstone to meeting the 2020 by 2020 targets, and National Energy Efficiency Action Plans play a central role in this respect. The Directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services sets an obligation, as you know, for the Member States to present these, and to show how, in practice, they are going to achieve their national targets for energy efficiency.

The original deadline for their submission by the Member States was 30 June 2007 but, as you know, many Member States unfortunately were late. The last NEEAPs arrived at the Commission in June 2008.

At this stage, the Commission has completed all the individual assessments and sent letters with the results of those assessments to all Member States. As a follow-up, a number of bilateral meetings took place, and a number of Member States declared they would themselves like to improve their NEEAPs in the coming few months. As has been noted by the members of the ITRE Committee, the first National Energy Efficiency Action Plans have proved to be a really useful exercise. Indeed, many Member States have, for the first time, prepared comprehensive plans of action on energy savings. Many of them confirmed that they found the cross-sectoral effort needed to prepare them very useful.

Under the Energy Services Directive, NEEAPs have only a limited role. However, the Commission, in its communication of November 2008, and in other recent statements has always encouraged Member States to broaden their role.

The Commission will prepare a new European Union Energy Savings Action Plan that will strengthen and better focus European Union actions, helping EU Member States and EU businesses and EU citizens to save energy in a cost-effective way.

In your report, you urged the Commission to propose a binding target for energy savings. The current energy savings objective of 20% of primary energy saving in 2020 today represents a non-binding target, as you know. However, the Commission believes that, with the climate and energy package, as well as the proposals in the Second Strategic Energy Review, we can reach 20%.

Mr Gyürk's report also rightly indicated that financial support must be increased. Financial issues relating to energy savings were recognised by the Commission in the European Economic Recovery Plan of 26 November 2008, and in other coordinated efforts which aim to help create jobs, which are often in small and medium-sized companies, since investments in energy efficiency, and especially in buildings, are mostly related to small-scale renovation projects.

In conclusion, I would like to recall that during the mandate of this Commission, EU leaders have given a real commitment to promoting energy efficiency. Boosting investment in energy efficiency and related new technologies offers an essential contribution to sustainable development and also to security of supply. Energy efficiency has a wider impact, far beyond energy policy. It has a positive effect on the European Union economy in general: increasing efficiency helps create new jobs, stimulates economic growth and improves competitiveness. As you rightly mentioned, that is exactly what we should be doing in these difficult and challenging times.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

It is clear that oil prices are falling, but once the current economic crisis has passed, prices will rise again. Therefore, let me remind you that it is important to diversify EU energy sources and supply routes more with the aim of mitigating the negative effects which may arise due to a future oil crisis.

The dependency of EU Member States, in particular EU 'energy islands', on the import of energy supplies and existing infrastructure varies. Can we talk of a single energy market, if, for example, the Baltic States, including Lithuania, are energy islands? Europe's inability to speak to the main energy suppliers with one voice is also an acute problem. On paper, we are creating an ambitious European energy policy but, in practice, the bilateral energy policy continues to dominate. Fellow Members, the politicisation of the energy sector does not contribute to stability. We could and should try to change the situation through diversification and solidarity. We must complete the missing energy links and establish an EU coordinating mechanism, aimed at reacting to similar crises. It is essential that Member States which are most dependent on energy supplies have sufficient reserves of these supplies. We must not only look at short-term measures for security of energy supply, but we must also consider the long-term outlook. Europe in turn must diversify energy sources and improve security of supply.

Energy efficiency is all the more important at the moment as we face real challenges concerning the provision of energy supplies to the EU and as we need to make more consistent efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I support an approach to the energy efficiency problem which is consistent with the other EU policies, in particular, the package for combating climate change and the necessity to diversify energy sources.

I firmly believe that the R&D sector must be supported as this can make a significant contribution to boosting energy efficiency. The Commission and Member State governments should give stronger support to projects intended to boost energy efficiency, whether we are talking about investments to make public transport as energy efficient as possible, insulating buildings, etc. I think that government resources should be channelled more in this direction rather than towards subsidising the price of energy, as these projects provide, at the same time, support to vulnerable consumers faced with rising energy prices.

I therefore call on Member States to come up with effective and realistic action plans, to provide citizens with as much information as possible about energy efficiency, and to cooperate through the exchange of good practice. I also urge the Commission to support national authorities, particularly in the form of technical assistance.

Energy efficiency in buildings is a particular concern relevant to countries which have inherited a large number of buildings constructed according to the poor-quality standards of the Communist era.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commission to establish financing instruments and effective procedures for renovating the heating systems in these buildings, in keeping with the target of a 20% increase in energy efficiency in the EU by 2020.

Energy efficiency is one of the European Union's major objectives, the achievement of which will mark an important step towards implementing sustainable development. For this reason, apart from Member States' efforts to become actively involved in promoting policies aimed at making energy consumption more efficient, there must also be coordination at Community level in order to achieve much better results.

One way to achieve energy efficiency is to provide buildings with thermal insulation. According to a study, it is possible at Community level to reduce energy loss by roughly 27%, which means, by implication, a reduction in the costs which citizens are obliged to pay.

One problem facing the local communities which are proposing to carry out a project involving the renovation of residential heating systems is the complex procedure which they need to follow. As a result, the measures which will be taken in the future must consider simplifying these procedures. This objective of greater energy efficiency through insulating buildings must also be targeted at the disadvantaged social groups, thereby reinforcing the principle of solidarity in Europe.

Experience from the first assessment of the national action plans demonstrates in practice that conditions in the EU have not yet matured to the point at which measures to promote energy efficiency can be supported. One important weakness in the first energy efficiency national action plans, over and above the huge delay in submitting them on the part of certain Member States, including Greece, is the fact that the ambitious plans are not accompanied by clearly defined practical proposals with added value, despite the fact that, according to recent figures released by the European Commission, if the target of achieving energy savings of 20% were achieved, the EU would use approximately 400 Mtoe less primary energy and CO2 emissions would fall by 860 Mt.

Consequently, the scope of the potential which promoting energy efficiency gives us, especially at a time of economic recession such as the one we are experiencing now, has not been fully understood. The EU should therefore proceed without further delay to include energy efficiency in all its sectoral policies, with clear proposals and support measures, and to increase Community aid in this direction. Energy efficiency is a key point following the adoption of the package on climate change and can guarantee energy security, a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases and an invigorated European economy.

Applied research relating to the common fisheries policy (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, reconciling the correct preservation of ecosystems with sustainable exploitation of marine resources, preventing and controlling the impact of human activity on the environment, improving knowledge and technological development and innovation are tasks that cannot be tackled if we do not have the support of the European scientific community.

Fisheries research is also vital when drawing up recommendations and providing scientific advice to legislators. Greater investment in research and development, and in the collection and processing of reliable data, would result in a more solid and sustainable Common Fisheries Policy.

However, although the phrase that I heard from the mouth of a scientist ('Not money, but human resources are the problem') paints a good picture of the situation, I will not be the one to say that research in fisheries has plenty of financial resources. Instead, I will say that we have a dual problem.

Firstly, Commissioner, the amounts laid down in the Seventh Framework Programme for marine research, which should have been a cross-cutting issue, seem to be insufficient for the integrated approach that is currently desired for this issue.

Moreover, Commissioner, scientists - and I assure you that I have talked to many of them in order to draw up this report, both before and during the process - have problems when submitting projects to the Seventh Framework Programme. These problems can partly be attributed, on the one hand, to the different focus that is required for aquaculture, which is basically industrial in nature, and on the other hand, to research into fisheries and marine science, which is multidisciplinary in nature and more long term.

Up until the Seventh Framework Programme, both of these fields were covered by the same funds, and reported to the Fisheries Directorate-General, which enabled them to complement each other. Currently it is the Research Directorate-General that is responsible, and the result is that it is becoming difficult for the scientific community to communicate the concerns and needs of the sector to those that draw up the guidelines for the calls for proposals.

In addition, within the scientific community there is a perception that the Directorate-General appears to have opted to prioritise basic research without making room for research focused on public policies. I will give you an example: to enrich, from a scientific point of view, Community maritime strategy, or to investigate the relationship between fisheries and climate change.

To summarise, the objective of European Union maritime policy of achieving productive fisheries in a clean marine environment requires that the scientists that work in this field have access to horizontal funding mechanisms in the Seventh Framework Programme.

To conclude, I would like to mention the second problem: the worrying shortage of young scientists in fisheries research, which appears to be the result of professional courses that are not very attractive in comparison with other basic sciences.

It is vital that we establish interesting and rewarding university courses that offer good professional opportunities. It also seems that we need to standardise the different research models applied in the various Member States in order to be able to better compare the results and facilitate the aggregation of data, and to increase cooperation between national research institutions. Of course, I also think that better incorporation of the experience and expertise of fishers into the process of drawing up scientific opinions, on which political decisions as part of the CFP are to be based, is vital.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I appreciate being able to talk about my own area of responsibility. The Commission welcomes Parliament's report on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy and would also like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Rosa Miguélez Ramos, and the Committee on Fisheries, for their excellent work.

The report comes at the right moment with the preparation of the joint call on marine and maritime research under way. It also coincides with the work programme 2010 for FP7 and the launching of the Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which includes a chapter on research. The Commission agrees in principle with the main elements of the report.

We welcome the support expressed for the European strategy for marine and maritime research, where priorities are given to increasing capacity building, new infrastructure, new skills and education initiatives, developing integration across established marine and maritime research disciplines, promoting synergy between Member States and the Commission and new research governance.

The Commission acknowledges the importance of ensuring that a sufficient budget is allocated to fisheries and aquaculture research in FP7, while maintaining a good balance with the other research sectors, particularly in agriculture, forestry and biotechnology: Theme 2 - KBBE, and Theme 6 - environment. The annual budget for FP7 will progressively increase during the last three years of the programme and both the fisheries and aquaculture sectors will certainly benefit from this increase.

The Commission will pursue its effort to support research in line with the report by giving more visibility to fisheries and aquaculture research in FP7, securing a good balance between research in support of policy and more basic research, reinforcing social science in the work programmes, promoting dissemination of results and encouraging more coordination between national research programmes.

Finally, the Commission will facilitate the integration of fisheries and aquaculture research in the broader context of its strategic research agenda, the European Research Area and the new European Union strategy for marine and maritime research.

Bearing in mind the initiatives I have just described, I feel that there is now a solid base upon which we can improve our fisheries and aquaculture sectors through innovative research within the framework programme. They, in turn, will also benefit from improved cooperation and coordination of national research, through the different European Research Area initiatives and within the direction of the common fisheries policy.

If I can add a sentence of my own, I can guarantee to you that it is not more complicated than it was before, simply because the same people are working on it and the cooperation which we have with my colleague, Mr Borg, is really excellent. I think that is how research should be done in the future. We are cooperating across sectors and this is really bringing better results, which could hardly have been the case if this were done in a more sectoral way. I honestly thank you for the great work you have done.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.30 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

Alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

Reduced rates of value added tax (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mrs van den Burg on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax - C6-0299/2008 -.

rapporteur. - (NL) This report on reduced VAT rates has been on quite a journey. In actual fact, there is no report left, because the two other big groups, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, failed to show up to the vote on my report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and, without any warning, voted against beforehand because they did not like the rejection or adoption of one amendment or another.

By doing so, they have put the support for this important Commission proposal at serious risk. I regret this deeply because it has created completely the wrong impression about the European Parliament's position. Fortunately, they have backtracked and have now indicated that the Commission's proposal can count on their full support. We agreed that we would no longer bicker about these amendments during the plenary, but would instead accept Commissioner Kovács' proposal with a resounding 'yes'.

Unfortunately, Mrs Lulling nevertheless laboured under the misapprehension that she had to retable her rejected amendments, even though this is not really consistent with the text of the legislative resolution or the procedure we are following. There is apparently here in this Parliament a variation on the Latin saying Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, what is legitimate for Mrs Lulling, is not legitimate for an ordinary MEP. Without taking anything away from her divine status, I would urge you not to be distracted by this and to vote emphatically in favour of the legislative resolution during the roll-call vote at the end. This is what this is all about, after all. Together with the Commissioner, I count on your support and I assume that Mrs Lulling will realise that if she withholds her support from this resolution because things have not gone her way, she will be much worse off and will create the wrong impression that she is opposed to a reduced VAT rate.

This Parliament, and I am very proud of this, has a long tradition of supporting proposals for applying a reduced VAT rate for labour-intensive services. What is more, this Parliament has taken it upon itself, on the initiative of one of my predecessors, Mr van Velzen, during the employment summit in Luxembourg in 1997, to launch the proposal to use this low VAT rate as an incentive for employment by making these services cheaper, increasing the volume, and also by bridging the gap between illegal and legal working. This employment target is, to my mind, very important again at this point in time. It is my firm belief that the experiment has proven its effect beyond any doubt.

The previous Commissioner, Mr Bolkestein, was less convinced and was, like a number of Member States, sceptical. He did not want to use employment as a target for tax policy. He took the view that tax policy was not intended for this purpose. Fortunately, the present Commissioner realises that this should be seen in a wider context, and I am delighted that he is now giving this experiment a structural dimension.

I would like to add a brief comment about the current situation. In all honesty, I cannot imagine the Council, in the current situation, not giving its unanimous support to this proposal. After all, it is keen to do something about this tragic job situation and the recovery of the European economy. Tax measures, including a reduction in VAT, for example, in the building and renovation industry, in making homes and our cultural heritage more energy-efficient, and all kinds of other things, could give an incentive to the housing market, which is now very much at a stalemate.

At the risk of labouring the obvious, it is not the amendment tabled by the PPE-DE Group within the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection that puts the stress on energy efficiency. This was already in the Commission proposal. It was deleted in Amendment 6 and re-introduced in Amendment 7. This can only create confusion. It is, however, clear that Parliament is very much in favour of energy efficiency. We therefore hope that the Council will embrace the proposal by Commissioner Kovács and that this important vote today does not degenerate into internal squabbling.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I want to thank the European Parliament for its quick handling of this proposal, in the light of the request by the European Council of last December in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan to settle the issue of reduced VAT rates in certain sectors by March 2009.

I am pleased that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) has adopted a draft resolution approving the Commission's initiative, and I hope that the plenary will take the same supportive line.

I would like to thank the ECON Committee and the rapporteur, Ms van den Burg, for their support. Indeed, the quick adoption of this proposal is necessary in order to give certainty about the application of reduced rates to certain locally supplied, labour-intensive services that would otherwise have to disappear at the end of 2010. Moreover, it is important to ensure equal possibilities for all Member States in sectors such as housing and restaurants, because in these sectors Member States are currently not on an equal footing.

The current economic and financial crisis adds to the urgency of adopting and implementing this proposal. It is not the moment to destroy jobs, which would be the case if the reduced rates currently applied in 18 Member States for labour--intensive services were not made definitive. Moreover, it is important to make these reduced rates rapidly available to all Member States. By incentivising consumer spending in areas such as the housing sector, reduced rates can have positive effects on employment, in particular amongst the category of low-skilled workers, who are precisely those who risk being laid off first in the current crisis. In this context, I have already recommended to the Council to modify the proposed date of entry into force of the directive, in order to allow its application as quickly as possible after a positive decision is taken by the Council.

In the Council, the Czech Presidency is currently concentrating all its efforts on achieving a compromise concentrating on a limited number of sectors - labour-intensive, locally supplied services - to which reduced rates should be made available, as required by the European Council.

However, I have some comments on the amendments that have been tabled to this specific and limited proposal.

On Amendment 3: on the exclusion of alcoholic beverages from the restaurant services, the Commission respected the coherence of Community policies, in particular the need for coherence between VAT and excise duties, but also considering the global health policy of the EU. Contrary to some concerns, differentiating between food and non-alcoholic beverages, on the one hand, and alcoholic beverages, on the other hand, does not create a serious administrative burden for businesses. Indeed, currently, seven out of the 11 Member States applying reduced rates to restaurant services exclude alcoholic beverages without any difficulty.

On Amendment 2: as for the proposed extension of the scope of reduced VAT rates to machinery used by farmers, I consider this to be unnecessary. This is because the VAT charged on equipment serving as input for the agricultural sector is not a cost to farmers because they have the right to deduct this VAT, like any other taxable person.

On Amendments 1 and 4: concerning the amendments related to the addition of children's clothes and footwear, I would like to remind you that the proposal under consideration is a restricted one dealing principally with locally supplied, labour-intensive services. Therefore, further extensions of the scope of the proposal should not be considered in this context. Furthermore, bearing in mind the attitude and concrete positions of some Member States, this extension would surely jeopardise the unanimous support, which we very much need, in the Council.

On Amendment 5: the amendment relating to the addition of monuments and gravestones is not necessary, as a reduced rate for these supplies is already allowed by the current provisions when provided by funeral undertakings. Moreover, renovation, repair, maintenance of cultural heritage and historical monuments is also covered by the current Commission proposal which is under consideration.

On Amendment 7: I can assure you that the Commission is very keen to specifically address the question of the use of reduced rates in order to promote energy efficiency. This will be done in the framework of the 'Green Tax Package' currently under preparation and will be coming to the Council and Parliament in April.

In conclusion, I want to declare that the proposal would support housing, support the SMEs and save jobs, which is fully in line with the European Economic Recovery Plan. It is not an obligation but an option: Member States can decide whether or not to apply it, so it even extends their tax sovereignty.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (SV) This report demonstrates that taxation is a sensitive issue, and I respect that. At the same time, however, I think that we could have handled the matter better in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which was responsible for the report. We are now tabling the text for a resolution, which is a good thing.

It is, of course, extremely important that the internal market is not disrupted by unreasonable and unfair competition. There are grounds for reiterating this at a time when State aid seems to be flowing in abundance.

However, the EU needs a more sensible view of how reduced VAT rates can be used to promote jobs and growth, particularly on the local market and for labour-intensive services. This is what the Commission's proposal is all about. In other words, it is about more jobs, but it is also about tackling the black economy. Thus, we need reduced VAT on the likes of restaurant services, care services for young people, the sick, the disabled and the elderly, hairdressing services and new goods such as audio books, which are very important in my own country, CDs, child car seats and babies' nappies, as well as domestic services such as renovation and repair work and cleaning.

In the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, we fully supported the Commission's line and added Amendments 6 and 7 under Mr Harbour's name. As an aside, I would like to say that it is not easy to understand how these texts and the voting procedure are handled in this Parliament. In the first of these amendments, we emphasise the importance of reducing the 'black' or 'grey' economy. In our other amendment, we aim to make it possible to lower the VAT rate on renovation and repair work in order to save energy. During these difficult economic times, different means need to be used to boost the economy and a reduced tax may be an important method of achieving this.

Finally, Mrs Lulling's promotion of alcohol comes up once again. As usual, I will politely, but firmly, reject her call.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, today's discussion - and the previous speakers have confirmed this - is taking place in very unusual circumstances, since we do not have a report for the plenary as would normally be the case. I want to make things quite clear: it was an ill-assorted majority that voted against the report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

My group voted against this report, although we fully support the principle of extending the application of a reduced rate of VAT even beyond what the European Commission is proposing. That is because all of our amendments have been rejected by the socialists and the liberals.

We had made a great effort to compromise. We accepted all the socialist rapporteur's proposals. She did not think it was worth making the slightest effort to accept any of our proposals. The regrettable, but at the same time inevitable, result of the vote should not, therefore, be surprising, Mrs van den Burg.

I would like to offer you some friendly advice to change your attitude in future because as the Romans used to say, errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum ['to err is human, but to persist is diabolical].

Let us, however, come back to the matter in hand. For the plenary my group decided to retable some amendments that came from the Members of the committee that is knowledgeable on the subject. These amendments are important, and it has been said very clearly, Mrs van den Burg, that no one can prevent a Member from proposing amendments to a document or to a resolution.

The most important of our amendments concerns applying reduced rates to alcoholic beverages in restaurants. It is not, Mr Schmidt, a way of encouraging alcoholism. That is ridiculous. If the Commission's proposal were accepted, restaurant owners would have to apply two different rates of VAT. It is complicated and it is not justified. Long live red tape. Believe me, if you do not vote for Amendment 3, I know how to inform the whole of Europe's catering sector - and it is large - that your position has prevented the application of a reduced VAT rate on all its services.

I proposed that food and all drink should be taxed at the same reduced rate, if it is applied. To me this is just common sense and I think that we could all support this proposal. Why complicate matters? Why look for public health issues where there is no reason for there to be any?

Madam President, my group supports the extension of reduced VAT rates and we urge our governments to take this issue forward. Our fellow citizens already had high expectations in this matter at this time of economic crisis and the daily catalogue of bad news. This measure supporting the food industry is becoming increasingly necessary, Madam President. We want Europe to be recognised for its flexibility; that would indeed be a positive sign.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, as you know, the European Parliament recognises that your job is difficult. It is not easy here, but when you are in the Council, it is worse, because there you have to work with unanimity. I hope, therefore, that everyone here will behave responsibly and vote in a coherent way. If we think that the Commission's proposal is good, then we must support it.

Quibbling in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs led to certain amendments being singled out. The socialists, behaving responsibly, once again, decided not to table any amendments at all in plenary, because in these matters, if we want to move forward all we in the European Parliament have to do is to give our overwhelming support, as far as possible, to the Commission's proposal, if we consider it a good one, as is the case here.

We have had many debates about VAT, about subsidiarity and about the need for tax harmonisation. VAT is the classic example of us all being on common ground. Let us make use of it. Renewing, on a temporary basis, this experiment with a reduced rate of VAT, when it aims at and contributes towards strengthening labour-intensive services - not necessarily the case for alcoholic drinks in restaurants - has shown us that this system works, so let us build on it. Let us put an end to legal uncertainty and harmonise the basis on which Member States can intervene. We will then have consistent goals, tax harmonisation where possible and encouragement for labour-intensive services. Who could say no to that today? Who could say no to using tax reductions as an incentive to consistently improving energy efficiency in our housing stock?

Today, taking into account what happened in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, taking into account the debate that I see taking place in the Council, I believe that we must support the Commission's proposal very strongly - and I hope with the largest possible majority. At this stage of the debate, trying to do better could turn out worse and I think that our fellow citizens would not understand our remaining in a state of legal uncertainty.

We need to consolidate this system that has been shown to work. That is what our rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg, is proposing, and that, I hope, is what Parliament will vote for overwhelmingly later on. In this way, the Commissioner can take this strong message to the Council and obtain a final decision which will make it possible to consolidate this system.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since this is one of the last chances we will have for doing so, I should like, first of all, to thank Mr Kovács for the efforts, often disappointing, that he has made over a number of years here, in a situation where taxation is subject to the rule of unanimity, and thus subject to veto by the various Member States. His task has been very difficult and he may feel not much has been achieved. I hope with all my heart that his crowning achievement, this directive, will go through with solid support from Parliament.

The proof of the excellence of his work is that, when we wanted to improve on it in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we were unable to do so. Some people were pulling in one direction, others in another. Each side was convinced we could do better. We managed to put through some of the better amendments, or so we thought, and then when we voted on the whole text, we realised that it was not going to work.

In the end, the group's coordinators reached the consensus that Mr Kovács had probably struck the right balance. Therefore, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, like the other two groups that have just spoken, will not be tabling any amendments. You have struck the right balance and it is an intelligent one.

Some countries, today, faced with the crisis, are reducing all their VAT rates. I am convinced that this is a mistake. Member States need financial resources and this is not the time to go deeper into deficit in that way, even if you are doing so to stimulate the economy by encouraging spending. Another reason is that trying to reduce prices by playing around with VAT leads to very high real rates at a time when the Central Bank is trying to lower them.

You are proposing another strategy and you are right: using VAT to make targeted reductions or targeted changes in relative prices. These are the right choices, according to two criteria.

Firstly, subsidiarity. In other words, you are targeting immobile products: local services and construction. Your second criterion for targeting is labour-intensive services. As environmentalists, we would have liked you to target the green revolution specifically: the sectors that are necessary if we are to emerge from the current crisis, which is the result of the industrial, liberal and productivist model that has dominated the world for more than 30 years.

We would have liked you to extend the reduced VAT rates to all goods covered by the Kyoto Protocol. In practical terms, if we combine locally supplied with labour-intensive services, then this would mean that all the construction, all the insulation, and all the development of energy efficient buildings could be covered in the directive, and that is good enough for us.

I should like to say straightaway that we shall obviously not be voting in favour of Mrs Lulling's argument. Of course, it is diabolical to persist in error, but I think this saying could equally apply to Mrs Lulling herself. We could also talk about Mandeville and private vice for public virtue. We shall not encourage private vice through public vice and we will defend those countries that try to limit alcohol consumption.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL-NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner Kovács, ladies and gentlemen, and especially Mrs van den Burg, it is regrettable that here in Parliament we are only able to agree on the Commission's proposal and not on the actual report produced by Mrs van den Burg. We would have gladly given our support to this report in its original version and we congratulate the rapporteur. However, it has been rejected by the majority in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The decisive factor was the 'no' vote from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. After the defeat in the individual voting, the committee was not then prepared to adopt any report at all, and this we very much regret.

When it comes down to it, we have a lot to gain from the Commission's proposal for a directive. We particularly welcome the fact that the Commission gives a positive assessment of the results of the Copenhagen study that was commissioned by the Commission itself. The study proposes the retention, and even the extension, of reduced VAT rates on services and other activities. This will secure jobs, particularly in small- and micro-sized enterprises, and bring whole sectors out of the underground economy and transform them into a regulated economic activity. In the present crisis, this stabilisation is very important. It will secure, and hopefully create, jobs.

Of course, we on the Left welcome the reduction in VAT rates as a matter of principle. It is well known that, being an indirect tax, VAT hits those dependent on their wages and low earners particularly hard. High and very high earners must bear a greater tax burden. In recent years, these high earners have had their burden reduced in an irresponsible manner in all European countries.

The Commission's proposal is intended to be a regulation of unlimited duration. This, too, is welcome. This will avoid the less than ideal situation of us having to extend the reduced tax rates every couple of years. It will create legal certainty for the service providers. As a German Member, I am particularly pleased that the German Federal Government has finally ceased its blocking of a permanent regulation. This is something positive for a change from the grand coalition in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Of the amendments tabled, we support those that are in favour of extending the reduced VAT rates. As regards the supply of alcoholic beverages, however, the existing regulations should remain in place. As we know, higher VAT rates in this area will primarily serve to protect public health. Member States should, therefore, be given a free hand in this regard, too. Thank you very much.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, it is hard to believe that we are sitting here today discussing minor changes to the rules on value added tax when EU countries are facing the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. We continue to pretend that EU economies are not as badly contaminated by bad debt and slump as elsewhere, yet even in Germany output is falling at the staggering annualised rate of 8% and government finances everywhere are stretched to the limit as tax revenue falls and welfare spending rises, and as governments take over private debts and try vainly to stimulate growth.

The worst case is probably Greece with its downgraded government debt still 94% of GDP and with an interest risk margin that is today creeping back to 3%. Greece is going to need bailing out - but by whom? Not by the Germans, they say. Even ardent supporters of the great EU project are now having to accept that if Greek debt is not underwritten, Greece may be forced out of the euro zone. Probably of even more serious concern is the huge exposure of several euro zone countries to defaulting debts of Eastern Europe.

I almost feel sorry for the Commission. For years it has been trying to do as it was told, upholding the rules on state aid, competition and procurement: rules which are essential components of the project but are now being ignored all round. The saddest spectacle is Commissioner Almunia's statement this week that he intends to invoke an excessive deficit procedure against Spain, France and Ireland because they have broken the budget rules of the Stability Pact. Mr Almunia - please - the Stability Pact is broken. It never did have any teeth. Never mind that prudent government finances are essential to the survival of the euro, there is nothing else that these countries can do about their budgets.

No doubt the gestures towards European Union will continue, but democratically-elected governments have a primary interest in looking after the populations that elected them. France and Germany have made it clear that their fiscal stimuli are there to help their own industries and workers. Obviously coordination is only for the good times.

Economies are in dire straits all over the world. Some of them will pull through. If some European Union economies return to prosperity, it will not be thanks to the European Union or to its rules on VAT.

- Madam President, I do not hold with the notion that our economic salvation lies in tiny value added tax cuts, which are something we have had in the United Kingdom with, frankly, only a marginal positive impact. However, I do accept that reducing the taxation burden is an instrument of economic stimulation. Thus, this proposal - very modest as it is - whereby cuts in VAT would be possible in some sectors, is welcome so far as it goes.

I would have much preferred it to have gone further, beyond the realms of tokenism. Extending it to embrace house renovations and repairs would be its greatest asset, because stimulation of the hard-pressed construction sector is very much required, and, to achieve optimum effect, that concession should not be restricted to energy efficiency measures only. Construction needs help right across the board, not just on a selective basis.

Making it possible for Member States to act in making these marginal cuts in VAT would only be half the battle because in many cases - my own country included - hard-pressed Chancellors of the Exchequer with diminishing revenue resources will perhaps be hesitant and will have to be persuaded to act. Even I would have to concede, though, that on VAT issues such as those covered by this report, they would at least not have the excuse of blaming Brussels if they failed to follow through on what is permitted under these proposals.

- Madam President, I wish to join the Chair of our committee in sympathising with Commissioner Kovács over the difficult situation he faces in trying to get tax issues through the machinery of the Community. He has to use maximum political tact in order to achieve unanimity.

While I wholly support the subsidiarity principle and the sovereign right of Member States to set their own tax rates, I would suggest to Member States which have not as yet taken advantage of the facility for lower tax rates on labour-intensive, localised industries, to seriously consider doing so.

In the country I know best, where we have waltzed into a 2.5% reduction in VAT across the board - with, as Mr Allister says, little or no obvious response or result economically - I would suggest that it would have been much more effective to have concentrated action in the particular areas of labour-intensive, localised industries and to have reduced the rate substantially from 17.5% down to the lower rate of 5%, or below. That would have been much more effective in getting people into work, and activity going again.

Areas such as house renovations and extensions, energy-saving improvements, and perhaps gardening and landscaping work and, as Olle Schmidt said, care for the elderly and care for children, are the ones which would get people into work and probably increase the tax-take, because those people would be paying tax on their incomes as well.

It is a win-win situation to concentrate in those areas, and I urge all those Member States which have not yet taken advantage of this, including and especially my own country, to do so.

(PT) The interest in adopting this proposal for a directive essentially lies in how it can help to invigorate local economies and support social action. The application of a reduced rate of VAT will be very important in the housing sector, both in construction and in renovation, as it will allow Member States which adopt it to reduce the cost to the end user.

The provision of local services, particularly by small enterprises, may also benefit from this reduction in the VAT rate, thus securing and generating more and better jobs by encouraging the consumption of goods and services, and thus stimulating the economy itself.

Restaurant services, which are fundamental to the smooth functioning of local economies, and increased tourism may in this way gain a great deal at the local level from this reduction in the VAT rate. These services, ladies and gentlemen, should not circulate within the European internal market, which will help to reduce the reservations of certain Member States, already expressed within the Council. As a result, I cannot agree with extending this reduced rate to equipment, whatever the pretext.

The prudent way in which this proposal must be dealt with in the European Parliament should not give governments which have reservations about the European Commission's proposal any pretext to use, in practice, the right of veto afforded to them on tax matters by European legislation. As a result, Parliament must prudently reject any amendments without any real purpose which will only hinder the adoption of the text. As has already been said in this House, not only is the very best the enemy of the good, but the person who wants it all may lose it all.

This proposal for a directive is important not only for strengthening local economies, but also to meet the repeatedly expressed ambitions of various Member States. Let us therefore support the Commission's proposal, as presented. This was in fact the outcome of the vote, with my agreement, in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

I welcome the work of the rapporteurs and call for the adoption of this proposal in the exact terms in which it came from the Commission and in which it was adopted in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

- (LT) The regulation of VAT reductions has long been an area demanding a systemic approach. If a VAT reduction is permitted, all countries should have the right to benefit from it, not just those which won that right, but this is an issue for the future. Right now we need to make urgent decisions in order to overcome the economic crisis. The Commission's proposal covers labour-intensive services and locally-based services for private end consumers, including restaurant services, which would not impede the proper functioning of the internal market. However, there are doubts as to whether the restaurant services mentioned are just of local significance, or whether they would encourage different conditions of competition in border regions and have an impact on tourism. My country Lithuania, battling with the economic crisis, abolished VAT reductions. The government based this decision on the National Audit Office's assessment that manufacturers benefit most from a reduction in VAT, but who benefits from an increase in VAT? Price growth, which is disproportionate to an increase in VAT, clearly shows who benefits. This same idea was mentioned in the European Parliament when debating the reduction of excise duty on fuel. Representatives of the European Commission maintained that this will not reduce oil prices. I am pleased that the Commission's proposal being debated is using a different evaluation of Copenhagen economics. Perhaps the Commission could explain to everyone the concept of VAT, its influence on business and the consumer and indicate what measures exist, and moreover, whether they exist at all, to protect the consumer from the producer, as such cases are characteristic of many countries. I agree that VAT reductions must be applied with the economic and social considerations that every citizen should be able to acquire the goods and services they need most and with the aim of strengthening and supporting locally-based services.

(PL) Madam President, the EU is confronting the most serious economic challenge in its history. Firstly, the crisis demands a thorough analysis of the errors inherent in the economic strategy that has been applied to date. Secondly, we need recommendations for effective solutions for the future. In this regard, the efficiency and effectiveness of the tax and VAT system should be analysed. There is no doubt, however, that the tax system and the VAT rate should be drawn up in accordance with the principles of the freedom, independence and sovereignty of the Member States. Our answer to a unified tax system is a resounding 'No'.

The newly admitted Member States, which are often less developed and have a specific demographic structure, with large numbers of young people, require completely different tax policies to the old EU Member States. Wherever possible, therefore, the VAT rate in the newly accepted countries should be as low as possible. Meanwhile, as I myself have put forward, we need to pursue a reduction in VAT across the EU as a whole in the case of cultural goods, such as CDs. On the other hand, we also need to propose a tax on financial operations and speculation. What is happening today, as regards the capital transferred from the newly admitted Member States, is impossible to control and contradicts the fundamental ideological precepts of the EU.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I support the rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg, and the whole Parliament if it adopts this proposal aimed at amending the provisions of the VAT directive.

At last we have a proposal that will guarantee equal opportunities for all Member States and improve the working of the internal market as regards reduced VAT rates. The proposal also intelligently respects subsidiarity; it allows States to apply reduced VAT rates for labour-intensive and locally-supplied services, as well as those of social importance such as the construction of housing, personal assistance, and so on, and to small- and medium-sized enterprises in general.

I therefore share the rapporteur's hope that this instrument sets out a fiscal system that will promote employment, increase productivity and reduce the underground economy.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament has always taken a close interest in changes to VAT, whether for the purpose of harmonising rates among Member States, adjusting VAT to the economic climate, or taking account of temporary exemptions granted to new members of the European Union. Although we have taken an overall view, our approach has until now necessarily been characterised by a need for flexibility in applying reduced rates, either to take account of the specific nature of manufacturing sectors, or for economic and social reasons.

The proposal in question is, however, aimed at extending the application of reduced VAT rates to a variety of services, including labour-intensive services, restaurants, locally-supplied services, construction and transfer of housing, and services provided for the disadvantaged.

Far from seeking to harmonise VAT in all Member States, the directive in question, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, intends to ensure equal opportunities for all Member States, while allowing them to set their own reduced rates. As a consequence, consumers will be led to transfer certain activities carried out within the local or underground economy to the formal economy, thereby encouraging economic growth without distorting the operation of the internal market. It should, however, be remembered that the majority of the services in question can already benefit from a reduced rate, if only in a limited number of Member States and for a limited period.

The debate remains open, though, on the application of reduced rates for environmental protection and energy saving, on which the Commission is to provide specific assessments, given the importance of these sectors to the EU economy.

(PL) Madam President, in adding my voice to the debate on the Commission's proposal for reduced VAT rates, I would like to draw your attention to the implications of this proposal in terms of combating the impact of the current crisis. The Member States currently need effective instruments in order to protect jobs and prevent a recession. Reducing the VAT rate for labour-intensive services meets this objective. It lessens the burden placed upon SMEs, facilitates access to basic services and protects jobs. At the same time, it neither distorts competition on the internal market, as it supports businesses providing local services, nor does it pose a threat to state revenue, since the introduction of lower rates remains a voluntary step. This Parliament should support the Commission's proposal and I wish Commissioner Kovács every success in convincing the entire Council to adopt it.

- (BG) The European Commission's proposal to permanently reduce VAT rates for locally provided services, including labour-intensive services is timely and aims to achieve rationalisation and simplification through necessary changes, fine-tuning, and creating the potential for the growth in jobs in sectors with low-skilled workforces while restricting activities in the grey economy, retaining jobs and ensuring equal treatment of the Member States including their economic operators.

One of the main arguments for reducing VAT is that it will provide more favourable distribution of income after consumption, by reducing the cost of the shopping basket of low-income households and increasing that of high-income households. The changes in the consumer structure also involve changes in the gross domestic product and productivity in the official sector, and the reduction of activity in the grey economy, such as services in the housing sector and other local services which are the subject of the present proposal by the European Commission. Of course, the potential net economic benefit of reducing VAT rates depends not just on the characteristics of the relevant sector, but also of the specific economic environment in the relevant Member States. For example, increasing the scope for reduced VAT rates in sectors with unskilled workforces presupposes an inflexible labour market, while in the food sector it presupposes significant differences in consumption between high and low-income households.

We should also bear in mind implementing VAT reductions will also reduce treasury revenue. As a proportion of the gross domestic product, this ranges from half to one-and-a-half percent of the GDP of the different Member States. Stable public finances during the current period of economic upheaval will allow the relevant governments to deal with the structural deficits in the current period. Even governments which do have room to manoeuvre will make use of options such as cutting VAT rates for labour-intensive services in order to achieve other aims of their economic policies. In view of the above facts and arguments, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe will support the Commission's proposal to ensure there is sound support in the European Parliament for this important stage of the decision-making process.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal to extend the application of reduced VAT to certain labour-intensive services, restaurants and the maintenance and construction of buildings represents a great opportunity to have a positive economic impact on the market and employment in the context of the current severe economic crisis. Competition will not be affected, rather this will be a chance to give a slight boost to production and to stimulate consumption, create new jobs and support businesses and families.

In my opinion, it would be beneficial to extend the scope of reduced VAT rates still further, for example to cover 'green services' in order to encourage environmental policies. As far as the text we are to vote on is concerned, I particularly welcome the proposal to cut VAT on babies' nappies and children's services. This Parliament has asked the Commission and the Member States on several occasions to improve coordination between macroeconomic and social policies in order to redress the rise in new forms of poverty. Indeed, we must not forget that approximately 17% of European families are now living below the poverty line and one child in five is poor.

So we await the Council's response - I hope that it will be able to adopt this proposal as soon as possible and open a wider and more ambitious debate on promoting fiscal policies for families as well as businesses, and perhaps come to extend reduced VAT to all children's goods.

- (LV) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, within the context of Europe's Economic Recovery Plan, it is being recommended that the Member States should make a temporary reduction in VAT in order to stimulate consumption. In addition, the European Commission has prepared a proposal to extend Member States' options for applying a reduced VAT rate. Wider application of a reduced VAT rate will not only foster economic recovery, but will also contribute to the creation of new jobs and reduce the black economy. The amendments to the directive provide for a significant extension of the opportunities for applying reduced VAT rates. This will apply to catering services, renovation and repair work for housing and places of worship, labour-intensive and locally-supplied services, children's car seats, children's nappies and so on. From the economic and environmental policy viewpoint, it is also important to apply a reduced VAT rate to energy-saving materials and services connected with energy saving and energy efficiency. I call upon the European Commission to speed up the consideration of this issue and to prepare proposals on these points as swiftly as possible. These are welcome changes and demonstrate the European Union's readiness to react quickly to the economic crisis to the limits of its capabilities. I hope that the Council will also support these changes. It just remains to urge the Member States to use these new possibilities in the application of reduced VAT rates. Thank you for your attention.

(ES) Madam President, I am in favour of allowing Member States to apply harmonised reduced VAT rates on a permanent basis for certain services of social interest and labour-intensive, locally supplied services.

Measures of this kind are noted for providing citizens with greater purchasing power, improving the environment for SMEs and increasing their productivity, and strengthening the formal economy. At this time of recession this can stimulate recovery, growth and jobs.

It will be beneficial to extend the reduced rates to babies' nappies and equipment for people with disabilities, electronic books, environmental sewerage and recycling works, as well as all housing, places of worship and cultural and artistic heritage, restaurants, gardening and personal care services. For this reason, while awaiting the next energy efficiency package, I support Mrs van den Burg's report and trust that next month political agreement will be reached that will enable it to be implemented as soon as possible.

- (EL) Madam President, allow me to start, before I address the topic of the debate, to comment on the indescribable and painful attack by the euro-sceptics behind me on the euro zone and the Greek economy; I refer merely to the statements by Mr Almunia and Mr Trichet, who have assured the House that there is no risk of cohesion in the euro zone, that our collective defences are not working and, as far as the Greek economy is concerned, may I inform Mr Whittaker that he needs to get used to the idea that we are still one of the few countries with positive growth and low unemployment, even in these very difficult times. The euro-sceptics are anti-Brussels, anti-Frankfurt, now they are starting to be anti-everything.

Now back to report we are discussing today. I wish to say that we need to look at this issue from two perspectives: from the perspective of when the whole story started, when we were not yet in a time of crisis, and from the perspective of the situation we are in now, with the biggest economic crisis striking deep into the real economy of Europe.

During the first stage, before the crisis, the idea was to focus on the few labour-intensive sectors, such as catering, because we had an impact here, mainly on high prices and the cost of living. Now, however, with the crisis affecting many - if not all - countries, there is also the idea that Parliament, as the mouthpiece of the political views of society, should also make an effort to look at issues which were not covered at the time, at the beginning, such as the issue of agricultural machinery, which my group has the facility to propose in Amendment 2.

As far now as these contradictions which we see on the left wing of Parliament are concerned, where certain issues, such as the energy aspects of buildings, are a good idea, but others, such as agriculture or alcohol, are a bad idea, I think that the best judge is the citizen, not the politicians.

- Madam President, the European Parliament's priority today has to be to get the largest majority possible for the Commission proposal to extend and make permanent the option to lower VAT rates on labour-intensive services. This is not an issue for political grandstanding or, indeed, promoting pet projects. Thousands of low-skilled jobs are being lost every day in every Member State. Low VAT rates have been shown to encourage employment in services, assist SMEs, and, indeed, make the informal economy less attractive.

Our responsibility here today is to deliver a strong message to our Member State governments to get on with it. The construction sector badly needs a boost - renovations, repairs, and installations will help achieve energy efficiency, as well as helping employment. Restaurants, childcare and care of the elderly would also benefit.

I support the rapporteur's approach and I hope that my own government, the Irish Government, will opt into this proposal, which unfortunately it has not done to date.

(RO) Last year, the Commission proposed an economic recovery plan which is proving to be very difficult to implement. Member States and their governments must be proactive, especially during this crisis.

Member States can apply reduced VAT rates to the provision of natural gas and electricity, heating or cooling systems, to children's clothing and footwear, to books, newspapers and magazines, pharmaceutical products and medical equipment for the disabled, as well as to restaurant services. It only requires vision and political will.

The building sector has the largest number of jobs. I strongly support the need to allow Member States to apply reduced VAT rates to renovation and repair works aimed at boosting energy saving and energy efficiency.

As rapporteur for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, I even proposed reduced VAT rates for products in the energy efficiency and renewable energy sector as well. I support the rapporteur's proposal and I believe that this measure is particularly important, especially during the current crisis.

- Madam President, I also welcome the Commission's proposal and believe it to be an intelligent response to the crisis that we are facing. Like others who have spoken, and indeed the previous speaker, I strongly believe that this proposal must apply to energy conservation, and energy conservation measures must be a high priority of the Member States.

Reduced costs for home installation would achieve three of our cherished objectives. It would reduce environmental damage by reducing CO2 emissions, it would assist in job creation, because energy conservation measures are very labour-intensive, and thirdly, in the long run, it would of course lower energy bills for the elderly and other vulnerable people in society.

I hope that the Commission will press ahead with this proposal, that it will persuade the Member States that so far remain unpersuaded and that it will emphasise that, as part of the proposal, you can interpret energy conservation measures as being included.

(PL) Madam President, the phenomenon dubbed the shadow economy is a very grave problem, impinging on every economy to a greater or lesser extent. It is primarily caused by excessive tax burdens imposed by the state, which encourage entrepreneurs to engage in undeclared business activities, bypassing the fiscal system. This results in enormous budgetary losses and an increase in unregistered employment.

In this context, the initiative for introducing a long-term reduction in VAT rates for labour-intensive services and locally-supplied services deserves particular support, as it provides businesses with an incentive to operate within the formal economy. Moreover, it will promote an increase in both productivity and employment. At the same time, however, potential adverse effects, such as the introduction of lower rates to promote free competition within the internal market, or a decrease in budgetary revenue, should be taken into account. Therefore, balanced and transparent measures are essential, since obtaining the trust of our entrepreneurs is a prerequisite for the project's success.

- (LT) I would like to talk about value added tax from two points of view - social justice and competitiveness. From the point of view of social justice, value added tax is regressive, that is, people on lower incomes face a greater burden and therefore we then have to increase social subsidies. Perhaps we should do the opposite. From the point of view of competitiveness, Europe is a service economy. We can compete globally by using our services to attract tourists and, undoubtedly, it is important that those services are cheap. Compared with the USA, our sales tax, or value added tax, is much higher. Perhaps we should consider this perspective when talking about a more coordinated tax policy, although, clearly, all of this is a matter for Member States to decide.

(PL) Madam President, the effects of the crisis are already clearly visible in the Polish housing construction industry, despite the country's extremely pressing need for housing. Poland has still not fully restored the housing stock which was destroyed during World War II. I support a significant reduction in VAT rates, particularly with regard to the construction of housing, as well as thermo-insulation and renovation projects, primarily, though not solely, with the aim of protecting jobs and ensuring social cohesion. An aging population in Europe means that we must pay particular attention to the provision of care and I would therefore draw your attention to the need to reduce the VAT rate in that sector as well.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the Commission proposals: I know that they are modest and limited in scope. However, I am also aware of the reluctance of certain Member States vis-à-vis reduced VAT rates in general and the extension of reduced VAT rates in particular. This reluctance certainly sets limits on our ambitions, as we need unanimity in the Council.

For the Commission, there were two options. The first was to table an ambitious proposal, which is fully justified, and to run the risk that it might not be approved by the Council. In that case, 18 Member States that currently apply reduced VAT rates on locally supplied, labour-intensive services should return to the standard rate. An increase in VAT rates from 5-6% to 20-25% would certainly result in the bankruptcy of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises and in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs at a time of serious economic crisis.

Therefore, the Commission has chosen the other option, which hopefully will receive unanimous support in the Council: saving jobs, giving support to the SMEs and boosting the building sector.

As many speakers mentioned the issue of energy efficiency, I want to repeat what I already said in my introductory remarks: in April we will come forward with a proposal that will be focused on climate change and energy efficiency issues, a review of the Energy Taxation Directive, and the Green Tax Package proposing reduced VAT rates for green services that are aimed at increasing energy efficiency.

I have been encouraged by the understanding and support expressed in this plenary debate. I thank Parliament for its support and understanding, and in particular the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Ms van den Burg for their work.

rapporteur. - Madam President, I am happy with this debate. We have almost unanimous support for the Commission's proposal and I hope that will encourage the Commissioner to have follow-up discussions with the Council on this issue.

I also noticed that many of my colleagues have indicated that they would like their governments to use this instrument nationally in the present crisis. I would like to emphasise once again, particularly regarding energy efficiency and renovation of buildings, that this is a very good instrument. I hope that even the Council will try to coordinate activities on this and decide that together they will take these measures, because then it would be an extra boost, an extra impulse, for the economy.

We have a task at national level to convince our national colleagues and our national governments that they should use these more targeted and more effective instruments in the present situation in order to create more employment - not only to save jobs but also to create new jobs - to legalise the shadow economy and to make these local services available to the many consumers and citizens who will be feeling the effects of the crisis.

I think it is an excellent instrument and I very much hope that the Council will accept this decision and maybe - even more - coordinate and decide to apply this instrument.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 February 2009.

(The sitting was suspended at 10.10 a.m. pending voting time, and resumed at 10.35 a.m.)

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that we are at last addressing here in this House the issue of broadening the scope of reductions in Member States' VAT rates on a whole range of goods and services.

The text that the European Commission presented on 28 January 2009 proposed applying a reduced VAT rate to several categories of activity, particularly the catering industry.

It is a measure that I have been wanting and for which I have been calling for a number of years. After years of inaction, I hope that Member States can at last agree on this measure.

The European Commission's proposal follows the German declaration of 20 January, stating that it was no longer opposed to the introduction of a reduced rate in this sector. This coincidence gives us cause to hope for significant changes.

In this time of crisis, I think that if a measure of this kind came into effect, it would make it possible to increase workers' salaries in this sector, and would give restaurant owners the opportunity to recruit more staff.

The text on which we are voting today must send a strong signal to that effect.

Thank you for your attention.

in writing. - (FR) For our fellow citizens, tax harmonisation constitutes a basic safeguard in the fight against economic inequalities and social dumping in Europe. I call on the Council to work towards this.

For all that, it seems clear that measures related to derogations on normal VAT rates may in some cases, taking into account the particular economic and social circumstances of each Member State, be able to act as a lever on locally-supplied services, including labour-intensive services. I am also very pleased that this proposal for a directive allows the application of reduced VAT rates to some services linked to the construction sector as well as catering services.

I also wish to thank the Commission by emphasising the technical adaptations that we and the members of the Intergroup on Family and Protection of Childhood have always wanted, concerning the application of reduced VAT rates to essential products for children, in particular babies' nappies which represent a very significant item in the budgets of young families. The same goes for some equipment for people with disabilities; these provisions are heading in the right direction.

in writing. - (PL) The issue of taxation falls within the remit of the Member States. However, common frameworks should apply, guaranteeing that the law is both transparent and free from ambiguity, and that the market operates cohesively and smoothly. The inhabitants of my country are unable to comprehend why a zero VAT rate is applied to children's items in Ireland and Great Britain and a rate of 3% applies in Luxembourg, while Poland is expected to increase its VAT rate from 7 to 22%.

Now, when we are undergoing a painful economic crisis, it is essential to seek solutions which will promote increased productivity and a growth in employment. Harmonising VAT exemptions is thus highly recommended, in order to avoid any discrimination that might result from the implementation of this tax. Reducing VAT rates for labour-intensive services on local markets, including the catering sector, should be considered as a very positive step, particularly for SMEs and artisans. Naturally, the lower costs will also benefit consumers. Furthermore, the initiative should restrict the 'informal economy' and undeclared labour. I therefore support the simplified and clarified regulations of Directive 2006/112/EC, the VAT Directive, since their objective is to place the Member States on an equal footing. The current situation demonstrates that it would be worthwhile to conduct an objective debate on the rationale of applying the tax on goods and services in the form hitherto employed. There are countries, the USA for example, where other forms of indirect taxation are applied and which, generally speaking, lead to a more dynamic, flexible and efficient economy. I spoke of this some time ago.

in writing. - (FR) At a time when Europe is faced with a major economic crisis, adopting this report will make it possible to revitalise the services sector by asking Member States to accept a reduced rate of VAT of 5% on labour-intensive services and locally supplied services. This would affect the catering trade, home-care services and hairdressing salons.

Exemptions from VAT need to be harmonised because there are currently 11 Member States that are entitled to derogations and apply reduced rates for the catering trade for example.

A reduced VAT rate will benefit employment levels and will help in the struggle against the hidden economy as well as stimulating local demand.

In my opinion, we should go further still and also consider a reduced rate for cultural products such as CDs or videos, as well as environmentally-friendly products such as green cars or energy efficient buildings. The reduced VAT rate for some sectors will help to boost SME activity, while encouraging the establishment of an economy that is more environmentally friendly.

In July 2008, the European Commission adopted a proposal on applying reduced VAT rates after 2010.

The sectors targeted in particular by this measure are labour-intensive services and locally provided services for local consumers such as services linked to the housing sector and the renovation of residential heating systems, as well as services linked to personal care and the catering industry.

The proposal is also part of the Small Business Act initiative which aims to stimulate activity in the more than 23 million small- and medium-sized enterprises in the EU with a view to developing the economy and creating new jobs.

I support this report because carefully targeted VAT rate reductions offer specific benefits such as a means of creating a tax system which promotes jobs, increases productivity and reduces the black economy, especially in the current financial crisis.

I call on the Commission to closely monitor the application of these reduced VAT rates in Member States in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market. I congratulate the rapporteur.

Today's debate and vote on reduced VAT rates will send a clear signal to the Council along the lines stressed by the Intergroup on Family and Protection of Childhood over the years. Among the various amendments that I support, I would highlight those directly affecting children's goods. This is an important measure which supports families with children and allows them to reduce the unfair tax burdens to which they are subject. I welcome the Commission's proposal to resolve, once and for all, the nonsense of the nappy debate and the issue of car seats for babies. However, it is also important, as the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has argued, for the reduced VAT rate to be applied to children's footwear and clothing throughout the EU, and not just in the Member States which had this system in 1991. We call on the Council not to lag behind Parliament and to go as far as necessary in understanding the legitimate needs and aspirations of families. I hope that we are finally at the successful end of a long struggle and demand by civil society and Members of this House to defend the tax rights of families who should not be penalised because of the children they rear, support and educate.

in writing. - (PL) Levelling the playing field for all the Member States, and increasing transparency and cohesion within the borders of the EU, are matters of crucial importance, as reduced VAT rates will enable the internal market to function smoothly

It should be possible for the Member States to apply a reduced VAT rate to locally-supplied services, for example. The application of the reduced rate should most certainly be left in the hands of the Member States, while the tax system should promote employment, increase productivity and curb the 'informal economy'. It is equally essential to harmonise VAT exemptions, as this will help to ensure a balanced and uniform approach on the part of the Member States and avoid the adverse effects of applying those VAT rates.

A reduction in the VAT rates for locally supplied and labour-intensive services should have a positive impact, since it will reduce the level of undeclared labour, whilst also reducing its appeal and increasing demand within the formal economy. However, if the reduced rates are to avoid damaging the smooth functioning of the internal market, they should be applied with care.

The political objective to reducing the VAT rate is to reduce undeclared labour and potential administrative burdens.

in writing. - We are in a global crisis, but a global crisis that is hitting locally. The turmoil started across the Atlantic, but has affected our cities, towns and villages. Measures introduced to combat the crisis and to rehabilitate our damaged economies must not concentrate solely on the national and international but on the regional and local also.

Extending reduced rates of VAT to locally supplied and labour-intensive services is a positive step in this direction. It is a pragmatic decision that has the potential to stimulate local economy and encourage local enterprise and industry without interfering with the proper functioning of the internal market.

I hope that this measure can be part of a wider approach adopted by the EU and national authorities to make it attractive to buy local, to build up local economies and consumer confidence.

Such an approach would impact positively on small and medium enterprises. This is crucial as SMEs make up 99% of all European enterprises, but the sector is suffering in the current climate. I believe that strengthening and supporting the SME sector is key in getting our economies back on their feet and building for a sustainable economic and social future.

in writing. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for years, the European Parliament has been arguing for the extension of the list of goods and services to which a reduced VAT rate may optionally be applied The call for a reduced VAT rate in the Member States for things including catering services, building renovations and small repairs, such as shoe repairs, has become ever more pronounced.

There are three reasons for this. The European harmonisation of rules on VAT rates promotes transparency and the smooth functioning of the internal market, and works as an incentive in the fight against illegal work. Moreover, at long last we can look forward to ending a time of consecutive experimental periods, and to legal certainty for a problem that has been around for a very long time. In times of crisis, these measures can be an important incentive for a number of industries.

This is why I am endorsing the van den Burg report, and I look forward to a political agreement on 10 March in the ECOFIN Council.

Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

1. Action plan on urban mobility (vote) 

2. The petitions process (Amendment of Title VIII of the Rules of Procedure) (

- Before the vote:

on behalf of the UEN Group. - Madam President, I apologise for interrupting the vote.

Under Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure, I am asking the Members of the House to postpone the vote on the Onesta report with regard to the petitions process, as this matter is at present being dealt with in the Conference of Presidents in the context of the reform of the procedures of the House. The Conference of Presidents will discuss the very specific reform issues dealt with in the Onesta report at a meeting on 5 March 2009, and I am asking that, if possible, the vote on this report be postponed until the Strasbourg part-session in the second week of March. I am asking the House to approve this if possible.

rapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, let us try to be precise. This report amends our regulation, or rather clarifies it, in order to make it clear how petitions to the Committee on Petitions are received or not received, how information is given to petitioners, and so on.

It was approved unanimously, with one vote against I think, in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I do not think, therefore, that this report is very controversial. There is, however, one article in which we had agreed to make it clear that if and when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, petitioners would simply be informed if a petition that were submitted not to Parliament but to the European Commission - you know, those petitions with millions of signatures - were connected to their petition.

If I understand rightly, it is that article, because of the reference to a possible future treaty that causes a problem. Personally, I can live with postponing it until 5 March; I can even live with a 'speed vote' withdrawing that amendment. On the other hand, it would be very regrettable if we could not tidy up our regulation on this point when there have been so many problems in the past. I am in your hands, ladies and gentlemen.

3. Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI) (

4. Amendments to the Convention on future multilateral co-operation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries (

5. A special place for children in EU external action (

6. Implementation of Directive 2002/14/EC: informing and consulting employees in the European Community (

7. Social economy (

- Before the vote:

rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, I propose that in paragraph 12 the words 'the components of the' be added before the words 'social economy', and the words 'as a third sector' be deleted, as written in the list here.

8. Mental health (

9. Follow-up of the energy efficiency national action plans: a first assessment (

10. Applied research relating to the common fisheries policy (

11. European professional card for service providers (

- Before the vote:

rapporteur. - (SV) I have been here long enough to know how pleased the Members of this House will be if I give a two-minute speech. I do not, therefore, intend to do this and will instead merely say that this is an example of how, once again, we are trying to make it easier for citizens to work and establish themselves across borders.

This can form a nice little example to use in the election campaigns and I am therefore pleased. The committee was unanimous on this issue and so that is all I have to say.

Voting time

The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes.)

Welcome

Colleagues, I am pleased to inform you that members of a delegation of MPs and other visitors from the State Great Hural (Parliament) of Mongolia and the Mission of Mongolia to the European Union have now taken their seats in the distinguished vistors' gallery. It is a great pleasure to welcome them here today.

(Applause)

The members of the delegation are in Brussels with their counterparts in the European Parliament on the occasion of the 7th European Union-Mongolia Interparliamentary meeting. This meeting has strengthened the important and growing relationship between the European Parliament and the Mongolian Parliament. The visitors have also had an opportunity to experience, at first hand, the workings of our Parliament. I wish the delegation well for the remainder of their stay in the European Union.

1. Community action in relation to whaling (

2. Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory (

3. Sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (

4. Crop statistics (

5. Rules on aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails (Recast version) (

6. Reduced rates of value added tax (

7. Alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (vote) 

8. Annual Report (2007) on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP (

Voting time (continuation) 

Formal sitting - Czech Republic

- Mr President of the Czech Republic, I would like to offer you a warm welcome to the European Parliament.

President of the Czech Republic. - (CS) I would like first of all to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the European Parliament, which is one of the key institutions of the European Union. Although I have been here several times before I have never had the chance to address a plenary session. I therefore appreciate the chance to do so today. The elected representatives of 27 countries with their broad spectrum of political opinions and views constitute a unique audience, just as the European Union itself has been a unique and essentially revolutionary experiment for over half a century, attempting to improve decision making in Europe through transferring a significant part of the decision-making process from individual states to pan-European institutions.

I have travelled here to see you from Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic, the historic heart of Czech statehood and an important place in the development of European ideas, European culture and European civilisation. I have come here as the representative of the Czech state, which in its various forms has always been part of European history, a country which has often played a direct and significant role in the making of European history and which wishes to continue doing so.

The last time a Czech president addressed you from this place was nine years ago. He was my predecessor in the role, Václav Havel, and it was four years before our accession to the EU. Some weeks ago, the Czech premier, Mirek Topolánek, also spoke here, this time as the leader of the country holding the presidency of the Council of the EU. In his speech he focused on specific topics arising from the priorities of the Czech presidency and the problems currently confronting the countries of the European Union.

This enables me to approach you with themes of a more general nature and to talk about things which, at first sight, are possibly not as dramatic as the solutions to today's economic crisis, the Russia-Ukraine gas conflict or the situation in Gaza. In my opinion, however, they are of absolutely fundamental importance for the development of the European integration project.

In just under three months, the Czech Republic will commemorate the fifth anniversary of its accession to the EU and it will do so in a dignified manner. It will mark the anniversary as a country which, in contrast to some other new Member States, does not feel disappointed over the unfulfilled expectations of membership. There is nothing surprising about this and there is a rational explanation for it. Our expectations were realistic. We were well aware that we were joining a community created by and composed of people and not some sort of ideal construct developed without authentic human interests, ambitions, opinions and ideas. Interests and ideas are to be found at every step in the European Union and that is how it should be.

We saw our entry into the EU, on the one hand, as external confirmation of the fact that we had relatively quickly, over the course of almost fifteen years since the fall of communism, become a normal European country again. On the other hand, we considered - and we still do consider - the chance to participate actively in the European integration process as an opportunity to benefit from the advantages of an already highly integrated Europe while at the same time contributing our own ideas to the process. We assume our own share of responsibility for the development of the European Union and it is precisely with this in mind that we accede to our presidency of the Council of the European Union. I firmly believe that the first six weeks of our presidency have convincingly demonstrated our responsible approach.

I would also like to repeat out loud and very clearly here in this forum, and for the benefit of those of you that either did not know or did not want to know, my conviction that for us there was not and is not any alternative to EU membership and that there is no relevant political movement in our country that would be able or willing to undermine this position. We have therefore been taken aback recently by the repeated and growing attacks against the Czechs based on the completely unfounded assumption that we are looking for a different integration project than the one we joined six years ago. This is not the case.

The citizens of the Czech Republic take it for granted that European integration has a necessary and important mission, which broadly speaking they understand in the following way. It is firstly to remove barriers which are unnecessary and counterproductive to human freedom and prosperity, hindering the movement of persons, goods and services, ideas, political philosophies, world views, cultural plans and behavioural models, which, over the course of time, have formed between various European countries for many different reasons, and secondly to exercise joint care for public assets that are of significance to the entire continent or such projects as cannot be implemented effectively through just bilateral agreements between two or more neighbouring European countries.

The effort to implement these two aims - removing barriers and making rational choices over issues that should be resolved at European level - is not and never will be completed. The various barriers and obstacles still remain and there is definitely more decision making at the Brussels level than there ideally should be. There is certainly more of it than people in the various Member States want. You are surely well aware of this too, ladies and gentlemen. I would therefore like to ask in a rhetorical sense whether you are certain each time you vote that you are deciding on a matter that should be decided on in this house rather than closer to the citizens, in other words within the individual European states? Other potential impacts of European integration are also discussed in today's politically correct rhetoric, but these tend to be of a secondary and irrelevant nature. They have more to do with the ambitions of professional politicians and the people connected with them than with the interests of ordinary Member State citizens.

I said earlier that for the Czechs there was and there continues to be no alternative to EU membership - and I am delighted to emphasise and underline this - but that is only half of what I would like to say. The other half comprises the completely logical assertion that a range of potential and legitimate alternatives exists in respect of the methods and forms of European integration, just as it has done throughout the past half century. History has no end point. To claim that the status quo, in other words the current institutional arrangements of the EU, is a dogma forever beyond criticism is an error which unfortunately continues to proliferate, even though it is in direct conflict both with rational thinking and with the entire historical development of over two thousand years of European civilisation. The assumption that an 'ever closer Union', in other words an ever deeper political integration of the Member States, represents the only possible and correct course of development for the European Union is a similar error, which is postulated a priori and is therefore similarly beyond criticism.

Neither the status quo nor the postulate of deeper integration bringing indisputable benefits can or should be regarded as sacrosanct by any European democrat. It is unacceptable for them to be enforced by persons regarding themselves as, to quote famous Czech writer Milan Kundera, the 'keepers of the keys' to European integration.

Moreover, it is obvious that the institutional arrangement of the EU does not constitute an end in itself but is a means to achieving real ends. These ends are nothing less than personal freedom and a set of economic arrangements that will bring prosperity. In other words, market economics.

Citizens of all Member States surely want these things but, over the course of the 20 years since the fall of communism, it has repeatedly been confirmed that they are wanted more and cared about more by those people who have experienced tyranny for a large part of the twentieth century and who have suffered the effects of a dysfunctional, centrally planned, state-run economy. Those people are quite legitimately more sensitive and more aware of manifestations or tendencies pointing to ends other than freedom and prosperity. And those people include the citizens of the Czech Republic.

The current system for decision making in the EU differs from the historically tried and tested traditional form of parliamentary democracy. In a normal parliamentary system there is a group supporting the government and another supporting the opposition. However, unless I am mistaken, this is not the case in the European Parliament. Here only one alternative exists and those who dare consider other alternatives are labelled enemies of European integration. In my part of Europe, we lived until relatively recently under a political system where no alternatives were allowed and where no parliamentary opposition therefore existed. We learned through bitter experience that where there is no opposition, there is no freedom. This is why political alternatives must exist.

That is not all. The relationship between the citizens of the various Member States and their EU representatives is not the normal relationship between voters and the politicians representing them. There is more distance between EU citizens and their representatives than is the case within individual Member States, and not only in the geographical sense of the word. This is often referred to in various ways: the democratic deficit, the loss of democratic accountability, decision making by the un-elected but selected officials, the bureaucratisation of decision making and so on. The proposed changes to the status quo contained in the rejected European Constitution or the not-so-different Treaty of Lisbon would only exacerbate this defect.

Since there is no European demos, no European nation, this defect cannot be solved by strengthening the role of the European Parliament. This would only make the problem worse and would lead to Member State citizens feeling ever more alienated from EU institutions. The solution does not lie in trying to breathe new life into the current form of European integration, or in trying to suppress the role of Member States in the name of a new multi-cultural and multi-national European civil society. These are attempts that have failed in the past because they were not natural historical developments.

I am afraid that attempts to speed up and deepen integration and to shift decision making affecting living standards of Member State citizens more and more to a European level may have repercussions endangering everything positive that has been achieved in Europe over the past half century. Therefore let us not underestimate the concerns felt by many Member State citizens that decisions affecting their lives will be taken elsewhere and without their involvement and that their ability to influence the decision-making process is very limited. The success of the EU to date is due among other things to the fact that the opinion and voice of every Member State had the same weight in voting and thus could not be ignored. Let us not allow a situation to come about in which Member State citizens live their lives with a resigned feeling that the EU project is not their own, that it is not developing as they would like and that they are obliged merely to resign themselves to it. We could very easily and very quickly find ourselves once again living under conditions we now habitually regard as a thing of the past.

This is also closely connected to the question of prosperity. It must be said openly that the current economic system of the EU involves constraints on the market and a constant strengthening of a centrally-controlled economy. Although history has given us ample evidence that this path leads nowhere, we are following it again. The level of restrictions on the spontaneity of market processes and the level of political regulation over the economy are constantly increasing. This development has recently been further reinforced by incorrect interpretations of the causes of the current financial and economic crisis, attributing it to the market rather than to the actual cause which was, on the contrary, political manipulation of the market. It is again necessary to remember the historical experience of my part of Europe and the lessons we have learned.

Many of you will certainly be familiar with the name of the 19th-century French economist, Frederic Bastiat and his famous Petition from the Manufacturers of Candles, which is still a well-known standard text to this day, illustrating the absurdity of political interference in the economy. On 14 November 2008, the European Commission approved a real petition from manufacturers of candles, not just a Bastiat-style fiction, and imposed a 66% tax on candles imported from China. I could not believe that a 160-year-old literary essay had become a reality, but that is precisely what happened. The inevitable consequence of introducing such measures on a broad scale is that Europe will fall behind economically and that economic growth will slow down or even grind to a halt. The only solution lies in the liberalisation and deregulation of the European economy.

I say all this because I care about a democratic and prosperous future for Europe. I am trying to remind you of the fundamental principles upon which European civilisation has been built for centuries or millennia. Principles whose validity is timeless and universal and which should therefore still apply in today's EU. I firmly believe that the citizens of the various Member States want freedom, democracy and economic prosperity.

The most important thing at this point is clearly to make sure that we do not equate the open discussion of these matters with an attack on the very idea of European integration. We have always believed that being allowed to discuss these serious questions, being heard, defending everyone's right to put forward alternatives to the one correct opinion, no matter how much we may disagree with them, is precisely the kind of democracy that was denied us for four decades. We, who have involuntarily spent the greater part of our lives witnessing how the free exchange of ideas is a basic precondition for a healthy democracy, believe that this precondition will be honoured and respected in the future as well. This represents an opportunity and an irreplaceable way of making the EU freer, more democratic and more prosperous.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, it was your wish to address the European Parliament. We have gladly granted this wish. Mr President, in a Parliament of the past you would certainly not have been able to give that speech.

(Applause)

Thank goodness that we live in a European democracy in which we can all express our opinions.

(Applause and uproar)

Ladies and gentlemen, we are one European family and, as in any family, there are differences of opinion. Mr President, I agree with you when you say - I only wish to make a few comments, but I feel obliged to do so - : we are a human community. A human community is characterised by having advantages, strengths, disadvantages and weaknesses. Together, we must strengthen the strengths and eradicate the weaknesses. I also agree with you when you say that we need to ask whether each decision that we take could perhaps have been taken elsewhere. Yes, but our national capitals must also ask themselves whether many decisions should not be taken in our towns and communities rather than at national level.

(Applause)

Allow me to make one final comment relating to our Parliament's understanding of itself: we thank you for your acknowledgement that this European Parliament is an important institution. If we were not so influential, we would not currently be the legislator in 75% of cases and we would not be a co-legislator in almost 100% of cases with regard to the Treaty of Lisbon, and then it would, in fact, be the case that decisions in Europe would be made by bureaucratic means. However, it is now the European Parliament that decides.

(Sustained applause)

Thank you, Mr President, for your visit. It was an expression of our diversity of opinion in Europe and of our European democracy, and in a democracy it is ultimately the majority that counts. I would urge us all to continue, together, to stand up for this democracy, for Europe, for unity and for peace.

(Standing ovation)

1. European Security Strategy and ESDP (

2. The role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU (

- Before the vote:

rapporteur. - Madam President, I apologise for taking up everyone's time and delaying lunch but I do it only once in 10 years so maybe you will not mind. In fact I am like the Member of the Finnish Parliament who rose to speak only once in all his years in the Finnish Parliament and what he said was: 'could you close the window, please'.

I would like to say a few words in relation to these three reports, which are all part of the same package, which includes the reports by Mr von Wogau and Mr Saryusz-Wolski. At the moment we are looking for solutions to the financial crisis. That was self-inflicted and we are saying this crisis must not be repeated, but what about the raison d'être of the European Union to prevent wars and human crises? They must not be repeated either, and they do not fall on us like the roof in the Parliament building in Strasbourg. They need not be repeated, but only on the condition that we work together.

I remind you that peace is not the monopoly of this side of the House. Peace belongs to everybody. Peace-building is our common duty. It is a little bit like love. It is unconditional. We have to be idealistic in this life. We have to look far away, like when we run in a forest. You do not look at your feet when you run in a forest. You look far away and then you know where you are going and you automatically put your feet in the right place. That is what we have to do. We have to be brutally honest and remember why the EU was formed: it was to build peace.

All I am saying now is that, if we are to respect the inheritance of Mr Monnet and our forefathers, we should belong to just one party and that party regarding peace-building is called the '"Yes I Can” Party'. Only then will history give us a standing ovation. And the window is open.

rapporteur. - Madam President, I am sorry to take up Parliament's time. I simply wish to delete the following sentence regarding the EU Operational Headquarters from paragraph 29: 'emphasises that the proposed EU Operational Headquarters provides the solution to this problem;'.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I have two oral amendments to this paragraph. The first is that the words 'human rights and the rule of law' be put in the first place in the points of concern and not the last. Please support this more European position.

The second oral amendment concerns the second part of the paragraph, on Russia as a democracy in an undefined future. As there are very sovereign concepts of what democracy means, it would be better to add something. Therefore, my oral amendment is to insert the following after the word 'democracy': 'and refuses military threats as a means of political pressure on its neighbours'.

As we cannot support such policies, please support this amendment.

3. The Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean (

4. Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (

5. Financing of actions other than Official Development Assistance in countries falling under Regulation (EC) 1905/2006 (

- Before the vote:

rapporteur. - Madam President, I would like to refer this report back to committee under Rule 168(2). Both this democratically elected Parliament and the European Commission see the necessity to cover some modest forms of cooperation between the EU and developing countries, actions that are not strictly speaking poverty alleviation, such as exchange programmes between universities here and there.

The budget for development is not meant for this kind of cooperation, but some Members insist on using a legal base that would lead us to finance these actions with the development budget while that is precisely what we seek to avoid with this report.

We did not reach an agreement. If Amendment 1 is adopted, then this report would become incoherent and contrary to the interests of the world's poorest people. I consider, therefore, that we should refer this report back to the Committee on Development in order to agree on a legal base having the support of a clear majority of this House.

(DE) Madam President, there are indeed differences of interpretation. The legal interpretation by the Committee on Development is opposed to the interpretation by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and it is opposed to the legal interpretation by the legal services of our Parliament, to the case law of the European Court of Justice and to the view of the Council and the Commission, and therefore we, in the majority, insist on using the legal base as set out in this amendment.

I ask therefore for the application for referral back to committee to be withdrawn. As regards the substance of the report there are no differences of opinion. We agree on the substance, it is only with regard to the legal interpretation that there are differences and a referral back to committee will not change those differences.

Madam President, I would like to second the rapporteur. Following the debate we had here yesterday, and in view of the Commission's contribution, I very much agree that we need more discussion and that we need to find a proper legal basis for actions that are not pure ODA actions - but are still very important for development cooperation with developing countries - and therefore do not fall under the other instruments regarding cooperation with industrialised countries, nor under the current DCI.

It is also very important to freeze the money foreseen for the DCI for cooperation in accordance with ODA criteria, so I support our colleague Mr Berman in his request for more time for consideration.

6. Organisation and operation of the Publications Office of the European Union (

Voting time (continuation) 

- (DE) Madam President, the last time that there was such a demonstration of opinion during a visit by a Head of State or Government, the President of this House intervened very strongly. On that occasion it related to a matter that was also of concern to him personally, namely the Treaty of Lisbon. Today, when the President, the sovereign elected President of a country, is speaking and is interrupted and hassled to such an extent by the socialists, the President does nothing. Do you know what this is? This is not democracy, this is despotism. I demand that the appropriate measures be taken.

- Madam President, it is in my opinion seriously demeaning to the dignity of this House, and indeed to that of the Czech Presidency, that the formal visit of President Klaus should be undermined by allowing the occasion to be used to disseminate materials to influence the outcome of the Lisbon Treaty ratification process. If this is permissible - and I would ask for your ruling on this - the logical conclusion will be a recipe for chaos in our corridors, with those on each side of the argument filling this House in increasing numbers and competitively and aggressively pursuing their points of view. Please ensure that the Bureau does not allow it to happen again.

(Mixed reactions)

(DE) Madam President, thank you very much. I suggest that you all listen to what I have to say before you start your shouting.

A fellow Member, who often recalls things differently, has just spoken. I would like to remind you of the following: when Prime Minister Sócrates wanted to speak here in connection with the signing of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, he was unable to do so by virtue of being shouted down. President Klaus was able to speak here unhindered. That is the difference between us and them. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

We now continue with the vote.

Explanations of vote

(Oral explanations of vote)

Madam President, I rise to explain the fact that I was one of only five Members of this House who voted against this resolution. I did so, not because I do not want economic help to go to those who have suffered tragically in this crisis and assistance to be given to them for that reason - that is absolutely right - but simply because this resolution, like most resolutions on the Middle East, is defective. It is defective because it does not establish the rights and wrongs of the situation and, without that, the resolution cannot and should not be allowed to pass.

The fact is that we are where we are in Gaza because of the actions of the Hamas group, who have rained bombs and rockets on a sovereign state, which has the right - as has every sovereign state - to react and defend its own people. Until the responsibility for this crisis is made clear in resolutions of this Parliament, then the resolutions themselves cannot be effective. The time has come for this Parliament to say to Hamas: 'Recognise the State of Israel, negotiate with it, end the anti-Semitic views of your charter and then we can start the peace process'.

(PL) Madam President, it is essential that adults take more responsibility for the conditions faced by children and the opportunities they have in life. I am thinking, for example, of armed conflicts in which children are embroiled, where they are often forcibly conscripted against their will, face mortal danger and hunger, and lack access to medical care. However, I voted against the report, owing to its pro-abortion stance. It is particularly perverse to appear to act in the interests of children whilst, in fact, promoting initiatives that would deny their very right to life.

- Madam President, it was the great philosopher, Whitney Houston, who once said: 'I believe that children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.'

What is interesting about this report is that for the first time we are, in many ways, looking at the key for future development. We are notably looking for child development and child education, and not only female child education - if you teach the woman, you teach the family - but also primary education.

There is a simple flaw in our thinking on primary education: we always seem to think that the state has the solution. I urge all my colleagues in this House to look at the solutions that have been highlighted by the E. G. West Centre at the University of Newcastle, which looks at private education for the poor. Where the state has failed to provide education for poor children, parents themselves have come together, finance non-state education and, therefore, are also able to subsidise the non-working poor. I would urge everyone to look beyond the state for solutions to help the very poorest in our society.

Madam President, I voted against the Kinnock report with a very heavy heart, because the problems the report identifies are very important. Tragedies are happening all over the world, but the basis of her report is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and we move on, we do more and more on the basis of a very flawed convention.

This convention was always a compromise; it was always a mixed bag. On the one hand, it has many good things, but, on the other hand, it has some absolutely inappropriate parts. It was written in 1989, in an age before we knew about predators. For example, it has rights to full access to the mass media in all communication to children and vice versa.

So we have based this whole report on a very flawed convention, which also places the state as the only arbitrator of the best interests of the child, as opposed to the family, which in fact sets the parents as the nurturers and the guardians but not as the determiners of rights. So I had to vote against it. It also includes abortion, which has no place in children's rights.

- Madam President, I think our constituents would be interested to see how far we have gone in these fields. In the run-up to the Irish referendum, and then especially after it, we were told that the European Union was not really progressing towards a common foreign policy and that it certainly was not meddling in the field of abortion law, and yet here we have those two issues tied together in one report. Despite all the promises we made about listening to the people and tailoring our policy to suit their demands, we have carried on regardless.

There was a very neat illustration of that earlier this morning when we listened to the President of the Czech Republic. He made a speech that was in some ways almost platitudinous. He made the very banal and unarguable point that governments are better when there is an opposition and that we should tolerate other points of view. What was the reaction of this Chamber when he said that we should tolerate other points of view? People in the PSE and the PPE-DE Groups turned their backs and walked out. Not only will they not respond to alternative points of view, they cannot even bear to listen to them. What neater example could you have of this House's attitude towards the electorates out there? If you think I am wrong, prove me wrong: hold the referendums you promised, put the Treaty of Lisbon to the people. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est.

- (PL) Madam President, the transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC on European works councils and consulting employees is particularly crucial in a time of crisis, when it is necessary to ensure that management goes hand in hand with social responsibility, and to ensure that, where jobs cannot be saved, the employees are guaranteed training and a smooth transition to their new workplace. The framework Directive should be implemented in Member Countries by both sides. I therefore voted in favour of Mr Cottigny's report.

- (PL) Madam President, the social economy plays a vital role in local and regional development. As set out in the Lisbon Strategy, it forms an integral part of a common employment policy. Statistical data has shown it to be an influential sector of the economy, creating new jobs within the EU and providing jobs for 11 million people, which represents almost 7% of the labour force. It is also worth emphasising the role played by the social economy in rural areas, promoting economic development by regenerating declining industrial zones and creating and sustaining new jobs.

We can therefore see that the social economy has become an indispensable part of ensuring stable and sustainable economic growth, by virtue of the crucial role it plays in solving new social problems. Its role has also been strengthened in traditional sectors, such as commerce, agriculture and industry. It is therefore essential to incorporate the social economy into all strategies which aim to foster industrial and socio-economic development.

(PL) Madam President, it is not only the crisis which has brought about the need to identify the market presence of associations, foundations, cooperatives and the entire social economy, which involves citizen stakeholders and has both a social, and also a measurable economic dimension, in terms of its contribution to GDP. However, now, in particular, every job created, every new improvement in the quality of social services has a specific value. I support the report and anticipate a new approach on the part of the European Commission, involving organisational and financial support for the social economy, such as the simplification of the administrative procedures for obtaining EU funding. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

- Madam President, in reading through this report, I came across the definition of a social economy and I was interested to see what the definition was. It pointed out two things that struck me: one was social objectives over capital, and the other was the principles of solidarity and responsibility. Furthermore, it talked about democratic control by members. No mention was made of the willing and free exchange between buyer and seller in order to produce the profit which can then be reinvested to create jobs. What could be more social than making a profit to re-invest to create jobs for your population?

When we start to focus on so-called social needs, rather than the need to create profit and the need to make sure that we can create jobs and spread wealth throughout an economy, we end up in the trap that Hayek, the great Austrian economist, - and also Ayn Rand - warned about at the beginning of the last century where we forget about profit and start on the slippery slope to serfdom. For that reason, I was against this report.

- Madam President, I am delighted that we continue to take mental health with some seriousness and some priority here in this House. It must remain high on the EU health policy agenda, as one in four people will experience a depressive illness at least once in their lives, and by 2020 it will be the most common illness in the developing world.

However, I am afraid that in Member States, including my own country, we have the theory; we talk the talk. Our mental health policy is articulated in a document called A Vision for Change and many of the calls for action in the rapporteur's report are stated in our national policy or, indeed, are enshrined in our legislation.

But I am afraid the coalface delivery of mental health services continues to be completely unfit for purposes. There is a huge disconnection taking place between the theories and the reports, and we are always - particularly in my country - an action plan away from action. I am afraid mental health services and delivery to those who require them continue to be the Cinderella area of most mental health policies in all our Member States. This must change.

- Madam President, one in four people experience mental health problems at least once in their lives. Eight of the ten leading causes of disability are mental health issues, and mental health problems have a huge effect on those not directly affected. Therefore, we urgently need to update mental health legislation that can properly develop an awareness of the importance of good mental health.

The message I have been trying to get across in my constituency in the West Midlands is that the media, the internet, schools and workplaces all have a vital role to play in making the public aware.

However, we also need more research into the field of mental health and the interaction between mental and physical health problems, and an explanation of how mental health initiatives might be funded under the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. This needs to be undertaken urgently.

Employers also need to promote a healthy working climate, paying attention to work-related stress and the underlying causes of mental disorder at the workplace, and tackling those causes. I was therefore very pleased to support this report.

(PL) Madam President, 90% of suicides are the result of mental health problems. The number of people affected by depression and other civilisation-related diseases, caused by stress and the pace of life, is markedly increasing. The ageing of Europe's population is linked to an increase in the number of people who fall victim to age-related diseases. Efforts to prevent and diagnose mental health problems, combat exclusion and stigmatisation, and provide support for sufferers and their families, are significant steps towards protecting the health of our society. I have therefore given Mrs Tzampazi's report my heartfelt support.

- Madam President, I did vote for this report but I felt that there was a missed opportunity here - missed in committee - to include electro-shock and to once and for all recommend a ban on this most torturous of treatments that we still use in many countries in Europe.

Another area where I have serious questions is the growing movement towards assessing all small children for mental health problems and medicating appropriately. Although this report fortunately does not go that far, there is a casual reference to the assessment of children. Many children, if you assess them as children, would not seem normal and yet they are developing well. The key question we must ask ourselves, in the face of growing mental health problems, is: why is it getting worse, particularly in the face of suicide? Are we not allowing human society to exist in a way that enables people to develop and live in a normal, healthy way? If mental health is getting worse, we have to give a lot of thought to the society we are creating.

(PL) Madam President, I am opposed to the resolution and I have voted against its adoption for the following reasons:

1) there is a crisis and the EU, and other institutions, face serious problems which require their attention;

2) the cost of investigating the alleged flights, which was borne by the EU, amounted to millions of euros and exposed cases involving those who bestially murder, and have murdered, innocent people, including EU citizens, and it is our duty to protect our citizens and provide assistance to victims of terrorism.

The extremely emotional attitude towards the flights, the apparent creation of yet another, costly political scandal, had no added value and placed the burden of cost on European taxpayers. They say that learning comes at a price and we have paid that price. We should, therefore, bear this in mind this when addressing similar problems in the future.

- Madam President, I very much welcome, and indeed I supported, Mrs Miguélez Ramos' report on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy.

This calls for improved and advance use of applied research. The issue of conservation and maintenance of our fishery stocks is a vital one in which it is very difficult to get a balance and call it right. Using the most up-to-date science as a tool can only help the task ahead of us.

However, much as I appreciate the report, I would like to caution that in these straitened economic times we must be aware of duplication of effort and avoid same. It will be necessary to ensure that we are not, at Community level, doing what is best left to Member States.

- Madam President, when we look at applied research, I wonder whether we should be looking into the defects of the common fisheries policy. Let us not forget that for over 40 years we have had a common fisheries policy that was designed to run European commercial fishing on a sustainable basis, but has failed to deliver either environmental sustainability or development of the fishing industry.

We should also contrast this with the property-rights-based approach of countries such as New Zealand, where the Government recognised that by giving people a vested interest in maintaining a resource they would fight to preserve it. We can also look at Iceland, where we have a successful market-oriented approach with individual tradeable quotas.

Of course, we can apply new technology and new research with all the will in the world, but if we continue to have a system where, despite all the innovation, governments tell individual fishermen in detail how much they can fish, then all the applied research will be a complete waste of time. It is time to scrap the common fisheries policy.

- Madam President, in the current difficult economic climate, this report brings the kind of joined-up thinking that is desperately needed. VAT reductions will help most the people who need it most - the people who earn less than others. I believe this report is also about job creation, and that is why I supported it. It is about making sure that jobs do not disappear into the black economy. I hope that it will be implemented quickly, especially in my region, in the West Midlands.

We also need to stress that we have to allow Member States to reduce VAT on certain items to battle against climate change. Providing people with an incentive to 'buy green' is exactly the kind of market-based instrument that will reap the greatest benefits. VAT reductions across the world are used to encourage people to buy energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly fridges, freezers and other goods that use up large amounts of energy, and cheaper prices for these products will help the less well-off.

My Government in the UK has taken the lead on this issue by reducing VAT by 2.5% until 2010, and I hope other Member States will also follow suit.

- (FR) Madam President, the only battles we are sure to lose are those we do not join.

By retabling our amendments aimed at a fairer application of a reduced VAT rate - especially, for example, on children's clothes in the new Member States, so as to put them on the same footing as the older ones - we wanted to send a strong message to the Commission and the Council.

We succeeded on all counts, with one exception. Our amendment seeking to spare the catering trade from the bureaucratic burden of having to apply two different rates of VAT on one bill was narrowly defeated.

Our group wants to leave the choice of applying a single reduced rate for the catering trade to Member States which opt for a reduced rate. This is not possible with the text of the Commission's proposal because this text imposes the application of different rates depending on whether the service at your local restaurant does or does not include a glass of beer or wine. How can anyone understand that?

I recognise that some of my fellow Members had not properly understood the significance of our amendment, but the strong signal sent by Parliament on this issue remains. It was worth the effort. Madam President: I am very pleased that I and my group have persevered in fighting the left's evil obsession with confiscatory taxation. We have to put an end to this 'tax-mania'.

- Madam President, this is perhaps the most difficult issue for a free society. How does a free society combat those who wish to destroy it? That is the decision we have to make. It has to be a balance. Of course, we must protect human rights and of course the legal process should prevail, but sometimes in the world in which we live it is necessary to take extraordinary measures. We cannot in Europe, and in the countries of Europe, rely solely on the United States to do it.

We are presently witnessing in my country a trial of eight people who have been accused of trying to blow up eight airliners. They did not succeed. I do not know whether they are guilty, but that plot did not succeed. We have to ensure that a free society has the right tools and the right measures in order to fight and defeat those who would destroy it. If we fail to do that, we fail the people whom we are sent here to represent.

- Madam President, I recommended to my delegates from Ireland to abstain in the votes on both the von Wogau and Vatanen reports, because Ireland has retained its neutrality.

Our position in relation to that and our involvement in the European Union have been written into protocol. Ireland has a triple-lock system in relation to deploying troops to any other country: it must be under a UN mandate, and it must be approved by the government and by the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament. That will continue under the Lisbon Treaty.

That does not mean that Ireland is not prepared to play its part, especially in peacekeeping roles. For instance, we have been very involved in Chad, with great success. This is under a mandate from the UN: the UN could not provide the troops, and the European Union stepped into breach. That mandate expires on 15 March 2009. It has been a very successful 12 months from a peacekeeping point of view, and long may that continue. Ireland will continue to make its contribution in a peacekeeping role, whether this is through the UN or the European Union.

- Madam President, I voted in favour of paragraph 43 of the Vatanen report only because of our colleague Mr Landsbergis's oral amendment to it that the House finally approved. I still prefer, and declare my support for, the original version of paragraph 43 that ends, 'security proposals that the Russian Federation has recently advanced would seriously undermine the credibility of EU security structures and strike a wedge into the EU-US relationship'. Having attended this week's session of the EU-Russia Cooperation Committee, I came to the conclusion that we cannot ignore what our colleague, Mr Vatanen, has called a 'brutal reality' - namely that the strategic goal of the Russian Federation is still, alas, to split the EU partners into good and bad ones and to emasculate NATO.

- Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this, because of the absolutely brilliant address that we heard from the President of the Czech Republic. He reminded us of the history of his and many countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, which were occupied by the Nazis and then, effectively, by the Communists. That really demonstrates the vital importance of NATO and its maintenance.

The European Union has a role in society, but the principal defence of the West is still NATO, and it is so because it is our alliance with the United States of America.

One of the disturbing features of this Parliament, which I find on so many issues, is an undercurrent and sometimes overcurrent of anti-American feeling. It was the United States that ensured that we are speaking here as free peoples, and NATO guarantees that vital alliance for the years to come.

- Madam President, for most of the last century - and most of this century so far - NATO has helped to keep the peace. Yet there are those in this House who seek to undermine the very institution that has allowed us to cooperate with our American and Canadian colleagues and a number of EU countries.

How are we seeking to undermine this? Not only by attacking NATO, but also by duplicating its structures. We are now seeing a situation where US and Canadian personnel can sit with EU experts in one room, under the umbrella of NATO, and then there will be exactly the same meeting, excluding our US and Canadian colleagues, which is part of the EU structure on defence. What a needless waste of resources and time.

We must remember the vital role that NATO has played, but we must also not forget that part of NATO is burden-sharing. If we move towards a purely EU defence mechanism, then it will be mostly Britain and France who share that burden, while others hide behind it. Let us not forget the vital role that NATO has played - long may it continue.

- Madam President, I should just like to add to what I have said already. We are looking for the Lisbon Treaty to be approved in Ireland. We will retain our neutrality under the Lisbon Treaty - the Treaty will not change our position on that. We will continue to play our role in peacekeeping, once we have a United Nations mandate, and if the European Union steps into the breach, we are quite prepared for, and have in the past been involved in, that peacekeeping role.

- Madam President, I should like to explain that with regard to Amendment 17, which should have come after Amendment 45, both myself and my colleague next to me, Mr Grech, wanted to vote in favour of the demilitarisation of space, but unfortunately we were innocently distracted at that moment by a third party and we did not vote in this way.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 14 years on from the Barcelona conference and the launch of the EuroMediterranean partnership, the balance seems entirely unsatisfactory.

Shall we assess the results achieved thus far in relation to the financial commitments made? I believe it is Parliament's legitimate right and the Commission's duty to do so. Shall we pretend not to know that civil rights are completely unprotected in that Euro-Afro-Asiatic region? That equal opportunities are still lacking? That respect for religious freedom is still a dream? That economic and social growth are still marking time, while people trafficking grows at an alarming rate, increasing the flow of illegal immigrants, above all on the coast in my local area, in southern Italy, and Sicily? Under these circumstances, rather than representing an opportunity, creating a free trade area will accentuate the divide between rich and poor regions.

To conclude, Madam President, although we have doubts about paragraphs 29 and 36, my group voted in favour of the report on the Barcelona process as an act of hope in the face of so much scepticism.

(PL) Madam President, the Eastern Partnership is a project of the utmost importance, which is why I am eager to see it become a priority in terms of European Union foreign policy. I would like to mention four aspects on which we should, in my opinion, focus our activities.

Firstly, we need to promote democracy and human rights, as this will ensure greater political stability in those states and guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. Secondly, we need to focus on economic integration and opening up the free trade zone. This will afford all those concerned broader access to new markets, thus increasing the demand which is so vital during a crisis.

Thirdly, we need to focus on ensuring security and stability in Europe. In this instance, I am referring solely to Europe's energy security. In order to prevent another blockade of gas supplies to the EU and ward off the temptation of using monopolistic exporters, our primary requirement is greater diversity in terms of energy sources and transit networks. Fourthly, we need increased mobility and a cultural and educational exchange. These two areas of activity are interconnected and complement each other. They have an impact on the EU's positive image in the East, and increase mutual tolerance and cooperation in the field of research and development.

We need a separate debate on the subject of the Eastern partnership in the European Parliament.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, it was with great pleasure that I voted for this report, and I wish Mrs Dahl well on her maternity leave. Unfortunately, she could not be here today.

It was a telling point that as a member of her IND/DEM Group she was willing to be rapporteur to play a constructive role in the work of our Parliament, unlike her colleagues from the so-called UK Independence Party, who, I believe - if I am right - have never been rapporteurs for any report in this Parliament in the four-and-a-half years since a motley crew of 12 of them were elected at the last European elections. All they do is snipe from the sidelines, usually on the basis of ignorance, because they are unwilling to get engaged in the real work that we are doing across the political spectrum in this House to ensure that the legislation and policies the Union produces are properly scrutinised and are a fair balance of interests of our different Member States and our different political viewpoints. All they want to do is be negative and oppose everything. What a contrast between them and their colleague.

(Written explanations of vote)

in writing. - One of the most important weapons in the arsenal of the rights of European citizens is that of petition. We have adopted further measures of a procedural nature.

When a petition is signed by several persons, the signatories shall designate a representative and deputy representatives who shall be regarded as the petitioners for the purposes of implementation of the rules.

The withdrawal of support for the petition by the petitioner is being remedied.

It may be possible for petitions and correspondence with petitioners to be drafted in other languages used in Member State (such as Basque and Galician).

The committee responsible must establish the admissibility or otherwise of the petition. At the request of only quarter of the members of the committee the petition becomes admissible.

Alternative means of redress may be recommended.

Petitions, once registered, shall as general rule become public documents.

Ladies and gentlemen, I support Mr Onesta's report, but appeal to you to consider two issues when considering petitions. The first concerns the presentation of the facts and the second concerns the fact that only the petitioner can address the Commission, and not the respondent party. In petition No. 0795/2007, the facts are presented in a biased and tendentious way, and the party affected - the Bulgarian Orthodox Church - was not asked to present its position. During its fact-finding mission in Bulgaria from 27-30 October 2008, the Commission did not ask for the views of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Thus attempts to vilify the Holy Orthodox Church in Bulgaria and to undermine its right to self-determination are promoted by the incorrect judgment on the petition submitted by the 'Alternative Synod', thereby creating conditions to mislead the members of the Commission.

The petitioners are seeking a way to decide the fate of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church not through church canon which has taken shape over centuries, but through the intervention of a secular institution - the ECJ in Strasbourg.

Following the schism within the Church which was resolved by canonical process in 1998, the ECJ in Strasbourg has issued a judgment on the same internal ecclesiastical problem in a matter in which the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was not even a respondent. The truth is that no secular court has the authority or the ability to rule on ecclesiastical disputes.

I voted in favour because I support the revision of the Rules of Procedure with regard to the petitions process as I feel that this will make improvements to the procedure in terms of evaluating and classifying petitions. The new rules will facilitate the processing of petitions, thereby supporting citizens' interests.

One of the important changes made to the petitioning process is the emphasis on the petition's privacy or confidentiality. Privacy relates to the petitioner's name and personal details, while confidentiality relates to the subject of the petition. The new rules leave the decision whether to waive privacy or confidentiality, or both, up to the petitioner.

Furthermore, I feel that the declaration of petitions' admissibility by qualified majority is extremely important as the right to petition is a vital citizens' right based on primary legislation, and this right must not be restricted by a politically motivated decision. According to the revised rules, if the committee responsible fails to reach a consensus on the admissibility of the petition, it is declared admissible at the request of at least one quarter of the members of the committee.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Onesta's report on revision of the Rules of Procedure with regard to the petitions process.

I agree with him that it is not necessary to make substantial changes to the existing rules; rather we should improve their transparency and clarity. I also believe that we need to emphasise the importance of the technological factor as enormous progress has been made in this area in recent years, but that it is equally important not to neglect respect for individuals and their fundamental right to privacy.

in writing. - (EL) The proposal for a regulation on a European Research Infrastructure aims to promote the application of the so-called fifth freedom, the freedom of movement within the Union of researchers of knowledge and science, and focuses on the criteria of competition, performance and the adaptation of scientific research to the choices and objectives of capital, as expressed in the EU anti-grassroots, anti-labour Lisbon Strategy.

'Free access' to the research infrastructure of every Member State provides an opportunity for the direct exploitation by capital of every research activity funded by the Member States, for the control and programming of research to be restricted to the mechanisms of the EU and the monopolies, for the idea of excellence based on market rather than scientific criteria to be promoted and for research to be concentrated in fewer and fewer research centres/companies.

The application of intellectual property criteria, the direct link between research and production via company specialists, the operation of centres according to private-sector financial criteria and the need for them to be funded by companies and sponsors brings research within the maximum profit rationale.

Research should be carried out solely with state funding. It should be fairly divided between scientific sectors and it should be oriented towards satisfying grassroots needs and improving the lives of the workers.

The report addresses the objectives of the 2007 Green Paper on the European Research Area: 'Developing world class research infrastructures'. On the mandate of the Council, the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) started developing a coordinated approach for activities in the field of research infrastructures in April 2002. Although it is indicated that the objective of the legal framework proposed is to facilitate the establishment of these infrastructures, experience has shown that it is generally the more developed countries which benefit most.

In our opinion, there is no doubt about the importance of simplifying the establishment of world class research infrastructures in Europe with the added value that these may represent in terms of improved quality of research and education, the ties established between public and private researchers and, in general, their positive socioeconomic impact.

However, we do not agree that the establishment of large-scale infrastructure should only allow the creation of more opportunities to achieve research excellence in certain areas, meaning that certain countries will be the main beneficiaries of this process. We want everyone to be able to benefit, even those who cannot set up centres of excellence, to ensure the democratisation of research in the most diverse areas. That is why we decided to abstain.

in writing. - (SV) There are many good reasons for simplifying the opportunities for cooperation on research across national borders within the EU. The proposal for a new common legal entity could be a step in this direction and the wordings of the proposal indicate that the Commission has a sound awareness of the importance of, and special working conditions involved in, research.

However, the June List is immovable in respect of the issue of tax policy. Control of tax bases is an absolutely fundamental national matter. I have therefore voted against the Commission's proposal and the report.

Research infrastructures are playing an increasingly important role in the advancement of knowledge and technology by offering unique research services to users in different countries.

One aspect which can be regarded as extremely important is that these services, by unlocking the research potential of every region in the EU, will attract young people to science, thereby playing a key role in creating an effective environment for research and innovation.

In less developed countries, however, and I am thinking of Romania too when I say this, limited resources and the complexity of the technical and organisational aspects present a major difficulty in terms of creating a European Research Infrastructure. As a result, given that these structures will only be able to evolve in developed countries, we must ensure that we are not going to witness a new brain-drain to these centres from inside the European Union.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the proposal for a Council regulation on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI), because I believe the Member States need to adopt a coordinated approach to developing a united policy in the field of research, given that the current national and international legislative framework is inadequate for the Union's ambitious targets for this sector.

I also think it is crucial to act to improve the interface between industry and academic research, which is still too weak in some EU countries, including Italy. Finally, this research, in my opinion, should be characterised by better interconnections between public and private researchers, because it can only herald real and balanced technological progress if all those involved work together.

in writing. - I voted in favour of the Morillon report amending the North-East Atlantic Convention. Nevertheless, I do not consider that the EU should be a contracting party to this Convention; rather I believe that the individual fishing nations of the North-East Atlantic should join Russia, Iceland and Norway as independent contracting parties.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Morillon's report on amendments to the Convention on multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries.

The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, created by the said Convention, plays a valuable role in the conservation and optimum utilisation of fisheries resources, and also seeks to encourage cooperation among the States party to the Convention.

I welcome the amendments made to the Convention as they establish procedures for settling disputes and will improve the management of fisheries resources. It is therefore a useful tool for developing the fisheries industry.

in writing. - With regard to the motion for an EP Resolution on a special place for children in the EU external action, I am in favour of the report as it refers to the rights of the most vulnerable in the society, namely children, but in line with this I do not agree with particular clauses which may condone abortion.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, I voted for the report. The future of children is a topic requiring and deserving of our attention. Children themselves are asking to be consulted and want their opinions and perspectives, their hopes and dreams to form part of efforts to build a world suited to them.

In pursuing the Millennium Development Goals we should pay greater attention, in all our strategies, initiatives and funding decisions, to the priorities set by children for children. As an MEP, I have had the opportunity to travel to developing countries and work with major non-profit organisations such as UNICEF, and I am aware that there are many urgent issues to be addressed.

If we want to achieve sustainable improvements for children we must focus on the main causes for infringement of their rights, but above all we must collaborate with all of the voluntary organisations that over the years have become well rooted in these areas that are so different from Europe in terms of their culture, economy, structure and politics.

in writing. - With regard to the motion for a European Parliament resolution on a special place for children in EU External Action, our delegation is in favour of the report as it refers to the rights of the most vulnerable in society, namely children. Although there was no direct reference to the promotion of abortion in the resolution, I want to make it clear that we do not support certain clauses which may condone abortion.

in writing. - (SV) I regard the EU as a union of values and am in favour of several of the wordings in the report which direct our attention to the vulnerable position of children around the world. It is clear that society must take responsibility for safeguarding the rights of children, for reducing child mortality in poor countries and for combating all forms of child exploitation.

However, the report also contains wordings that I find difficult to support, including the proposal to appoint a special EU representative with the responsibility to 'ensure visibility and leadership on children's rights'. The measures necessary to safeguard children's rights are, and must remain, a matter for the national parliaments to decide. If international cooperation is considered necessary, it should be sought within the framework of the United Nations, not the European Union.

In spite of these reservations, I have chosen to vote in favour of the report.

in writing. - I abstained in the final vote on this report because of concerns about the wording of paragraph 44. Overall, the thrust of this report is very good, highlighting as it does the need for special consideration to be given to children in EU external actions. Therefore I support the bulk of the paragraphs in this report, but have abstained because of concerns about paragraph 44.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Kinnock's report on a special place for children in EU external action.

Protecting children, whether within or outside of the Community, is undoubtedly an extremely important goal for the European Union. Over the years the Community institutions have attached increasing importance to the protection of children's rights, which must be considered during policy making. I therefore agree that children should be more involved when decisions are taken that affect them, starting at local level, where they have more opportunity to give their input on these issues.

Moreover, I would argue that in order to enable children to exercise their rights fully, action must be taken at global level on the following key areas: reducing poverty, combating discrimination and improving the level and quality of education. In order to achieve such ambitious objectives it will be essential to channel more intellectual and financial resources in this direction.

I have voted against this motion for a resolution.

One reason for doing so is because the Commission does not have general authority in the field of fundamental rights including the rights of the child under international agreements or through the jurisdiction of the ECJ (COM(2006) 367, Paragraph 1.3. page 3). The other reason is that the European Union intends to use this resolution to assume powers which it does not have.

The resolution does not recognise the sovereignty of developing nations in the field of ethics. It runs counter to paragraph 9 of the Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995, which states 'The implementation of this platform, including through national laws and the formulation of strategies, policies, programmes and development priorities, is the sovereign responsibility of each State, in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the significance of and full respect for various religious and ethical values, cultural backgrounds and philosophical convictions of individuals and their communities should contribute to the full enjoyment by women of their human rights in order to achieve equality, development and peace'.

Finally, the report also spotlights support for sexual and reproductive health, a term which has never been defined by the EU. The WHO and some non-governmental organisations use this term to support abortion. The resolution openly supports sexual and reproductive health in Article 44, without defining it or respecting the European Union's remit in this area. This is unacceptable.

in writing. - (LT) The universality of the current financial crisis means it will affect Member States regardless of their economic structure, therefore the rapporteur believes that we must re-evaluate the right of employees to be informed and consulted. This right, contrary to what is usually thought, is not a procedure which prevents a company from reacting to changes. The participating parties, employers, hired workers and government institutions must understand that this procedure is best able to help them forecast the economic and social consequences of changes in a company's environment.

For this reason all European employers and hired workers must know and recognise this European Social Model procedure. Any company operating within the territory of the European Union, which faces such a change in its economic environment, should use the same early warning and preparation measures as its competitors in the European Union, and this, incidentally, would encourage honest competition between companies in accordance with internal market rules.

in writing. - I support this Report which was initiated by the Socialist Group. The report is about worker's information and consultation rights. It calls on the Member States to better implement the 2002 framework directive, in particular, by:

introducing effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions

making sure that information is sent in due time so that workers' representatives can react before any decision by central management

extending workforce size thresholds regardless of age or type of employment contract to cover all workers

It also calls on the Commission to start infringement procedures against Member States that fail to implement this legislation and make sure that all information and consultation directives are coherent and where necessary propose a revision.

We must give a stronger voice to workers in the decision making process of their company. This is even more important during the times of crisis, in order to mitigate or avoid job losses.

During the debate on this report we tried to improve its defence of the rights of employees in all sectors. We therefore welcome the adoption of our proposal, which is now incorporated, as follows, into the European Parliament resolution:

'Guarantee that representatives of public administration employees and employees in the public and financial sector enjoy the same rights to information and consultation as are granted to other employees'.

We hope that Member States will take this into account, thereby guaranteeing all employees the same rights to information and consultation.

The report's vision is generally positive as it stresses the need to strengthen rights to information and consultation in the various Member States. We also hope that the European Commission will submit an evaluation report on the results achieved through the application of Directive 2002/14/EC as regards strengthening the social dialogue.

With regard to mergers and takeovers, the report could have gone further, along the lines of what has happened previously, particularly when our proposal was adopted. This aims to ensure that, throughout the process of restructuring companies, particularly industrial companies, employees' representatives have access to information and the possibility of intervening in the decision-making process, including the right of veto, in cases where companies do not comply with their contractual obligations.

in writing. - Conservatives are fully in support of the principles of consultation and the engagement of employees in the running of successful enterprises.

However, we do not believe that this is an appropriate area for intervention at EU level.

While we generally encourage the consistent and effective transposition of EU law, we nevertheless considered that it was appropriate to abstain on this vote.

in writing. - I support this report which calls for countries which have not done so to enforce a 2002 directive which seeks to strengthen the process of informing and consulting employees within the EU. This report urges the Commission to take immediate measures to guarantee effective transposition of the directive and to initiate infringement proceedings against those Member States which have failed to transpose the directive or which have not done so correctly. The report asks that workers representatives be allowed to scrutinise the information provided, that information be provided in good time before consultation, and that trade unions be involved in the process in order to consolidate social dialogue.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Cottigny's report on informing and consulting employees in the European Community.

Directive 2002/14/EC represented a big step forward in terms of the democratic involvement of employees in decisions concerning the businesses for which they work, particularly at a time like the present when economic difficulties drive many businesses to take critical decisions such as restructuring and relocating.

However, it has been rightly noted that the directive has not been transposed correctly in a number of countries, which have adopted more limited provisions. In fact it is important to harmonise legislation among Member States of the Union, in order that European businesses might be equipped with the same tools to pre-empt and prepare for changes to the economic environment in which they operate.

For this same reason, it would be advisable to extend the scope of the directive to all European SMEs, including the smallest in terms of the number of people employed, so that no one may be left at a disadvantage.

I support this initiative which supports employees, as informing and consulting employees are fundamental elements of a social market economy. This should not be regarded as a barrier to the development of business. In the present situation, which has been disrupted by the financial crisis, we need to strengthen the democratic right of employees to be involved in decision making, all the more because of the restructuring, mergers and relocation of production that are expected.

I believe that consulting employees is particularly important and justified in two areas: the work-life balance, and the protection of Sunday as a day of rest, which are fundamental pillars of the European Social Model and part of the European cultural heritage.

I personally supported the requirement for Sunday to be a day off with no compulsion to work submitted in written declaration 0009/2009, which is currently in the signing procedure in the European Parliament.

As for the work-life balance, this is something I recently addressed in my report on intergenerational solidarity. I quote, 'it is necessary to find a policy and means of combining "good jobs” with the domestic duties of women and men, and family planning, private life and career ambitions can only be balanced when the persons in question are able to freely make economic and social decisions and are supported by political and economic resolutions at a European and at a domestic level without this resulting in any disadvantage.'

Madam President, I agree with and wholeheartedly support Mrs Toia, who has highlighted the role of the social economy as a creator of quality jobs, as well as the strengthening of social, economic and regional cohesion, promoting active citizenship, solidarity and a vision of the economy based on democratic values that put people first and support sustainable development and technological innovation.

Being fully aware that the wealth and stability of a society depend on its diversity and that the social economy makes a significant contribution to this, thereby strengthening the European Social Model and providing its own business model that fosters stable and lasting growth in the social economy, I support the rapporteur's assertion that the social economy will reach its full potential only if it can benefit from suitable political, legislative and operational conditions and prerequisites.

In view of the fact that the Commission has already recognised the concept of the social economy many times, I would echo Mrs Toia's call for it to promote the social economy in its new policies and to defend the idea of a 'different approach to entrepreneurship' that is inherent to this sector, which is not driven mainly by the profit motive but by social benefit.

in writing. - (LT) The social economy helps to implement the four main goals of EU employment policy: to improve opportunities for residents to find work; to encourage enterprise, especially by creating local jobs; to improve the ability of companies and employees to adapt, in particular by modernising work organisation; and to strengthen equal opportunities policies, first of all by organising public policy measures, which help to reconcile work and family life. Social economy enterprises may provide great additional benefits for society, that is, involve people in the economic development of European society, increase business democracy with the participation of members and employees, as well as apply the principles of corporate social responsibility and local service provision.

It is important to link the social economy with the goals of social cohesion and active citizenship, taking into account the character of the local social economy and its role in encouraging active participation. The activities mentioned usually help to strengthen social relations, and these are particularly important in a world in which there is increasing social isolation and separation.

in writing. - I support this Report which calls on the Commission to promote the social economy in its new policies and to defend the social economy's concept of 'a different approach to entrepreneurship', which is not driven mainly by the profit motive but by social benefit, to ensure that the particular features of the social economy are properly taken into account in the framing of legislation. It also calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop a legal framework that recognise the social economy as a third sector as well as to set up clear rules for establishing which entities can legally operate as social economy enterprises.

Social economy enterprises are characterised by a form of enterprise that differs from the capital enterprise model. These are private businesses, independent of the public authorities, which meet the needs and demands of their members and the general interest. The social economy is comprised of cooperatives, mutual societies, associations, foundations and other enterprises and organisations that share the founding characteristics of the social economy.

Through our participation in the debate in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we made several contributions and tabled various proposals aimed at improving the rapporteur's initial position. We did not in every instance manage to get our opinions accepted, and the final resolution is therefore not entirely satisfactory.

However, we recognise the important role of various forms of social economy, the wealth of diversity in its institutions and also its specific characteristics, with differing needs. We are therefore arguing for support for them. However, we believe that this must not undermine the quality of public services, particularly in areas where the social economy also plays a significant role.

We recognise that the social economy can help to strengthen economic and social development and increase democratic participation, particularly if conditions exist for support and it is not used to undermine universal public services that are accessible to the whole population. It should be borne in mind that the social economy cannot replace the resources and public management of public services, but can be an important addition.

in writing. - My British Conservative colleagues and I are very supportive of the contribution made to the European economy by those organisations and enterprises which operate in the 'not-for-profit' sector. Conservatives have a strong belief, for example, in the benefits of communities working together, the work of charitable institutions and the voluntary sector in general, and have recently commissioned extensive research in this area.

There are, however, a number of recommendations for new European measures in this report which we are unable to accept.

We have therefore decided to abstain.

in writing. - (SV) We have today voted against Mrs Toias's own-initiative report on social economy. We agree that the social economy plays an important role in today's society, but we cannot support it being subject to different rules to other undertakings. It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between different types of undertaking and we do not believe that cooperatives and mutual societies should be favoured over small companies, for example, in respect of the possibilities for funding and other forms of aid.

in writing. - (HU) I would like to congratulate Mrs Toia on her report on the social economy that points out the key role of social economy enterprises in labour market integration, as these enterprises can greatly contribute to development and toward the realisation of social cohesion through their close connection with local communities. Furthermore, participants in the social economy can integrate manufacturing processes with the aims of social well-being in their activities, and they also promote self-management. Thus, the efficient functioning of the social economy, or the third sector, is especially important when it comes to disadvantaged people. This includes the question of the employment of the Roma population, who are facing unemployment to an unacceptable degree all across Europe.

For the efficient functioning of the social economy, an appropriate legal framework is needed, meaning the legal recognition of its components whether they be foundations, cooperatives or other associations. It is important to provide easier access to credit, tax relief, as well as incentives for these organisations. It would be advisable to consider the introduction of single Community financing for enterprises that are most effective for social cohesion.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Toia's report on the social economy.

I share the rapporteur's view that the social economy is becoming increasingly important in the current economic climate, since many needs are now arising that traditional economic operators are not able to meet. The social economy certainly plays an important role in realising the EU's aims such as improving employment and social cohesion and strengthening equal opportunities policies.

I also agree that the social economy should however engage with continually evolving market developments, in order to come up with effective strategies to meet its objectives. This may be achieved by setting up networks between the interested parties, as well as through greater cooperation and exchange of experiences at all levels, whether local, national or transnational.

The social economy subscribes to the fundamental principles of the European Social Model. Its basic features and values involve placing people and social objectives above capital, combining the interests of its members with the general good, and implementing a democratic control system, enforced by its members. Overall, it constitutes 10% of Europe's enterprises and 6% of the labour market.

The social economy, which is also referred to as the solidarity economy and the third sector, is a key instrument for attaining the Lisbon objectives. It possesses a significant potential for creating jobs and can effectively be employed to achieve the objective of economic growth.

The third sector plays a leading role in the European economy, combining profitability and solidarity.

In view of the financial crisis, which we have recently been observing with alarm, and vainly attempting to overcome, it is vitally important for us to ensure financial stability. Europeans dread losing their jobs and expect decent treatment. The European Union and the Member States must respond to real needs, create real opportunities and build new hopes, for the good of all Europeans.

Fostering the solidarity economy is one way of improving the situation.

I support the rapporteur's motion. The European Commission should not only promote the social economy, but should also undertake real action to develop a legal framework, within which entities such as cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations may operate, as well as drawing up a programme offering financial support, advice and training to existing enterprises and to those that are yet to be established.

in writing. - (FR) The social economy needs more than ever to have a specific legal framework and Mrs Toia's report is a step in the right direction.

The European Commission has withdrawn two proposals intended to put in place statutes for European mutual societies and associations. At a time when the cracks in the capitalist system are obvious, it is odd to withdraw proposals that promote alternative and effective types of economic organisation.

Founded on principles of mutualisation and interdependence, the social economy advocates a new concept of business practice that is more human and breaks with the capitalist approach of the simple pursuit of profit. It has been expanding successfully in recent years and today represents 10% of businesses and 6% of jobs in the European Union.

The Commission's attitude may be deplorable, but nonetheless we can feel pleased about Parliament's vote. The call for the characteristics of the social economy to be taken into account in the framing of European policies is to be welcomed, as is the demand for reactivation of the specific budget heading.

In the Resolution on Women and Poverty in the European Union, I mention and again emphasise the urgent need to support a new Europe based on the creative coexistence of cultures and mentalities and full respect for otherness. A Europe in which the concept of responsible freedom does not cover solely the free movement of capital and in which citizens pool their abilities irrespective of their social status. A Europe in which creativity is harnessed and the dignity of each citizen is protected for the common good. I also mention the new forms of poverty and social exclusion which should encourage creativity among those exposed to it.

Mrs Toia's report supports this approach. I welcome this and have voted in favour of the report.

As the values of the social market economy are generally in harmony with the universal aims of the EU as regards social inclusion, they should include fitting employment, specialist training and re-integration into the labour market. Social economies have shown that they can significantly improve the position of disadvantaged people. For example, the micro-loan companies introduced by the Nobel prize winner Muhammad Junus which improved the position and increased the influence of women by enabling them to improve their financial and family situations. Social innovation supports people with disabilities in finding their own solutions to their social problems, a work-life balance, equal opportunities for men and women, quality of family life and the ability to care for children, the elderly and the disabled.

in writing. - Mental ill health affects a staggering one in four people. Stigmatisation of and discrimination against those who suffer from mental ill health still persists. By the year 2020, depression is expected to be the highest ranking cause of disease in the developed world. Currently in the EU, some 58 000 citizens die from suicide each year, more than the annual deaths from road or homicides.

The need for information campaigns in schools and platforming from there into all areas of life is crucial. We as legislators, social workers and with responsibilities within our communities need to focus on early diagnosis and early intervention in order to combat the stigma.

What we have learned from research which is crucial for our services, is that mental health is strongly determined during the first five years of life. So promoting mental health in children is an investment for the future.

EU projects have already proved successful by addressing post-natal depression in mothers, improving parenting skills, organising home visits by nurses to assist future and new parents and providing resources for schools. Research shows that providing resources for schools for our young students can improve child development and reduce bullying, anxiety and depressive symptoms.

in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Conservatives have today voted in favour of the own-initiative report on mental health by Mrs Tzampazi. We respect the decision of the Member States to enter into the European Pact for Mental Health and Well-being referred to in the report. We see it as only natural that Member States should cooperate and exchange experience within this area on their own terms.

However, we are opposed to the wording in the report that calls for European guidelines for coverage of mental health by the media. We do not share the view that this should be carried out at European level, but would preserve a free and independent mass media.

in writing. - (EL) The restructuring of the mental health system being promoted serves the interests of capital, capitalist restructurings and the commercialisation of health, rather than the interests of patients. Most mental health services, at least those which generate a profit for capital, are being privatised within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy.

The very large majority of mental health patients in psychiatric hospitals and other welfare institutions face miserable and absolutely humiliating living conditions and there are huge shortcomings at the level of primary and secondary care.

Intervention in the health care sector by NGOs, sponsors and other 'philanthropists' other than private capital are the alibi for and, at the same time, the bridge to the full privatisation of services.

The victims, other than mental health patients, in the area of the private or so-called 'social' infrastructure are the workers, whose labour rights are being violated and who are in temporary work schemes under the constant threat of dismissal.

We support the abolition of the inhumane asylum-type form of psychiatric care applied by the bourgeois governments, the creation of an integrated network of mental health services within the framework of a single, public, free health and welfare system and the abolition of any commercial activity which does not meet the real needs not only of patients, but also of their families and all the people.

This report seeks to draw attention to mental health, which, as indicated by the rapporteur, affects our daily lives and is a contributory factor to well-being and social justice. Conversely, mental ill-health detracts from the quality of life of people and their families and has implications for the health, economic, educational, social security, penal and legal sectors.

There is now an ever-increasing awareness that there is no health without mental health. We need to consider some of the figures given by the report, particularly:

one in four people will experience some form of mental disorder at least once in their lives;

depression is one of the most common disorders - affecting one in six women in Europe - and it is estimated that, by 2020, it will be the most common illness in the developed world and the second cause of disability;

in the EU, some 59 000 suicides are committed every year, 90% of which are attributable to mental disorder;

vulnerable groups such as the unemployed, migrants, the disabled, people who suffer abuse, and users of psychoactive substances are more likely to suffer mental health problems.

A concerted approach to the challenges posed by mental health is very important and should be tackled with the same seriousness as physical health.

in writing. - (FR) I voted in favour of this report on mental health, which seeks to ensure that this challenge remains one of the political priorities of the European Union with regard to health.

This report calls for measures to prevent depression and suicide, to encourage mental health among young people and within the education system, in the workplace and among older people. It also stresses the need to combat stigmatisation and social exclusion. The text also invites the Commission to propose common indicators to improve the comparability of data and to facilitate the exchange of good practices and cooperation between Member States to promote mental health.

Finally, I am pleased that the report makes a clear distinction between neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, and mental illnesses. Alzheimer's disease is indeed a very particular type of illness which should not be treated in the same way as mental illnesses.

in writing. - The Tzampazi report deals with an important health issue. With one in four people experiencing a serious mental health problem at some point in their lives, virtually all of us will either experience a mental health problem or be close to someone who does. Mental illness still unfortunately carries a stigma, and it is imperative that Member States cooperate to eliminate that stigma and implement measures to ensure fair and equal treatment.

in writing. - WHO statistics indicate that there are currently 450 million people facing some kind of mental, behavioural or psychological problem, which represents 12% of the world's population.

Similarly, it is said that by 2010 depression will become the most common illness in modern society.

For example, in Romania, in just a single hospital, the 'Dr Alexandru Obregia' Clinical Psychiatric Hospital, more than 22 000 admissions were registered in 2008, with most cases involving depression and schizophrenia.

Those categories of people who are vulnerable and marginalised, such as the unemployed and immigrants, as well as the disabled or people who have suffered abuse, have a greater predisposition to depression in the current economic crisis.

Every country is facing the problem of a shortage of medical staff who are specialised in treating patients with mental disorders. The average figure for poor countries is 0.05 psychiatrists per 100 000 inhabitants. The problem is exacerbated in very many countries by the migration of specialist medical staff. I think that we will need, first and foremost, to deal with the issue of people's mental health in a much less superficial way and that all Member States will have to establish joint programmes to limit by every possible means the spread of this problem.

in writing. - I support this report which calls for Member States to develop awareness raising campaigns, to combat stigma and social exclusion and to improve mental health legislation. One in four people experience mental health problems at least once in their lives, yet there is still stigma attached to mental illness. This report codifies the basic principles, values and objectives of mental health policy which is necessary across Europe to promote better understanding.

in writing. - I voted in favour of this report and am particularly concerned that the current economic crisis is putting pressure on individuals and families and could result in an increase in mental health problems.

One person in four will experience some form of mental health disorder at least once in their lives.

Depression is one of the most common disorders, affecting one in six women in Europe. It is estimated that by 2020 depression will be the most common illness in the developed world. In the EU, some 59 000 suicides are committed each year, 90% of which are attributable to mental disorder.

We need to focus as much on mental health issues as we do on physical health.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome Mrs Tzampazi's report on mental health.

I agree with the rapporteur that it is essential to recognise the equal importance of mental and physical health as factors affecting quality of life. The pursuit of mental health must concern young people, adults and the elderly, with particular attention to the latter, who are at greater risk of degenerative diseases, and to women, who are more affected by depression.

In order to ensure that the targets in question are met, we must, in particular, put measures in place to combat social exclusion and marginalisation, which can contribute towards mental disorders, alongside measures to foster mental health in the workplace, where people are exposed to numerous pressures and stressful situations that can also trigger mental problems.

I welcome the result of this resolution. In the intermediate group on carers, we have often discussed the potential of the EU to participate in this policy whilst respecting the principles of subsidiarity and the primacy of decisions by the Member States. I support the call for cooperation among European Institutions at national, regional and local level, as well as among the social partners in the five priority areas of support for mental health. People should be protected from stigmatisation and social exclusion regardless of age, gender, ethnic origin and socio-economic group. Their human dignity is of primary importance, and for this reason more assistance and appropriate therapy should be made available to people with mental health problems, their families and their carers.

Mental health depends on several factors, and for this reason in my report on intergenerational solidarity I have emphasised the educational task of parents as regards future generations. I have also included help for elderly or disabled family members and the irreplaceable role of women and men as carers, which is necessary to enhance the common good. This should be recognised as such by sectoral policies. Women and men who voluntarily make the decision to care for sick family members should receive financial compensation. Breaking off a career to care for relatives with mental health problems should not have a negative impact on that career or on providing financially for one's family.

I call upon the Member States to support systems for taking time off work which will also provide a solution in such cases.

in writing. - (LT) Efficient energy use should be one of the most important cornerstones of the EU energy policy being created. By using energy more efficiently in Europe we would ensure greater security of supply. As no essential measures are being taken, over the next 20 - 30 years Europe's dependency on imported energy (currently 50% of our energy is imported) may reach 70%, and some Member States may become even more dependent. Smarter use of energy would reduce environmental pollution. More efficient energy use is one of the most effective ways of reducing the amount of gas emissions which cause the greenhouse effect and of ensuring that the great EU climate policy plans are implemented. Moreover, measures in this area have a great influence on the competitiveness of European industry and the opportunity to achieve the goals of the Lisbon Strategy. More efficient energy use may reduce the burden on the most vulnerable consumers and eradicate energy poverty.

Energy efficiency is vital if the EU is to reduce its energy bill. It is a valuable tool for reducing our dependence on oil.

Every nation has a great deal to gain from sharing the experiences of each Member State in this field, by comparing methodologies and strategies, albeit duly framed within the context of each region.

As regards Portugal, I regret that the measures that have been implemented have not been framed within a coherent and comprehensive action plan submitted to the Commission within the statutory period. This means that my country is one of the few not to have done so, and it thus prevents us from sharing solutions.

This first assessment of the national action plans is a point of reference for dialogue in the EU and a useful tool allowing the Member States to turn the spirit of energy efficiency into pragmatic measures that will produce the expected results by 2020.

Several Member States are developing action plans, but there are problems with defining the energy efficiency objectives. The proposal to put emphasis on effective implementation of measures focusing on energy efficiency, including the development of best practices and synergies, and better information and advice to end users, therefore seems appropriate. However, the support that must be given to those with greater financial difficulties should not be forgotten.

It also seems timely that, as part of the 2009 review of the action plans, the extent to which these cover all the possibilities for economising in the area of energy efficiency should be examined in detail, without calling into question the sovereignty of each Member State. This analysis should serve to monitor the difficulties and, if necessary, take appropriate support measures aimed at achieving the proposed objective for energy efficiency.

It also seems important to support the provisions which reinforce the exemplary role of the public sector and to recognise that increasing the energy efficiency of buildings has immense potential for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the fight against climate change, in terms both of the adaptation and of tackling the causes of climate change.

in writing. - The European Union wastes more than 20% of its energy due to inefficiency, representing about 400 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent) less energy, and would also represent a huge cut in emissions. I support this report because it highlights the need to be more efficient with energy. The report gives us a target of saving a 9% loss of energy by 2016.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Gyürk's report on follow-up of the energy efficiency national action plans.

Europe's energy supply problem is now common knowledge and is closely linked to the issue of energy efficiency. The energy wasted within the EU is a luxury we cannot afford; we must redress this as soon as possible so that we do not suffer even worse consequences in the future.

I agree that at present the national action plans have only been partially implemented, meaning that the results too have been mixed. I therefore believe a stronger commitment is needed from both the public and private sectors, as well as from individual citizens.

Given the key position of SMEs in Europe, it is essential to involve them in the action plans; since they are more affected by rising energy prices, they could also greatly benefit from improved energy efficiency and their contribution would go a long way towards reaching the overall targets.

in writing. - (PL) Rationalising energy consumption is an extremely important activity. The public needs to know that this is the most economical way of combating climate change. However, it is not only the environment that will benefit. The better the use we make of available energy, the less energy we need and, as a result, the less we need to rely on imported energy. In the current situation, where energy is used as a political tool, the importance of this fact cannot be underestimated.

We are employing energy ever more rationally. The consequences of this policy can be measured. Since 1990, energy production in the EU has risen by 40%, and revenue per capita by 1/3, while energy demand has risen by only 11%. More rational energy management has thus contributed to economic growth in all the Member States.

Energy efficiency and action to save energy should play a key role in both curtailing rising demand and in reducing the amount of fuel burned.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, making more use of green energy, and more economical energy management, all provide opportunities to reduce the extent to which we rely on imported gas and oil. The European economy must become less vulnerable to fluctuating energy prices and inflation, as well as to the risk inherent in the geopolitical location of these resources.

in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats have chosen to abstain. Of course, we have nothing against research and increased knowledge of fisheries and related sectors. However, we believe, above all, that the EU must put its words into action with regard to fisheries policy. The EU must act quickly to put an end to the problems of overfishing and threatened stocks. This has to be the starting point and focus of the common fisheries policy.

in writing. - One cannot underestimate the importance of paying special attention to the specific problems of fisheries and aquaculture. This is obvious in view of this sector's economic, social and political importance in the EU. In my country, Malta, both fishing and aquaculture are given special attention.

I fully concur with the Committee on Fisheries to recommend that, in the field of scientific marine research, priority be given not only to research to gain knowledge about the state of fish stocks but also to the commercial, economic and social aspects that determine fisheries management, since all these aspects are of crucial importance. We have to ensure that in the fields of fisheries and aquaculture, priority be given to applied research.

It is unfortunate that in the short term a clear conflict of interests exists between fishermen and scientists. In the long-term, objectives will be more compatible.

Research has to be undertaken in view of dwindling stocks. This will result in the disappearance of whole species. That is why it is imperative to have full cooperation in this field between scientists, fishermen and aquacultural operators.

in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Conservatives have today voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy. We share the basic premise of the report that fisheries policy should have a scientific basis and that a consensus between fishermen and researchers is the basis for a policy that is geared to sustainability.

However, we believe that the Seventh Framework Programme, with its priorities and restrictions, should remain in place.

in writing. - (SV) I have chosen to vote in favour of Mrs Miguelez Ramos's report on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy.

It is important to support increased investment in research into the consequences of the fisheries policy for fish stocks, ecosystems and biodiversity. I am therefore extremely critical of parts of the EU's fisheries policy. However, Mrs Miguelez Ramos emphasises the importance of political decisions being founded on science and long-term sustainability and not primarily on the fishing industry's short-term interests, and this is something that I see as a good thing.

I am, however, critical of possible interpretations of the report that could lead to more money being used to provide financial support to the European fishing industry and to increase this industry's status. A definite environmental perspective should permeate all research in the fisheries sector.

In December 2006 the European Parliament and the Council adopted an important decision on the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013). I congratulate myself on having, at that time, referred to the huge importance of guaranteeing more and better technological development in the area of fisheries and aquaculture.

I therefore believe that this own-initiative report is timely and is extremely important in terms of pursuing the objectives of the new reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP).

The CFP is among the Community policies most dependent on scientific research, given that the credibility of the measures adopted under the CFP rests on high-quality scientific opinions.

Furthermore, the technological development of vessels, fishing gear and engines may guarantee the sector's sustained development in the future, thus better protecting the environment and ensuring that fleets are more competitive.

I voted in favour of this report.

Scientific fisheries research is vital to ensure an appropriate fisheries management policy, which must take into account the social, environmental and economic aspects of this activity which is an essential source of food.

This research should not only assess the state of fish stocks and generate models allowing their development to be predicted, but should also help to improve fishing gear, vessels, working and safety conditions for fishermen, and the assessment of the impact of the various fisheries management systems/instruments on the employment and income of fishing communities.

However, in order for scientific fisheries research to meet the objectives set out and the needs indicated, it is vital that the necessary resources, including funding, are made available by the EU and by each Member State. That is why we support the recommendations in this respect in the report.

However, we believe that the development of scientific research absolutely demands that the value of the human resources involved be recognised. This means guaranteeing the rights of these professionals with regard to employment contracts - by combating the insecure employment relationships with which many of these researchers are faced - fair pay and access to social security schemes, among many other labour rights which workers enjoy.

in writing. - I voted in favour of Mrs Miguélez' report on fisheries research. I am opposed to the common fisheries policy and believe that fisheries management should be a competence of Europe's maritime nations working in cooperation with each other. That cooperation would require common actions in the field of science and research and this is an area within which the EU can give added value.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Miguélez Ramos on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy.

Wise and responsible utilisation of natural resources is increasingly important given the evident and unacceptable impoverishment of these resources over the years in terms of both quality and quantity.

In terms of the marine environment it is therefore essential to consider its protection and to adopt an approach based on a careful assessment of ecosystems, considering all activities that concern European seas in a holistic fashion. It is clear that this kind of approach can positively influence the balanced development of both the economy and society, as well as the overall competitiveness of the system in the medium to long term.

I thus believe it is vital for applied research in the fisheries sector to receive more funding, including funding from the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, as stipulated in the past by previous framework programmes. We should also facilitate the creation of a network of research centres that can share specialised infrastructure and exchange useful information and data.

in writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote in favour of Mrs Miguelez Ramos's report on applied research relating to the common fisheries policy.

It is important to support increased investment in research into the consequences of the fisheries policy for fish stocks, ecosystems and biodiversity. We are extremely critical of parts of the EU's fisheries policy on environmental grounds. However, Mrs Miguelez Ramos emphasises the importance of political decisions being founded on science and long-term sustainability and not primarily on the fishing industry's short-term interests, and this is something that we see as a good thing.

We are, however, critical of possible interpretations of the report that could lead to more money being used to provide financial support to the European fishing industry and to increase this industry's status. A definite environmental perspective should permeate all research in the fisheries sector to which extra resources are allocated.

in writing. - I voted in favour of the Cederschiöld report because I believe that the ability for European citizens to work and live in another Member State is an important right. I support the report's intention to facilitate the mobility of professionals and to guarantee the safety of consumers.

However, there are aspects of the Cederschiöld report that I do not fully support, such as the formulations regarding abolition of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services, which could be interpreted as a statement against collective agreements in the labour market. As regards the inclusion of health care professionals in the agreement, I see a risk of deregulation of the health care sector.

One of the fundamental freedoms of the EU's internal market is the freedom of movement, which allows us not only to travel freely within its borders, but also to undertake employment. The number of people availing themselves of this opportunity is continually growing, and the best example of this trend has been the mobility of workers from the new Member States, including Poland, in recent years. At present, around 2% of the EU's inhabitants live and work in a Member State other than their own.

Despite the fact that further barriers to a common, internal market have been removed, one of the principal obstacles faced by many people looking to work in a different Member State is the fear that qualifications obtained in other Member States will not be recognised. This concern has prompted today's report, which calls for the creation of a European professional card for service providers. Introducing such a card might facilitate mobility among the representatives of a number of professions, whilst simultaneously offering employers certainty as to the qualifications held by an employee in possession of such a card, and increasing not only the transparency of qualifications, but also their recognition and comparability.

I am therefore delighted that the European Parliament has adopted the report, which will most certainly have an impact on future debates on the creation of a European professional card.

in writing. - The ability for European citizens to work and live in another Member State is an important right and I support the intentions to facilitate the mobility of professionals and to guarantee the safety of consumers. However, there are aspects of the Cederschiöld report that I do not fully support, such as the formulations regarding abolition of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services, which could be interpreted as a statement against collective agreements in the labour market. Regarding the inclusion of health-care professionals in the agreement, I see a risk of deregulation of the healthcare sector. Therefore I abstained in the final vote on the report.

in writing. - The ability for European citizens to work and live in another Member State is an important right and I support the intentions to facilitate the mobility of professionals and to guarantee the safety of consumers. However, there are aspects of the Cederschiöld report that I do not fully support, such as the formulations regarding abolition of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services, which could be interpreted as a statement against collective agreements in the labour market. Regarding the inclusion of healthcare professionals in the agreement, I see a risk of deregulation of the healthcare sector. Therefore I abstained on final vote on the report.

I supported this initiative on the creation of a European professional card for service providers by voting for it as it represents a new way of ensuring the free movement of persons and services. We must encourage labour force migration and facilitate professional mobility as much as possible by speeding up the exchange of information between the original Member State and the host Member State.

According to the statistics on the complaints received by SOLVIT in 2007, 20% of them concerned the recognition of professional qualifications required to pursue a regulated profession. Creating a professional European card for service providers will remove some of the obstacles which are still obstructing European citizens who want to carry out gainful employment in a country other than their country of origin.

Furthermore, the information contained in this professional card will provide support to both employers and consumers, while also being beneficial to unregulated and non-harmonised professions.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Cederschiöld's report on the creation of a European professional card for service providers.

I did so because, in my opinion, despite the existence of Directive 2005/36/EC aimed at encouraging professional mobility, this market is still in essence a national one. More generally, workers' mobility in the European Union remains very low, constituting a barrier to the proper functioning of the internal market as well as the pursuit of the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs.

In light of this, I think it is crucial to establish European professional cards, which already exist in some cases, to cover all professions, including those that are not regulated. This will promote their recognition in Member States and thus increase opportunities for consumers to access foreign service providers more easily, thereby helping to increase integration in the European internal market.

in writing. - (LT) I believe that considering the painful past of commercial whaling and the recent increase in threats to whale populations - such as accidental whaling during fishing, collisions with boats, global climate change and acoustic pollution in oceans - in international forums the EU must consistently and harmoniously ensure the greatest protection of whales at global level. I would urge you to oppose any proposal which might be used to legalise any whaling for scientific purposes and commercial whaling on the coast and elsewhere or equally to allow international trade in whale products.

Despite efforts made and initiatives carried out by the IWC (International Whaling Commission), the situation with regard to numerous species of cetaceans is still worrying, as a large number are threatened with extinction. The whole issue of capturing whales for scientific purposes is still a 'cover' for the capture of these mammals, which is why the EU must intervene in terms of revising this international position.

Supporting the maintenance of the moratorium, opposing all proposals regarding new types of whaling, accepting that all whaling operations by IWC members should be brought under IWC control and supporting proposals aimed at ending 'scientific whaling' outside IWC control are some of the premises of this report that I consider to be essential.

Ensuring that the EU defines its political position on this subject and taking the lead in pursuing objectives relating to respect for biodiversity and the sustainable development of our planet are fundamental objectives which the EU must embrace.

I therefore voted in favour of this report.

in writing. - (SV) Like the rapporteur, I support the global moratorium for commercial whaling and the prohibition on international trade in whale products. There are also good reasons to seek an end to what is referred to as 'scientific whaling'.

When these issues are dealt with at international level, cooperation should be sought within the framework of the International Whaling Commission, not the EU.

In spite of this objection on grounds of principle, I have chosen to vote in favour of the report.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mrs Attwooll's report on Community action in relation to whaling.

I recognise the need to ban hunting of these endangered mammals, and that tough action is needed to ensure their survival. The existing moratorium on whaling has already produced good results in terms of increasing cetacean populations, although many key countries have not ratified it, meaning that whaling still goes on. I therefore welcome the call for the Commission to put forward new proposals to encourage an improvement in these results.

I also think the distinction made between commercial whaling and sustenance whaling still practiced by some indigenous peoples is important. The latter is rightly excluded from the moratorium, as is scientific research on whales, provided it takes account of the need to safeguard the species.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, I voted for the report. One of the main reasons for the EC's participation in the Observatory is the consideration that the Observatory's activities are helping to strengthen the competitiveness of the Community's audiovisual industry. For instance, the distribution of audiovisual goods is too often hampered by a lack of knowledge of the differences in national legislation. The Observatory helps to surmount these obstacles by providing expertise and systematic information to the operators concerned.

Unfortunately, however, often the legislation adopted by the European Community is not sufficiently publicised in Italy. For this reason, greater legislative transparency is needed, particularly on copyright and consumer protection law and fiscal and labour law. Lastly, it is vital to boost the Observatory's capacity for monitoring new developments such as new consumption models for audiovisual products, in particular videogames and the Internet.

in writing. - (LT) One of the main reasons for the European Community's participation in the activities of the Observatory is the precondition that by carrying out its work, the Observatory will help to strengthen the competitiveness of the Community's audiovisual industry. When distributing audiovisual goods there is often a problem of insufficient knowledge of differences in national legislation. By supplying related operators with technical expertise and specialist information, the Observatory helps to overcome this obstacle, and therefore the Community's participation should be viewed favourably. By specially purchasing information and advertising its publications, the Observatory has become the main source of economic and legal information covering various segments of the audiovisual industry, which is used by members in both the public and private sectors. Moreover, the Commission indicates that one of the Observatory's most valuable assets is its ability to set up and oversee scientific partner networks. These networks help to improve the quality of the Observatory's economic and legal analysis.

in writing. - I voted in favour of this report because the European Audiovisual Observatory is the only pan-European public service organisation dedicated to gathering and distributing information on the European audiovisual industry. It plays a vital role by providing detailed information on the sector to both public and private bodies in the field.

in writing. - (SV) I have voted against this report on Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory. It is for the Member States to become involved in and fund the European Audiovisual Observatory.

I voted in favour of the draft report on Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory, a project supported by the PPE-DE Group, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I believe that it is vital for us to have maximum transparency on the audiovisual market and to ensure that as many institutions as possible have access to relevant information in this field. This is the only way that we can have real competition and meet the economic growth targets set by the Lisbon Strategy.

Secondly, it seems important to me that the Observatory brings together both EU Member States and European states outside the Community, offering an important cohesion factor at the level of all European countries. This will enable us not only to interconnect the whole continent, but also facilitate the free movement of goods and services from the audiovisual sector, thereby considerably expanding this market.

However, we must take into account the advent and development of new technologies in order to boost the Observatory's effectiveness.

I personally support the application of the provisions which expand the Observatory's scope of activity in order to provide better coverage in this area and supply even more valuable information which is useful from an economic perspective, but also for understanding the European social and cultural context.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Belet's report on Community participation in the European Audiovisual Observatory.

In my view, the Observatory's work is very important; it is the only organisation dedicated to gathering and distributing information on the European audiovisual industry and therefore has the task of fostering new developments in the audiovisual field, which have become increasingly significant in recent years as digital technology is used more and more. In addition, through its studies and market analysis it provides valuable help for both policymakers and the audiovisual industry itself.

I also agree that the Observatory's activities should be further extended to include the study of fiscal and labour law regarding the audiovisual sector, thereby strengthening its cooperation with the Member States.

in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament are in favour of a generous immigration policy centred on people's needs. This meant that we ultimately chose to support Mr Fava's report because it sends a clear message to the effect that it is unacceptable for employers to exploit the vulnerable position of migrants with no documents and because it gives certain rights to those migrants with no documents that they currently lack in several of the EU's Member States. A prerequisite for our being able to vote in favour of the report was the Council's approval of Parliament's statement that Article 9 should not be precedential in any way in future, because this could make it more difficult to adopt common rules regarding the liability of contractors for their subcontractors.

It is clear to us that contractors need to be responsible for ensuring that their subcontractors observe any collective agreements that have been entered into. Employers must not be able to avoid applying labour law rules by utilising a complex chain of subcontractors. In this directive, however, liability is limited to the first subcontractor level, which is something that we do not consider acceptable. However, it is important to bear in mind that there is nothing to prevent individual Member States introducing more comprehensive legislation.

We are also opposed, on principle, to the exemption of private individuals who employ people without documents to work in their home from sanctions. We believe that people without documents are just as vulnerable, even if they are working for private individuals.

The directive which has just been voted on marks another step towards drafting and applying common regulations and measures required to regulate the situation of immigrants, especially employees from third countries staying illegally in the European Union.

The prospect of a better standard of living created by the possibility of finding a job is one of the key factors encouraging illegal immigration. At the same time, the consequences of the benefits gained by employers include the waste of public finances and distorted competition in the economic sector, depriving illegal workers of any social insurance or right to a pension.

This is the reason why the current directive relates to immigration policy and the sanctions are targeted at employers and not the workers coming from third countries. Particular attention must also be focused on nationals from the new Member States who, in spite of their status as European citizens, are still subject to transnational employment rules, thereby limiting free access for them to the old Member States' labour market.

Measures such as forcing employers to check third-country workers' residence permits and the financial and criminal penalties provided for employers highlight the efforts of the Community and Member States to coordinate their immigration and illegal labour policies. In fact, at a time when the European Union is facing an increased population decline, we must bear in mind that the solution is not to expel but regulate the situation of these workers. It was with this hope that I voted in favour of this report.

in writing. - (SV) I voted in favour of the report on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.

The proposal aims to prevent the exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals by employers and to strengthen the rights of workers. The person who is to be punished in the event of illegal employment is the employer who breaks the law, not the worker.

There is an absence of this type of legislation in certain countries within the EU. Other countries have legislation, but it is not implemented or observed. Common EU rules to prevent exploitation and the employment of illegally staying workers are therefore one way of raising the bar for many EU countries.

The proposal that we are voting on today has many shortcomings. If the decision had been mine, many parts of it would have been different. I would have liked to see greater protection for women involved in domestic work, for example. However, the alternative is to have no directive at all and therefore less protection for the four to eight million illegally staying third-country nationals who are currently working illegally within the EU and who, in their very vulnerable situation, are repeatedly exploited by employers.

While it is important to prevent illegal immigration and the exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals, we must also ensure that we increase the opportunities for people to settle and seek work within the EU on a legal basis. This is regulated in other directives that we, in the European Parliament, have been involved in negotiating over the last year.

in writing. - I support the Fava report on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country workers. Some unscrupulous employers are prepared to exploit these illegal workers with wage rates below the legal minimum, appalling conditions and long working hours. Where they do get caught they must face severe sanctions.

Yet the problem is that there is a vicious conspiracy to keep the exploitation hidden. The employers made the profits which they clearly do not wish to surrender while the workers, if they expose the exploitation, face deportation. If we are serious we must have a policy that gives amnesty to those who expose the exploiters. This would change the balance of power between employees and employers in a way that would virtually eliminate the problem.

in writing. - (FR) The general prohibition of employing unauthorised workers to deter illegal immigration can only be viewed favourably, just as sanctions against employers who resort to such workers - often to exploit them - can only be viewed favourably; such employers are nothing more than modern-day slave-traders.

I have, however, some reservations. Once again the European Union is making use of an issue relying on a Community legal basis, the first pillar, to extend its competences with regard to harmonisation of the criminal law of Member States. Ireland and the United Kingdom, who have asserted their right to opt out as recognised in the treaties, constitute a notable exception.

Also, events following strike action at a fashionable restaurant in Neuilly, a favourite of Mr Sarkozy, come to mind. Its management claims to be the victim of a labour market that is too rigid or protective of a workforce to whom they pay the legal minimum wage, and the greater opportunities for regularisation through working have been opened up. The directive will further strengthen these by making it possible for an illegal worker to regularise his status simply by reporting his employer.

I fear that in practice, in countries as lax as France in this respect, all this will do nothing to limit the influx of illegal immigration.

Regardless of the need to strengthen procedures aimed at combating the use of illegal workers, it is unacceptable that this directive punishes both the transgressor and the victims.

The aim of this directive is to complement the shameful 'Return' Directive - which the Socialist Government in Portugal has adopted - by applying sanctions to employers of illegally staying workers and laying down, as a general and automatic rule, the procedure for expelling these workers, with rare exceptions.

Expulsion should not be the alternative to over-exploitation of illegally staying migrant workers.

This directive does not adopt the principle of protecting migrant workers and safeguarding those who, being forced to work in unacceptable conditions, report them. In addition, the directive does not fully protect the rights of these workers as it states that 'when back payments are not made by the employer, Member States should not be obliged to fulfil this obligation'.

By not protecting the rights of illegally staying migrant workers, given that it does not provide in general for their regularisation and instead exposes them to the threat of expulsion, this directive will make these workers more vulnerable and encourage illegal work situations which are even more hidden.

This is yet another directive which lays bare the inhuman immigration policy of the EU, which is why we can only reject it.

in writing. - (FR) Although this report is interesting on a number of points and sketches out a battle plan against illegal immigration, it contains some enormous stumbling-blocks. There are no specific measures to protect the internal and external borders of the Union. There are no measures in relation to the policy of expelling illegal immigrants back to their country of origin. It simply defines a person who has entered the territory of the Union illegally as an illegal immigrant who has rights.

In reality, European institutions are embarrassed by this issue. On the one hand, in the name of security and justice, they are demanding a minimum of European rules to curb illegal immigration and, on the other, in the name of their rules that have become dogma - those of ultraliberalism and of freedom of movement - they want the territory of the Union to become a place for receiving and attracting millions of prospective immigrants.

We reject this philosophy that is dangerous for the people and nations of Europe. We reassert their right to defend themselves and to remain themselves.

It is a known fact that policies on granting visas and strict immigration regulations have only ever been successful to a small degree in curbing illegal immigration. If anything, they have only helped the development of illegal immigrant trafficking networks.

The proposal to punish employers who use illegal citizens is timely. However, we must take care that it does not lose its effectiveness as the reasons why people migrate remain the same, regardless of whether penalties are introduced against the employers or not. Indeed, the controls being proposed will force immigrants without papers to choose even worse jobs, paying even lower salaries, especially in the current economic crisis.

It is obvious that these measures only offer a partial, incomplete solution to illegal immigration and black labour. EU Member States must start from now to follow a common, consistent policy on the issue of illegal immigration.

in writing. - I support this report which will crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants within Europe. One of the factors encouraging illegal immigrants to enter the EU is the prospect of finding work. I support this legislation because it will create a fairer system for legitimate European workers.

in writing. - (DE) The prospect of finding work in Europe is attractive for third-country nationals for very understandable reasons. In times of crisis, however, we need to pay particular attention to who gets the ever scarcer jobs in order to prevent social discrepancies from arising as well. In my opinion, therefore, it is important to impose sanctions on employers who do not follow the rules. In these unsettled times, illegal labour cannot be tolerated, and we must start with those that are within reach locally and where sanctions will also have an effect. This report is thus an attempt to tackle this problem more forcefully, because the in-flow of migrant workers is not going to decrease, particularly during the crisis.

Based on a simple view of this issue, there are two reasons why there are illegal immigrants: the precarious situation in the country of origin and labour market demand in other countries.

Whereas, in regard to the first problem, we have funds for development and cooperation programmes supported by the EU and which are obviously still not sufficient, in the case of the second matter, the problem has to date been dealt with in different ways at Member State level. However, standard provisions are needed at Community level for punishing employers as, in many cases, this is a transnational issue, involving human trafficking networks which exploit the vulnerability of illegal immigrants.

I am pleased that the issue of employers who benefit at the expense of illegal immigrants has been raised for discussion by the European Parliament. I am convinced that applying this directive will improve practical employment conditions within the Community.

Whereas until now, countries' policies have focused more on how to prevent illegal immigrants gaining access to the labour market, from now on, we are tackling the problem at its root.

At the same time, however, we must not interpret this report as meaning that the EU's borders are going to be closed. Far from it, we need to keep the labour market borders open, with the proviso that the flow of workers is legal and suited to the relevant state's needs.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, combating illegal immigration should, in my view, be a priority for the European Union.

I believe that it is necessary to re-establish legal conditions in the labour market as a matter of principle, whether in relation to European citizens or citizens from third countries who sometimes work without any minimum safety conditions at their workplace.

For this reason I voted in favour of Mr Fava's report providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. I feel that these types of measures are in line with the desire to build a more transparent, fair and homogenous single European labour market.

I agree with the rapporteur that employers who exploit immigrants should be punished with financial, administrative and, in some cases, criminal penalties commensurate with the extent and the severity of the exploitation, and that Member States must monitor at-risk workplaces and introduce mechanisms to facilitate the reporting of cases of exploitation in the underground economy. We must remember that growth targets for unemployment and the economy in general can only be reached by encouraging total compliance with labour laws.

in writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote in favour of the report on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.

The proposal aims to prevent the exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals by employers and to strengthen the rights of workers. The person who is to be punished in the event of illegal employment is the employer who breaks the law, not the worker.

There is an absence of this type of legislation in certain countries within the EU. Other countries have legislation, but it is not implemented or observed. Common EU rules to prevent exploitation and the employment of illegally staying workers are therefore one way of raising the bar for many EU countries.

The proposal that we are voting on today has many shortcomings. If the decision had been ours, many parts of it would have been different. We would have liked to see greater protection for women involved in domestic work, for example. However, the alternative is to have no directive at all and therefore less protection for the four to eight million illegally staying third-country nationals who are currently working illegally within the EU and who, in their very vulnerable situation, are repeatedly exploited by employers.

While it is important to prevent illegal immigration and the exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals, we must also ensure that we increase the opportunities for people to settle and seek work within the EU on a legal basis. This is regulated in other directives that we, in the European Parliament, have been involved in negotiating over the last year.

in writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote in favour of the report on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.

The proposal aims to prevent the exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals by employers and to strengthen the rights of workers. The person who is to be punished in the event of illegal employment is the employer who breaks the law, not the worker.

There is an absence of this type of legislation in certain countries within the EU. Other countries have legislation, but it is not implemented or observed. Common EU rules to prevent exploitation and the employment of illegally staying workers are therefore one way of raising the bar for many EU countries.

The proposal that we are voting on today has many shortcomings. If the decision had been ours, many parts of it would have been different. We would have liked to see greater protection for women involved in domestic work, for example. However, the alternative is to have no directive at all and therefore less protection for the four to eight million illegally staying third-country nationals that are currently working illegally within the EU and who, in their very vulnerable situation, are repeatedly exploited by employers.

While it is important to prevent illegal immigration and the exploitation of illegally staying third-country nationals, we must also ensure that we increase the opportunities for people to settle and seek work within the EU on a legal basis. This is regulated in other directives that the European Parliament has been involved in negotiating over the last year.

The report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning crop statistics comes with a number of supplementary elements required to improve the application of the new provisions.

Statistics play a vital role in drafting Community policies because they provide a precise picture of market supply and demand, and this information helps achieve an economic balance. At the same time, standard regulations at European level must not become a bureaucratic burden but ensure that there is a constant exchange of information between Member States in a simple, effective manner.

For this reason, I welcome the Commission's proposal and the additions proposed by the rapporteur as they provide a new phase in the creation of a simple, flexible legal framework which complies with EU principles. The impact of these regulations on European agriculture will establish a greater capacity to respond to the problems which can crop up in the market, such as overproduction, which can lead to falling prices.

in writing. - (SV) I have voted in favour of this report, partly because the Commission's proposal aims to simplify the current legislation and partly because agricultural statistics are nevertheless necessary in the present circumstances, with the common agricultural policy.

I would like to stress that my 'yes' vote for this report is not an expression of support for the common agricultural policy itself.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome Mrs Jeggle's work and I voted in favour of her report on the need to compile crop statistics.

I share the opinion of the rapporteur and the Commission that statistics on crops are essential for the evaluation of the common agricultural policy and the management of EU markets in these goods.

I am pleased that Mrs Jeggle has emphasised that additional costs and burdens should remain within reasonable limits, so that the benefits of simplified bureaucracy and better quality legislation are not offset by overly high costs associated with the proposed measures.

I believe that the report fits perfectly with the action programme for reducing administrative burdens in the European Union set out in the Communication of 24 January 2007 and, as I said, it therefore has my support.

As I have already stated when I expressed my support for the report on promoting agricultural products on the Community market and in third countries, wine is one of the Community's products which enjoys a dominant position on the global market and must assume a key role in Europe's commercial strategy.

In order to provide better support for the different types of wines, not only traditional types but also those referred to in the present report, we need however simple, flexible regulations which comply with European principles for promoting quality. At the same time, we need better cooperation between Member States, European institutions, producers, as well as producer and distributor organisations.

I welcome the European Commission's proposal and the report presented by our fellow Member, József Szájer, as we will therefore have standard, simplified rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails. These products are renowned worldwide and, thanks to the new provisions, we will successfully achieve a better position on the market for them, while supporting Community producers and distributors.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Szájer's report on aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails.

I believe that the wine industry is very important for the EU economy, since a number of countries, including Italy, France and Spain, rank among the world's leading wine producers and export their celebrated products all over the world. I therefore welcome the proposal to lay down clear rules for the definition of the aforesaid categories of wine-based products, so that the high quality of European produce may always be recognised and identified.

in writing. - (SV) We Social Democrats in the European Parliament have chosen to vote in favour of the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax. However, we would like to stress that we do not consider reduced rates of value added tax to be a solution to the problem of a 'black' economy.

in writing. - Today we voted on the report on reduced rates of VAT. These amendments highlight that reduced VAT rates would have a positive impact in reshaping many service sectors as they would reduce the level of undeclared work.

With regard to the housing sector, it is possible to apply reduced VAT rates to renovation and repair work aimed at increased energy savings and efficiency.

The proposal goes back to the summer of 2008 and proposes the addition of certain other locally supplied services, including restaurant services.

In addition to housing and restaurant catering services, labour-intensive services will be permanently included in the list of services eligible for reduced rates. The category is broadened to include other locally supplied services of similar nature such as: minor repairs of tangible movable goods, including bikes, shoes, clothes, computers, watches; cleaning and maintenance services for all these goods; domestic care services; all personal care services, including hairdressing, beauty services, gardening services; renovation and maintenance services provided for places of worship and cultural heritage and historical monuments.

Also, the category of pharmaceutical products is widened to cover all absorbent hygiene products, particularly children's nappies and medical equipment for the disabled.

Printed books, including audio-books, under current legislation may also be subject to reduced rates.

The fostering of small- and medium-sized enterprises - which comprise 99% of Europe's companies, which are responsible for more than 100 million jobs and which, in the last eight years alone, have created 8 million jobs - is central to the Small Business Act.

The current proposal exemplifies the measures taken. It allows certain companies to benefit from a reduced rate of VAT, while at the same time trying to tackle the underground labour market and call for the creation of legitimate companies.

While keen to facilitate the operation of SMEs, we must not jeopardise the fundamental principles of the EU. In this case, the single market is protected as the rules in this document will apply to companies which operate only locally, thus avoiding market distortions.

For all these reasons I voted in favour of this report, which I regard as a perfect example of the policies to be adopted by the European Parliament in the economic field.

in writing. - (FR) For the first time I am happy to vote for a European directive on taxation. For a while, until there is a more general revision which could call everything into question, the most glaring aberrations in this directive will disappear. Locally supplied services, such as restaurants, which in any case do not have anything to do with the problems of the internal market and distortion of competition, and labour-intensive services will be able to benefit from a reduced rate.

The ball is now in the governments' court. First of all in the Council, which has not yet made its decision. Then at national level, where we are watching carefully the manner and speed with which our people in power will keep their electoral promises.

I am afraid, however, that this good news may have its roots in the crisis; the fall in the spending power of Europeans and especially the imminence of the European elections. The proper solution would have been to bring an end once and for all to tax harmonisation, for which there is still no justification.

in writing. - I voted in favour of this report which will allow Britain to reduce VAT rates for a new category of goods and services including restaurant services and other local services. I support the report because it gives smaller companies the opportunity to attract better custom. The report represents positive action in combating the recession by making smaller, local companies more attractive to customers.

in writing. - Conservatives have always argued that taxation is a fundamental issue of sovereignty and therefore any move to transfer powers in this area from the European Union to the Member States is to be welcomed. This measure, which allows Member States to apply a lower rate of VAT to a number of locally provided and labour intensive services, is a positive example of the application of the principle of subsidiarity, and we encourage the Commission to move further in this direction. In particular, we would have liked the reduced rate to have been extended to locally produced beers and ciders, as this would help pubs to survive when they are suffering from high levels of duty.

We stress that it is for Member States to decide when it is appropriate to apply these measures. The recent reduction of the general rate of VAT in the United Kingdom has been an expensive exercise which has produced little effect, when other measures such as much bigger but targeted reductions in VAT, as permitted by this proposal, or increased personal income tax allowances, would have been more beneficial both to individuals and to the economy as a whole.

in writing. - (DA) The Danish Social Democratic Members of the European Parliament, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Britta Thomsen, Christel Schaldemose, Dan Jørgensen and Ole Christensen, have abstained from the vote on Mrs van den Burg's report on reduced rates of value added tax. It is the view of our delegation that a reduction in VAT in Denmark would have an extremely modest effect on employment combined with a problematic loss of revenue for the state. In view of the current economic crisis, there may, however, be more of a need in other EU Member States to utilise the instrument of VAT as one element of their national crisis packages and thus strengthen employment in sectors that have been badly affected. We already have very different rates of VAT, and therefore we do not want to prevent other EU Member States from taking this path. It could also have a positive effect on demand in the Danish economy.

in writing. - The European Parliamentary Labour Party voted in favour of this report. We consider that VAT reduction can make a contribution to the maintenance of certain jobs and allow for the creation of others. Each country has submitted experiences which have allowed for some belief in the fact that local conditions need local reactions; this is true of a tax such as VAT.

In the UK a general reduction in VAT has led to a fall in inflation of 1% and an injection into the economy of GBP 12 billion.

in writing. - Since 11 September 2001, America has led a global war on terror. Sadly, the absolutist culture of human rights in the EU and the political cowardice of many of its senior politicians have obliged the United States to assume a grossly disproportionate responsibility for tackling a threat that knows no boundaries.

Islamist jihadi extremists pose a threat to our very way of life. Politicians have a responsibility to protect the public against this unprecedented and existentialist danger. I am glad that some countries in the EU saw fit to cooperate with the CIA, our American allies. I cannot understand why some countries put the human rights of terrorists over the protection of their own citizens and refused to cooperate with the CIA. Once again the anti-Americanism so prevalent in the EU put its citizens' safety in jeopardy.

This whole issue shows the importance of each Member State retaining the right to act independently in matters of foreign policy and intelligence.

I voted against this report.

In 2007, as a result of the investigation conducted by the Committee which presided over this issue, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which contained dozens of recommendations aimed at preventing a repetition of these illegal activities.

It is now engaged in a process of assessing the application of those recommendations, using a methodology which I proposed. The President of the European Parliament recently sent a formal request for cooperation to the presidents of the national parliaments and a hearing will be held shortly.

Adopting a new resolution before this process is completed would be rash and would lead to mistakes: the mistake of speaking too soon when there is nothing new to say; the mistake of yielding to the desire to adopt a resolution in order to affect people or make domestic policy; and the mistake of starting off by criticising President Obama when we should be working to boost transatlantic cooperation by taking advantage of the change in the US administration.

I therefore cannot vote in favour of this motion for a resolution. I also cannot vote against a text which reiterates basic values of respect for human rights, the rule of law and the search for truth. That is why I will abstain.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, my decision to vote against the motion for a resolution was based on the fact that it reiterates the same ideas that my group opposed in the final vote of the temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (TDIP). I give this opinion as coordinator of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats for the former TDIP temporary committee and for the subsequent working group within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

The aforesaid committee decided to send a questionnaire to each Member State in order to clarify what developments had taken place following the European Parliament's investigation. To date however, as you are well aware, no response has been received to these questionnaires, even after written reminders were sent.

I do not therefore think it wise to adopt a new text claiming to make new conclusions when in reality we have nothing new to make public. I have the feeling this is yet another electoral stunt by the Left, rather than an attempt to see justice.

in writing. - I did vote for keeping the reference to Portugal, including the reference to the responsibilities of the Barroso Government, despite the fact that I think that the text of that paragraph could be more accurate and mention 'new factual information' and not just 'press information'.

Without playing down important aspects with which we clearly disagree, not to mention its flagrant omissions and contradictions, this resolution:

'denounces the lack of action taken so far ... to shed light on the extraordinary renditions programme';

'calls on the Member States, the Commission and the Council ... to assist in ascertaining the truth by opening inquiries or collaborating with the competent bodies, ... and by ensuring effective parliamentary scrutiny of the action of secret services';

'calls on the European Union, the Member States and the US authorities to investigate and fully clarify the abuses and violations of international and national law on human rights, fundamental freedoms, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearance and the right to a fair trial committed in connection with the "war against terror”, so as to establish responsibility ... and to ensure that such violations will not recur in the future'.

However, the resolution does not demystify or denounce the fundamental element, namely the so-called 'fight against terror', nor does it condemn what it terms the 'limited maintenance of rendition schemes and of secret detention facilities' by the US.

We need clear condemnation and a search for the truth, as in fact the Portuguese Communist Party proposed in the Portuguese Parliament and as the Portuguese Socialist, Social Democrat and Popular Parties rejected.

in writing. - Even though there are contentious elements in the CIA resolution, like welcoming the EU-US agreements on judicial cooperation and extradition, I still voted in favour of the resolution to support human rights and the attempt to shed light on the extraordinary renditions programme.

in writing. - The resolution adopted by this House reaffirms that, according to Article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture, any victim of an act of torture has an enforceable right to redress and to fair and adequate compensation. It is telling that the UK Conservative Members of this House voted against the resolution. It is equally telling that the UK Labour Members abstained. The morally bankrupt Labour Government has led the UK into an illegal war and has allowed its airports to be used for extraordinary rendition flights. The votes of the Unionist MEPs today adds further to this shame.

in writing. - Even though there are elements in the CIA resolution such as welcoming the EU-US agreements on judicial cooperation and extradition which I am very critical of, I still voted in favour of the resolution, to support human rights and the attempt to shed light on the extraordinary renditions programme.

in writing. - (SV) I have previously expressed my disgust with regard to the information that has come to light in respect of the treatment of people who are suspected, but not convicted, of crimes and who have been extradited and in some cases kidnapped by the authorities of various states. This is totally unacceptable and contravenes the principles of modern democracy. This matter has still not been cleared up and therefore it is good that these incidents are being brought to light.

Parliament's resolution contains many positive elements, but I believe that the inclusion of irrelevant wordings makes its foreign policy ambitions far too high. This shifts the focus from the main issue, which is that of the suspected violations of human rights. That is very unfortunate. I have therefore voted against this motion for a resolution.

I voted against the motion for a resolution on the alleged CIA activities involving the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in some European countries as the purpose of this resolution is unfounded.

Firstly, I would like to emphasise that, from a procedural perspective, the political groups which signed this resolution ought to have waited for the replies from the national parliaments to the letter from President Pöttering dated 9 February 2009, which requested details of the measures taken by Member States following the February 2007 resolution on this matter.

Secondly, it is completely unproductive getting ourselves bogged down again in suspicions and accusations against certain Member States, brought about by the executive order passed by President Obama in January 2009, requesting the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre within one year.

As regards Romania, Commissioner Barrot mentioned in his speech during the last part-session that he closely monitored the measures which the Romanian authorities took during this investigation. I believe that Romania has entirely demonstrated good will in its cooperation and has supplied the Commission and European Parliament with all the necessary information, as well as with all the results of the investigations carried out on this matter.

I would also like this time, as on the occasion of the Strasbourg part-session held from 2 to 5 February, to reaffirm my opposition to the resolution on the alleged CIA activities involving the transportation and illegal detention of alleged terrorists on the territory of certain European countries.

The accusations levelled against Romania, according to which it had been involved in the terrorist suspect transfer programme, are unfounded. It is therefore unacceptable for Romania's name to be freely bandied about as part of the discussion on alleged CIA prisons.

So far, only accusations have been levelled at us without any credible proof to back them up. Indeed, the Martin report is the best example of this approach as the accusations it makes against Romania are both controversial and unfounded.

I think that the reasoning behind a number of such serious accusations is part of the same commitment assumed by European governments to respect and promote the fundamental freedoms, rights and values of the European Union on behalf of which the draft resolution has been initiated.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I intend to use my vote to support the motion for a resolution on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners. I believe it is extremely important to implement in full the recommendations made by this Parliament in the report by the temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners because the existence of secret detention centres, enforced disappearances and the torture of detainees are not only a flagrant violation of international human rights law, the UN Convention on Torture, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights but also cannot be tolerated in an international system governed by democracy and the rule of law.

For this reason I welcome the resolution, which urges all Member States to bring to light the abuse committed in this context in the name of the war on terror, since a genuine and effective war on terror cannot be fought by breaching the very same human rights and fundamental freedoms it is supposed to defend.

in writing. - EPLP MEPs believe that this resolution contains a number of points of merit. We have consistently supported the drafting of this resolution and approved the joint resolution as tabled on behalf of four European Parliamentary groups.

However, we cannot support this Resolution if it includes unproven accusations which have not yet been judged by the relevant authorities. Unfortunately, as amended, this resolution is no longer based on proven facts and the EPLP regretfully has no option but to abstain.

I refrained from voting, owing to the fact that I am unfamiliar with the details of the amendments to the said motion for a resolution.

in writing. - Even though there are contentious elements in the CIA resolution, like welcoming the EU-US agreements on judicial cooperation and extradition, I still voted in favour of the resolution to support human rights and the attempt to shed light on the extraordinary renditions programme.

in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I supported Mr Saryusz-Wolski's report. I am pleased that the report focuses primarily of the events of 2008, which put the effectiveness of the EU's foreign policy to the test. Once again, we have ascertained that Europe's strength lies in concerted action. The same applies to European institutions. They must work together, in the same way as the Member States do, in order for Europe to speak with one voice on the international stage.

in writing. - I support the retention of the national veto in matters of foreign affairs and I am increasingly concerned about the growing role of the EU on the world stage despite the fact that the Lisbon treaty has not been ratified.

Nevertheless, I accept that there are some areas in which the Union can act together to express its will, and one such area is Taiwan. The council recently voiced its support for Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations. I support this policy because I think it is unacceptable to deny the 23 million people of Taiwan a voice on the international stage.

Taiwan is a prosperous democracy with a top-quality public health system. I question the morality of excluding Taiwan from the benefits that would undoubtedly accrue from being granted observer status at the World Health Assembly. Furthermore, I hope the EU institutions can together make progress on this issue before the next WHA meeting in May.

I welcome the report's positive comments about the improvement in cross-straits relations.

I therefore voted to abstain on this report.

I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, for the excellent report he presented. I feel that we must focus particular attention on the Eastern Partnership. In my view, the Eastern Partnership must have a clear institutional structure, with parliamentary and intergovernmental dimensions, as well as adequate technical and financial bodies.

As regards the intergovernmental dimension, I feel that we need to establish a clear timetable of meetings at ministerial level involving the 27 Member States with their counterparts from the Eastern Partnership countries. Obviously, in the case of Belarus, the EU Council's decision to resume negotiations with both the government in Minsk and with all the democratic forces in this country must be supported. Belarus's authoritarian regime must understand that the EU stipulates as a firm condition of any cooperation the need to respect democratic principles and human rights.

I feel that the Eastern Partnership's parliamentary dimension is important because it ensures this project's democratic legitimacy. The meetings of the future parliamentary assembly must contribute to the adoption of this project, both by the parties in power and the opposition forces which may offer an alternative government, based on democratic logic.

in writing. - (EL) The group of the Communist Party of Greece in the European Parliament voted against the annual report on the application of the EU common foreign and security policy (CFSP) in 2007.

The report insultingly calls for the international political and military presence of the EU - in other words its imperialist interventions throughout the world - to be strengthened. It uses problems generated by capitalist development, such as climate change and energy questions, as new pretexts for its imperialist interventionism and to improve its position over its global imperialist competitors.

At the same time, it seeks closer and deeper cooperation with the USA, with a view to taking a joint approach to grassroots reactions and resistance to their imperialist rule.

The report defends the EU's imperialist action in various areas of the world, such as the Western Balkans, where it has already established the EULEX police/judicial force in Kosovo, the Middle East as a whole, Georgia, Africa and elsewhere, and is looking to become even stronger.

Year on year, the EU is becoming more aggressive to and dangerous for the people, who must fight a more decisive and coordinated fight to overturn this policy, together with the US and NATO policy and the imperialist order of things overall.

in writing. - This report criticises the human rights situation in China, but it might also have mentioned the human rights situation in Taiwan, which is exemplary. Taiwan's prosperous democracy, strengthened by constitutional protections and the rule of law, stands in stark contrast to the totalitarian communist dictatorship in China

I echo the report's words about the improvement in cross-straits relations. President Ma Ying-jeou is to be congratulated for bringing this about.

The CFSP is inevitably limited in scope while it remains subject to national veto. Nevertheless, I welcome the Council's recent expression of support for Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations. I hope the Council and the other institutions will endorse Taiwan's ambition to be admitted as an observer to the World Health Assembly. It is morally wrong for Taiwan to be excluded from a public health forum simply as a result of pressure from China.

I therefore voted to approve this report.

Just like two others debated and adopted in this sitting, this report is also very ambitious.

Leaving aside the rhetoric, the report believes that 'the coming months will provide a unique opportunity for the EU to work out a new transatlantic agenda with the new US administration, covering strategic issues of common concern, such as new ... global governance', particularly bearing in mind the forthcoming NATO summit and G20 meeting, both planned for April.

As a matter of fact, the report and the resolution constitute an outline of the objectives, priorities and interests of the EU's major powers, whether in the Balkans (Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina), Eastern Europe (Caucasus, Black Sea, Belarus, Georgia, Russia), Middle East (Gaza Strip, Iraq), Mediterranean, Central Asia (Afghanistan, Iran), Africa (Chad, Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo), Asia (China) or Latin America.

Its content ranges from the most blatant violations of international law, interference and interventionism to poorly concealed ambitions of political and economic control by the EU's major powers.

That is the real content and meaning of the 'EU's role in the world' that has been announced: in other words, its ambition to share control of areas of influence, markets and natural resources with the US and Japan.

in writing. - (PL) I gave Mr Jacek Sarysz-Wolski's report, on the main features of the common foreign and security policy, my unequivocal support. The Council's report for 2007 provides a fitting description of these issues. It would be difficult not to agree that the financial resources earmarked for implementing the CFSP are far from sufficient, particularly in circumstances involving aggressive terrorist activity. The right to live in peace and with a sense of security is an EU priority. That security has multiple dimensions: political, military, energy, food, and so on. Cooperation with other countries plays an enormous role in this field. The particular importance of transatlantic relations with the USA and Canada should be acknowledged, as should the closer cooperation between the EU and NATO. The Eastern Partnership may be acknowledged as very promising. In this regard, relations with Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus are worthy of note. The EU can also exert a positive influence on the situation in the Middle East. The recent conflict in the Gaza Strip has demonstrated the dramatic circumstances in which the people of that region live, be they Palestinian or Jewish.

In the field of security, the EU's actions will only be effective if we speak and act as one. Focusing on individual interests can only bring temporary benefits. Moreover, universal solidarity requires particular respect for fundamental values and human rights, as well as the dignity and freedom to which every individual is entitled. The role that suitable diplomatic efforts, including the use of so-called preventive diplomacy, can play in this field is by no means a minor one.

As apparent from the debate and the report on the common foreign and security policy, the European Union's ambition in terms of foreign policy is huge. It is clearly apparent from the facts that the EU's role in the world does not match up to this ambition. However, not only is its role growing, but in the vast majority of cases the Member States are in agreement and act in cooperation. The sharing of values, principles and priorities between the 27 Member States of the European Union is much more widespread than may be suggested by the times of disagreement. This is exactly as to be expected.

That is why I support strengthening the agreement on which our priorities and criteria for action are based.

The recognition, however, that there are disagreements which basically stem from the existence of different interests and priorities does not lead me to conclude that the EU is irrelevant in the world or that a single foreign policy needs to be imposed on all the Member States, contrary to their own interests or even their own history. A community is being built and this process, albeit slow, has more chance of succeeding than the desire to impose a single approach, which is not essential.

I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the 'Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) in 2007, presented to the European Parliament in application of point G, paragraph 43 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006' in order to support peace, human dignity, human rights, democracy, multilateralism and the rule of law.

in writing. - The Saryusz-Wolski report contains some welcome references to Taiwan, and in particular the recent thaw in cross-straits relations. I congratulate Taiwanese President Ma for his courageous and determined initiative to improve relations with the People's Republic of China.

Nevertheless, I fear we in the EU do not fully appreciate the importance of supporting democratic Taiwan and giving its 23 million people a voice on the international stage.

The Council supports Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations. It is time Parliament reiterated this support, especially with regard to Taiwan's ambition to become an observer in the World Health Assembly.

Taiwan's exclusion from this body at the behest of China is reprehensible. As a medical doctor, I deprecate the interference of politics in matters of public health. We stand up to China over Tibet; we stand up to China over human rights; it is time we stood up to China over Taiwan.

I voted to abstain on this report.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues welcome the need for effective inter-governmental co-operation within the CFSP, provided the United Kingdom retains its veto and ability to act alone in its national interest when required. The report has good things to say on the need for more co-operation internationally by the 27 EU Member States in areas such as transatlantic relations, Georgia, the Eastern Partnership and the broader Middle East.

However, we oppose the minor references to the Treaty of Lisbon. We have long expressed our opposition to the Treaty and do not believe that it would be in the interests of the UK and the EU to have the new foreign policy tools provided for in the Treaty. For these reasons, we abstained overall.

in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I supported Mr von Wogau's report. I am firmly in favour of strengthening the ESDP. Expanding the scope of cooperation between the European armed forces is, as the report emphasises, an essential step towards establishing a common foreign and defence policy. I also concur with the notion that the European Union should assure not only its own security, but also that of its neighbours. Our neighbours' seemingly bilateral conflicts have a direct impact on the EU.

in writing. - (EL) The report on updating the European Security Strategy openly supports even greater militarisation of the EU in order to strengthen its military capabilities for its imperialist interventions.

It welcomes the Council's objective of the EU's acquiring a permanent military force of 60 000 men built up around the Franco-German Eurocorps armed forces which already exist, equipped with common weapons systems and ready to fight in 'rapid response actions' in various areas of the world simultaneously. The pretexts for EU intervention, the so-called 'threats' against its security, are constantly expanding, including sectors, in addition to 'terrorism', such as climate change, energy security, cyberspace, regional clashes, maritime transport and even space. In fact, the EU is reserving the 'right' of military intervention where and when it deems necessary for its imperialist interests and, more to the point, not only against third countries and peoples, but also against the peoples of its Member States, in order to defend the power of the monopolies as and when necessary.

That is why the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report. Only grassroots disobedience and a break with the imperialist and anti-grassroots policy of the EU and its overall construct can pave the way for a Europe of peace and grassroots prosperity.

in writing. - Mr von Wogau has my congratulations on his work both here and more generally for his chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. I support the idea of an EU Operational Military Headquarters being established. Of course NATO should be and is our first port of call when security is threatened. Yet during the Bush-Gore debates just over a decade ago, George Bush said that had he been President he would not have intervened in Kosovo.

Now despite my antipathy to the Bush Administration's foreign policy it seems to me that it is a perfectly reasonable position for Bush to take on the basis of US self-interest. Yet it is not a position that Europe could or should have followed. Apart from the strong moral argument that we had a responsibility to protect those facing the genocide of the Serbs, we also had the consequences of tens/hundreds of thousands of refugees. We, in our own and their interests, must have the capacity to engage without the Americans. To do this, it is a small price we pay to have a permanent EU Operational Military HQ ready for such a future eventuality.

Like the report on 'the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU', this report (and resolution) reasserts the objective of affirming and consolidating the EU as a political and military bloc with an offensive nature, in partnership with the US and within the framework of NATO.

Among other important and enlightening aspects, this report and resolution reasserts the offensive and global concept of NATO, considering that 'the updated ESS [European Security Strategy] and the future NATO Strategic Concept should be mutually coherent and that this should be reflected in the Declaration which will be adopted by the NATO summit in Strasbourg/Kehl in April 2009'. It actually goes even further as it 'calls for the setting-up of an ... EU Operational Headquarters'.

In the end, the report and resolution constitute a real denunciation, not that this was its intention, of the militarisation of the EU and of the so-called 'Treaty of Lisbon' which institutionalises this militarisation.

Those in Ireland who denounced and therefore rejected the militaristic nature of this proposed Treaty, the ratification of which would mean further militarisation of international relations, a continued arms race, and more interference and war, are right.

Those in Portugal, like the Portuguese Communist Party, who, in rejecting this Treaty, have demanded that a referendum and wide national debate should be held on its extremely serious consequences for Portugal, Europe and the world, and for peace, are right.

in writing. - British Labour MEPs joined with the Socialist Group in voting in favour of this report. Labour MEPs voted against the section of text devoted to the creation of a permanent EU Military Operational Headquarters. Labour MEPs have consistently questioned the need for this type of new institutional structure. We believe that Europe needs to focus on ensuring it has the right capabilities to deploy at the right time, and making sure existing institutions function effectively rather than building additional institutions as an expensive and unnecessary luxury.

in writing. - This report calls for the setting-up of an autonomous and permanent EU Operational Headquarters with the capacity to undertake strategic planning and to conduct European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) operations and missions. The report is right to recommend the reform of the United Nations Organization in order to make it capable of fully meeting its responsibilities and acting effectively in providing solutions to global challenges and responding to key threats.

I welcome the report on the ESS and ESDP which contains some relevant, useful points for defining the European Union's future policies as a global player.

I would like to mention at this point the need to coordinate the European Union's security dimension with NATO's to prevent any duplication of effort and waste of resources. In this context, I welcome the Council's initiative to set up an informal EU-NATO high-level group.

Furthermore, relations with Russia must be reassessed in light of the recent events in this area. In order to promote stability among its eastern neighbours and minimise the impact on Member States, the EU must adopt a tough policy towards Russia, which should be drafted in close cooperation with transatlantic partners and include the relevant multilateral organisations, as well as the OSCE. This objective is also closely linked to the absolute necessity to make the provision of energy secure in Europe, which can only be achieved if we join forces through specific projects involving diversification of energy resources.

Looking around Europe it is clear that, in terms of security, the European Union has, and must have, its own strategic concerns and priorities. This is dictated by the geography, and also by the geopolitics. Saying this does not in any way correspond to an idea of security or a concern for defence conceived as an alternative to our alliances, not least our alliance with the United States. Saying this does, however, correspond to an idea of European responsibility. If we want security, then we must be ready to bear the burdens that this brings, whether physical or human. It also necessitates an agreement on what is common and what can be shared in this concern for security and among these burdens. Security has a price, and the demand for greater multilateralism on our allies' part imposes an added cost. The next period will be demanding in this respect. Europeans cannot demand more security without paying for it.

I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the 'European Security Strategy and ESDP' as I feel that the European Union needs to develop strategic autonomy by means of a powerful and effective security and defence policy. I also think that the European Union must be able to guarantee its own security, as well as that of neighbouring countries.

in writing. - The Conservative Delegation fundamentally opposes the EU involvement in defence which this report aims significantly to extend.

ESDP is a political project that contributes no additional military capability while at the same time duplicating and undermining NATO. The report envisions further unacceptable transfer of national competence in defence and security to the EU. It proposes 'integrated European Armed Forces' and 'Synchronised Armed Forces Europe' as an EU army in embryo. It is also replete with positive references to the Treaty of Lisbon, which we have strenuously opposed. We therefore voted against the Report.

in writing. - (SV) We have chosen to vote against this own-initiative report in its entirety, as we believe it to be superfluous. Some parts of the report are poor and do not contribute to furthering the European security policy debate.

in writing. - (FR) I voted against this report, presented by the French Christian Democrat, Mr Vatanen.

The text of this report relates to the role of NATO in the security architecture of the European Union. It is an important issue that needs to be considered. In my opinion, however, the answers given in this report were not good ones and they left the root of the problem unresolved.

By my vote, I certainly did not wish to deny the role that Europe has to play internationally. As an economic and demographic power, it is expected to act according to its values and must do so in order to maintain peace and intercultural dialogue. Strengthening the European Union's military credibility is, however, indispensable. That is why I am emphasising my commitment to creating a European security and defence policy that has real autonomy.

In my opinion, this is not what Mr Vatanen's report promises. Some stumbling blocks remain, in particular concerning denuclearisation and relations with Russia. The number of amendments tabled proves it (265): the text of the report was far from achieving unanimous approval. It does not address the main concern which is to ensure that Europe has a strong defence and cooperates with NATO, but is not subservient to it.

In the area of security and defence, the actions carried out by the European Union as a global player have taken the form of intervention to prevent conflict, thereby giving it the status of the main promoter of peace in the world. While, at the end of the Cold War, there were questions raised about NATO's role, the new threats to security and progress noted by Europeans in the area of defence and the implementation of civil-military operations in different parts of the world highlight the need for a new arrangement for EU-NATO cooperation.

In the present context, the lack of any common European foreign policy and discrepancies between Member States in the area of funding and military technological capacity make NATO a vital partner for managing military crises.

Adopting a division of labour whereby ESDP supports civil operations and NATO ensures the rapid deployment of numerous military forces should guarantee that both organisations complement and not compete with each other. Consequently, the rapporteur's suggestion to create an EU operational headquarters could serve precisely this objective by complementing the current NATO command structures in the area of joint civil and military operations.

In addition, we must also take into account in future EU-NATO relations the situation of states in Eastern Europe. With this in mind, it is important to promote an open-door policy and support a constructive dialogue with Russia aimed at establishing collective security in this part of Europe.

in writing. - One of the EU's more spurious claims of self-justification is that it has maintained peace in Europe since 1945. In fact, NATO is largely responsible for keeping the peace in Europe since the Second World War.

There is a strong anti-American lobby in the European Parliament. That is to be greatly regretted, because America's selfless contribution to rescuing Europe in the 1940s and keeping peace in Europe ever since is often obscured by anti-US propaganda. America's part in our collective security is, and will remain, vital.

Of course, there are crossovers regarding the work of NATO and the EU, but they are two fundamentally different organisations. Any effort by the EU to usurp NATO's primacy and responsibility for transatlantic security is to be strongly resisted.

I therefore elected to abstain.

in writing. - (EL) The report literally paints what is black white and insultingly extols the so-called 'peaceful' and 'democratic' nature and role both of NATO and the EU, which are guilty of so many crimes against humanity, and presents them as common guardians of peace and human rights in Europe. It insultingly and with no trace of seriousness goes as far as maintaining that the citizens allegedly decide and the ΝΑΤΟ army executes. It calls on the EU to claim an enhanced role in its transatlantic cooperation with the USA and NATO, in order to promote the particular interests of European capital.

In this direction, it urges greater cooperation in 'crisis management', such as in Afghanistan and Kosovo, better exchange of information between the two imperialist organisations and so on.

It welcomes the French initiative of a return to the military structures of NATO, at the same time calling for NATO and the EU to expand, and inadmissibly demands that Cyprus join the NATO 'Partnership for Peace'.

The Communist Party of Greece voted against the report. It condemns the imperialist, criminal nature of ΝΑΤΟ and the EU and emphasises the urgent need for the grassroots fight to be stepped up, in order to get our country out of the imperialist organisations and unions, and the need to fight to break them up and overturn the barbaric imperialist order of things.

in writing. - I declare that I voted in favour in the final vote on the Vatanen report on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU.

Here we have a European Parliament report and resolution which, despite containing certain mystifying elements, are essential reading.

It is a text which makes explicit - if any doubt existed - one of the objectives and central themes of the EU and its proposed Treaty of Lisbon: the militarisation of the EU and its consolidation as a political and military bloc, within the framework of NATO; that is, in partnership (coordination and rivalry) with the US.

As it is impossible to comment, in this short explanation of vote, on the whole content of this report and resolution, I would stress that these consider that the time has come for the major capitalist powers of the EU to assert themselves. As a result, they look 'forward to the opportunities afforded by NATO's forthcoming 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg and Kehl for the rejuvenation of the Alliance and the strengthening of its relations with the European Union', to which the recent Munich Security Conference was the prologue.

In this context they strongly welcome 'the French initiative of a formal return to the military structures of NATO, and the efforts by the French Presidency within the EU Council to bring the EU and NATO further together in response to the new security challenges'.

Here is a report and resolution in step with the imperialist ambitions of the EU's major powers.

in writing. - British Labour MEPs are supportive of positive cooperation between NATO and the EU, and welcome sharing of experience and expertise as a key method for strengthening basic capabilities, improving interoperability and coordinating planning, equipment and training. We voted in favour of the original text in paragraph 22 as we welcome French participation as part of strengthening EU-NATO cooperation.

On the final vote, British Labour MEPs joined with the Socialist Group in voting against this report, particularly due to the inclusion of an entire section devoted to the creation of a permanent EU Military Operational Headquarters. Labour MEPs have consistently questioned the need for this type of new institutional structure. We believe that Europe needs to focus on ensuring it has the right capabilities to deploy at the right time, and making sure existing institutions function effectively rather than building additional institutions as an expensive and unnecessary luxury.

in writing. - I could not support the Vatanen report on the role of NATO in the security of the EU. The report states that NATO forms the core of European security. I take a contrary view. I believe that Europe's security is enhanced by the EU's common foreign and security policy. NATO, however, remains a nuclear weapons-based alliance. I am totally opposed to nuclear weapons and my party is committed to removing nuclear weapons from Scottish soil when we achieve independence. An independent Scotland will not remain in NATO whilst it remains a nuclear alliance.

in writing. - (NL) NATO played an important role during the Cold War between 1949 and 1989. Its official task was to defend the Member States' common territory against foreign invasions, without taking action outside of that territory. The justification was the defence of a pluriform democracy against dictatorships, but in practice it was mainly about protecting a capitalist economy from a socialist economy. The right-wing dictatorships in Portugal and Greece were allowed to join in, there were bilateral agreements with a similar dictatorship in Spain, and the French colony of Algeria was forced to belong to NATO territory until 1962. When the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact disappeared, this NATO lost its raison d'être. Its continued existence is a problem for the EU, because six Member States have opted for military neutrality. The current NATO is still more of a 'coalition of the willing' around the USA than an extension of the EU. This year, just as NATO is turning 60, it will have to be apparent what future role NATO will claim. If it is that of the world's policeman, carrying out its own projects independently of the United Nations with a view to benefiting the economically most powerful states, this organisation will prove harmful and superfluous. That is why I will be voting 'no'.

I welcome the Vatanen report as a realistic appraisal of European security. Although we would like to draw up a European security policy capable of meeting the security needs of all EU members, we must accept that a security structure already exists which acts as the centre of gravity of the majority of EU Member States' defence. I am talking about NATO.

However, I would like to emphasise the importance of using the comparative benefits of the two organisations in order to draw up a solid humanitarian intervention policy. No matter what terms are used to formulate the European Security Strategy, the EU 'mosaic' will allow us to intervene in complex areas where diplomacy or limited intervention are only possible thanks to the EU's unrivalled capacity for subtlety. By the same token, we have in NATO a solid alliance, with tried-and-tested mechanisms, which we Europeans must not stop resorting to in order to reduce the suffering which some conflicting forces are causing with impunity. A first step towards this consolidation may be an operational headquarters for the European Union.

Irrespective of the specific policies which will guide our external actions, we welcome close transatlantic cooperation as the most practical solution to these challenges and as an embodiment of our community of values.

The location of Europe dictates its security priorities and concerns. However, the integration of Europe and the 27 Member States within a set of values and a model of society which, in a broad sense, we call the western world also defines the threats and our security context. For that reason, the alliance that most EU Member States share with the United States, among others, is and must continue to be a central element in our security.

In the year in which we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Atlantic Alliance, it is time to rethink its strategic concept and bring it into line with the new reality. Following the end of the Cold War, it is time to move beyond the end of the end of the Cold War and bring these concepts into line with the new reality that is forming: the emergence of the Pacific, the greater relevance of Asia, the role that Russia is seeking to redefine for itself, and the threats posed by failed states and global terrorist groups, among others.

We are therefore seeking to play an active part in this strategic redefinition, as full partners in the Atlantic Alliance.

I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the 'Role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU' as I feel that a strong, dynamic transatlantic relationship guarantees stability and security in Europe. In my opinion, strong ties between the EU and NATO make a significant contribution to the European Union's raison d'être, which is based on establishing peace both within its whole territory and beyond its borders.

in writing. - I voted in favour of Ari Vatanen's report on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU. The rapporteur has pointed out the most important deficiencies of the current EU 'security architecture' and offers clear and effective solutions for improving the security of the European Union.

I agree with the rapporteur that it is crucial for Europe's security as well as for the world in general, to maintain and to deepen the co-operation between NATO and the EU. Even though there have been several improvements that have made the NATO-EU relations more effective, there is room for improvement in many aspects.

In order to develop a more efficient co-operation, all EU Member States should be present at the EU-NATO joint meetings. The recent years, bearing in mind the unresolved issues between Cyprus and Turkey, have showed clearly that the current EU-NATO meetings are not nearly as successful and productive as they could be. The USA and NATO must be regarded as partners not as rivals. The EU and NATO amend each other and together, our common goals can be attained the fastest and most effectively.

in writing. - I voted against this report. The strength and security of Europe has depended for some time on the allies willing to play an active role in our defence.

On Europe's borders and across the world today it is clear that NATO continues to provide the nexus of cooperation which provides for our safety and the safety of others.

Clearly from time to time changes in global strategic interests mean adjusting priorities and approaches. The need for NATO to maintain continued vigilance and be supported, especially in Afghanistan at this present time, is essential. That is why calls for more troop commitments and logistical support need to be heeded by other European nations. I also welcome the French commitment now recently announced.

in writing. - The Conservative Delegation welcomes some aspects of this report, including the endorsement of NATO as the core of European security, and the call for Member States to invest more in defence. However, it is in essence a paean to ESDP, which we have opposed both in principle and in practice for more than ten years. It refers to the Treaty of Lisbon, which we have strenuously opposed, and also voices support for a permanent EU operational headquarters, backing for an EU 'White Book' on European defence, and unequivocal praise of the European Defence Agency. For these reasons we abstained on the report.

in writing. - The Barcelona Process was adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Summit for the Mediterranean held in Paris on July 13, 2008. It contributes towards peace and prosperity, and it will constitute a step towards economic and regional integration as well as ecological and climate cooperation between the Mediterranean countries. Since my country is a Mediterranean State, such a process is viewed with great attention. I agree that opening up the process to countries not involved in the partnership increases the likelihood of establishing parity in relations between the European Union and the Mediterranean partner countries and of tackling the problems of the region in a comprehensive way. Coming from the Mediterranean archipelago of Malta and Gozo, I fully appreciate the contributions which the process can make.

It is essential that the strategic value of Euro-Mediterranean relations and the Barcelona Process acquis be reaffirmed in the shape of regional and sub-regional programmes and common guidelines for bilateral cooperation. This has taken on an added importance in view of the recent issues in Gaza and the declarations in Cyprus.

in writing. - (PL) Mr President, the objective of the Barcelona Process is to support the countries of the Southern Mediterranean as they develop and attain independence. It is important, within the framework of various programmes, for these countries to be able to exchange experiences with EU Member States which themselves have recently undergone political and economic transformations. To this end, it is necessary to establish appropriate cooperation frameworks.

I also supported the report, as EU support for the Mediterranean Region has no adverse effect on other regional cooperation initiatives, such as the Eastern Partnership.

Despite its careful language, the report goes astray in terms of what it objectively and consciously omits or tries to hide: for example, its failure to denounce and condemn the systematic and brutal violation of international law and human rights by Israel - which is settling the occupied territories of Palestine and which is oppressing the Palestinian people - and by Morocco, which is settling the Western Sahara and oppressing the Sahrawi people.

The report conceals the EU's unacceptable immigration policy and its inhuman, criminalising, security-focused and exploitative nature. In that respect, it accepts the provision in the agreements between the EU and the Mediterranean countries for 'funding of immigration centres'.

On the other hand, the report does not hide the fact that the model advocated for the so-called 'Union for the Mediterranean' is ultimately the same as that of the EU itself, guided by liberalisation of the markets, including energy, and by capitalist competition, thus trying to ensure political and economic control by the major powers. It sets out the objective of the 'creation of a ... Euro-Mediterranean free trade area' and not a 'Euro-Mediterranean partnership ... based on equality of treatment, solidarity, dialogue and respect for the specific asymmetries and characteristics of each country', as we proposed in an amendment that we tabled.

That is why we voted against.

in writing. - (SV) We support increased cooperation with countries in the Mediterranean region, but we cannot lend our support to increased EU power within integration policy, formulated in paragraph 29. We also regret the fact that the report does not impose any requirements on occupying powers such as Israel and Morocco. In a report that talks of strengthening human rights in the Mediterranean region, this should be a minimum requirement. We therefore voted against this report in the vote.

in writing. - (NL) The Mediterranean is the EU's southern border. For many years, the EU has pursued close cooperation with coastal states that do not belong to the EU and some of which will never be able to join the EU. This cooperation is deemed important in the south of Europe but is of far less significance to the rest of Europe. Despite this, there are no major differences of opinion about this, because nobody objects to good relations at the EU's external borders. Mainly on France's initiative, this cooperation has been further intensified lately. In this connection, separate, permanent structures have been put in place. The question is what the purpose of these permanent structures is. Is it an attempt to move closer towards the Syrian and Libyan dictatorships, which are constantly violating human rights? Is it an attempt to find an alternative to full EU membership that has been promised in the long term to the coastal states of Croatia, Montenegro, Albania and Turkey? Is it a means of further tightening the ties with Israel despite the fact that, as a result of the election result on 10 February, no Israeli cooperation can be expected for the next four years in establishing a neighbouring Palestinian state with equal rights? I cannot endorse this proposal for the time being.

in writing. - (DE) The projects proposed by the newly-formed Union for the Mediterranean all sound well and good: the Solar Plan, collaboration in civil protection, joint initiatives for the depollution of the Mediterranean and new port and motorway projects. However, as we all know, you can say what you like on paper. Whether anything will actually be done is doubtful. After all, the organisation's predecessor, Euromed, did not actually achieve anything. Moreover, as long as the participating states do not see any actual possibility of these projects coming to fruition, they will surely not sacrifice existing good bilateral relations for the sake of a vague project.

As I do not believe that the new Union for the Mediterranean will be any more successful than its predecessor organisation, I have voted against this report.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for this report. I believe that the concept of a Euro-Mediterranean partnership, which first took shape in the Barcelona Declaration in 1995, is ready to be taken forward in a more practical and effective manner than has been the case hitherto. I am pleased that the rapporteur supports the decision to reinforce the democratic legitimacy of the Union for the Mediterranean by enhancing the role of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly. This is because I firmly believe that establishing a serious, lasting partnership ought to go beyond the scope of mere economic cooperation and financial support - although these are undoubtedly important - and should enable the objectives of peace and institutional stability, as well as prosperity and economic growth, to be achieved.

I share the rapporteur's hopes that the strengthening of Euro-Mediterranean relations will provide a boost to the development of an area of collective and individual security, going beyond the area covered by the agreement, and that the European Union can contribute to the promotion of the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and mutual understanding between different peoples and cultures; these, unfortunately, are still often seriously infringed even in countries with which the EU maintains regular economic relations. To this end, I hope that the instruments to be made available will be adequate in terms of achieving the ambitious goals that this partnership is setting itself.

in writing. - (PL) What is of significance to me is that the agreement, within the framework of the Barcelona Process, facilitates the regulation of many regional strategic issues such as energy security, environmental protection and water management.

I would also like to draw your attention to the substantial progress that has been made in terms of creating a Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone, which is to be definitively established in 2010. At the same time, I would like to emphasise the need for considerably broader cooperation in the following sectors: services (medical and educational), agriculture, as this provides the basis for the region's economy, and, in conjunction with the latter, the monitoring of food security.

Finally, I would like to raise the issue of supporting democratic change in the Mediterranean region. In my opinion, this issue goes hand in hand with the need to promote social integration and support the activities of the inhabitants in the countries of that region. Dialogue, the promotion of multicultural and religious tolerance, as well as educational projects, may pave the way for a peaceful solution to the conflicts in which those countries are currently involved.

in writing. - I and my British Conservative colleagues support stronger multilateral EU-Mediterranean relations as promoted by the Barcelona Process and its successor, the Union for the Mediterranean. This will allow for closer economic and political co-operation in terms of enhanced aid and trade facilities, as well as security issues, in exchange for the promotion of common values in the sphere of democracy and human rights and the rule of law.

We wish to make clear our opposition to the Treaty of Lisbon in accordance with our long-held policy and we cannot therefore accept the references to it in Paragraph 10 of this report. However, overall we support the Report and therefore have voted in favour.

in writing. - We have voted on the report of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Policy Instrument and the following points have been made:

the Mediterranean component of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument should complement the Barcelona Process, and the ENP's objectives need to be more clearly defined in order to strengthen the Barcelona Process by favouring a multilateral regional approach;

there should be enhanced EU involvement in the Black Sea region and an ambitious Eastern Partnership. There is also a need to accelerate the establishment of a free-trade zone in relation to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova in particular, as soon as partner countries are ready;

an Eastern Neighbourhood assembly ('Euroeast'), with the participation of the European Parliament, should be created on the same lines as the Euromed and EuroLat assemblies with a view to implementing the ENPI in the countries of eastern Europe, namely Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus.

I believe that we have to tread carefully to take into consideration Russia's sensitivities on the immediate neighbours once we are seeing a new approach between the United States and Russia.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, I voted for the report. At a time as delicate as the present, I would argue that we need enhanced cooperation in neighbourhood and partnership relations in order to establish a friendly environment in the closest environs of the European Union, as the ENP's main objective sets out.

I hope to see greater integration and a resulting rapprochement in the economic and political spheres between the European Union and neighbouring countries, and am therefore in full agreement with the report by Mr Konrad Szymański. It calls on the Commission, together with the partner governments, to further develop mechanisms for consultation with civil society and local authorities, in order to better involve them in the design and monitoring of the ENPI's implementation. It also urges the Commission and national, regional and local authorities to promote twinning programmes between towns and regions and, in addition, calls for the annual action programmes in the fields of democracy, the rule of law and human rights to be pursued more ambitiously, in line with the objectives set up in the ENP action plans, asking for more to be done to persuade the partner governments to commit themselves to action in those fields.

in writing. - (PL) I gave my support to the report on the Neighbourhood and Partnership Policy Instrument today. I believe that the countries lying beyond the Eastern borders of the EU are our strategic partners. Even if we are unable to offer them the prospect of membership in the near future, we should develop economic and political cooperation for the sake of the common European good.

in writing. - (PL) I supported Mr Konrad Szymanowski's report on the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. It is a worthwhile EU initiative, aimed at fostering cooperation between the EU and partner states. This cooperation includes, amongst others, efforts to promote dialogue and reform, environmental protection and action in the field of energy security. It also includes efforts to reduce poverty, promote equality between women and men, promote employment and social protection, foster cross-border cooperation, promote health, education and human rights, combat terrorism and organised crime, and promote cooperation in the scientific, educational, innovation and cultural spheres. It is therefore essential to conduct a substantive and financial review of all ENPI Operational Programmes, taking into account the countries, the regions and the issues involved. These activities should expand the free trade zone.

It is important to note that the Eastern Partnership should not hinder neighbouring countries wishing to apply for membership of the EU. The section which mentions the EUR 500 billion allocated to Georgia between 2008-2010 for reconstruction work and aid to refugees, following the depredations of war, is also worthy of support. I also accept that it is advisable to review our cooperation with Belarus, along with the level of funding allocated to that country, in order to ascertain whether the policy of re-engagement with that country, initiated in September 2008, should be continued. Furthermore, I agree that we need to guarantee that any financial assistance granted to Russia contributes to strengthening democratic standards in that country.

The European Neighbourhood Policy is a vital instrument for ensuring stability in the area to the east of the EU. Indeed, recent events in the region such as the crisis in Georgia and the gas crisis have demonstrated once again the need for the EU to have a strategy capable of ensuring that it plays an active role in this area.

I support this report because it highlights the importance of initiatives such as the Black Sea Synergy and the Eastern Partnership. They are particularly worthwhile in consolidating cooperation with the countries in the region, especially Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, but also the states from the Caucasus and the Caspian Region.

I would also point out that effective implementation of the ENP cannot be achieved without increasing the level of financial support to the programmes funded via the ENPI and ensuring a higher level of transparency in the allocation of funds.

Furthermore, the majority of these resources must be allocated with a view to involving civil society in the partner countries in common projects and to supporting the mobility of their citizens. The ENPI can become more effective through greater rapprochement by the citizens from the partner countries and by encouraging the process of Europeanisation at every level. For this reason, I support the removal of the obstacles blocking the free movement of persons coming from these countries, especially through easing the visa requirements applied to these states.

in writing. - (SK) Trans-border cooperation is an important stimulus for the sustainable development of neighbouring border regions. More intensive contacts between people and personal experience of democracy and rule of law are important preconditions for the optimum implementation of projects under the European Neighbourhood Policy, which it is why we need to create specific instruments to ensure appropriate monitoring of how common operational programmes are managed and implemented on both sides of the EU's borders.

I welcome the fact that in his report on reviewing the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Policy Instrument the rapporteur Konrad Szymański included trans-border cooperation within the remit of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). I have voted for the report, which will facilitate the negotiating process for countries applying for membership to the EU. Countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova will be able to get closer to the EU by benefiting from the ENP.

My views are to some extent based on my experience during the implementation of the Community INTERREG IIIA initiative involving a joint Slovak-Polish drainage project for the community of Chmeľnica on the Slovak and the Polish town of Piwniczna either side of our common border.

I firmly believe that we need to support any initiative aimed at specialist training, including learning the languages of neighbouring countries and partnership initiatives for government employees. I believe that proper analysis in respect of increasing capacity and building institutions on both sides of the EU's borders, as proposed by the rapporteur, will contribute towards the implementation of this instrument.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against the report by Mr Szymański on the review of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. I believe we must admit that in some of the countries covered by the instrument, no progress at all has been made towards the initial objectives of promoting democracy, stability and good governance, integration and economic convergence with the policies of the European Union. While, on the one hand, assistance and a neighbourhood approach by the EU may act as a stimulus for the dissemination and implementation of good practice, it is, however, true that it is vital for this assistance and the financial aid granted by the EU to be conditional.

On this point, I agree with my fellow Member in believing that sectoral and general budget support under the ENPI should be made available only to governments which are able to implement it in a transparent, effective and accountable manner and where it constitutes a real incentive; for this very reason, however, I cannot agree to a review of the ENPI as set out in his report. Much work still remains to be done before we can talk of the development of a genuine free trade area, otherwise there is a risk of a worsening of the already weak socio-institutional conditions in the countries involved and the squandering of huge resources by the European Union.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the report by Mr Berman on financing of actions other than Official Development Assistance in countries falling under Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006.

I agree with the rapporteur that the legislative proposal put forward by Parliament ought to ensure that countries which do not fulfil the criteria for classification as eligible for Official Development Assistance, but which are open to the promotion of political, economic and governance values similar to those of the Community and with which the Community has strategic relations, should be supported on projects deserving attention. Examples are the creation of partnerships between economic, academic and scientific operators, particularly in sectors of great importance such as scientific and technological research, transport, energy and the environment.

I believe that this can only be of benefit, not only to the countries involved and the European Union, but also to the entire international community, subject to proper assessment of eligibility for funding and the validity of the project in question at any particular time.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, I support the report by Mrs Dahl and I am in favour, quoting Article 1 of the Publications Office of the European Union, of it being 'an interinstitutional office with the task of publishing the publications of the institutions of the European Communities and the European Union under optimum conditions'. I agree with the call by Mrs Dahl to European institutions to alter the legal bases for interinstitutional bodies in such a way as to permit a clear allocation of administrative and political responsibilities, since at the moment it is difficult to identify these.

I believe that the use of information is the main way to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and, in this context, multilingualism must be the key instrument in putting into practice the aims of the Publications Office through the simultaneous publication of the Official Journal in all the European Union official languages, so as to ensure that it is clearly understood by everyone. This principle ought to extend to all the activities carried out by the Publications Office.

in writing. - I voted in favour of this draft decision since it takes into account the EP's demands and clearly allocates administrative and political responsibilities to the Office and the Commission, unlike the previous decision dating from 2000.

in writing. - (DE) Even after all the years since its formation, the EU is still not actually close to its citizens. It simply assumes that all citizens use the Internet and can find their way around the EU website without difficulty. However, this is not the case, as the web pages are often only understandable to insiders and are also not always intelligible in all languages. Many states also have a strong tradition of printed media, which are an important means of providing non-partisan information to citizens.

The EU is always emphasising the importance of information policy, but in this regard is allowing an information gap to develop. Firstly, the broadsheets will suffer huge losses if the Official Journal entries that are required to be published are dropped and, secondly, all those who are not familiar with modern technology will be at a disadvantage. For this reason, I have voted against the Dahl report.

in writing. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted for the report by Mrs Dahl on the organisation and operation of the Publications Office of the European Union.

I agree with the rapporteur that the previous decision, dating from 20 July 2000, ought to be replaced, in particular in order to take proper account of the observation made by the European Parliament during the discharge procedure for the 2001 financial year. I believe that the report is also useful in clarifying the allocation of political and administrative responsibilities within the Publications Office of the European Union and that such clarification is necessary in order to ensure that the office carries out its tasks in a correct, streamlined and efficient manner.

- That concludes the explanations of vote.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

Documents received: see Minutes

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes

Adjournment of the session

I declare adjourned the session of the European Parliament.

(The sitting closed at 12.50.)

Resumption of the session

I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 19 February 2009.

Statement by the President

Ladies and gentlemen, I have chosen to speak in the language of the country in which this terrible occurrence took place.

Mr President, on Saturday night in Northern Ireland we were all - I think, like everyone - very shocked: two young soldiers brutally murdered in cold blood. It is Northern Ireland's worst nightmare.

I have been a Member of this Parliament for almost 20 years, and I had hoped that I would never again have to stand in this Parliament and offer sympathy to the families of people who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland. I am very saddened that I have to do this again today.

These young men did what many young men would do: they ordered a pizza from the local pizzeria, for three hours after that they were to board an aeroplane and fly to Afghanistan. They did not make it. Our thoughts can only go out to them today as they were cut down in the prime of life. Now is not the time to say anything other than words of sympathy to their families. But it is now a time when those families need that support.

Those who carried out that deed will probably not listen to any words of condemnation that I say. But I have to say this: they can never succeed - they cannot win - because it is the democratic process in Northern Ireland that has spoken, and that must win. Though it may at times have faults, it has brought a different life to my people in Northern Ireland: they have found a better life, they have experienced that better life, and I want to see them continue with that better life. I add my words of sympathy to the families to your own.

(Applause)

Mr President, I too condemn unreservedly the killing of two British soldiers and the injuring of four others outside the Massereene barracks in the town of Antrim last Saturday. The Real IRA, a fringe republican group in Northern Ireland, has claimed responsibility for this horrific attack, which is the first deadly attack on Northern Ireland security forces for 12 years. Those who perpetrated these terrorist acts must be brought to justice and made to account for their horrific crimes. Their attacks do not command political support from the people of Northern Ireland.

The Good Friday Peace Agreement of 1998 clearly lays out the framework for political and economic development in Northern Ireland. The structures laid out in that Agreement are working well in support of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and peace and reconciliation. We cannot, and will not, allow these individuals to destroy the peace that we have worked so long and hard to achieve in Northern Ireland.

Mr President, thank you for your words of condolence on behalf of our British soldiers who lost their lives on Saturday evening. It is appreciated in Northern Ireland that you should, at this time, think of those who mourn in that regard.

Those who murdered the two soldiers seek political advance through the path of violence. I wish I could say that they will not succeed but, sadly, in Northern Ireland it seems that violence does pay - so much so that today we have three convicted IRA terrorists as government ministers, and our joint first minister McGuinness is someone who Peter Robinson - at a time when he opposed terrorists in government - said had personally murdered at least 12 soldiers. He is no better than or different to the Antrim terrorists who stood over the dying soldiers and pumped more bullets into their bodies.

Now that vile trigger-man, McGuinness - once described by Mr Robinson as 'the Bogside butcher' - shamefully shares the highest office in my land. Such is what happens when you treat with terrorists. I trust that the terrorists who have returned to our streets will never be treated with and that the lessons of the past will be learnt and rectified.

Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot invite all Irish Members to speak. I have spoken on behalf of us all, and that should be sufficient. Do you agree that this has been a worthy tribute to those who lost their lives? Thank you.

I also have a brief statement to make on yesterday's International Women's Day. To mark the occasion, I wish today to extend a particular welcome to all the female Members of this House and give them an emphatic vote of thanks for their commitment. I also wish to advocate that we do our utmost to make the principle of gender equality a reality at both European and international level.

A hundred years ago, 15 000 women demonstrated in New York for the recognition of their dignity and rights. We pay tribute to their legacy today. There is no doubt that a great deal has been accomplished since then in terms of the recognition and protection of women's rights and the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women in all areas of society. We must not let up in our endeavours; a great deal more must be done to realise gender equality within the European Union and also to increase the participation of women in work, civil society and politics. In the opinion of the European Parliament, there is scope for further increasing the present degree of participation by women in decision-making at local, national and European Union level. Our Member States must find ways of encouraging and supporting women's participation in the decision-making process and in politics at both national and international level.

We are only a few months away from the European elections. I wish to emphasise today that the participation of women in these elections and balanced gender representation in the European Parliament are particularly important both to the democratic development of the European Union and to our society as a whole. In conclusion, I should like to remind the House that many wars on this earth hit many women particularly hard, and we are working to prevent the use of harassment and rape of women as weapons of war. We must defend the dignity of all the people of this earth and must never let up in our commitment.

Thank you for your attention.

(Applause)

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes

Follow-up to a request for the defence of immunity: see Minutes

Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes

Signature of acts adopted under codecision: see Minutes

Request for urgent procedure: see Minutes

Documents received: see Minutes

Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

Petitions: see Minutes

Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

Order of business

The final version of the draft agenda for this part-session as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday 5 February pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure has been distributed.

Monday:

Firstly, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has requested that the vote on the report by Mrs Kósáné Kovács on the social situation of the Roma be held tomorrow instead of on Thursday as scheduled.

Secondly, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has also requested that the vote on Mr Reul's report on possible solutions to the challenges in relation to oil supply be held tomorrow.

In both cases, the deadline for alternative joint motions for resolutions is this evening, which means that it is technically impossible to vote on these texts tomorrow. However, the votes could be held on Wednesday instead of tomorrow. Are there any objections to this?

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I regret that it is not possible to hold the vote tomorrow, as several representatives of the Roma have planned to attend, thinking the vote was scheduled for then. If this is absolutely impossible, it must of course be held on Wednesday, but I wish to reiterate that, in view of the visit by the Roma representatives, and with the agreement of the political groups, it should surely be possible to make an exception.

This political will has been noted. I have been told that, in accordance with our Rules of Procedure, it is only possible to vote on Wednesday. However, we can let the representatives of the Roma know that this is the case, so as to express our political will. Then we would be able to vote on both requests on Wednesday.

(Parliament approved the request)

Tuesday:

The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has requested that a Commission statement on MON810 genetically modified maize be included on the agenda and that the debate be wound up with the tabling of a motion for a resolution. Who wishes to justify this request? Mr Cohn-Bendit?

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, there was a clear qualified majority against the Commission's request at the last Environment Council meeting.

The Commission made such requests back in 2006 and 2007, and each time the Council opposed them. Now, this request will probably be repeated at the next Environment Council meeting, this time directed against France and Greece. Parliament should simply take a clear position, to put an end to this debate once and for all. It is not the Commission's job to constantly attempt to buy countries because of an initiative that has been rejected by various political camps. That is why we want to see, at long last, a debate with the Council and Commission and a motion for a resolution, so as to put an end to the matter once and for all - and this before the elections so that voters know who stands for what. Is that not right, Mr Ferber?

Thank you very much. That was the justification. Who speaks against the request?

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, as Mr Swoboda has just pointed out, I support one part of Mr Cohn-Bendit's request and oppose the other. I think he is right; the Commission's behaviour is certainly remarkable, to put it politely. Secondly, it is true that the situation in the Council is confusing: some Member States share the Commission's opinion and others do not.

We have a similar situation in this House. It is true that we need a discussion with the Commission - even though it has already pressed ahead with this many times before against the recommendations of Parliament and even of some members of the Council - and we support the call for a Commission statement to this end. The second part is the resolution. I have read the request by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance very carefully, and Mr Cohn-Bendit's justification related more to the election campaign than to GM maize, which was very interesting. The Verts/ALE Group also requests a procedure to vote out the Commission - a vote of no confidence in the Commission. Yet so far-reaching is this step that we believe the matter must first be carefully examined, which is why we support the debate - indeed! In addition, there is a specialist committee that should be dealing with the resolution; it should present us with a motion for a resolution at one of the coming plenary sittings that is properly prepared rather than cobbled together quickly this week.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Mr Fjellner, who may present a different position again.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I oppose both parts of Mr Cohn-Bendit's proposals because less than a month ago we debated this topic and voted on it in the Committee on the Environment, as we heard was suggested earlier. So I would say it has been done, and especially at this time, at the end of the legislative period, when we hardly have time for important legislative talks, then I think it would be wrong to give this specific topic priority.

We cannot give priority to debates, at this time, which have already been dealt with and especially to do that just because the Greens feel that they are not getting enough attention in the run-up to the election would be really irresponsible.

On the one hand, a request has been made to place the topic of a resolution on the agenda; on the other, Mr Fjellner says that neither a statement nor a resolution should be placed on the agenda. I would suggest first voting on the procedure, and then we can discuss whether we have just the statement.

In addition, I have received a request for a roll call vote. This roll call vote is to determine who supports the request by Mr Cohn-Bendit and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. The vote is opened.

(DE) Mr President, this should not be made any more complicated. I am sure you are right on a formal level; you are a president with such a firm grasp of things that I do not doubt it. Yet I got the impression that Mrs Frassoni agrees with our proposal.

We are holding a discussion with the Commission this week, and I would also request that this be placed on the agenda. At the same time, I request that we ask the specialist committee responsible to prepare a resolution. I believe that would be a further-reaching request on which you could hold an initial vote.

We could spend another half hour discussing this. The correct procedure is that we vote on whether or not to meet the request by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. I have tried to help out with my proposal that we hold another discussion afterwards as to whether we want a Commission statement, but things cannot be done in any other order.

(Parliament rejected the request)

Wednesday:

I wish to inform you that 113 amendments have been tabled to the report by Mrs Elisa Ferreira on a European Economic Recovery Plan. This exceeds the threshold of 50 amendments laid down in Rule 156, and so I have referred these texts for consideration by the committee responsible. The committee meets this evening, and the debate on the report remains on the agenda for Wednesday.

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has requested that the oral questions to the Council and the Commission on SIS II be dealt with at 3 p.m., as the first item of the afternoon sitting. Since all the political groups have given their agreement, the agenda will be amended accordingly.

I have just been informed that I have overlooked something relating to Tuesday: the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has requested that the afternoon debates be extended by half an hour and consequently Question Time with the Commission be held from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Is that all right?

(Parliament approved the request)

Thursday:

The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have requested that the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising be wound up with the tabling of a motion for a resolution.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we believe that on this highly significant occasion - the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Tibetan people and the flight of the Dalai Lama - it is very important that our Parliament should express its views in a resolution and not just in a debate.

This is not the first time: this Parliament has always stood by the Dalai Lama and the cause of the freedom of the Tibetan people and we cannot draw back now, not least because the situation is not getting any better. The situation is constantly deteriorating and even very recently we have been subject to intimidation by the Chinese Government regarding Tibetan freedom. I therefore feel it is crucial that we not only talk but also take decisions.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago we passed a resolution supporting the position taken by the Dalai Lama in negotiations with China, that is to say non-violence and autonomy - not independence - for Tibet.

China broke up these talks, accusing the Dalai Lama of being violent, causing violence and seeking independence rather than autonomy. So, today, on the 50th anniversary of the Lhasa uprising, it would be completely incomprehensible if this Parliament did not intervene, not only to defend the Dalai Lama and non-violence, but also to defend the position and reputation of Parliament. We are not asking for other items to be taken off the agenda; we are simply asking Parliament to have the courage to express an opinion.

For this reason we are requesting that a resolution be put to the vote in addition to the debate.

Mr President, I had not expected to speak, but, given the fact that this is a very important Parliament and this is a time of global credit crisis, and that we ought to be taken seriously by our interlocutors across the world, we should not really be focusing on issues like this when we have to build bridges and partnerships for our trade and economic activities right now.

I appreciate what you are saying, but that was not in accordance with our Rules of Procedure.

(Parliament approved the request)

Regarding the debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has requested that the sub-item on Sierra Leone be replaced by a new sub-item entitled 'Expulsions of aid agencies from Darfur'.

Mr President, I shall make it brief. The situation in Darfur has become extremely critical and is made even more desperate by the expulsion of the various aid agencies in particular. That is why we want to give priority to this now. I would ask for your support. Thank you.

Darfur is now an item on the agenda.

(The order of business was adopted)

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

(EL) Mr President, the adverse impact of the global financial crisis can now be seen in international trade. One need only note that the rate of growth in global trade fell from 8.5% in 2006 to 5.5% in 2007 and was in the order of just 4% in 2008. A special mechanism has been introduced within the framework of the World Trade Organisation to monitor the measures that have been and are being adopted by the Member States of the organisation in order to support the sectors of the economy that have been hit.

Given the particular importance of external trade to the economy, growth and employment in the European Union, the Commission is called upon, within the framework of the application of the economic recovery plan, to immediately assume a leading role in a multilateral initiative to support trade. It is also called upon to correlate any such initiative with the work of the World Bank group and other multilateral development organisations.

Mr President, the international, political, military, economic and financial architecture is under pressure due to the current crisis. The EU is a central part of this architecture. It appeared as the only formula for Europe to preserve its role in the bipolar world. It enlarged successfully to reunite the continent at the end of the Cold War, and now it is called upon to preserve previous achievements and continue integration once better times come again.

It is not an easy task, particularly for the current presidency, but also for the coming ones, which will have to deal with the continuing institutional impasse over the Lisbon Treaty and transition to a new Parliament and Commission, while fighting protectionist tendencies, threats to renationalise common policies and potential international crises in our neighbourhood.

The EU is therefore at a crucial moment. It can either make it or break it. Our success will depend on complete understanding that solidarity is the only way in which we can face off all these great challenges and continue our odyssey in world affairs.

(RO) Following the parliamentary elections in Romania, the political parties representing the opposition are in a difficult situation at the moment. In fact, the parties in power are attempting to isolate and even exclude them from local political and administrative life.

Replacing, on political grounds, local administration policy-makers during the current economic crisis highlights a lack of responsibility on the government's part. This entails, as a result, the risk that the pace of completion of projects specifically aimed at local communities will slow down.

The democratic credibility of the current government may be cast in doubt in the case of the two councillors from Braşov's local municipal council, Vasile Bran and Iulian Mara, who were elected by local citizens and whose position has not been formalised eight months after the local elections. Vasile Bran's election was unjustifiably invalidated by the decision of the local council, while Iulian Mara could not take the oath as the decision which validated his position was contested through administrative legal proceedings by the Prefect's Institution for Braşov County.

As a result of the preoccupation of the representatives of those in power with usurping local administration functions, without respecting the citizens' wishes, the law was broken and the two councillors were replaced by two other people at the majority's discretion.

I feel the current government must be aware that winning a majority does not assume that you can flout the law. Abuses of this kind must be stopped and the law must be enforced. In fact, the citizens' vote must not be invalidated by the dictatorship of the majority.

(PL) Mr President, last week an informal delegation of MEPs visited Palestine and Israel. We also visited the Gaza Strip. What we saw there has aroused in me a great feeling of outrage and strong feelings of sympathy towards the occupied Palestinian nation. The outrage I feel is shared by United Nations agencies which are active in that region.

Mr President, I can see only one way out of this situation: a Palestinian State should be established very quickly and unconditionally. In 1948, when their country was founded, the Jewish people did not ask the Palestinians for their consent. Today, Israel must not obstruct the will of the Palestinian people. I repeat: unconditional and urgent assistance should be provided to an oppressed nation, thus putting an end to this old conflict.

I believe that such measures would strengthen peace in the whole world, but, above all, we should do it simply because the Palestinians deserve their own State.

(EL) Mr President, it would appear that the suggestions which the US Secretary of State made to the Israelis during her visit included that they stop building and extending settlements on the West Bank, open the road blocks, and stop building the wall and expelling Palestinians from East Jerusalem and, for Gaza, that they allow the cement and construction materials needed to rebuild the area to be imported.

These are good suggestions, but it would appear that they have fallen on deaf ears because, while the Israelis are not allowing these materials to pass into Gaza, they have had no hesitation in illegally quarrying three-quarters of the materials supplied to the Israeli construction industry from the West Bank, mercilessly destroying the natural environment, while the legal owners of the land have derived no financial advantage whatsoever.

It is time the United States and the European Union lifted Israel's impunity and went beyond words and suggestions.

(Applause)

(DE) Mr President, I wish to draw attention to something that particularly besmirches this House: the pension fund.

According to recent reports in the magazine Stern, at least 76 German MEPs were members of this fund. This relates only to the association's list, however, not to the fund. I hereby call on you, Mr Pöttering, as President of Parliament, to send the complete list of fund members to the administration of the lower house of the German Parliament as, under the relevant regulations in your home country, the suspicion of serious fraud would automatically arise if it were to turn out that duplicate payments had been made. This must then be followed by the relevant investigations, and the German authorities have a right to learn of this from you.

In the same way, we all have a right to know this fund's deficit. Something is being kept quiet here, and there is the risk of speculators being bailed out once again to the tune of many millions at taxpayers' expense at the end of the parliamentary term. That cannot be allowed to happen!

Parliament's Bureau will deal with this matter in a legally correct, politically sound manner - you can rest assured of that.

Mr President, the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report concludes that Iran has produced enough low-enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb.

Most alarming is the speed of Iran's progress. According to the Agency's estimates, Tehran has increased the number of uranium-enriching centrifuges by 34 times in less than three years. In the next five years, however, Iran plans to add 45 000 centrifuges to the existing 5 600. That will mean an ability to manufacture nuclear weapons on an industrial scale. That also means deliverable atomic bombs, considering developing missile capacity and the launching of Iran's first satellite.

That means that the policy of containing Iran only by half-hearted sanctions and diplomacy has failed. It has only provided Tehran with the necessary time to complete its nuclear programme.

Therefore it is high time to abandon the de facto policy of appeasement and concentrate on a joint EU response to possible nuclear blackmail or an ultimatum by Iran. If then, too, negotiations 'as usual' are our only option, this will mean political surrender.

(DE) Madam President, we are going to be dealing with - though unfortunately not debating - the report by Mrs Kósáné Kovács concerning the Roma issue. I should like to take this opportunity to highlight the issue given the very difficult situation at present. There have been a number of incidents in Hungary, but the problem is not limited to that country, where the economic crisis and the social problems perhaps explain the renewed increase in attacks on Roma. This is something that is particularly reprehensible. Several Roma - including Austrian Roma - have approached me and asked me to bring this up, as fear has gripped the Roma community in Europe once again. I should like to urge the Commission, too, to monitor the situation very closely and to do all it can to ensure that the Roma - and other minorities too, but here we are particularly talking about the Roma - do not need to live in fear again in Europe: they should not have to do so in this day and age.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in Italy, the Communications Regulatory Authority, an independent body, has issued its 43rd resolution against the state television authority for breaching the rights of Italian citizens to be informed about initiatives by the Radicals - its 43rd resolution.

In Italy, since the elections - ten months ago now - there have been no electoral debates broadcast; they have been illegally suspended. The Italian parliament's supervisory committee on radio and television is not meeting, which is also against the law. This problem is not just about Mr Berlusconi: it is about a system of the Right, Centre and Left that is infringing the civil and political rights of Italian citizens.

Mr Pannella and I must leave our work tomorrow and hasten to Italy to try and create forms of non-violent resistance against this new form of denial of democracy. We shall send a message to all our fellow Members to explain in detail the nature of these infringements and to ask for your support and assistance.

(PL) Madam President, once again in this Chamber I am forced to speak up for the rights of national minorities in Lithuania, which are being ruthlessly broken and violated by the Lithuanian authorities and judicial system.

In the region around Vilnius over 70% of the population are Polish. Until now, the names of streets and towns were bilingual, as they are in many countries of the European Union with national minorities. Not long ago, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania judged the placing of street name signs in Polish alongside signs with Lithuanian names to be illegal, and ordered their removal. The local government in Vilnius has implemented this decision - the Polish street names in the region where most residents are from the Polish minority have been removed.

This is not acceptable in a country which has been a member of the European Union for five years. It is a symptom of extreme nationalism, shows a lack of respect for the rights of national minorities and is a violation of the fundamental principles on which the European Union is built.

I call upon the Lithuanian authorities to restore the Polish names of streets and towns in regions where most residents are part of the Polish minority.

(EL) Madam President, terrorism against workers with the support of repressive state mechanisms is now a standard approach in the slave workplace. Thousands of workers are being made redundant and workers' fundamental labour and social rights are being cut to fit to the Procrustean bed.

One typical example is in the United Kingdom, where it has been discovered that a private company is collecting information about workers' trade union, social and political activities and selling it to companies. In Greece the labour disputes to have laid-off workers reinstated has been labelled illegal and abusive.

The workers are obviously determined to defend their rights and have adopted as their standard the words of the 22-year-old worker Nikos Nikopoulos in his open letter to the public prosecutor to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Greece, in which he says, among other things:

'There are certain things in this life for me which cannot be bought or sold. I prefer my wage to be my inalienable right, to claim the riches which I produce and which belong to me. My intransigent refusal to be bribed or terrorised has caused me to be dismissed for a second time. I received direct threats against my life and the life of my family.'

This statement truly illustrates the will of and the path being taken by the workers.

(The President cut off the speaker)

(HU) In recent days, perhaps partly on account of the crisis, popular opinion in the Member States that acceded in the last five years has responded with increasing sensitivity to any step that might call into question or discredit the equal status and identical standards of their membership within the Union. As regards my own electoral district, we have heard accusations on Swedish television and then on the internet that, in the village of Harkakötöny, the way geese are plucked constitutes cruelty to animals, whereas, in fact, no geese have been bred there or in the place mentioned for years. I am glad that a charge of libel has been filed regarding this matter. Similar libellous statements were made recently against breeders in my country concerning force-feeding of geese. These statements called for a boycott against the processors that has caused economic damages. Interestingly, no such accusations have been levelled against the old Member States. These are actions taken out of economic interest, but another, uniquely political form of defamation consists of statements alleging ethnically-based attacks against the Roma population in Hungary as if these were matters of fact, although to date it has for the most part been impossible to provide proof that such attacks have indeed taken place. I ask the Commission to monitor such polemics closely and especially not to spread them, since such statements could seriously discredit the European Union's prestige in my country in the run-up to the elections.

(FR) Madam President, as our Parliament's permanent rapporteur for humanitarian action, I have just returned from Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo and I had hoped to give you an optimistic message about the resolution of this situation and the return of displaced persons to their homes.

Unfortunately, my optimism has been dampened by the decision taken by President El Béchir concerning the biggest humanitarian crisis, that of Darfur. True, President El Béchir, it is correct to postpone it as it is in fact a fight against impunity, and it is right to ensure respect for international humanitarian law.

However, President El Béchir has just increased the evidence against him by taking a decision which is ill-conceived on two counts: first, because it adds to the grievances already lodged against him and, secondly, because this on its own could be brought before the International Criminal Court as the consequences for Darfur are extraordinarily serious on a humanitarian level.

The world then will not forget, but mere words will have little effect, Madam President. I realise that we were changing the issue, but we must go beyond mere words and turn to action.

(PL) Madam President, the fact that EU citizens have to migrate in order to find work, the fact that they have to be mobile because there is no work to be found where they live, and the poverty associated with being out of work, often mean that children are less well cared for, and sometimes even neglected.

The developing economic crisis threatens to cause a serious rise in unemployment levels. This may lead to an increase in the problem of street children. Such children lack suitable nutrition and health care, their education is interrupted and they sometimes come into contact with criminal elements. At a time of demographic collapse, this is not only squandering the development opportunities of individual children, but also poses a social threat for the next generation. It is essential for us to address this problem.

(PT) Yesterday was International Women's Day. It was marked at a time when the situation of women, particularly working women, is getting much worse as they continue to suffer from inequality and discrimination.

Millions of women and young girls are currently having to deal with a serious deterioration in their living and working conditions, pitiful pensions, redundancies, unemployment, precarious and poorly paid work, and widespread poverty and social exclusion. These problems have a particularly serious impact on female workers and pensioners and on women with disabilities, who are denied the right to have rights on such crucial issues for a dignified life.

As a result, in addition to saluting all the women in the European Union and the world, I want to call here for urgent measures and new policies to ensure that women can enjoy their rights as full citizens in work, family life, society and politics.

We must create the conditions so that working women have rights, so that they can be mothers and workers without penalty, and so that they can earn fair wages and pensions allowing them to live with dignity.

- (SK) Once again we have a problem involving respect for ethnic minority rights in Slovakia and it is the fault of the education minister, a member of the extreme nationalist governing party.

He has issued a decision under which schools where teaching takes place in ethnic minority languages may henceforth use only history text books that are literal translations of the Slovak ones. It follows from this that history will be taught according to the dictates of the governing party rather than being based on the facts.

This conflicts with the practice to date and also with internationally guaranteed minority rights. In the EU every minority community has the natural right to learn its own history. Hungarian teachers, and indeed the entire Hungarian community in Slovakia, are justifiably outraged. It is unacceptable for an extremist party to be constantly putting pressure on minorities in this way. It is irresponsible during a global economic crisis for someone to feel the need to provoke ethnic minorities. It is playing with fire to behave like this in times of such uncertainty.

(SV) Madam President, many, like me, are concerned about the growing anti-Semitism in Europe. Over the weekend, a Davis Cup tennis match between Sweden and Israel was played in my home town of Malmö. It was no ordinary match. It was played without spectators because the local political leadership felt it could not guarantee security, a view that many of us have criticised. There were demonstrations in connection with the match, one of which was very violent. Certainly, it is legitimate to criticise the policies of the state of Israel, but this criticism must not turn into hatred towards Jews in general, in other words into anti-Semitism.

Survivors of the holocaust should not need to hear that people in Europe are chanting 'murderers, murderers' when there is a gathering to show support for the state of Israel. In the aftermath of the war in Gaza, there were a number of attacks on Jewish property and Jewish interests, including in my home town. All democratic forces must be extremely clear on this matter. Europe has a terrible history and this must never happen again.

(PL) Madam President, as someone for whom the ideals on which the European Union is based are more than just a slogan, I am glad that the European Parliament is going to provide the venue for a debate associated with the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising.

At the same time, I am surprised and saddened by the fact that the date of the debate has been set for 12 March. I would like to remind those who have forgotten that the Tibetan uprising began on 10 March. However, on that day, Parliament will be attending to such subjects as type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles and the charging of heavy goods vehicles.

They are important subjects. Nevertheless, the people and institutions concerned with type-approval requirements for heavy goods vehicles would not be offended if the dates for these debates were changed round. Perhaps 10 March marks an anniversary, related to this subject, which I do not know about. Perhaps it is 'World Type-Approval for Heavy Goods Vehicles Day' or 'Type-Approval Inspectors Day'.

It would reflect very badly on Parliament if it turned out that this choice of date for the debate stemmed from a desire to reduce its significance.

(EL) Madam President, the Commission proposal for a directive to abolish discrimination has come up against the opposition of many European citizens and, as a result, they are in the difficult position of doubting the validity of such a proposal, which touches on their right to decide on matters for which the European Union is not competent through their own state.

As we approach the European elections, I think that we should not raise such issues. The abolition of symbols, the abolition of the right to decide on life belongs to each state. At a time when the European Parliament is abolishing structures through which its MEPs can express themselves freely, such as cross-party groups, we cannot talk about abolishing discrimination.

Madam President, a month ago you and I paid our second visit of the year to Gaza. Others have trod in our footsteps - Javier Solana has been there, Tony Blair has finally made it, and the President of Parliament has been there to see for himself the circumstances in which Palestinians are now living.

This Parliament asked for the economic blockade to be lifted, but, to a very large extent, it continues. Week after week, the collective punishment of Palestinian people is maintained by the Israelis. Our words are fine, but they have little value while Israel refuses to listen. Madam Vice-President, I ask you to ask the President to call a meeting of the group leaders and his cabinet to consider how our words can be turned into deeds. I face the question all the time from my constituents: 'You have an Association Agreement with Israel. How is it that we maintain this relationship with one side, while that party ignores our interests and treats our words with such contempt?'

Thank you, Mr Davies, I shall pass on your request.

(RO) European values are especially important to the education system in Romania. The election speeches from our fellow Members, László Tőkés, Csaba Sógor and Iulius Winkler, sometimes lose touch with reality.

Romania offers ethnic minorities wide-ranging instruction in their mother tongue. I would like to highlight the important role that the state Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca plays in the provision of Hungarian-medium education. The multi-cultural organisational system set up through Babeş-Bolyai University's Charter in 1995 ensures complete, independent instruction in Romanian, Hungarian and German, as well as Jewish studies, at every level of academic qualification.

A number of signs and inscriptions in Hungarian and German are on display at Babeş-Bolyai University. Seventeen faculties currently offer programmes of study in Romanian and Hungarian, with 11 faculties offering courses in Romanian and German. There are also two faculties, Reformed Theology and Roman Catholic Theology, where the programmes of study are taught exclusively in Hungarian.

(SL) I warmly welcome today's decision by the Croatian government to respond positively, in principle, to the European Commission's initiative for mediation between Slovenia and Croatia. Unfortunately, the positive response also includes an unnecessary rider, a condition which significantly reduces the possibility of mediation.

However, it is important that we work together to create the conditions which will allow mediation to commence as soon as possible, which will defuse the political climate in both countries and enable dialogue to take place on better terms. We must further promote the process of enlargement of the European Union and this is why we need the Lisbon Treaty. Time is of the essence and I therefore hope that a framework mediation agreement will be drawn up shortly.

(GA) Madam President, dairy farmers are in a very difficult situation. The price of a litre of milk has fallen to between 22 and 24 cent, and there has been a sudden drop in worldwide demand for dairy products, particularly in Asia and in China as a result of the melamine scandal. There are around twenty thousand dairy farmers in Ireland and thirty thousand people directly employed as a result of this. There has also been a 3% increase in production in the United States alone, as well as an increase in production in Brazil. Another problem is the exchange rate between the euro and the pound sterling. It is clear that short term aid must be provided to the farmers to help them survive. One thing that should be done is that an intervention scheme should be brought in, as has proven very successful in the past.

(BG) Thank you, Madam President. International Women's Day is an occasion for us to take stock of our gender equality policy. Many people believe that this policy is aimed only at women in the pursuit of the same opportunities as men in terms of employment, salary and free time.

Such objectives are just as relevant in an economic crisis, but equality policy should focus on men as well. The crisis has an impact on the labour market. There are expectations that many of them will lose their jobs because of their higher salary and the reduction in labour-intensive activities in the finance sector. There is a growing likelihood that men will have greater involvement in family life and a breakthrough is occurring among traditional social roles. To what extent they are ready for this and whether the social adjustments can facilitate such a change are questions which will need to be answered.

The possible solutions vary between Member States, regions and communities. This is why I am calling for the national equality plans to be updated and for flexible rules that meet the needs of men and women to the same degree.

(RO) According to the statistics, a quarter of children in the European Union lead a sedentary lifestyle and have an unhealthy diet. This results in an increased risk of having not only high blood pressure and diabetes, but other illnesses too.

In 2007 the European Parliament adopted the report on the role of sport in education. In fact, it made compulsory the introduction of at least three hours of sport a week as part of educational programmes. We know that physical education prepares children for a healthy lifestyle, passing on important social values such as self-discipline, solidarity, team spirit and fair play.

This is precisely why I am calling on the European Commission to monitor more closely the transposition into national legislation of and compliance with the compulsory requirement for a minimum of three hours of physical education a week in schools, as well as the increase in the number of sports halls and improvement in their basic equipment.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the book by Albert Camus, the plague is announced futilely by a rat who comes and dies at our feet. We do not want to be like useless rats that arrive to announce the anti-democratic, violent, anti-European plague that is now causing new catastrophes in Rome, Brussels, Jerusalem and Paris.

Mr Cappato has already said why tomorrow we will leave our work here, to rush to an activist fight of European and democratic resistance in our country. The European Parliament is celebrating its 30th birthday. If we think back to 30 years ago, there is much to be concerned about. We are fighting, we are not troubled.

- (SK) In my speech I would like to focus the attention of the European Parliament on 15 March, which has been declared International Consumer Rights Day on the initiative of the organisation Consumers International. This day presents an excellent opportunity for bringing the EU closer to its citizens through policies connected with consumer protection.

As a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection I have worked hard on this issue. I am delighted about the enormous interest shown by young people who are getting actively involved in various consumer activities. For example, in the Consumption for Life international competition for young consumers which is organised by the Slovak Association of Consumers, more and more young consumers are getting involved every year, with interesting tales about their first experiences concerning choice and consumer decisions.

I would like to encourage the EU Member State governments to strengthen and support consumer organisations. Only strong, representative and effective non-governmental organisations can succeed in increasing consumers' awareness of their rights.

Madam President, I, too, want to add my voice to those who have condemned the murderous, vicious and cowardly attack on the British Army barracks in Northern Ireland and I want to send my heartfelt sympathies to the families of all those who were injured or killed.

The particular issue I want to raise this evening is that on Wednesday night the Commission will issue a statement on its Green Paper on the EU workforce for health. According to the Green Paper, the key to maintaining a sufficient workforce is to educate, recruit and retain young practitioners.

Yet in Ireland we have the very opposite situation, with a 16.5% cut in undergraduate nursing places. In my own region at St Angela's College we have a cut of 25% for general nursing and 40% for intellectual-disability nursing.

The Commission must put pressure on Member States to ensure each country takes responsibility for training its own health-care workforce and that we also have an ethical requirement whereby we do not seek to recruit health-care workers from developing countries and damage their already vulnerable health-care systems.

(HU) I have spoken up several times on behalf of the traditional national minorities. Some of my colleagues have accused me of nationalism. It is strange that the majority often tries to disguise its fear and anti-minority sentiment with accusations of nationalism or hate speech against minorities. I hope my colleagues will not mind if I now speak up on behalf of a religious minority. The Romanian Greek Catholic Church was banned during the Communist era. After 1990, it was reorganised and, similarly to other historical churches, it is trying to this day to recover its confiscated immovable property. In Romania, a law is being drafted that, if adopted, would in effect take away this church's real estate, currently in the process of being reclaimed. I would like to call attention from this microphone to the twisted nature of this situation, to the way rights are being trampled on and to this disguised attempt at nationalisation. It is unacceptable for the state to interfere detrimentally in the life of a church.

(BG) Thank you, Madam President. I would like to raise an issue which is a cause of deep distress. Over the last two weeks we have been hearing reports from the Republic of Macedonia where certain church authorities expressed a desire to exhume the bodies of Bulgarian soldiers who died on that country's territory in all wars throughout the 20th century. The Bulgarian general public, and I am sure the same is true of the European general public, regard such calls as absolutely unacceptable. No one has the right to make a mockery of the memory of those who have perished in wars. What we must do is pay them honour and respect, observe the basic European principle of honouring the dead and keep to the best traditions of tolerance that we have.

I call on the European Parliament to bring it to the attention of the authorities in the Republic of Macedonia that such calls must not go unanswered by the government. Let us hear clear, categorical assurances that no one in Macedonia will carry out such threats. This would be a violation of basic cultural and national conventions for any civilised country.

(FR) Madam President, we have just learned of the incredible sentence of six years imprisonment for two German lawyers, Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz.

This terrible verdict is motivated by the fact that these two express points of view which differ from the official version of the reality and extent of the history of the concentration camps in the Second World War.

Whatever one thinks of their opinions, it is extremely serious that, in the European Union today, citizens, and lawyers to boot, should be given such sentences for having disputed an historic fact.

It would appear that in today's so-called democratic Germany there are still judges who would muzzle freedom of expression with the same zeal as those in National-Socialist Germany or in Communist Germany.

This is also the case, unfortunately, in other States in the Union, including France. It is intolerable and very serious.

(PL) Madam President, today I do not want to raise a question of a political nature. Recently, one of my constituents, an enthusiastic supporter of standardisation, contacted me regarding the matter of standardising the plugs for mobile telephone charger units.

This matter only seems trivial. I am convinced that if regulations were to be introduced in this field, they would be welcomed by all mobile phone owners. From a technical point of view, the matter is very simple. Such solutions were successful, for example, in the case of standards for compact discs - they can be used in all computers. Perhaps it is worth reviewing such minor matters, in order to help our citizens. They expect it of us.

The debate is closed.

2010 budget - Section III, Commission: 'Guidelines for Budget 2010' - Guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure - Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

by Mr Surján, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the Guidelines for the Budget 2010 procedure - Section III - Commission;

by Mr Maňka, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure - Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX.

The European Parliament expects the draft 2010 budget to help Member States and citizens overcome the current crisis. This is now our greatest concern. In other words, the budget should lessen the apprehensions of European citizens and restore their confidence that they will have jobs and be able to make a living, and that they will be able to live in peace and security. We are talking about those citizens whose money we are spending and to whom we are responsible.

Because of the financial crisis, Europeans are not sure whether their money is safe with the banks, and they do not know whether they will still have a job tomorrow. But they have other sorts of concerns and problems as well: how long will they be able to heat their homes, or whether there are any harmful chemicals or other causative agents in their food, and the list goes on. Therefore, we would like a budget that restores citizens' confidence not only in financial institutions, but in each other, and in solidarity on a European scale as well. We know that not every problem can be solved with 1% of GNI, but it matters whether small and medium-sized enterprises receive encouragement and support. Is a harmonised, common energy policy being developed? Are we doing everything we can to combat climate change and encourage renewable energy sources? Will the protection of our common borders be more effective? Will the policy of cohesion be more fruitful, the process of catching up faster, and our food safer?

Parliament sees that the budget is small in relation to these objectives, but it is also aware that Member States are not making full use even of the current budgetary framework. Therefore we expect the European Commission to take decisive action to remove bureaucratic obstacles, concentrate expenditure on areas where utilisation was effective, and withdraw support from areas where there are regular surpluses. Parliament is prepared to cooperate in monitoring whether the programmes launched are truly successful, and whether they fulfil the objective for which they were established. We cannot be satisfied simply with determining that expenditures are lawful. We ask for guarantees that they fulfil their purpose. We ask for value, for results in exchange for the contributions of European citizens, and expect Member States to implement the programmes quickly and efficiently. We ask the European Commission to take our requests seriously. The European Parliament is the only EU institution in which citizens can exercise direct influence. We stand closest to them and, in the report that has been submitted, it is their opinions that we have summarised. There is still more than a month left before the submission of the preliminary budget. There is time, therefore, for the Commission to consider Parliament's opinion and include it in the proposals.

Furthermore, I would be very pleased if, contrary to custom, the Council and the Parliament did not amend the Commission's proposal at cross-purposes, but if the three institutions could work together to overcome the crisis.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will end my remarks by thanking everyone who has contributed to this report for their work, including the secretariat of the Committee on Budgets, the members of the Commission, my political group's experts and those who have submitted amendments. I ask that you debate the proposals and then support them with your votes. Let us offer hope and security to the citizens of Europe!

Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when putting together the budget of the European Parliament, we must focus on our core mission and make optimal use of resources for improving the legislative work of Parliament. We must exclude matters unconnected with our mission from the budget as much as possible.

If we want MEPs to work effectively they must have the option of carrying out their duties in their own language if they so decide. In many instances we could prevent difficulties and avoid wasting money if we could switch languages rapidly according to actual rather than planned attendance in debates.

Many of you are surely aware that in some committees documents have not been available even in the basic languages in time for them to be approved. If there has to be an extraordinary meeting of the committee because of this or if there are other unnecessary delays we lose time and money.

As with translating we also need to increase the flexibility of interpreting services. In my conversations with representatives of the various general secretariats of the European Parliament I have collected some very useful suggestions and information. The representatives of the directorates themselves propose eliminating some of the reserves. However, in some cases they will need our assistance.

There are numerous examples. Ladies and gentlemen, surely none of you would consider that it would make Parliament less secure if both entrances to the Strasbourg Parliament building were not kept open in periods outside the plenary sessions. Neither do we need to have guards physically present in some places, especially in Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

On the other hand the current security system has its defects. We saw this ourselves in the recent raid on the branch of the ING Bank in the European Parliament building in Brussels and also in the threat to the lives of the two MEPs in Mumbai.

I believe that the proposals being drawn up by the directorate will bring improvements and also a better use of resources and surprising financial savings. We can achieve further savings running into millions if we improve cooperation between the institutions. The spare capacity of every institution must be made available to the other institutions.

A lack of planning together with insufficient or non-existent communications concerning the availability of translation resources prevents the efficient use of these resources. The body which is supposed to provide translations often automatically gives orders to external translators without even checking the availability of internal resources. In the area of translations alone we can save over EUR 10 million annually within the framework of the institutions. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that you will support the proposal for us to make the greatest possible use of independent studies into the use of resources and the organisation of work.

MEPs need to have comprehensive information about the resources and materials available to them in order to perform their work responsibly and efficiently. We have therefore asked the administration to create a knowledge management system, allowing us to work efficiently with all documents. We will have the first concrete proposals in this area over the course of the next few weeks.

A further priority is to provide citizens with better information about the work of their representatives in the European Parliament and about how Parliament's work benefits EU citizens. Here we need to finalise, consolidate and make effective use of European Parliamentary television, the visitors' centre and the new audiovisual centre.

The administrative expense items of EU institutions include expenses for purchasing and leasing buildings. In various cases previously institutions have purchased or leased property at prices above the market rate. According to the findings of the Court of Auditors, institutions have not even evaluated policies on buildings jointly but rather on an individual basis. We therefore need to develop a joint policy on buildings in order to achieve better cooperation in this area. We are expecting a strategic document as soon as possible dealing with policy on buildings in the medium to long term so that we can adopt an appropriate decision at first reading. Thank you.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, thank you very much for making it possible for me to exchange views with Parliament at an unusually early stage this year. I am very thankful for the Committee on Budgetary Affairs' initiative to do this. The Commission has already examined very seriously Parliament's guidelines for the 2010 budget, and agrees with most of the points. The Commission also appreciates Parliament's examination of the 2010 Annual Policy Strategy - already reflected in your resolution - and shares with you many of the policy priorities identified.

Unexpected challenges, such as the financial, economic and social recovery, will need to be addressed. However, long-lasting solutions to other issues, such as tackling climate change and achieving a sustainable Europe, are essential as well. On this basis, the Commission will, on 29 April, adopt its preliminary draft budget for 2010.

The Commission has already indicated that financial efforts in 2010 will be needed, in particular, for the Economic Recovery Plan. The Commission has also noted Parliament's support for more efficient levels of administrative expenditure, and will continue to act in that direction. As for the pilot projects and preparatory actions, I am sure we will be able to build on last year's excellent cooperation between institutions.

The preliminary draft budget will be based on sound estimates of the needs for achieving our shared priorities and taking up the challenges ahead of us. I am confident that a satisfactory agreement on the 2010 budget will, once again, be achieved through good cooperation and collaboration between all the institutions, and especially with Parliament.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Madam President, the European Parliament budget for the coming year will have three new elements. It will be a year in which this Chamber will have a new secretary general, it will be a year in which it will probably operate with the Treaty of Lisbon and it will be a year in which it will operate with two new statutes, one for MEPs and one for parliamentary assistants.

My political group has tried to reflect these new developments in the Maňka report through numerous amendments and we are delighted to see that the Commission has been able to reflect these new dynamics in four basic priorities.

These four basic priorities of my group are:

Firstly, the emphasis on lawmaking. Parliament is particularly effective when it exercises its lawmaking activities and the administration must prove to us that it can channel Parliament's resources to where we make a difference.

The second priority - and here we agree with the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - is the absolute safeguarding of multilingualism and members' access to translation and interpreting services to and from their mother tongue.

The third priority is that we must be able to evaluate progress in the implementation of the major plans which we have already approved, such as Europarl TV or the Visitors' Centre, which we would have liked to be ready before the European elections and which unfortunately is not, and the House of European History. We want these multiannual plans to operate smoothly and to be duly evaluated.

Finally, I believe that we in the European Parliament should strengthen every effort which shows the European taxpayer in times of crisis that this House is spending what it needs rationally so that it can do a better job.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, the debate on the Surján report, for which I have the honour of acting as shadow rapporteur, is a political debate with a great many crucial points, especially this year. Its importance starts with the fact that it will be the only clear political debate on political priorities because, as you know, in an election year we shall not have the opportunity for another one; afterwards we shall be going straight into the new phase of the procedure, into critical technical differentiations and debates.

However, it is also a debate in a year in which - as everyone has said and as we all know as politicians and as citizens - Europe will have entered a very deep crisis, and unfortunately everything indicates that 2010, to which our report and our debate refer, will also be a year of crisis.

My first comment therefore is that it may, at the present moment in time, suffice for the report we are debating and which we will be voting on to be passed by a simple majority, but it will need to be a report which expresses the entire European Parliament and not just one political faction. It will need to be a report which expresses the anxiety of citizens and politicians, but - and here there is political disagreement between us and the rapporteur and his faction - not only with the emphasis solely on fears and anxieties, but also with prospects for the future.

We must use the budget to give citizens to understand that the budget is a political tool with which we not only reply to fears but also provide political prospects for the future. That is, I think, extremely important and the efforts of our group, both during the stage of discussion in committee and during this phase of debate in plenary, are aimed at striking a balance between this text and this political dynamic which will be emitted, so that we do not impart an image of the Apocalypse - just fear and anxiety - but open up prospects for the European Union.

I will say it again: today a simple majority may suffice and it may be that one faction can impose its line, but it is crucial, in light of the debate which will close with a reinforced majority, for the opinion of Parliament, in the final analysis, in other words, for the opinion of the citizens to be heard.

In a period of crisis, we socialists believe that Europe should respond through its budget with very specific characteristics. The response from our budget and from political Europe must, firstly, be coordinated: we must not create the impression that we are leaving each of the Member States to face this difficult situation on their own. Secondly, priority must be given to the citizens' social protection; this social indicator, which is peculiar to the European Union, must be nurtured come what may. That is why we are trying to say certain things in the report in a different way. Finally, this response to the crisis must be such that the citizens understand it, so that it echoes the priorities of environment and energy, and says yes to an energy-independent European Union, but with all roads open, with all possibilities open, so that we can achieve precisely what we want.

There are many points on which we agree with the general feeling of this report, with the feeling of urgency, with the feeling of political necessity. However, we would stress that the response which we want to give through the budget must be a response with these characteristics.

So until we meet in September and with the hope that the Commission will take serious account of Parliament's views.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DA) Madam President, Mr Surján has chosen 'security' as the heading for the 2010 budget, the word being interpreted in its broadest sense: alleviation of the financial and economic crisis, its importance for jobs and economic security, the security of energy supplies, safe transport, the safety and security of citizens in relation to the problems caused by immigration and the problems arising as a result of demographic changes, with fewer young people to care for an increasing number of elderly people, the need for better environmental protection, the need to fight against terrorism and the need to promote safety and security through the EU's role in the world. The heading 'security' indicates the many areas where the EU budget is important and how vital it is for the budget to reflect our needs.

In many ways, 2010 will be an exciting year for the EU budget. For the structural funds, 2010 is the first year in which the 'n+3 rule' comes into play. Those appropriations that have not been committed over the last three years according to the programme will lapse. Now we will see whether the Member States have been able to utilise the appropriations in time. I certainly hope that the sunset clause, the n+3 rule, will not come into play, but, if it does, there is certainly reason to look again at whether the rules for the structural funds are sufficiently flexible and unbureaucratic.

In 2010, foreign policy will, as in previous years, be a tricky issue. I would urge the Commission to find the necessary appropriations, even though the ceiling for this category of expenditure is very low. In the Committee on Budgets we had a number of discussions about our position with the regard to the EU's subsidising of the Nabucco gas pipeline. I would like to emphasise that this is a point to which we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe attach a great deal of importance. Energy security must be ensured by means of many different initiatives, but we would in particular like to see support for Nabucco, a project which, at the end of the day, is independent of Gazprom.

The budget procedure will be quite difficult this year. This is, of course, election year. The reports by Mr Maňka and Mr Surján represent the only opportunity that Parliament will get to express its opinion on the budget. It will be the newly-elected Parliament that will have to do the actual negotiating with regard to the budget. It is not easy to maintain the procedure we implemented last year with Mrs Haug as rapporteur and with the substantial involvement of the specialist committees. We must, of course, do our best to ensure that the procedure is as open and structured as possible, and I am pleased to hear, Commissioner, that this is also something that you are going to do. I think that both Mr Surján and Mr Maňka have provided a good proposal for doing this.

Madam President, preparing the budget for 2010 requires a lot of courage. We still do not know the full extent of the the economic crisis which unfolded last year. Unfortunately, in spite of the significant efforts of individual countries to control it, the crisis continues to develop - workplaces are closing down, unemployment is rising and entire families, as well as sections of society, towns and villages, are becoming poorer.

The implementation of the tasks adopted in the multiannual financial frameworks for the years 2007-2013 is presenting an increasing number of difficulties. Last year, when the budget for 2009 was being drawn up, the estimated level of funding was achieved with great difficulty. Will it be possible to sustain this level in 2010? I hope so. This will be our greatest challenge next year.

We should remember that solidarity is most important during hard times. We must not give up the noble objectives adopted in the Lisbon Strategy. We should bear in mind the economic diversity of EU Member States - not all of them will be able to overcome the crisis, but joint action can provide a great deal of assistance. We still have the chance, at the mid-term review stage, to alter our policies and focus on combating the negative effects of the crisis, making it our number one priority.

Finally I would like to sincerely thank my fellow Members of the Committee on Budgets, László Surján and Vladimír Maňka, for their contributions at such a difficult time.

Faced with the worsening crisis in the European Union and the lack of any objective and effective measures at Community level to deal with it, the European Parliament, having agreed last December to a budget for 2009 which is around EUR 8 billion less than that set in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2007-2013, now wants the final budget for 2010 to be closer to these upper limits. However, in our opinion, the very least that the European Parliament could have called for is actually too little.

The budgetary limits imposed in the current MFF, which restricts the Community budget to 1% of EU gross national income, are clearly inadequate to achieve the proclaimed policy of economic and social cohesion. What is more, these inadequate limits are not fully used for this purpose, or even observed, and they are certainly not fully implemented. The constant under-budgeting and under-implementation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are two years' late in their implementation, require the adoption of a series of measures to ensure that these funds are implemented, particularly when the European Union and its neoliberal policies are one of the root causes of the current economic crisis.

Faced with the rise in unemployment, social inequalities and poverty, we would reassert the urgent need, among other measures, to boost the financial resources of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, to speed up and ensure their full implementation, to increase the rate of Community cofinancing and to cancel the application of the n+2 and n+3 rules in these funds. These funds must also be used to defend employment with rights and increase the purchasing power of workers, effectively support small-scale and family farming and fisheries, defend and develop the productive sectors of each Member State, particularly of the cohesion countries, and effectively support micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises and the cooperative sector.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, the EU is confronting the global financial crisis with a budget that was formulated half a century ago. According to the rapporteur, the EU should face the modern, globalised world with a budget in which nearly all of the money is pledged to a lunatic agricultural policy and an ineffective regional policy. It is like using the cavalry to attack a modern, mechanised army with guided missiles.

The difference in magnitude is absurd. The cost of resolving the financial crisis is impossible to estimate now, but one calculation that has been put forward suggests a figure in the region of USD 50 000 billion. The total EU budget is only a couple of per cent of that amount and is already pledged to agriculture and regional policy. The EU has required each Member State to implement a stimulus package corresponding to just over 1% of its GNP. This is already more than the entire EU budget, which, of course, only amounts to around 1%.

It is also pathetic to read the wording in both these reports with regard to the funding of climate policy and energy policy. In these areas, too, the EU's budget is thoroughly negligible. The EU's task is to obtain cooperation and commitments, the costs of which must be borne in the Member States after being anchored there in a democratic process.

The same applies to energy policy. Gas pipelines are cheaper to lay on land than on the seabed. Now when Russia and Germany nevertheless construct a gas pipeline on the seabed directly between their two countries, they do this to isolate themselves. It is a new Rapallo, and the EU does not say a word. 'My words fly up, my thoughts remain below', says the king in Hamlet.

- (SK) The basic logic of the European Parliament's budget structure, as proposed by the Budget Committee rapporteur Vladimír Maňka, is sound. It includes provision for those points which have proven to be weaker and not fully thought out or not implemented to a sufficient extent in previous years.

First and foremost this involves finally sorting out the translation and interpreting resources used in the European Parliament. Despite expectations we have fallen well short here of securing full implementation of one of the basic axioms of the European Union, which is equality of access and freedom from linguistic discrimination.

And I am not thinking only of equal access and freedom from discrimination in relation to the activities of MEPs, but especially the possibility for EU citizens, regardless of their mother tongue, to access information on activities and outcomes of debates at the institution citizens send their representatives to through direct elections.

Although we have had a massive expansion of the European Union, a delay of five years really does look like an absurd play for time. This undermines faith in European institutions, especially in the smaller countries, and creates fertile ground for nationalist political groups.

(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, this is the last budget of this parliamentary term and, with luck, it will also be the last budget before the Treaty of Lisbon is implemented together with the new budgetary provisions.

Today, the debate with which we are concerned is the debate on the budgetary guidelines, because that is what they are, and it is very clear that we must approve these budgetary guidelines here in sufficient time to have an influence on the drafting of the preliminary draft budget prepared by the Commissioner, as she has just told us. They are guidelines in that they include this Parliament's political priorities, to which budget content and allocations must be given.

The European Union's budget is a battle for scarce resources, particularly at this time of financial and economic crisis. The decision we are making now, regarding what the European Parliament's political priorities will be, is therefore of the greatest importance, particularly since this budget will form a bridge between two terms of the European Parliament, and also between two mandates of the European Commission.

Those who are starting this procedure off now are not the same people that will be completing it in December, and we may even have three commissioners responsible for budgetary matters between now and December - and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Commissioner on her appointment. Therefore, achieving a consensus within this House on our priorities is extremely important.

Obviously, similarly to last year, we are going to budget for the greatest security for our citizens. This security involves a huge number of separate headings, such as social cohesion, job seeking and cohesion, and - unfortunately as was mentioned at the start of this sitting - it is also necessary to step up security and the fight against terrorism. We must not forget that the fight against terrorism is still, regrettably, a priority for the European Union.

Of course, another of the priorities will be to combat the economic crisis. The economic recovery plan has demonstrated the limitations and inadequacies of the annual budget, the multiannual financial framework and even interinstitutional cooperation. What is lacking is a real dialogue to examine, for example, the role of the European Investment Bank, and the use of surpluses in the expenditure categories to finance the European Commission's plans. What is lacking is consensus, and also dialogue.

These guidelines will involve political decisions which will be reflected in the July conciliation, and will then form part of the first reading.

I would like the rapporteur, Mr Surján, to receive sufficient support to bring the guidelines to successful completion, since he has the ability to do so, and I hope that by December he will have a very positive outcome.

(DE) Many thanks, Madam President, many thanks, Commissioner. As Mr Surján said, the available budget is tight - 1% of gross national product. Thus we must be all the more careful with the funds, particularly in view of the crisis weighing on people's minds. We should also attempt to come to decisions together.

There is one part of this report on which no joint decisions are possible. This concerns energy supply and energy security. I ask myself whether, at a time when we have to account for every single euro, we should really be investing money in fields where there are market players making billions in profits. Support is being proposed for gas pipelines such as the South Stream project of the Italian group Eni, which made a profit of EUR 10 billion. Nord Stream is a project of E.ON, a German group making a profit of EUR 5 billion, and Nabucco brings together a German, an Austrian and a Turkish company with total profits in excess of EUR 6 billion. Should we really be putting taxpayers' money into fields in which profits are made? Should conglomerates perhaps be making the relevant investments themselves, and should we perhaps be involving ourselves in only those fields in which support from taxpayers is really desirable? We should not be throwing more money at those who are earning enough as it is. Hence the question: is this really what we want?

My second question is as follows. If we do support companies, why Nabucco? Why do we want to create imbalances in this regard? Why do we want to favour a Hungarian company over an Italian one, for example? What is your justification for this? Competitive neutrality is a must, but it is infringed by what you are hoping to adopt.

My third point is that the money must be spent in Europe. What is the use of our investing in Azerbaijan? In the face of the crisis, our European citizens want us to provide solution mechanisms. They expect us to provide assistance.

We cannot support the Surján report as it stands, as this would mean promoting competition-distorting measures and throwing more money at high-earning institutions and industries. The European Union, with its scant resources, absolutely cannot afford this.

(FI) Madam President, it will be a challenging task to draft next year's budget. The European Parliament elections next spring will result in a long pause in the drafting process, and the possible entry-into-force of the Lisbon Treaty means that the budget would have been drafted under rules that are different from those under which it would be implemented. I therefore wish every success to Mr Surján and Mr Maňka, as the general rapporteurs for the budget, in this mammoth task.

The EU's structural policy is caught up in a massive vicious circle of bureaucracy. The cause is its hopelessly complex system of administration and monitoring, which is only geared up to cater for 20% of the Social Fund programmes and just 7% of the Regional Development Fund programmes. There is funding in place for only 2% of major projects. Moreover, more than two years of the new programming period have passed. For example, last year more than EUR 2.8 billion were withdrawn or postponed in commitments and more than EUR 4 billion withdrawn in payment appropriations.

(PL) Madam President, the budgets adopted each year total significantly less than the amounts adopted in the multiannual financial frameworks. What is more, the budgets are implemented at a still lower level, which results in a significant amount of outstanding budgetary commitments (RELs). This phenomenon, in particular, stems from a system of complicated rules and requirements imposed by the European Commission, as well as the detailed regulations, pertaining to beneficiaries, introduced by the Member States.

To improve the implementation of the budget, it is essential for both the Commission and the individual Member States to significantly reduce the bureaucratic burden. Secondly, in view of the deepening economic crisis in the EU, it is essential to make even wider use of both EU budgetary resources and funding, in the form of loans and credits, from the European institutions to support development in the Member States, and the SME sector in particular. Thirdly, and finally, it is also essential to make even greater use of EU budgetary resources and also funding provided by banks to ensure genuine diversity in terms of our energy supply, and the Nabucco project in particular. If we do not diversify our supplies of raw materials for energy production, especially natural gas, crises like the one in January will be repeated.

(DE) Madam President, we are right to talk about the financial crisis, but we are not right to say that the European Union does not have any money in its budget to fund the relevant measures to combat it.

We have EUR 144 billion in our annual budget, from which EUR 5 billion has somehow been extracted. My specific proposal is as follows: let us turn this EUR 5 billion into EUR 50 billion without increasing the budget. How is that possible? Taking the administrative part, if we include all the EU administrative expenditure hidden in the operational programmes, that gives us EUR 15 billion.

I say we could manage on EUR 5 billion, which leaves EUR 10 billion for combating the financial crisis. Then we do what we are always demanding of everyone else, namely submit our programmes and activities to independent examination. I am convinced that, if the specific policies of the European Union of today were to be examined at long last, we could easily achieve a further EUR 30 billion in potential savings per year, without losing sight of our objectives.

There are also some small matters in this House. We have a budget of EUR 1.5 billion. Starting sittings on time would introduce efficiency into our work - which would be worth EUR 700 million - and the remaining 300 could be obtained from the Council, which works at least as wastefully as this Parliament.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with these guidelines for the 2010 budget, Parliament in plenary will be not only determining the guidelines for budgetary policy but also, in the absence of a motion for a resolution of the political groups on the subject, reacting to the Commission's Annual Policy Strategy.

The reason the budget is such a complex entity is, of course, that it primarily comprises two stages. This House and its Committee on Budgets will still be responsible for the July conciliation, and we cannot foresee today what new challenges and complementary measures will result, for example, from the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon or from new requirements arising from international and European cyclical trends. At the same time, the 2010 budget will subsequently form a bridge to the budget review and to the mid-term review of the multi-annual programmes, both of which are to take place in 2010. I am very glad to see that the rapporteur, Mr Surján, when discussing aspects of European budgetary policy, emphasises that Europe can stand for opportunities and protection; that is, guaranteeing both internal and external security, offering European citizens protection, and helping to deal with the current problems by giving new momentum to growth, innovation and jobs. We are not just talking about new money here; we are also talking, in particular, about simplifying and accelerating the existing measures, so that we are not constantly having to return the agreed payments to our solidarity programmes, which already form part of the budget, year after year by means of supplementary budgets.

I also welcome the priorities Mr Maňka has presented for Parliament in his report. In addition to the need to improve the language arrangements, when it comes to improving the internal structures of Parliament there is a need to continue the screening exercise we have begun rather than always just calling for new positions. If we are going to pass more laws, we need to concentrate more elsewhere; we cannot always be calling for new positions and posts when we feel like it. We have a great deal more work ahead of us in this regard.

(HU) Madam President, Commissioner, I welcome the fact that the report takes an unambiguous stance in favour of Community support for the Nabucco project. The Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis has pointed to Europe's dependency in terms of gas supply. The Nabucco project is the only realistic, feasible plan that is capable of mitigating Europe's unilateral dependency on Russian gas supplies. You may be tired of hearing me draw attention each year during the budget debate to the inadequate financing of the foreign affairs chapter. The European Union can only respond in a timely manner to new challenges if its budget allows for real flexibility and reallocation within and between chapters; otherwise we can continue to support our most important objectives with budgetary tricks and opaque budgetary manipulations. I call upon the Commission to offer a solution to the serious financing problems of the foreign relations chapter in the context of a true midterm review, and to ensure greater budgetary flexibility.

Madam President, as we come to the first stage of the 2010 budget, I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs. It is clear - and other speakers have mentioned it - that we will be having a different type of debate this autumn because we now have the context of a European election set in the worst economic conditions for the last 60 years.

I suspect, therefore, Mr Surján, that when it comes to looking at the budget this autumn - and you have set out traditional challenges in this document - that these will be much changed by the debates we are going to have, focusing on where we are going to be, creating new jobs for the future rather than looking backwards. The emphasis will be on the things in your document, such as green technologies, zero carbon technologies, and, above all, on seeing how ICT, can foster innovation and be able to get the new growth that the European economy will need.

Mr Maňka, in the budget for the European Parliament, when we are thinking about the screening process which has just been mentioned, please do not forget the role of technologies and the way in which everything can be done in a much simpler way. We do not need traditional ways of doing things: we need to be thinking of the new ways in which we can communicate with our citizens. I suspect that by the end of the next Parliament every parliamentarian bar one or two will have a blog. There are over 100 million blogs in the global system today; there were no blogs when this Parliamentary term started in 2004. We have to keep our minds tuned to the future rather than trampling along the normal ways we are used to in so many contexts.

Lastly, I very strongly support Mr Surján's proposal because it refers in both budgets to what I call 'value for money' and which others call 'qualitative improvement' of the way in which we spend it. The economic recession will be very tough on us and we will have to be able to justify the monies we are spending. I would like to thank the Commissioner for everything that she has done during her term of office with regard to being able to monitor how spending is done. If, for the new incoming Parliament, there could be an analysis of those lines which are strong and those which are weak, then that would be very welcome.

(RO) I would first of all like to thank my fellow Member, Mr Surján, for his efforts. Specifically because we are debating the guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure, which is practically a political debate, I would like to highlight a couple of things.

In my view and in Romania's view, there is one vital element required to ensure the European Union's efficient operation, which must be integrated without fail into the 2010 budget lines: the Nabucco project. We all know that the European Union had a fairly unpleasant experience this winter, finding itself to a large extent without any gas supply. Moreover, this matter not only concerns gas, but all the energy resources which the European Union uses.

The EU is dependent on its suppliers in terms not only of price, but also of supply. This is why it is absolutely essential for us to diversify our energy suppliers and energy resources and the methods of transporting those resources in order to guarantee our citizens a constant supply and protect them against disruptions, especially during freezing winters.

On the other hand, I feel that we need to invest in and encourage research and development in new technologies which will enable industries to use as little energy as possible. We must step up our energy-saving campaigns, along with Europe's citizens. Both diversifying resources and saving them are solutions intended to anticipate and respond to the energy crises threatening the European Union.

(FI) Mr President, a challenging year lies ahead: there are the elections and economic crisis on top of everything. This means we have a very great responsibility, but, fortunately, Mr Surján and Mr Maňka are dealing with it. I know that both men take their responsibility seriously and are very capable of discharging their duties. This obviously means that we will have to consider Parliament's own projects in particular and that we should set an example to the general public and acquire its confidence as a result. We really need to get the magnifying glass out and take a close look at what projects we can implement in this period. They should be nothing very grand.

I wanted to focus on one detail in my speech. It is that this year's budget acquired a new heading, the 'Baltic Sea Strategy', and I hope that this year both the Commission and Parliament will together hit on the right projects and find the right money for the right sort of measures. The people who live in the Baltic Sea region are expecting a little meat around the bones of this Baltic Sea Strategy, and if we think things through, we might well succeed in this.

rapporteur. - (HU) I welcome the comments and feel that most of the criticisms made, and the majority of the amendments submitted, stem from a common source. I mean that these are mainly questions of terminology rather than of true opposition. There is one major source of debate, the support for the Nabucco issue. I would like to make it clear that it is not companies that we want to support, and that there is no question of billion-euro projects; however, we expect the European Commission to take steps towards Europe's energy independence, and one symbol of this - among others - is the Nabucco project.

Mr President, please allow me to draw attention to one more thought. This budget points beyond itself. Today, Europe's citizens no longer have that sense of excellence of the European Union that the founding fathers had, namely, that it would create peace, that it would no longer be possible to start a war. Today there is something else at stake. We do not have to fear war, but yet we see attacks such as this crisis. If we can solve this, and if we can prove to ourselves and to Europe's citizens that the European Union can deal with these concerns together, jointly, then the EU will send a clear message to its citizens that it is worth making a sacrifice, it is worth collaborating. We need the Union. I expect Euro-scepticism to decline if we adopt a successful budget for 2010, and I ask for support now and later on in the autumn. Thank you for your respectful attention.

rapporteur. - (SK) I would like to thank everyone taking part for the inspiring discussion and also the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation. Thanks to their amendment proposal the entire draft is of a higher quality.

I would also like to thank Secretary General Rømer for his cooperation and I am already looking forward to working together with the next Secretary General.

I would like to thank all representatives of the general secretariats of the European Parliament with whom I met and held discussions. I would like to say to the representatives of the other general secretariats that I am also interested in meeting them and working together to find effective solutions so that we can use the financial resources of Europe's citizens to better effect.

The Committee on Budgets has also cooperated constructively with other institutions in the past and during the previous budget process. I believe that the budget requirements currently being submitted by these institutions are realistic.

I would like to express my appreciation for the way that budgets are created in these institutions, as budget creation not only takes account of the inflation coefficient automatically but is also based on actual needs, which in the current period is really very challenging. In the coming days I will meet with representatives of the institutions in order to listen to their views before we discuss these estimates in the Committee on Budgets. I would like once again to thank all of my colleagues. I look forward to our continuing cooperation.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 10 March 2009.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - (LT) In the financial and economic crisis small and medium-sized enterprises are facing increasing difficulties as they try to obtain funding for scientific research, technological development and innovation; according to the general Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, it would be possible to provide effective support for innovation-related SME activities, therefore it emphasises the importance of allocating sufficient funds for financing the CIP.

Information and communication technologies provide great opportunities to encourage growth and innovation, thus helping to implement the goals of the Lisbon Strategy and to overcome the current economic crisis; more than ever before, the European Research Area is the foundation of Europe's information society and is essential for removing inconsistencies in scientific research activities, programmes and policies in Europe; adequate funding is important to ensure the flow of qualified scientists able to move freely and to support global scientific research infrastructure, accessible to all teams of researchers across Europe.

Safeguarding security of energy supply in the European Union and also the principle of energy solidarity are the most important priorities on the EU agenda and this should be taken into consideration accordingly in the EU Budget.

The EP's responsibility in preparation for the 2010 budget is greater compared to previous budgets. The reason for this is the financial and economic crisis, along with the unstable energy situation, which has affected EU Member States. The utmost precision is required in the budgeting process, along with flexible options, as the dynamics of the crisis require it to be managed in a dynamic manner.

We need to be more successful at implementing the regional and social cohesion policy across the whole EU. This must be reflected in every priority, which is an even greater challenge in the context of an economic crisis, so that we do not allow divisions to be created between Member States and we help new Member States to cope.

I believe that by using the budgetary instruments we will be more accountable in 2010 for energy and transport networks, and the EU's internal energy networks will be well planned so that they guarantee an alternative to the countries most affected by the energy shortage. Other particularly important considerations are flexibility and efficiency in terms of financing transport corridors with a view to easing traffic and expanding communication links between countries. Particular attention must be given to North-South networks.

A great deal more intensity is required in the expansion of research and development projects. Innovation policy must be targeted at sectors which are appropriate to the relevant countries in order to achieve maximum efficiency from the use of the funds.

in writing. (HU) As the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety regarding the EU budget for 2010, I wish to express my satisfaction with the material before us.

I particularly welcome the Commission's intention to contribute to economic and social recovery, reinforce energy efficiency and combat climate change.

I fully agree that the European Union must take more far-reaching financial and budgetary decisions which make it possible for the EU to play a role primarily in the areas of economic growth and job creation. Environmental protection - that is, the green New Deal - can, by finding solutions to the current economic crisis, provide an excellent opportunity to increase green technology infrastructure.

The problems of gas supply at the beginning of the year have shown once again the lack of alternative energy sources, alternative energy supply routes, energy source storage capacity and energy transport interconnections among the Member States. For this reason, it is important that the EU budget duly reflect the need to enhance the security of the energy supply and transport, and for us to invest significant sums in these areas.

As the report has clearly indicated, climate change and environmental protection, as well as the issue of energy security, are closely related to each other. At the same time, it is unfortunate that the measures to mitigate climate change are still not satisfactorily included in the EU budget. I therefore see the task of the Parliament primarily as putting pressure in this regard on the Commission and seeing to it that the aforesaid resources are increased.

Statute for a European private company - Cross-borders transfers of companies' registered offices - Small Business Act - Workers' participation in companies with a European Statute (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on:

the report by Mr Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Statute for a European private company - C6-0283/2008 -.

the report by Mr Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, with recommendations to the Commission on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company.

the report by Mrs Herczog, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the Small Business Act.

the Commission statement on workers' participation in companies with a European Statute.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have two reports to advocate here, both of which originate from Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs.

I should like to start with the one that is more important at this time, as it concerns a specific legislative procedure initiated by the Commission: the European private company (EPC). Indeed, this is the legislative core element, if one may describe it thus, of the Small Business Act.

I wish to say a few words about the background. The idea for the European private company was already contained in Commissioner Bolkestein's Action Plan on Company Law. For reasons that never made sense to me, the idea of the European private company was then erased, so to speak, from the action plan over the years, in the course of this Commission's term of office, and was not pursued further by the Commission at that time.

The European Parliament disagreed, however, and this was the background to its legislative own-initiative report under Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 192 of the Treaty, which this House adopted by an overwhelming majority some time ago. Under these circumstances, the Commission felt compelled to reconsider the idea of the European private company, and has now proposed it within the framework of the Small Business Act - which is very much appreciated.

This offer of a separate company form is particularly directed at Europe's small and medium-sized enterprises. Up to now, only large companies have had their own company form, namely the European company. I believe that such a proposal was long overdue. As this is aimed at SMEs, and start-ups - that is, companies that arise from the idea of starting up a company rather than as a result of the transformation, division or merger of existing or other companies - must also be provided for, we also welcome the European Commission's restraint with regard to the requirements imposed on the cross-border component. This has, I believe, also been expressed by Parliament in this report.

We also think it right that all the issues concerning, in particular, capital and liability, have to be clarified in legislative terms at European level, as these are particular problems for SMEs. The present need for them to work with very disparate national legal forms means that they are in great need of advice, which is obviated by this new legal form.

We also believe that we are in line with the case law of the European Court of Justice in the matter of whether the company's seat must be identical to its registered office or seat of administration; that is, that only one company seat can be envisaged. I know that there is a minority opinion on the subject in this House, but the majority opinion in Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs - from which I assume plenary will take its lead tomorrow - is that there must definitely be the possibility of a separation and that a European company form cannot be disadvantaged in relation to national company forms, which have this possibility under the case law of the European Court of Justice.

A major problem, which required lengthy negotiations, was the situation with regard to employee participation. We have had considerable difficulties with this in the past when dealing with other legal acts under company law. I need only mention the European company and the Directive on cross-border mergers. I believe that, thanks to the compromise amendments signed by the three largest political groups in this House, we have succeeded in finding a real solution to this problem; a solution which draws on the successful elements of previous legal acts in the European Union, which represents a compromise between the different legal situations in the Member States, and which also makes a contribution to protecting employees' rights.

My final comment concerns the 14th Directive, for which I am also rapporteur. The story is similar to that of the European company. Our aim is to use this legislative motion for a resolution to compel the Commission to make a tangible proposal, as we did in the case of the EPC, and indeed we expect the Commission to do so, so as to close one of the last gaps in company law and guarantee freedom of establishment for undertakings. My sincere thanks for your attention.

rapporteur. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are reaching the end of a long process, a long and successful process through which we have been able to move small and medium-sized enterprises from the periphery to the centre. It has been a long process for us to reach the point where this internal market, although unified, is not homogeneous. A long road, at the end of which we see that the 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises operate with the same administrative burdens and rules as the 41 thousand large European companies, even though the former are unable to enter the market under anything like the same conditions.

It seems to us that the Commission, under Commissioner Verheugen's leadership, has come a long way over the past five years, and thus we welcome the change in philosophy within the European Union, intended to eliminate the hurdles facing SMEs both at EU level and in the Member States. One possibility for increasing the turnover of SMEs is to enable more and more of them to enter the European internal market, since at present only 8% of enterprises do so, and only 15% of their turnover is generated on that market. Their turnover could increase if they were able to participate much more extensively in innovative research and development programmes and projects. It would help the market activities of small businesses if sources of funding and financing were made much more readily accessible than at present. Their turnover could increase if we were at last to create a Community patent, thus preventing cheap counterfeit products from squeezing out intellectual property produced by small businesses.

I believe that the most sensitive challenge from the perspective of the success of the entire Lisbon Strategy is certainly to help SMEs move from their own Member State to the EU internal market. In the current economic situation, however, we need to point out, over and above what has been said, that there are problems with the major source of financing for small and medium-sized enterprises. For that source continues to be credit. The increased risk sensitivity of financial institutions has meant, however, that more and more companies have difficulty accessing credit. Invoking the uncertainty of the economic situation, the banks are holding back on making loans in these circles. Directors of SMEs complain that thousands of companies and tens of thousands of workplaces may be endangered. It is fundamentally in our interest to ensure that the funds intended to inject liquidity into the system reach the economy rather than remain in bank safes. One of the most important steps is for banks to begin to stimulate the economy and SMEs as soon as possible.

The other challenge is to create European solidarity. This is the only way to offer more effective protection than what nation states can provide to SMEs that are in difficulty because of the crisis. In saying this, I want to point out that the situation of SMEs and the way this is handled is also a test of European solidarity. It shows that Europe is capable of assuming shared risk with Member States beyond the euro zone as well. The measures aimed principally at stabilising the euro area can easily give rise - and have already given rise - to a financial vacuum in the non-euro zone. In the current situation, therefore, I must ask European decision-makers and the representatives of the banking sector not to allow for the creation of a two-speed Europe, since the collapse of a region where SMEs play a decisive role - constituting more than 90% of all businesses - would bring with it catastrophic economic consequences. I request the support of the Commission and of my fellow Members to this end. I thank my fellow rapporteur, Nicole Fontaine, and the other shadow rapporteurs for their work, and once again congratulate Commissioner Verheugen for the achievements to date.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I should like to thank the two rapporteurs. Ladies first, and not only these days, I will start by thanking Ms Herczog for the quality of her report on the Small Business Act (SBA) and the strong support it provides for the Commission's initiative to establish a comprehensive policy on small- and medium-sized enterprises. I would also like to pay tribute to Mr Lehne, not only for his efficiency and work in steering the Private Company Statute through the consultation procedure, but also for the interesting and creative solutions presented in the report.

We are now really in a critical phase. We listen every day to the messages, such as the need to boost and renew confidence in the functioning of the global economy. The financial and economic crisis has hit European businesses really hard, and I believe that it is now more important than ever to exploit to the full the potential of small- and medium-sized enterprises. This is the very lifeline of the European economy.

The Small Business Act, which the Commission adopted in June 2008, provides a comprehensive framework of short-, medium- and long-term actions for SME growth and competitiveness within the Lisbon Strategy. It proposes 10 policy principles and a number of concrete initiatives to make sure that the concerns of SMEs are placed at the centre of decision-making - as Ms Herczog said, mainstreaming SMEs into the centre of attention and strategies.

The SBA includes a set of legislative initiatives, including the proposal for a European private company statute. The SBA is designed to ensure that the 'think small first' principle and priority for small businesses are lastingly and irreversibly anchored in policy-making across the Union. The SBA also calls for greater recognition of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs. We need people who are prepared to take initiatives, draft projects and take risks more than ever at times like this. We also believe, therefore, that honest entrepreneurs who suffer business failure deserve a second chance.

In the current economic crisis, we need to establish priorities and focus on delivering quickly on those actions which have the strongest potential to contribute to recovery. The SBA action plan and the European economic recovery plan propose ambitious measures in three key areas: first, loosening the supply of much-needed credit; secondly, reducing the administrative burden; and, thirdly, helping SMEs do business abroad.

Making a success of the Small Business Act depends on the seamless cooperation of all stakeholders. We are grateful for your support. The resolution that Parliament adopted in early December was a timely and strongly welcomed initiative. As you know, at the summit later in December, the Heads of State and Government unanimously endorsed the Small Business Act, under the French Presidency.

It is, therefore, important that this House gives its full support today to Ms Herczog's report, to establish a solid and legitimate basis for further action. I would like to invite you to promote the Small Business Act in your respective countries and your constituencies to help make sure that this ambitious policy programme becomes reality and that it really helps SMEs in their daily business.

Let me turn now to Mr Lehne's two reports. Parliament has always been a strong supporter of the European Private Company Statute. Your own-initiative report of 2006 and your swift handling of the Commission's proposal are important contributions to the success of the new European Company Statute.

The Private Company Statute is a key element of the Small Business Act. It is designed for SMEs. Therefore, the Commission proposed that a European private company may be set up just like any domestic company, without the requirement for doing business in different Member States or having shareholders from more than one country - just like at home. There are those who consider such a cross-border requirement essential for a European company forum. Parliament's resolution, which allows companies a choice between a variety of cross-border elements, is flexible. European private companies could comply with this requirement, for example by setting up a foreign subsidiary or by simply recording their intention to do cross-border business.

You have also suggested a flexible solution for the minimum capital requirement. As you know, the Commission's proposal required a minimum capital of just EUR 1, and beyond that left it to the shareholders to decide on how much capital their European private company needs. This provision has been questioned by those who consider that capital requirements have a role in protecting the creditors of small companies.

The European Parliament report has put forward alternative solutions to improve creditor protection. It means companies would be able to choose between a solvency-based or capital-maintenance-based creditor protection regime.

The Commission agrees with those elements of the report that aim to increase the uniformity of the statute and thus promote the legal certainty of its application. These include prescribing the registration of the company's business object, clarifying that the ban on offering shares to the public does not preclude offers to the employees of the company, or improving the rules on directors' duties and liabilities. All of these make a helpful contribution which will facilitate the application of this statute.

I also welcome your useful suggestion of an arbitration clause which encourages the shareholders to use alternative means of dispute resolution.

Finally, I should like to mention the subject that has been the most debated in Parliament and elsewhere, which is workers' participation on the board of European private companies. As I have already mentioned, the Commission designed a statute for smaller businesses. Employee participation in SMEs exists only in a few Member States, and this is why a solution based on national laws, which would allow for the coexistence of different models, seemed the most appropriate and reasonable approach.

Parliament's amendments introduce additional and complex provisions that are not applicable to SMEs formed under national law in most Member States. This is likely to make the European Private Company Statute unattractive in those Member States and a much less viable option for SMEs.

To conclude, there are a number of useful solutions in your report. Some of them could very well pave the way for a swifter compromise among the Member States. The Commission, therefore, welcomes the adoption of this report.

Finally, regarding the cross-border transfer of the seat of companies: the Commission has informed Parliament on previous occasions of its reasons for not proposing the 14th Company Law Directive. These reasons are still valid. We agree with the rapporteur that companies should enjoy freedom of establishment within the single market and be able to move their seats from one country to another. However, we are not convinced that proposing new legislation now is the best solution to achieve this objective. Court of Justice case-law clearly allows for company mobility. In addition, existing legislation - the Cross-Border Mergers Directive - provides a framework for the transfer, including the necessary safeguards for third parties. In particular, the Cross-Border Mergers Directive allows a company to set up a new subsidiary in another country and then merge its existing company with that subsidiary. The transfer procedure and safeguards suggested by the Committee on Legal Affairs are very similar to those put forward by the Directive.

Our economic analyses show that the level of complexity of the cross-border transfer procedure would be comparable to that of the cross-border merger procedure. The Cross-Border Mergers Directive was due to be transposed by Member States by December 2007. It is too early to assess its full application. Before embarking on any new legislation, the Commission should first evaluate how this new existing regulatory framework operates in practice. We are also not convinced that the Directive would improve the existing situation under national law and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in this area.

Finally, in the light of the above and with the current legislature about to end, it would be more appropriate for the next Commission to decide on how to proceed on this issue of the transfer of a company's registered office. By then it will also become clearer how the issue of seat transfer was solved in the SPE Statute.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (SV) Mr President, the conditions for small businesses today are crucial for the growth of tomorrow's jobs. They are vital for our ability to emerge from this crisis into a better and more highly skilled and competitive economy. It is the small businesses that drive innovation forward, but it is also the small businesses that currently have the greatest credit problems in the various Member States and in the Union as such.

What we are intending to do here with the Statute for a European private company - and I would like to thank the Commission for the proposal and the rapporteur for her work - is to open up the internal market for small businesses to the same extent as for large companies. It is in this regard that new ground needs to be broken. As we discussed in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, it is a matter of carrying out a thorough simplification of the rules, which will open up doors for small businesses.

It is about ensuring that small businesses can be involved in public procurement to the same extent as large companies as a result of the way that public procurement is carried out. It is about making it easier for small businesses to operate across borders, including with regard to matters such as paying VAT, and about combating the bureaucracy that is currently proving prohibitive. It is also about providing European financial markets with better conditions for expansion and growth by providing a better credit market for small businesses through the efforts of the European Investment Bank and others. Finally, I would like to say that

Small is beautiful. Small will be bigger tomorrow and give new jobs and more prosperity.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. - (DE) Many thanks, Mr President. Currently, the transfer of a company's seat involves administrative obstacles, costs and social consequences and fails to offer the necessary legal certainty to shareholders, creditors or workers. A public consultation back in 2004 made it clear how important it was to adopt a 14th Directive.

For this reason, I would call on the Commission to present a legislative proposal on this - as soon as possible - with the dual purpose of simplifying the mobility of companies and ensuring that the matter of participation in relation to the transfer of a company's seat is not left up to the European Court of Justice.

A future 14th Directive must not provide an escape route from strong participation systems. On no account must existing rights be curtailed. In order to guarantee the coherence and substantive nature of employee participation procedures, reference should be made to the European Directive on works councils, the 10th Directive and the Directive on worker consultation and information. It is absolutely vital that information be provided in good time and that a transfer plan be issued prior to any transfer of a company's seat.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the regulation on European private companies that we are about to adopt completes the framework of the types of companies that are to be regulated at European level. In certain parts, the final text bears the mark of the text passed by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

I regret that we did not take the opportunity to ask the Commission to be more daring, to take further action to set out a specific system of taxation, a suitable accounting system and homogeneous rules for cases of settlement, insolvency, conversions, mergers, divisions, dissolutions and nullity.

There are still too many areas that remain under national company law, resulting in overlapping levels and multiplication of costs. If we agree on the importance of creating a common European system and if we want to avoid opportunistic relocating, then now that the framework is complete, following the European Company and the European Cooperative Society, it would be a good idea to plan to reopen the issue and take it to the next level.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, the proposal presented by the Commission for the European private company within the framework of the Small Business Act had serious weaknesses. It paid scant regard to the interests of creditors, employees, consumers and small suppliers. To mention a few of its provisions, it envisaged minimum capital of EUR 1 and, in addition, inadequate registration procedures, no requirement for cross-border activity, and the separation of the articles of association, the seat and the actual place of business.

The latter would have led to the circumvention of employee participation. Every new European company law directive should help achieve the aim of harmonising employees' rights and the idea of the European standard of participation, based on the new EU Reform Treaty, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Employees' rights are core rights for a social Europe.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our society and provide 67% of European private sector jobs.

Therefore, I very much welcome the 'Think Small First' initiative and am committed to ensuring that this principle is taken into account in policymaking at all political and administrative levels. Particularly at this time of financial crisis it is important to create a genuine, tangible added value for SMEs, in order to strengthen these enterprises as a stabilising factor in the crisis.

As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I was involved in formulating the ideas that are now to be voted on. Numerous proposals of mine have been incorporated into the text, including the importance of the principle of flexicurity. This concept should create flexible labour markets that are also in line with a high level of employment security.

My call for labour law to provide a reliable basis for SMEs has also been incorporated. SMEs often cannot afford their own legal or human resources departments and are therefore dependent on simple, clear regulations.

One of my most important demands - the 'SME test' for legislative initiatives - also gained the support of the committee responsible. Bureaucracy must be nipped in the bud. Impact assessments are to be carried out systematically in the case of new laws. Before their adoption, all EU provisions must be examined in terms of their impact on SMEs. It is important to me that the results of this SME test be subject to an independent evaluation by an independent body, and this idea has been incorporated into the text.

SMEs face particular challenges in the context of the global financial crisis, and so I particularly welcome the report's call for the proposals of Mr Stoiber's High-Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens to be implemented as quickly as possible. We must act quickly to take advantage of this potential.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, we all know that our capacity to build on the growth and innovation potential of small and medium-sized enterprises is decisive for the prosperity of the European Union. SMEs also play a crucial role in overcoming the crisis. We must therefore relieve the burden on them and support them, based on the idea that fewer rules have the potential to mean much more to SMEs.

As Chairman of the SME intergroup I would make it quite clear, however, that the Small Business Act is just a declaration of intent by the Heads of State or Government. Declarations of intent alone are of no use to SMEs, and that is why we make a crystal clear call for national and European legislation to be led by the 'Think Small First' principle, and we have made four demands.

The first is that Member States must announce how and in what timeframe they will incorporate the core elements of the 'Think Small First' principle into national legislation. Secondly, Member States should, on a compulsory basis, present the progress made on the implementation of the 'Think Small First' principle in the annual reports on the Lisbon process national reform programmes. Thirdly, we need standard criteria for the measurement of progress in the implementation of the 'Think Small First' principle. Then, fourthly, we must establish the 'Think Small First' principle as an obligatory component of future legislation at European level, too. In addition, in response to current events, I would say that all existing regulations should be examined in terms of their pro-cyclical impact on SMEs. We need to act quickly on this.

Unfortunately we do not have the opportunity to hear the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality because Ms Podimata is not available at this moment.

on behalf of the PPE-DE group. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first I would like to emphasise the significance of this joint debate on SMEs and I sincerely hope that the SMEs will hear the strong signal that our Parliament wishes to send out to them.

Our group gave an enthusiastic welcome to the draft Small Business Act that the Commission presented to us last June. It is true that, since 2000, initiatives have been taken on SMEs. These initiatives were appreciated but inadequate. Why do I say inadequate? Because, according to the people they affected, all too often they remained just good intentions. Today, then, we must go further. The Small Business Act gives us this chance because it is part of a truly proactive global approach.

I wish to point out that the European Parliament has already scored a success, as it was following the oral question that we asked in December that the Competition Council unanimously adopted the action plan that Commissioner Figel' mentioned just now.

This obviously showed the governments' strong political will and, today, I would like to welcome the excellent report by Mrs Herczog which extends this impetus in such a timely way. I would like also to express my thanks for the quality of the cooperation that we have received and the excellent work that, I must say, we have achieved in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. Today we have only put forward two amendments in the plenary session. This shows how well we did our work.

As for our group, with the amendments that we have put forward and that our rapporteur has been happy to accept, we have set about looking for a way of getting the Member States and Community bodies more deeply involved to guarantee that the planned measures really deliver added value to the SMEs.

We have called for the principle of Think Small First to be a compulsory and integral part of all future legislation. We have insisted on the Community patent and also, of course, on the financial resources so that these resources can be accessed effectively and quickly.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, perhaps you will allow me, firstly, to say something in reaction to the Commission's statement.

Firstly, I regret that the Commissioner's colleague, Mr McCreevy, is not here - I think the horse racing season may have started again! I really regret it because the subject of company law is really important for us and is at the heart of his portfolio. Secondly, Commissioner, I really regret your arguments against Parliament's proposals on the co-determination of employees. We clearly stated that this is not meant for small companies, but that the SPE Statute is available for all companies. It is not restricted to size. We do not want this SPE Statute to be a way of abusing and circumventing existing legislation - particularly in national traditions - something which is a very important aspect of co-determination. We do not want 'shopping around' to exist and a new Delaware to be created in the European Union, where companies can circumvent this type of legislation.

Thirdly, regarding the fourteenth directive - which we know Mr McCreevy is not very much in favour of - you repeated the same arguments he put forward. He should take seriously the fact that Parliament really wants him to present this proposal.

Fourthly, we tabled a resolution together to ask the Commission to consult the social partners on the basis of Article 138. This would have been proper before we decided on a regulation concerning the SPE, because co-determination is an issue which is dealt with under Article 138 of the EC Treaty and which first requires a consultation of social partners. This has not been done. We now ask for it to be done immediately afterwards. However, if I hear this type of reaction from the Commission, I will seriously reconsider and suggest to my group that we reconsider whether we can support the SPE product. Perhaps you should make some phone calls tonight to Mr McCreevy and Mr Špidla and see whether tomorrow you can present a better proposal on this before the vote.

Briefly - because I am now using up my speaking time - the PSE's position is not against the chance for small and medium-sized enterprises to get this new statute - we are in favour of that - but it is against this form of abuse. We found a very good compromise with the rapporteur. It is also very up-to-date and is not at all obsolete, but very topical at this time, considering the disastrous workings of shareholders and financial markets, to consider a better way of governance for companies, in which employees have a part. Commissioner, you really have to consider with your College and with the Commissioners in charge whether you can make a more positive statement to the Parliament.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like of course to add my compliments to Mrs Herczog for the excellent 90-point report on the Small Business Act.

However, Commissioner, the work of the European Parliament will only be truly effective with quick and effective implementation in each of our States.

You said in your opening remarks, Commissioner, that on the basis of this report, you were going to create a global strategy, but you will not be unaware that there is currently a financial crisis, an economic crisis and a climate crisis which require fast answers from us.

I will take two examples. First example: I call for companies to be paid within 30 days. That is included in Point 87 regarding the Cohesion Fund. I call on the Commission and the Member States to take measures so that all public contracts are settled with the companies at 30 days.

When it is known, moreover, that 20% of petitions for bankruptcy are due to delays in payment by public authorities, we can see how far this action by governments and the Commission would reduce the level of unemployment, which is growing daily.

Second example: red tape. In Point 72, we call for red tape to be cut by at least 25%. I can tell you that I, as a company director, have been waiting for such a concrete measure for years. Company directors are not there to fill in forms the whole day long. They are there to provide products and services to our fellow citizens.

If you heed this call, Commissioner, not only over and above the global strategy that you wish to create, but also in terms of the practical response of the governments and the Commission, then, within the framework of the current recovery plans, there will be provisions that deliver solutions to our fellow citizens straight away.

Mr President, when speaking in this debate I want to draw attention to four issues. Firstly, I would like to express the hope that Mr Lehne's report will provide a strong stimulus for the European Commission to prepare suitable legal measures, which, in accordance with the freedom of establishment guaranteed in the Treaty, will allow companies to move their registered offices within the European Union, without being burdened with excessive red tape.

Secondly, these kinds of transfers should, conversely, contribute to protecting the existing rights of shareholders, creditors, and especially the rights of employees. I would also like to express the hope that the solutions proposed by the rapporteur, involving the drawing up a transfer proposal, and especially a report explaining and justifying the legal and, above all, the economic aspects of the proposed move of the company's seat, and its implications for shareholders and employees, will not prove to be an additional obstacle to the transfer of companies.

Fourthly, and finally, it would appear that competition, in terms of taxation and salaries, was the particular motivating force behind the proposed solutions, as it was seen to have a positive effect on the speed of economic growth in individual Member States and, therefore, also throughout the European Union.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the draft European Private Company statute is presented by the Commission as a component of the European Small Business Act.

In this framework, and taking the United States' model, it was a question at the start of setting aside a defined share of public contracts for small companies. Such noble intentions are only to be applauded.

Unfortunately, it is totally different now that it has arrived, accompanied by the European private company. First, take the size of the target enterprises. In place of small enterprise, the already vaguer concept of small and medium-sized enterprises has slipped in. This has led finally, and I am reading from the explanatory statement of the draft regulation adopted by the Commission, to a 'statute that can also benefit larger companies and groups'. This totally changes the philosophy of the policy, and now what will happen to these pseudo-SMEs? In truth, they will be subsidiaries of multinationals who, as we know, have long been demanding a single, less binding statute than what currently applies to the companies they control in the various European countries.

Let us look now at the nature of the benefits offered to companies by the EPC statute. It is no longer a question of giving easier access to public contracts. Rather, and again I am reading from the explanatory statement of the Commission's text, its aim is now 'to improve the framework conditions for businesses in the Single Market'. To this end, all European Private Companies could have their registered office in one country and their real activities in another. They could also transfer their registered office to any Member State they choose.

How can we not see in these provisions a way of allowing the companies in question to create constraint-free letter-box companies under the most indulgent conditions for the business world? Does not the Commission even specify that 'the relevant applicable law is the law of the Member State where the EPC has its registered office, which applies to private limited-liability companies'?

As the European Trade Union Confederation accurately notes: 'there is a great threat that companies will use the EPC statute to elude the most protective legislation' for workers.

We now understand why the Commission did not consult the trade union organisations before adopting its proposal, contenting itself with the pure formality of an online consultation.

To sum up, when reading this draft regulation it appears that the emphasis placed on 'small enterprises' is above all political window-dressing aimed at making acceptable a rehash of the sadly famous 'country of origin' principle. It amounts to a revamped Bolkestein.

This is why my group proposes that Parliament send a clear signal to the Commission and the Council by rejecting this proposal for a European private company statute.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we must resolve this crisis of small and medium-sized enterprises in an authentically European way. We are witnessing a plague striking small and medium-sized enterprises across the whole continent, caused by a lack of access to credit. The problem is that the banks are not lending to businesses, and it is also true that the attempts of some governments to finance the banks so that they, in turn, will finance small businesses, are failing because no one knows what debts the banks are in fact suffering at this time.

I therefore propose that the national states, by nationalising their national banks, advocate printing money, or vouchers corresponding to money, to finance small businesses. An attempt of this kind was recently made in the Republic of Taiwan, which issued vouchers that for all intents and purposes correspond to money, and gave them, in the form of personal vouchers, to Taiwanese citizens. This meant that, for all intents and purposes, USD or EUR 3 billion was issued in the Republic of Taiwan.

We must do the same; we must give credit to small businesses by issuing money practically as states no longer in debt but in credit.

(EL) Mr President, I shall focus my speech on the first of the issues at debate, the statute for a European private company. As you know, just 8% of European small and medium-sized enterprises engage in cross-border transactions at a time when small and medium-sized enterprises represent approximately 99% of the companies in the European Union.

This fact proves the shortcomings in the policy to encourage intra-Community business applied to date. It also proves the need for targeted measures to be adopted to create a single and more favourable regulatory framework at European level.

The global economic crisis has now hit the real economy, the millions of small and medium-sized enterprises throughout Europe. Under the present circumstances, our prime target must be small, efficient enterprises.

The Commission proposal for a regulation to the Council goes in the right direction which, in my opinion, is to reduce to a minimum the administrative burden faced by European small and medium-sized enterprises, which are required to meet different local administrative requirements in order to set up a company.

The flexibility and uniformity of European private companies, the minimal cross-border component required, the simplification of checks on the legality of the memorandum and articles of association and the principle of starting capital of EUR 1 are the main tenets of a strategy which may well give new momentum to the development of intra-Community entrepreneurship.

To close, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lehne, on the effort which he made in successfully achieving a compromise between the divergent opinions formulated by his colleagues in the Committee on Legal Affairs and in the various political groups.

(ES) Mr President, I believe the debate we are having this evening is useful in clarifying certain points: firstly, the fact that the debate on European private companies is being held at the same time as the debate on small European businesses does not mean that a European private company is necessarily a small European business.

As Mrs van den Burg said, and I believe that Mr Wurtz also highlighted the point in his criticism of the proposal, the European private company statute, as conceived in the Commission proposal and as approved within the Committee on Legal Affairs, is an instrument for the creation of undertakings which may be large and which have certain characteristics, such as limitation of the liability of the partners and the prohibition on trading in these undertakings on public markets. Both European private company status and national private company status, however, may apply to small businesses or to large ones.

As Mrs van den Burg said, it is precisely the flexibility or malleability of the European private company that means we must be extremely cautious. This has been the task of the Committee on Legal Affairs. The amendments adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which are quite numerous, are designed precisely to prevent the European private company formula from forming a basis for, as Mrs van den Burg was saying, the emergence of a European Delaware. This is particularly relevant to one of the subjects of concern to Mr Wurtz: workers' participation in companies.

I think that the wordings adopted within the Committee on Legal Affairs point out these restrictions clearly. It is not a question, as Mr Wurtz was saying, of applying the country of origin rule, but rather, in accordance with the rules that we adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs - and I would recommend that Mr Wurtz read the amendments we adopted - there is a set of restrictions preventing the country of origin rules from applying to those companies in which there is a higher level of workers' participation than normal. They are included in full in the amendments that we have adopted and I believe that, with these amendments, it is wholly admissible to adopt the text, even from Mr Wurtz's viewpoint.

In other words, we are dealing with a form of European company that exists in all our countries, which ought to be harmonised in the context of the European Union. We must not, however, in doing so, allow these companies to become virtual entities, but they must exist within the context of national situations and comply with national legislation, particularly within such a delicate sphere as workers' co-determination.

I believe that the text adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs makes some crucial contributions and, therefore, the Commission would be mistaken not to take these amendments into account.

I believe that the amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs are directed, precisely, at limiting the shortcomings in the Commission's text, and I believe that Parliament can adopt it in good conscience, not only because of the progress it makes in the context of small companies, but also in view of the management of this type of company, which exists under law and which would be subject to rigorous scrutiny by workers in a system of co-determination.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, small and medium-sized enterprises have never been as important as they are today. SMEs are particularly important against the background of the economic and financial crisis, which was caused by the large rather than the small enterprises. SMEs are important because they too will soon be suffering, yet they are responsible for much of our economic performance.

In the country I know best, SMEs account for 20% of all patents, 40% of all gross investment, 49% of total turnover, 70% of all workers and 80% of all trainees. What is needed now is a rethink. We must press the large reset button, as it were. We must promote entrepreneurial mindsets - this is what the Small Business Act stands for.

I should like to congratulate Mrs Herczog on this report. It is indeed important that we now describe and regard SMEs as a cross-section, that we rethink support measures, that we give precedence to small enterprises in public tenders ('Think Small First') and that we prevent public authorities from intervening in competition. I congratulate you, therefore; what are needed now are tax cuts for labour-intensive sectors.

Madam President, I too would like to welcome this report. About 80% of all new jobs in the European Union have been created by SMEs, and in my own constituency of Dublin about 400 000 people are employed by about 100 000 companies in the SME sector.

We must do all we possibly can at the moment to support these companies in difficult times. I welcome the fact that the EIB has a fund of EUR 31 billion for small and medium-sized industries, and I think that more should be done in this area.

Also, the cutting of red tape and bureaucracy by the Commission has to be welcomed. That amounts to savings for the European Union of about EUR 2.3 million. I had a meeting recently with Commissioner Verheugen where we discussed with Irish business people the problems that they faced. One idea that should be looked at is that of maybe having a moratorium on new red tape coming from Europe, because that is stifling business. During these difficult times, we have to do everything we possibly can to make sure that businesses survive until the hoped-for upturn.

However, that cannot be done by Europe alone. It must also be done by national governments and by local governments, which have a huge role to play. If we want to get our small businesses and employment to stabilise in the European Union and in each individual Member State, we must do everything we possibly can to try and save them.

The challenge that we have at the moment is about jobs, jobs, jobs, and we must bend over backwards to try and protect existing employment and, hopefully, in the years ahead try and create new jobs. That is absolutely essential for all of us.

(EL) Madam President, the European private company is an effort to inflict even greater damage on workers' social and labour rights, along the lines of the Bolkestein directive. While the pretext is being put forward that this company will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, in fact it strengthens the monopoly business groups.

A form of company is being created with no capital (just EUR 1 suffices), which will be able to establish a fictitious registered office and relocate it anywhere. The Member States with the lowest level of protection for wage and social rights will be used in order to circumvent and reduce the workers' rights to the lowest possible level.

The regulation, which is directly applicable in the Member States, is the natural complement to the Bolkestein directive and the anti-labour judgments handed down by the European Court of Justice in the Viking, Laval and Ruffert cases. It is a consequence and the result of the Maastricht Treaty and of the application of the four freedoms. The European private company exposes the political powers that voted for Maastricht, which tried to deceive the workers when they voted for the Bolkestein directive by lying and saying that it allegedly did not affect workers' rights.

That is why we shall vote against this regulation. All those who support this anti-grassroots policy are sowing winds and are certain to reap hurricanes.

Madam President, the fact that 70% of private employment in Europe is provided by SMEs is a tremendous tribute to their entrepreneurial tenacity, because oppressive EU regulation makes their lives unnecessarily and extremely difficult.

Hence, I would repeat a call I have made before that during the currency of this economic downturn, there should be a regulation holiday for SMEs. The cost of EU regulation in the United Kingdom has been reckoned to be GBP 107 billion over the last ten years. That is GBP 107 billion that should have been going into innovation, into intensified export efforts and into growth. Yet much of that has had to be spent on mere compliance with regulation. The simplification of procurement procedures, reducing patent costs, relaxation on state aid rules and real action against unfair competition from the Far East are all essential if SMEs are to flourish.

Today we need family SMEs - small businesses - more than ever because they have the type of commitment and sticking power to get us through this crisis. However, they need our help and they need it by lifting the dead hand of EU regulation from them.

(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, many Members have raised the subject of participation. I do not wish to go more deeply into this now, but I do want to point out in this connection that our Member States' company law also has the function of defending the interests of public policy, such as creditor protection, security of the legal system and consumer protection, a function that is safeguarded in the Member States by administration of preventive justice, for example by means of form and register provisions. There are major differences between Member States in this regard.

The decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs take account of this in many places - which is to be warmly welcomed - by leaving Member States' options open. Ultimately, however, these things are counteracted, or at least can be counteracted, unless we do something about the fact that the registered office and the actual seat - that is, the actual place of business of the company - are allowed to differ, as this ultimately renders these safeguards meaningless. The company can locate its registered office practically at will, and thus evade the requirements of the country where it really does business. In my opinion, Member States thereby de facto - although not de jure - lose a great deal of sovereignty over their company law and its regulatory function, as these can be invalidated.

I wish to add that this will - or rather could - also jeopardise the reputation of the European private company, at least in the Member States with stricter requirements of their own. One could suggest that we wait and see what happens and then make the necessary adjustments, and I would agree with them if this development were not reinforced by the procedures and the unanimity. That is my greatest concern. There is no reason for this course of action. The case-law of the European Court of Justice is only a stopgap measure because we do not have a directive on the transfer of company seats; but, in the form currently envisaged, this European private company would basically reinforce this disintegration - enshrining it in Community law once and for all. For this reason, I would ask the Council to reconsider this issue very carefully.

(ES) Madam President, small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the European Union's economy. Their great dynamism and capacity to grow and innovate have earned them a notable position in the EU's policies.

We congratulate Mrs Herczog, because her report encourages the growth of SMEs on the basis of a principle which is by no means trivial: in the political and economic actions of the EU and its Member States, we should think small first.

The Small Business Act contains legislative proposals and political agreements that will give rise to administrative, regulatory and financial conditions with the potential to develop these units within the European economy. The current crisis and the instability of the financial system are restricting SMEs' access to credit, and this is slowing down their usual economic activity. Now, more than ever, we need a coordinated response at European level and the initiatives of the Member States ought to be structured in terms of and aligned with the provisions of the document we are discussing today.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it is particularly important to allocate EUR 30 000 million in the 2009-2011 period to encourage lending to SMEs. This initiative is in addition to the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and the JEREMIE initiative, and will have a multiplying effect on the funds that SMEs will be able to obtain.

We are fully convinced that European coordination and the European scope of the response are vital in starting out on the road to economic recovery as soon as possible.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Small Business Act was conceived and was born in a different climate to the current one, at a time when there was growth and development. We come to adopt it today in Parliament in a totally different situation, while SMEs are suffering severe hardship and great difficulty as they are hit by the storm of the manufacturing crisis and the financial crisis.

As we adopt the Act in Parliament, I believe the primary message should be to say to SMEs that Parliament and the European institutions are standing by them and want to strengthen the will and capacity for resistance that small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe are now demonstrating in the face of this storm. We want to reinforce this by indicating the priorities of this support and by saying practical things: calling for more flexibility in the law, and for tools to be made available that will create an environment less hostile to these companies.

The second thing that I believe we must demonstrate is that we are helping SMEs in what is currently the most critical factor, namely access to and availability of credit. The funds made available by the EIB are not enough: it is absolutely crucial that we say - and we will say it tomorrow - that we want to do more to give credit to small and medium-sized enterprises.

(PL) Madam President, the financial crisis, and the resulting economic crisis, are inducing employers to attempt to alter the legal status of their firms to reduce costs, including costs connected with employees' rights and social obligations. That is why they are looking to register their companies' offices in countries where regulations and economic conditions create cost-cutting opportunities, because the legal requirements, such as the minimum wage or pension contributions, are lower. Information contained in the report draws attention to the fact that the cross-border transfer of companies' registered offices should not lead to companies avoiding legal, social or tax regulations. Labour rights must not be violated. We cannot allow social standards to slip. A different means of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises should be be found, such as the provision of loans.

- (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in Mrs Herczog's report on SMEs we are talking about 70% of jobs and 70% of VAT receipts in the EU. I would therefore like to express not only my enormous appreciation for the initiative of the rapporteur but also my support. In the current crisis SMEs are clearly in the high risk category. We must therefore promote better social awareness of SMEs. They constantly encounter a range of obstacles. It is much harder for them to obtain loans than it is for large corporations. The administrative and bureaucratic burden is also heavier for SMEs. It is always much harder for SMEs to win public contracts in Europe than it is in the US and many Asian countries. We assert that they are essential to the health of the European economy. Let us therefore give them what they need to confirm this, opportunities in the current period when the crisis is spreading as a result of the domino effect set off by the financial giants and multinational companies.

(PL) Madam President, the adoption of a statute for a European private company will enable the creation of these companies, which will operate in all Member States on an equal basis. The aim, above all, is to remove the current burdensome regulations for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally. To run such an operation, SMEs are de facto forced to found a company in the target country. This process, in view of the fact that there are 27 different legal systems in the EU, clearly generates huge costs. In the case of a European private company, the owners will be able to register their business in the same form, irrespective of whether they are operating in their own home country, or in any other Member State. The time and money saved on legal advice, management and administrative procedures will undoubtedly make the process simpler and more convenient for entrepreneurs looking to invest.

One of the main fears that sceptics have concerns the lack of a requirement for the company to own a sufficient amount of share capital to protect creditors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited companies provide proof of the fact that a company can be successful without the need for share capital - they are the most popular kind of company in the world. In today's world, share capital has lost its most important function, namely that of protecting creditors. In the case of a European private company, that protection is provided by other mechanisms, based mainly on the increased transparency of its operations and closer cooperation with creditors. Today, commercial partners themselves do not pay as much attention to share capital as to the flow of capital, known as cashflows, which reveal much more about the solvency of a company than capital alone.

There is still the question of employees' rights - it is especially in this context that trade unions are concerned about abandoning previously achieved standards. However, I consider this to be a false alarm. The proposed statute contains an unambiguous provision, according to which employee participation takes place in accordance with national legal regulations. The attractiveness of the European private company could be threatened by the threshold for employee participation being set too low. I think the minimum level of 500 employees should be maintained, so as not to burden smaller enterprises with additional costs.

(ES) Madam President, more attention should be paid to SMEs within the European Union, since they represent 99% of undertakings, 70% of the labour force and nearly 60% of European added business value, and play a fundamental role in European diversity, innovation and cohesion.

It is vital that we provide them with an integrated framework that boosts entrepreneurship, accepts the principle of thinking small first when formulating policies and stimulates their enormous potential. Administrative bodies should adjust to their needs and family orientation in order to facilitate their existence, their transfer, particularly in cases of illness, retirement or bankruptcy, and their winding-up.

The 23 million European SMEs cannot be subject to the same requirements as the 41 000 large undertakings. A simpler legislative environment, without disproportionate bureaucratic burdens, is vital. Moves in this direction include the European private company statute, the initiatives to create companies in 48 hours, to reduce administrative costs by 25% by 2012, the creation of a one-stop scheme for VAT and reduced VAT rates for labour-intensive and locally supplied services, and a common consolidated corporate tax base.

SMEs should increase their participation in the internal market and in public procurement. Currently, only 8% have cross-border activities, and their share of public tender participation is 42%. Ways to promote more balanced competition conditions would be to facilitate the exemption from new State aid categories, to promote cooperation, to amend the directive on late payment in order to ensure payment within 30 days, and to remove obstacles to public procurement.

At this time of crisis, European action to safeguard access by SMEs to finance at a reasonable price is key. Also crucial are measures to constantly increase knowledge transfer and the effectiveness of support services.

(SV) Madam President, we know that small businesses form the backbone of our economy. At this time in particular, the EU and the Member States need to make things simpler for small businesses, both those already in existence and future businesses, by reducing the number of rules, reducing bureaucracy and lowering costs. Small and medium-sized enterprises have a totally different capacity from traditional large enterprises when it comes to adapting to new circumstances and adopting new discoveries and technology.

In addition to making it easier for small businesses to participate in public procurement by providing better access to the internal market, making it easier to obtain capital and making the rules on state aid non-discriminatory, there must also be a change in attitude permeating all decision-making, in schools, universities and the workplace. Research shows that there is a strong correlation between entrepreneurship and growth. The forthcoming Swedish Presidency will, in particular, be making targeted efforts to facilitate enterprise by women, an important European strategy for the future.

(ES) Madam President, with regard to this debate we need to be aware, at the end of the day, that this is not a legislative standard - and, therefore, a Community rule applicable to the various Member States - but rather a set of benchmarks which attempts to ensure that, henceforward, all European Union Member States adopt a common approach with respect to small and medium-sized enterprises.

There are many aspects to this subject, but I am going to mention three that I certainly believe are important.

Firstly, there is a need to remove many of the legal barriers, many of the obstacles and much of the excessive red tape hindering - to an extraordinary extent in certain countries - the creation of small businesses, and also the development of these businesses once they have been created. All this requires financial and human resources to tackle this extraordinary amount of excessive regulation, and these resources can thus not be used for other purposes.

Secondly, there are the issues relating to technological innovation and applied research. To this end, we must also redouble our efforts to ensure that SMEs have access to Community programmes, which also, in many cases, suffer from too much red tape.

Finally, I believe the relationship between SMEs and the training and educational spheres is vital: if the SMEs, the small businesses, do not become the natural arena for additional skills training at the various training levels, then in fact we, or rather the SMEs, will cease to have certain extraordinary resources, and by that I mean persons being trained.

(PL) Madam President, this legislative proposal corresponds in great measure to the European Parliament resolution, with recommendations to the Commission on the European private company statute, which was adopted two years ago. The purpose of the proposal is to create a standardised form of enterprise under Community law, which will be attractive to small and medium-sized businesses and will be based on simplified conditions and keeping the bureaucratic burden to a minimum.

The minimum capital stock of EUR 10 000, proposed by the Commission, may benefit the company's image by providing a certain level of credibility. On the other hand, this amount is more difficult to raise in some Member States than in others. Share capital should not be a serious barrier to starting a business and therefore I endorse the compromise amendment adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which sets the minimum capital stock of a European private company at EUR 1, but is accompanied by a requirement stipulating that the company's managing body must sign a statement of solvency.

Regarding the question of employee participation in the enterprise, this should be decided by the law of the country where the company has its registered office. However, an exception should be made to this rule if the right of participation of a certain number of employees of the company, which would apply in the Member State where they actually work, would be restricted by the law in force in the country where the European company is registered. In this case, the management of the enterprise would be obliged to create a uniform system of participation, as part of an agreement negotiated with employee representatives.

Finally I would like to add that this new form of company does not replace other forms of enterprise which already exist in different countries, but offers an alternative to them, and that only when specific conditions concerning the establishment of such a company are met.

Madam President, as a small businessman with some 25 years' experience in the 'real world', I support the broad thrust of the Small Business Act and the report by Mrs Herczog from my committee.

In particular, I would like to welcome the proposal for a directive on reduced VAT rates for labour-intensive and locally supplied services, particularly at this point in time.

I also welcome the amendments calling for implementation of the results of the high-level expert group on the reduction of administrative burdens. If ever small businesses needed something, it is the reduction of administrative burdens.

I welcome, too, the amendment calling for a swift agreement on the Community patent, adapted to the needs of SMEs. Mind you, 'swift' and 'Community patent' are not words and concepts that go comfortably together.

I also welcome the call for improving access to finance because, in the current economic climate, access to finance is crucial for the survival, let alone the prospering, of small businesses.

However, I have two reservations. The first concerns the proposal for a common consolidated tax base, because I fear that this would remove flexibility from SMEs and also from Member States. Secondly, I have personal doubts about the merits and benefits of changing the Late Payment Directive. I personally have always had doubts about the worth of this measure to small businesses, because I feel that they are better off managing their own credit than leaving this to legislation.

(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this report we try to underline the importance of SMEs, including family businesses and those integrated in the social economy. I want to congratulate my colleague, Edit Herczog, as her report is vital in this respect. Other documents and texts have been produced in this area and it is important that they agree. For example, I would mention the European Eurostars Programme and the report on pre-commercial procurement.

Madam President, this report also underlines the many ways of cutting red tape to make it easier to set up this type of enterprise, in order to take advantage of their capacity for initiative, start up new businesses, manufacture new products, provide new services suited to the needs of consumers and other businesses, and thus boost the development of the European economy. I also want to mention something that is very important in my opinion: this is the issue referred to in paragraph 47 of the Herczog report. It is advisable for certain aspects of the legal and fiscal system of the Member States to be improved in this respect, as the current model in most Member States can discourage the transfer of businesses, particularly family businesses, thus increasing the risk of liquidation or closure of the company. Member States must therefore carefully review their legal and fiscal framework to improve the conditions for the transfer of businesses and to promote and apply effective models for the transfer of businesses to employees as an alternative to their closure. This approach would allow jobs to be protected and profits to be reinvested in order to better develop these businesses.

To end, I would point out that support for innovative projects of small and medium-sized enterprises, easier access to European funds and improved access to credit, particularly, but not only, in the current context, are vital factors for supporting SMEs.

(RO) First of all, I wish to thank the rapporteur and those who have worked on perhaps the most important piece of legislation from this last parliamentary term.

It must be highlighted that we attach, first and foremost, special importance to SMEs and entrepreneurship among women, and because we have just celebrated International Women's Day on 8 March, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my best wishes to them. However, we must emphasise that this is a fairly complex act in which we have included everything we could include relating to SMEs: cutting red tape and attaching particular importance to research and development activities within SMEs and to the finances relating to these activities.

I think that this piece of legislation will bode well during the current economic crisis because the European economy needs cohesion and its biggest driving force, SMEs. For this reason, I believe that we need to give the Commission and Council our maximum possible support, speed up the approval of this act and be able to highlight the European economy's strength and dynamic activity in this area so as to hold onto, here in Europe, everything that the European economy and production stand for.

Lastly, we must ask the Commission to find as many sources of funding as possible and provide SMEs with as many credit mechanisms as possible.

(HU) With regard to the report on small and medium-sized enterprises, I would like first of all to congratulate the Commission and in particular the rapporteur, Mrs Herczog, for the excellent work. At the same time, I regret that this report was not prepared in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure, requesting that the Commission submit concrete legislative proposals.

Specifically, I consider it important for the sake of the Member States that we require them to report on progress in their annual Lisbon reports. Otherwise, the majority of the good recommendations made herein will remain a dead letter. I also agree with Edit Herczog that preferential treatment of the new Member States, and especially of those outside the euro zone, is an important political consequence of this whole exercise. They are in a particularly difficult situation beyond even the generally disadvantageous status of small and medium-sized enterprises, and yet they could play an extremely important role in overcoming the crisis.

To cite only a few elements of the internal market: it is indeed of concern that only 8% of SMEs engage in cross-border activities; this percentage must be increased. Mentorship is particularly important in encouraging such activities. This could be accomplished, on the one hand, by reducing administrative burdens, and on the other hand, through activities involving VAT, such as a one-stop shop system or a reduced VAT rate. Furthermore, we need to promote a stronger SME orientation in public procurement at the Community level as well, for instance by selecting SMEs more often as lead contractors, or by issuing calls for tender intended specifically for them.

The SME Circle, of which I am President, would emphatically like to see results in the establishment of a thorough guarantee and credit system at EU level. I hope that the new European Investment Bank (EIB) opportunity will fulfil the hopes placed in it. As for the rapid implementation of the payment directives and in order to resolve the debt situation, coordinated steps must be taken at Member State level. All in all, both in order to find new markets and to deal with administrative challenges, Member States' efforts to strengthen a mentor system and EU support for such a venture must come quickly.

(FR) Madam President, I would like to welcome the discussion and the adoption of this European private company statute and I would like in particular to praise our rapporteur, Mr Lehne. I think that the text that will be adopted by this House will, in a way, carry his name and the European private company will be known to posterity as the Klaus-Heiner Lehne company.

I would just like to comment on one point. I share the view that Mr Becsey has just expressed. I believe that the provisions for worker participation proposed in the compromise run counter to the agreed objective, in other words run counter to the ease and effectiveness of this statute for small and medium-sized enterprises.

I think it is a mistake to introduce worker participation at such a level, in other words in such small companies. I understand perfectly well the attachment to a system of social and economic management which has proven its worth. I think that, in this case, we are losing some of the effectiveness of the statute we are proposing and that is going to be adopted, by imposing worker participation systems on small companies when such systems, I feel, are only suitable for large companies. However, aside from this reservation, I think that this text is excellent.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, at 12 noon.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (ES) Madam President, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Herczog, for her report and her cooperation with the draftsmen of the opinions of the other committees.

As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I would like to point briefly to the three elements that we believe are essential - although we also have a very broad consensus regarding other elements - and which we wished to highlight when drawing up our opinion.

Firstly, I want to point to the need to take action to tackle the situation that often arises when the owner of a small or medium-sized enterprise retires. In too many cases, this retirement entails the cessation of operations for these enterprises or, in other cases, their absorption by larger undertakings, with the result that they cease to be small or medium-sized enterprises.

Secondly, I would like to stress the value of training as a key element, both in improving the capacities of the enterprises and their staff, and in highlighting the social value of enterprises within the wider context of society.

Lastly, I want to refer in particular to women, who continue to experience the greatest difficulties in running this type of enterprise.

Madam President, I rise to challenge Mr Allister on what he said earlier in his ludicrous comments about the supposed costs of EU regulation to businesses, and in particular British businesses.

These are based on some so-called studies which are being hawked around the British Euro-sceptic press at the moment with ever more lurid calculations about these costs.

However, those studies are wrong on three counts. First, they exaggerate the amount of legislation that is adopted at EU level instead of national level, quoting 50% or more whereas most national studies show it to be between 6 and 15%. Secondly, they take no account of the fact that EU legislation, when we get it right, cuts costs to businesses and cuts red tape by having a single set of standards - common rules for the common market - instead of 27 divergent and separate ones. Thirdly, they take no account of the fact that when we do impose costs, it is often deliberate in order to save money downstream. When we require cigarettes to have a health warning system, or when we require asbestos to be phased out of our products and our workplaces, it is in order to cut health costs and save lives for people downstream.

These studies cynically make no attempt to balance up the whole picture, and it is a scandal that somebody who claims to represent all of his voters only looks at one side of the argument.

Madam President, it is a pity that Mr Toubon is leaving the room, because I wanted to respond to an accusation he made concerning our compromise: namely that it requires new heavy burdens on SMEs. In fact, in the compromise, the status quo is being resettled for mergers, divisions of companies and transfers of seats. Regarding new companies starting from scratch, there is a fairly high threshold for companies with fewer than 500 employees. Those with between 500 and 1 000 employees have exactly what is in the other directives. One cannot say that this is making the status quo even heavier; it is making it lighter. In this consultation with the social partners, we want to look at simplification and a better system which is harmonised all over the EU.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to thank everyone for a very interesting debate. First of all, I apologise on behalf of my colleague, Charlie McCreevy, who has an Ecofin commitment early tomorrow. His absence is due to preparations for that.

I wish to respond to some of the points raised. Part of the response lies in the overall process which we are driving together including, for example, the great political signals Parliament has sent to SMEs in 2009. These provide good encouragement, especially in a time of crisis, especially as we believe that SMEs have very high potential and that they deserve specific attention - mainstreaming, for example, the connection between education, training and SMEs.

I am pleased that, since 2007, we have been working together with DG Enterprise and Commissioner Verheugen on entrepreneurial education, which is very much needed in Europe and lags behind many other areas. I could quote many examples of good instruments - such as Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs - but do not want to speak on these just now. It is a process of many issues around access to finance. The EIB is now freeing up space and volume for credits: EUR 30 billion for SMEs, EUR 1 billion a year more for medium-sized corporations, and an additional EUR 1 billion for mezzanine financing.

We recently decided, as you know, to relax the rules on state aid, levering the de minimis threshold to EUR 500 000, which means better conditions in general for more intensified state aid. This will also help facilitate subsidies for the production of green products.

Mr Karas spoke on the Small Business Act (SBA). Some Member States are already monitoring and reporting on SBA implementation. This was the case in 2008 and, starting in 2009, there will be annual assessment by Member States as part of all national reform programmes. We will therefore know more, and this culture of mainstreaming and support will grow.

On public procurement and SMEs, the Commission held vast consultations with stakeholders, including business organisations. One real problem lies with application of the rules by public buyers. We need more competition, more transparency and no discrimination, but the good news is that 42% of volume, above EU thresholds, is already going to SMEs in the European Union, which is really significant support.

Mr Wurtz spoke on the separation of registered offices and headquarters, and the problem of a potential erosion of employee participation. The separation of SMEs' registered offices and headquarters is already general practice in half of the Member States, including those with very high standards of social policy safeguards. It ensures the flexibility companies need when doing business in more than one country.

Regarding the 30-day request by Mr Beaupuy, this should be dealt with in the proposal already in the pipeline on late payments, which should be adopted in the Commission before the end of the month.

The issue of consultations and worker participation has been much discussed here - and not only today. As part of its preparations, the Commission conducted, between July and October 2007, a public consultation on the potential SPE. Representatives of trade unions, including European trade unions, presented their views at conferences, especially during 2008. A major conference was held in March 2008, and we discussed these questions with experts from European trade unions several times that year. I want to underline one important thing, which is the legal basis. This is not Article 138, because we are not in the field of social policy, but Article 308, making it a different initiative based on unanimity of the Member States. There was no reason to launch a specific consultation under the former article.

I want to remind you that we already targeted large public companies when we launched the proposal on the European company, and that SPE proposal was designed for SMEs. Employees' information and consultation rights were dealt with in 2001, in the first directive on the European company.

Since 2002, we have had a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Union. There is no reason to disregard these rules and come up with a different solution in this current proposal on the SPE.

If workers' collective rights are to be improved, which is our intent, this should not be done only in respect of one type of company, but through a more general initiative that also takes into account the different traditions in the Member States.

We have already made important progress in the evaluation of employees' rights in the European company statute. Follow-up measures will be considered when the full assessment is completed in 2010.

Some points were made on why there was not more input into taxation and accounting. I would remind you that we do not have general legislative power on every issue. Legislative initiatives on company law, insolvency law, accounting and tax law are attached to very specific, and often restrictive, legal bases in our Treaties, and the existing Treaty hardly serves as a basis for a complete body of European business law.

Last but not least, I want thank you for a very open and constructive debate, and also for real cooperation on SME policy issues. I see many friends of SMEs here. The recommendations in the first report will be taken into account in the implementation of the action plan, and especially in all relevant issues connected to small businesses.

Concerning Mr Lehne's report, a lot of work still needs to be done because we need to achieve agreement in the Council. We will need some time, especially in the light of unanimity, but your input can really soften the atmosphere and help to find real consensus and approval. We want to facilitate this progress and to put in place a statute which really helps European businesses.

On the cross-border transfer of registered offices, the Commission agrees that companies should be free to move their seat within the European Union, provided that the rights of shareholders, creditors and employees are guaranteed. We therefore need to strike the right balance between freedom of establishment and the interests of third parties.

I would conclude by saying that this is the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, and that it is very important to have an approach which brings forward the creative potential of our businesses. People are very important, not only because there is a crisis, but because there is no greater potential than that of human beings. Issues such as IPRs or the Community patent could in the near future be addressed through a more open-minded and open-hearted political approach. Europe could be more innovative and creative in supporting SMEs.

Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to make four comments. Firstly, with regard to the directive on the transfer of registered offices, I think that the Commission should abandon its argument, as it runs the risk of making itself a laughing stock among experts. The theory that transfers of company seats can be arranged such that a company is started up in a neighbouring country and then one's own company merged with it under the Directive on mergers could scarcely be more bureaucratic. We are talking here about reducing bureaucracy and trying to make things easier for SMEs. This proposal just goes to prove how little sense it makes for the Commission to persist in refusing to present a proposal on the 14th Directive. This benefits no one but lawyers.

My second point concerns participation. Mrs van den Burg is right: real SMEs are not affected in the slightest by the compromise we have presented. We are aiming only to avoid abuses and to record companies that are actually large companies and are more suited to the European company than to the European private company in terms of the number of employees. It is practically only abuses that are being recorded.

My third point concerns the real-seat theory, to which only seven Member States remain committed - only seven! Last year, the largest Member State, Germany, abandoned this theory. The European Court of Justice does not advocate it, but allows it in exceptional cases, as proved by the Cartesio ruling. That ship has sailed; there is no point in continuing to argue about it.

The fourth thing I want to say is that the argument on the part of left-wing Members - none of whom stayed for the debate earlier on - that the proposal should be rejected does not take account of the substance of the report - Mr Medina Ortega is absolutely right about this. The substance of the report actually takes care of all the criticism that has been presented. Therefore, I would suggest that the left-wing Members, too, consider rereading the report and the amendments and then discussing them once again with their group.

rapporteur. - Madam President, it is a great pity that all of my voters are not here in the room, because it was wonderful to listen to so many Members from so many countries and so many parties welcoming my report on the Small Business Act. However, I have to say that my report would not have been possible without the Commission, namely Mr Verheugen and his small business team, Mrs Le Bail and others. I would also not have been able to do it without the Small Business Intergroup.

Most of my colleagues agreed with everything in the report, as can be seen from the fact that not too many amendments were introduced. Some colleagues asked why it is not legally binding. It is not legally binding by nature for many reasons. However, tomorrow we will ask for a roll-call vote on many paragraphs in order to prove the Parliament's common action and the Council's common requirement to do this.

Finally, I would like to say that exactly 200 years ago Darwin published his book on the origin of species. He said that the survivor is not the strongest, but the one most able to adapt. I think what we have done with the Small Business Act is to create a place for Member States to adapt and manoeuvre, and for small businesses within the Member States to adapt faster, survive this crisis and face the next challenges. Thank you very much for your support.

I have received four motions for a resolution from four political groups on the participation of workers in the European private company.

The vote will take place on Thursday.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

I would just like to highlight two absolutely essential aspects.

Access to funding is vital, along with the legal and administrative facilities. Creating a special fund for SMEs and developing microcredits are conditions without which SMEs cannot withstand the difficult market conditions and the opportunity to create new SMEs would be very limited.

The second aspect is linked to the status of women running small businesses. In many respects, they do not differ significantly from employees. Reasons for this can be the lack of development of services facilitating the balance between private life and work activities, as well as the tough competitive environment in which networks matter very much. Such networks, which facilitate the flow of information and can provide support, if needed, are a feature of businesses run by men, whereas women are more vulnerable from this point of view. For this reason, links must be encouraged between businesses run by women and those run by men.

We also call for recognition in all Member States of the status of co-ownership for women working in small family businesses. In most cases, the owner is a man, while any women are regarded as unpaid family workers. They do not even benefit from the social insurance which employees enjoy. In fact, when they are old and if they have separated from their partners, the adverse consequences are obvious and disastrous...

The competitiveness of SMEs is frequently reduced as a result of the barriers blocking cross-border trade. Lifting these barriers would bring about greater legal stability and would make it possible to calculate more efficiently the liability risks facing enterprises and entrepreneurs. Through this report the European Parliament has indicated that it has fully understood the vital role which small and medium-sized businesses play in terms of the European economy's competitiveness.

A well-conceived European Public Company Statute, intended to supplement the legal forms which already exist, would benefit the competitiveness of European SMEs in many respects: it would consolidate the European internal market, simplify the legal framework for enterprises, thereby reducing consultancy costs and facilitating access to cross-border markets, and it would improve economic integration and growth.

This statute would also offer SMEs greater flexibility.

SMEs account for more than 90% of the EU economy and two-thirds of its jobs. They should therefore be given the best possible conditions in order to contribute to economic growth in an integrated internal market, capitalise on the opportunities available and face up to the challenges of globalisation.

in writing. - (DA) The aim of this proposal, according to the Commission, is to improve the framework conditions for business in the EU's internal market.

The proposal will achieve this by giving enterprises the ability to freely choose the EU Member State in which to have their registered address, regardless of where their actual operations take place, and for them only to be obliged to comply with the laws of the country in which they have their registered address.

This will open the way for the circumvention of hard-won workers' rights in the EU Member States.

The truth is specific. Allow me to be specific.

A Danish company with a registered address in Copenhagen and 35 employees is, under Danish law, obliged to accept the workers appointing representatives to the management of the enterprise. This ensures that the workers get some insight into the position and future of the enterprise.

If the proposal that has been submitted is adopted unchanged, the company in question could simply register itself as a European company based in Finland. Suddenly, 150 employees are required in order to obtain employee representation. In most other EU Member States, the situation is even worse.

Perhaps the Commission's proposal will be improved slightly in the forthcoming negotiations. Perhaps the text that is finally adopted will not be so bad.

In any case, we should ask ourselves the question 'why'? Why does the Commission time and again submit proposals, the only objective of which is to reduce the rights of workers? Could it perhaps be that there is something fundamentally wrong with the EU?

Future of the European Common Asylum System (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the report by Giusto Catania, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the Future of the European Common Asylum System.

rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the last year the number of refugees worldwide has increased. The figure now stands at approximately 12 million. If we include those who are internally displaced, this rises to more than 26 million people worldwide who are in need of the same kind of protection. The reason for this is that wars continue to exist in the world; at present there are 4 million Iraqi refugees and displaced people, and it is clear that these refugees are a consequence of wars that our countries played a part in starting.

The creation of a common European asylum policy is necessary because, under the rule of law, we have an obligation to guarantee that these people are received equally throughout the European Union. This becomes all the more important if we consider that some Member States do not yet have a systematic law on asylum. I note with regret that harmonisation of asylum procedures has been deferred for two years, meaning that it will be implemented in 2012. We must put an end to the awful disparity that exists between the Member States and the different asylum systems. We are at present in a paradoxical situation whereby recognition rates of candidates to refugee status for certain third country nationals vary from approximately 0% up to 90% depending on which Member State receives the request.

Harmonisation of standards should result in a high level of protection throughout the EU and should not be based on the lowest common denominator. The institution of asylum is an essential part of our democracy and the protection of human rights, and it is unacceptable that it has been severely eroded in recent years, as the needs of asylum seekers and the principle of non-refoulement laid down in international conventions have not always been respected. The European Union should provide for mechanisms at the external borders to identify asylum seekers and ensure that persons entitled to international protection gain access to its territory, including in the context of its external border control operations. For this reason we consider it appropriate to review the role of Frontex, which often handles asylum seekers as if they were illegal immigrants.

With this report, the European Parliament is asking Frontex to provide detailed data relating to the number of asylum seekers identified as such during its operations and the plight of persons intercepted and sent back to a country of transit or origin. We must ensure that international conventions are correctly applied, as well as cooperation agreements with third countries. Agreements cannot be made with countries that have not signed the Geneva Convention. Many Member States ignore this, however, including Italy, which has signed an agreement on managing migration flows with Libya, a country that does not intend to sign the Geneva Convention on refugees.

We are very pleased - we have emphasised this and hope that it comes across in this report - that the Court of Justice has annulled the article of the Asylum Procedure Directive concerning the creation of the concept of 'safe third countries' and a common list of safe third countries. In our view, there can be no such thing as a 'safe third country'; it is an erroneous concept, since any citizen can be persecuted even in countries with high democratic standards.

Asylum seekers are vulnerable people who require appropriate reception conditions. Member States cannot detain people for the sole reason that they are applying for international protection. I would therefore argue, as a matter of principle, that asylum seekers should not be detained. Unfortunately in many Member States the detention of asylum seekers is still a reality, due to the fact that they enter the country illegally. Regrettably, and I will conclude with this point, there is no other way to enter the European Union. This is the paradox: even asylum seekers must be subject to mixed flows to enter the EU. Asylum is not a concession: asylum is a duty for states and a right for those fleeing war.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, honourable Members, the Commission adopted an action plan on asylum in June. The Commission undertook to present, between 2008 and 2009, concrete proposals to improve protection standards and to introduce more solidarity between the Member States and also to reinforce practical cooperation.

We have set out the principles that should guide the action of the Union, maintain its humanitarian and protective tradition, guarantee real equality of treatment throughout the Union, improve the effectiveness of the asylum system and promote solidarity within the Union and between the Union and third countries.

I am pleased to learn that Parliament fully shares the Commission's philosophy. It shares our ambition to build a more protective, more effective and more just European asylum system.

The fact that Parliament is now a co-legislator with the Council gives me hope that the negotiations, which will be long, will now have more chance of arriving at instruments of the highest quality which are more in line with the fundamental rights.

Thanks, then, to the co-decision procedure and qualified majority voting in the Council, the Union can harmonise these international protection standards at a higher level.

I thank Parliament for the solid support it has given to all the initiatives that the Commission has announced in its action plan.

I also thank you for the priority you have given to dealing with my recent proposal on the creation of a European asylum support office. We need the support of Parliament to ensure the success of this mechanism, which will allow us to reinforce practical cooperation and the quality of the asylum systems. I hope the three institutions reach an agreement quickly so that this office can open as soon as possible.

However, Mr Catania - and let me thank you for your report - you are worried about some situations, in particular, the detention conditions for asylum seekers, the rights of asylum seekers under the Dublin procedures, the impact of border control operations on access to protection and the burden assumed by certain Member States in the reception of the flows of asylum seekers. I have some answers for you.

As for the conditions of detention for asylum seekers, the Commission has proposed, in the amendments to the directive on reception conditions, clearer rules than those currently in force, in particular the prohibition, in all cases, of the detention of unaccompanied minors. We have also specified the cases where detention is possible for adults, with safeguards such as the right to effective recourse or the right to legal aid and regular judicial checks on the detention measure.

In addition, in keeping with Mrs Roure's report on open and secure reception centres, adopted on 5 February, Parliament identified a number of problems in these centres. The proposed amendments to the directive on reception conditions should provide an answer to these problems.

Following the same principles, I proposed that the rights of asylum seekers subject to the Dublin procedures should be better guaranteed. We must, for example, facilitate the reuniting of families, the reuniting of children with the members of their family, and reinforce the procedural guarantees enjoyed by asylum seekers subject to the Dublin procedure.

The best asylum procedure would be useless if access to such a procedure were not guaranteed. I agree with you, Mr Catania, on the need to improve our work with border officials, to train them and make them aware of asylum issues. You mentioned mixed flows. Frontex really needs to be able to undertake this training task. Once established, the support office will contribute to this by preparing manuals for border officials. We must also arrive at a better definition of responsibilities in the case of people rescued at sea. Where should they disembark? Where, if need be, could they ask for asylum? I am working with the Member States to try to find the right answers to these questions. Naturally, one has to be aware of the pressures the asylum systems are under in some Member States. We want greater solidarity, not only in financial terms, but also in the form of teams of rapid response experts, created by the office.

We are also going to examine the possibility of the voluntary transfer of refugees to a Member State other than the one which granted protection.

At the end of this week, I am going to Lampedusa and Malta to look at the practical requirements and at how the Union can offer its support.

Let me take this opportunity, Madam President and honourable Members, to thank you for the extra EUR 10 million that Parliament approved at the end of 2008 for the European Refugee Fund. These EUR 10 million will be used relocate more refugees in the Union in 2009. I wish, in this matter, to stress the importance of the commitment made by the Member States following the mission we sent to Jordan and Syria on the relocation of Iraqi refugees in the Member States of the European Union.

We are working, and I am working, on all fronts, in other words, improving the quality of the legislation, practical cooperation and solidarity between the Member States and between the Union and third countries.

I would really like to thank Parliament for its support. We must make the European Union a true united common area of protection. It is indeed my intention to include this in the Stockholm programme.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you Mr Catania and Mrs Roure for all the very useful work that has been accomplished.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development. - (LT) In recent years, the number of refugees worldwide has reached 16 million. In 2007, the EU received more than 200 000 asylum applications. Both refugees requesting asylum and some Member States are facing problems, and a great burden which the European Common Asylum System would alleviate. Government institutions should apply concrete, clear and equal terms when deciding whether asylum applications should be accepted. It is important for refugee status to be granted on the basis of a concrete case, rather than a general assessment, based on nationality for example. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the European Commission's Policy Plan on Asylum does not mention the Frontex agency, which plays a very important role in the area of refugee protection. Moreover, it is important to mention that the number of asylum applicants depends directly on the political, economic and social situation in the countries of origin of the asylum applicants. Therefore, the Common European Asylum System should be closely linked to the European Development Cooperation Policy and humanitarian work, which would reduce the number of asylum applicants, seekers, who are often economic migrants.

Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, following the Tampere conclusions, much has been done to harmonise the laws of the Member States on asylum. However, this harmonisation has been based on the lowest common denominator, with very different practices and procedures continuing to exist. We still do not have equal conditions of access to protection throughout the EU and, as a result, there are still problems such as secondary movements and multiple applications.

In 2008, as already highlighted by the rapporteur, the number of refugees grew to over 12 million. We therefore urgently need to begin the second phase of the Common European Asylum System. There can only be an identical level of protection throughout the EU if a single asylum application procedure is established, for reasons of efficiency, rapidity, quality and justice in decision-making, together with single standards for qualification as refugees or persons needing international protection. Only in this way can asylum seekers be treated equally, regardless of the Member State in which they make their asylum application.

I am therefore delighted at the presentation of this asylum action plan, to which various public players have contributed and which defines the road map to be followed in coming years with a view to developing the Common European Asylum System. I support the proposed amendments to the Reception Conditions Directive, to the Asylum Procedures Directive and to the Asylum Qualification Directive in order to clarify the criteria allowing asylum seekers to qualify for international protection. I am pleased that Commissioner Barrot has underlined the need to ensure coherence with other policies impacting on international protection, and I hope that this same coherent approach will be extended to other common areas.

Finally, I want to congratulate the rapporteur, Giusto Catania, for his work, which will be supported by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Madam President, I wish first to congratulate our rapporteur for this excellent report as it reveals, rightly, the imbalances which characterise the current asylum law in Europe and he puts forward a number of proposals that will really allow us to move forwards in the right direction.

We must put an end to the existing unacceptable disparities between the Member States. In fact, the response an asylum seeker gets depends on the country in which the request for asylum is lodged.

We also call for a substantial improvement in the conditions in which asylum seekers are housed. This requires, in particular, the affirmation of the principle that asylum seekers must not be placed in detention, particularly vulnerable persons, women, children and the victims of torture. This also requires guaranteed access to minimum rights to housing, employment, health, education, in other words, to the fundamental rights that ensure the dignity of the person.

Finally, for us it is vital that we reform the Dublin II system. Our visits to the detention centres, in particular, have shown us - as you said, Mr Rothe - the collateral damage caused by an unsuitable operation, insofar as it places an unacceptable burden on the countries most directly affected by the flows of migrants towards Europe's door.

There is still a long road ahead of us before we achieve a common policy on asylum. We must not harbour any illusions, but the new Commission proposals, to which I trust we can make an effective contribution, will allow us, I hope, to lay the foundations of a structure which, although it might be fragile today, we hope will be solid in the future.

I sincerely thank Commissioner Jacques Barrot for the tenacious will he has shown in this matter, because will is what is needed, and a great deal of will at that. I hope, Commissioner, that you will have the time to implement this work, because it is our duty and a moral imperative for the values that we in the European Union defend.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I support the report of the rapporteur and the work of the Commission. There is no excuse for the poor state of refugee management in the EU, since the numbers of asylum applications are low by historical standards. Lack of common practice, different sources of country-of-origin information and failure to implement EU laws properly means there is an uneven playing field. This is causing shopping-around by applicants and pass-the-parcel by states.

Another element creating unequal access to protection is that some Member States are just deporting people before they can be assessed and even, in effect, bribing third countries to stop them coming.

Many arriving in mixed flows may well be economic migrants, which does not make them criminals. However, even if only a few are refugees, they must be identified. As Mr Catania says, protection in human rights concerns must be integrated into border management, particularly in the mandate of Frontex. People should not be detained just because they apply for asylum.

Besides the single common procedure and content of protection, there needs to be practical cooperation, support and solidarity, including through the important European Asylum Support Office, providing common sources of country information. Better quality and more accurate first decisions would save money through fewer costly appeals.

Obliging EU states to allow asylum seekers to work after six months, if their claim is not decided, is very important: they would retain dignity and also pay tax. I am very disappointed the UK has decided to opt out from an improved Reception Conditions Directive as that would bar automatic detention solely on the grounds of submission of an asylum claim, cut across UK fast-track detention and enforce the right to work after six months. It is pretty shameful, in my view, that my own country regards these conditions as too onerous.

Madam President, we should once again wholeheartedly thank the French Presidency, which made great progress on the question of asylum when it brought about adoption of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum by the Council in October of last year. It is true that the European Union needs a common asylum policy and needs to develop an attitude of solidarity in relation to admitting refugees. EU Member States which are especially exposed to an influx of asylum seekers should be provided with assistance. The question of asylum is a very delicate one. It is difficult to judge who really needs protection and who is trying to escape poverty in their own country, and, while the latter also deserve help, we cannot admit everyone. In summary, our EU procedures should be unified, transparent and fast.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, the creation of 'Fortress Europe' is going faster and faster as each year goes by. This is very unfortunate, not least because a common asylum policy will, in all probability, entail a tougher and more restrictive policy in which people needing protection will lose out the most. This development is worrying, to say the least.

The report seeks to introduce common standards for determining when a person is to be considered a refugee. Why, I ask myself. We already have international conventions that specify this. We should not be trying to create new EU standards, which, with all probability, would be more restrictive than the Geneva Convention, for example.

Almost every week we hear horrific reports from refugee camps in southern Europe. Those who have ended up there live in terrible conditions, to which the authorities choose to turn a blind eye. The problem is clearly not the individuals detained in the camps, but rather the fact that human rights are not being respected, despite the fact that all Member States, at least in theory, meet the Copenhagen criteria. This is the issue we should instead be discussing here in Parliament. Access to a country's territory has to be a matter for each country to take decisions on, but international conventions and agreements must, of course, be respected.

(RO) The European Common Asylum System is currently fraught with a lack of consistency with the legal instruments for international protection.

As a result of the major discrepancies in the decision-making processes which the 27 Member States use for dealing with asylum applications, the rate in terms of acknowledging applicants' refugee status varies between 0% and approximately 90%. In addition, the Dublin system's criteria place a disproportionate burden on Member States located at the European Union's external border as they are responsible for processing asylum applications as the first country of entry.

Phenomena such as secondary movements from one Member State to another and multiple applications still exist. One of the most urgent requirements in EU asylum policy is the exchange of analyses, experiences and information between Member States. Practicable solutions must also be found for developing cooperation between the administrative authorities responsible for examining asylum applications.

However, the most difficult problem to resolve remains communication between Member States about the different treatment given to applicants for international protection according to their country of origin. I hope that the regulation for creating a European Asylum Support Office, proposed by the Commission three weeks ago, will help partially resolve the current issues.

I already urge future managers of this European office not to ignore cooperation with the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders, with the European migration network and with the competent bodies in Member States and third countries involved in migration and asylum activities. Apart from avoiding duplication of effort, this cooperation will facilitate the coordination of actions by Member States and the use of their expertise on asylum matters.

(SV) Madam President, Commissioner Barrot, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Catania for his report. I fully share the view that it is unfortunate that entry into force has been postponed until 2012. There are three issues I would like to raise, namely the rights of children, support and opportunity for women caught up in people trafficking and, finally, how we can be better prepared in the event of a sudden crisis in the world.

I think that it is good that Parliament is calling attention to the fact that children and minors should receive special support. What nevertheless still concerns me is the fact that children can be taken into custody. I find that unacceptable.

Yesterday was International Women's Day. The issue that I have been involved with during this parliamentary term is how different countries treat women and children caught up in people trafficking, that is to say whether these people have a right to stay in the EU or to receive help to return home. When the Social Democrats governed Sweden it was a foregone conclusion that women who had been violated in Sweden - irrespective of whether it was a result of people trafficking, marriage or whether they had been subjected to violence - had a right to stay. Now, a woman may possibly be allowed to stay, but only if she cooperates with the police and prosecutors. For what crimes other than people trafficking is cooperation a requirement for asylum? I think that this is discrimination against women and children and I would like to address this issue today, following Women's Day.

The third issue is how different countries receive asylum seekers and which countries are chosen. My country, Sweden, is one of the countries that have accepted the most refugees from Iraq. Compared with both the US and Canada, it is an enormous amount, and the same is true in comparison with most EU countries. I hope that the new asylum system in the EU will be better prepared to accept joint responsibility when something happens in the world or, as in the case of Iraq, when countries are invaded. It should not be the case that an EU system based on solidarity only functions when things are calm - it must also function in times of crisis and conflict.

Madam President, the number of people seeking refugee and asylum status is growing alarmingly. As the report states, there are currently about 12 million refugees and about 26 million internally displaced persons worldwide. This is hardly surprising, as some countries in continents such as Africa and Asia slide further into political chaos and the world slips further into a financial and economic crisis of as yet unknown depths.

What we can be sure of is that over the coming months and years there will be yet more refugees and asylum-seekers. It will surprise no-one that the European Parliament solution is harmonisation of national asylum systems. The report proposes a common European asylum system and a common asylum support office with common standards for granting refugee and asylum status. It proposes that national governments should not be able to hold an asylum-seeker in detention solely on the grounds that they are asylum applicants, and that refugees should be allowed to request movement from one European country to another. It proposes that where an applicant is held in detention, that person should have the right to a remedy before a national court.

All this is a recipe for chaos and gridlock in national asylum systems. Many, if not most, of those people who seek refugee and asylum status in European countries far from home are, of course, economic migrants seeking a better life. And who can blame them? But the easier we make it for them to come to Europe, the more will come.

The common systems proposed here will make it even harder for nation states to protect their own borders and easier for untold numbers of economic migrants to cross those borders. Britain needs even stricter controls, not more lax ones imposed by the European Union.

(MT) The rapporteur was right in saying that a common asylum policy must be built upon the solidarity principle. It is precisely this solidarity that is lacking in our asylum policy, as Commissioner Barrot will personally observe later this week when he visits my country of Malta, as well as the island of Lampedusa. Commissioner, you will discover that the solidarity you seek will elude you. Solidarity was introduced for the first time in the Immigration and Asylum Pact last October. It was entered by way of a clause on burden-sharing, which focused on distributing the load amongst countries. This was the first time it had been introduced and it was a positive move. This clause is applied on a voluntary basis and allows migrants that arrive in one country seeking asylum to be able to transfer to another European Union country. This Parliament even allocated EUR 5 million in this year's European Union budget so as to facilitate the implementation of this clause. Until now, in practice, we have not witnessed the application of this clause except in the case of France, which offered to take 80 asylum seekers from Malta. This is an important gesture, but other European Union countries did not follow suit, which is a great pity. Therefore, my question to the Commissioner is, what action is the Commission taking to guarantee that this mechanism on burden sharing is being executed? What is it doing to ensure that more countries offer their solidarity and take immigrants from a country that is shouldering a disproportionate burden? Does the Commission intend to draw up a European reallocation programme between countries and how does it plan to build upon and apply this clause?

(RO) In the current situation where the number of refugees has increased worldwide and the European Union is receiving more than half of the asylum seekers, establishing a European Common Asylum System must be an urgent priority.

In this respect, I welcome the proposal to create a European Asylum Support Office to coordinate the various countries' national policies in order to avoid a disproportionate burden being imposed on certain Member States. I think that this office must be organised so that it can play an important role in the event of a crisis and assess asylum applications correctly.

I think that the new European Union Member States, namely Romania and Bulgaria, need to be given support by the European Union through effective solidarity mechanisms in order to guarantee adequate conditions for welcoming asylum seekers. However, let us not forget that we must be proactive, not reactive, at European level by focusing greater attention on cooperation with third countries in order to avert crises.

(RO) Every year European Union Member States host millions of people who are seeking refuge from persecution and conflict in their countries of origin. However, the rate of recognition of refugee status at a national level in these states varies between 0 and 90%. In addition, the Dublin system, involving the process of readmitting refugees to the first country of transit, creates a discrepancy between these countries and those located centrally with regard to coordinating the asylum policies and measures provided for refugees.

As other speakers before me have also mentioned, the European Common Asylum System must allow Member States to provide an increased level of protection to refugees, from the time they are received until they are fully integrated into local communities, by establishing a common asylum procedure which sets out clear, reasonable, uniform terms that the authorities can use to manage asylum applications.

Particular attention must be focused on solidarity between Member States with a view to coordinating the large flows of asylum seekers in some countries, both through providing financial assistance and adopting internal resettlement and reallocation mechanisms allowing the refugees to be dispersed uniformly throughout the European Union.

(ET) I would like to thank the rapporteur and emphasise the importance of this topic, even though I represent the Member State of Estonia, which is notable for the small number of refugees who arrive here.

Refugee status has until now been granted to only a few people a year, but we are also a small country, and although we are attractive to tourists, life here is difficult. We do recognise the need for solidarity, but I think that those who have already had to suffer so much in life should not be punished once again with a harsh climate unless they choose it themselves.

Thus it would be sensible to speak of the sharing of responsibilities and not people, in order to improve the situation of countries that receive a large number of asylum seekers. The harmonisation of standards is definitely worthy of support. If we have a common border, it is logical that asylum seekers should receive equal treatment throughout the European Union.

- (CS) Madam President, I profoundly disagree with the Euro-sceptic campaign against the common migration and asylum policy enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. We need to act jointly and more firmly to combat illegal economic migration, while providing more dignified conditions to asylum seekers. It troubles me that the children of refugees in European camps have no access to education or necessary health care for months at a time. It is also unacceptable that within the Schengen area some countries recognise the status of refugees and others do not. It is regrettable that the Frontex agency does not monitor the numbers and countries of origin of applicants for international protection. Yes, we do need a unified asylum procedure and we also need to help the buffer states on the basis of solidarity. We must also, however, link asylum policy with development policy in order to preclude migration.

Vice-President of the Commission. -? (FR) Madam President, I am going be fairly brief, although I listened carefully to all the speeches and I thank the European Parliament for showing true support for this effort to give the asylum policy the full scope it needs for all the world's persecuted people. We have a duty and, as Martine Roure said, a moral imperative to do so.

I would like to give some clarifications. First, some of you have mentioned Frontex, Mr Catania in particular. I have to tell you that Frontex now has a liaison officer in the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This is a real effort on the part of Frontex to understand fully the problems affecting asylum seekers, and the Commission has proposed rules to improve the definition of Frontex responsibilities in maritime operations. We are currently in discussions with the Member States on this important issue.

I would like to go back to the request for solidarity that many of you have made. I am thinking in particular of Mr Busuttil, who mentioned the difficult situation Malta faces in this matter. It is true that, in the action plan on asylum, the Commission proposed to study the options that could be offered by distributing asylum seekers around the Member States on a voluntary basis.

The discussion with the Member States began in autumn via an informal document that put forward several options for implementing the principle of solidarity in the asylum area. I have to say that it is not easy to get agreement from the majority of the Member States on a mechanism for sharing refugees amongst them. We are, however, to begin a study on the impacts and the possibilities for this sort of sharing at Union level.

I would also like to say that we are ready to finance projects related to such sharing and relocation in the framework of the European Refugee Fund. I will have the chance to say this again in the Member States that I am going to visit. These same countries are very often those sought by asylum seekers.

To summarise, I believe we are at the start of a long process that is essential if we really want Europe to uphold in its values a strong identity as a region which will welcome all the people in the world who are suffering and awaiting our help.

Many thanks to the European Parliament, Madam President and honourable Members, for all your speeches, which are particularly valuable to me as your Commissioner.

rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank my fellow Members who have spoken in support of this report, as well as Mr Barrot for his support and the work the Commission is undertaking to amend certain directives, particularly the Asylum Procedure Directive, demonstrating a willingness to improve the common asylum system. Parliament acts as co-legislator in this field, and I believe that we must exercise our role in order to harmonise asylum procedures at a higher level, pushing for a system of harmonisation that allows for large numbers to be received and improves standards of reception in the Member States so that the system is increasingly cohesive.

I believe that this Parliament has fulfilled an important role by visiting administrative detention centres in Europe. We have visited a great many of them - Mrs Roure was the rapporteur for the final report - and we have observed that often the right to asylum has been breached in Member States, often normal reception conditions such as the right to healthcare and legal aid have not been guaranteed, and information on potential asylum seekers has not been provided. This has happened because mixed flows have been managed in such a way that the fight against illegal immigration and the defence of external borders has taken precedence over the need for reception and in particular the reception of asylum seekers.

I agree with the points made by some of my fellow Members, particularly on the need to review the Dublin regulation and to guarantee a solidarity mechanism between Member States in order that the burden might be shared, but also that we need a solidarity mechanism regarding asylum seekers because their right to be transferred to another place so that their case can be heard must also be recognised.

Finally, and to close, some Members have raised the question of border controls. I think that there is a basic error in this reasoning: the issue of defending borders and the issue of asylum are two wholly separate matters. We must guarantee the right to asylum as a fundamental right to be upheld within the European Union.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

Madam President, last year, the number of refugees worldwide grew to over 12 million, while as many as 26 million people have been internally displaced, which shows the seriousness of the problem. Unfortunately, standards are not in the slightest sense harmonised, because the percentage of applicants from certain third countries who are granted refugee status ranges from around 0% to 90% in different Member States.

A unified procedure should be established for granting asylum, as well as unified standards which enable decisions to be made about who should be recognised as a refugee or whether a person is in need of international protection. All the people who make decisions in this field should have equal access to professional information about the applicant's country of origin and the bodies authorised to hear appeals, as should the people who are applying for asylum.

During the waiting period, it is extremely important for the authorities to give due consideration to the diverse needs of asylum seekers in more difficult circumstances, such as children, disabled people and women. It is essential to establish a common database, in order to publish and collect information about countries of origin.

It is worth emphasising that the obligation to provide assistance is guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and is legally binding for all EU Member States and on EU's Frontex agency.

The social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Kósáné Kovács, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU.

Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. After several months of work, I submit to Parliament the report on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market, a report which expresses our deeply felt responsibility for the European future of the Roma, an ethnic minority whose population equals that of a member state.

In recent months, the necessity to take action has not waned but has instead become even more urgent. The global financial crisis has swept through Europe, and the accompanying economic shakeup once again severely affects the most vulnerable social groups, and in particular the Roma. The increasing and justified existential anxiety of the majority in society constitutes a fertile soil for hatred of minorities, for a discriminatory, exclusionary stance and for scapegoating. It is fortunate and of symbolic significance that the adoption of the Roma report could take place in the very week when Parliament is preparing the next Council meeting, seeking not only the tools to help us emerge from the crisis but also the opportunity to reduce human traumas and the risks to livelihood on the basis of the principle of solidarity that unites Europe.

In recent decades, we have learned that there is no dynamic economic development that could automatically offer mobility, using the existing systems of redistribution, to those at the lowest social stratum. On the contrary, we have seen that, if there is no policy to support the principle of equal opportunity, then the differences at the edges of society can grow even greater during periods of development. Our task is now to mobilise the resources for dealing with the crisis and growing the economy in such a way that the 10 million Roma do not fall victim to the crisis, but become participants in the recovery. The position of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, adopted by a large majority, finds it unacceptable that a significant portion of the Roma population lives in conditions like those in the developing world. Tens of thousands of Roma children still grow up in segregated schools, where they cannot gain competitive knowledge, and they carry with them throughout their lives the wounds of exclusion and discrimination. Millions live in ghettos, without running water, sewers and often without electricity, and their life expectancy is 10 to 20 years lower than that of the majority. They lack vocational training, they live by casual labour, and their lifestyle is daily the object of visible discrimination. And what is most dramatic: this situation reinforces their verbal exclusion, hate speech and conflict resolution determined on an ethnic basis. For who has not heard it said that 'if he's a gypsy, he does not want to change his situation but prefers to steal rather than work'?

The root cause is the fact that their quality of life remains at that of a developing country; this in turn intensifies the tendency to exclusion, and the tree of hatred bears the fruit of murderous acts. Force can only be eliminated by striking at its roots. This concerns not only Central and Eastern European countries, who long for peace, but every European citizen. We should also not forget that it is in the fundamental interest of aging Europe to make sure it is populated not by unfortunate people who depend on social assistance, but by well educated, working citizens, capable of paying tax, social contributions and insurance. This is the subject of the report before you today.

In order to do what is necessary, it is indispensable for the various institutions of the European Union to work on the elaboration and planned implementation of a comprehensive Roma policy. A common European resolve is needed in order for the well intentioned, often costly efforts of Member States, which often remain ineffective due to lack of collective will, to shift to a new track. I wish sincerely to thank all my fellow Members whose significant initiatives helped make this a more comprehensive report. Willingness to cooperate may help advance the understanding that it is not a matter of choice, but of necessity, for the European Union to integrate immediately this sizeable potential workforce, one that has centuries of experience adapting to their milieu. Thank you for your patience.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first to thank Mrs Kósáné Kovács for her report that contributes to the joint efforts to promote the social inclusion of the Roma.

The Commission shares your analysis, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, as to the main underlying reasons for this exclusion: the social segregation they suffer, the obstacles they face trying to access education, the discrimination that prevents them from fully participating in the world of work, that prevents access to goods and services, and above all - and you have highlighted it very well - the prejudices and stereotypes with which they are saddled.

The Commission also supports the European Parliament's proposals for sustainable solutions, in particular your emphasis on child development from the preschool phase, the development of microcredit to strengthen entrepreneurship, self-employment and the targeted implementation of structural funds. For the Commission, the implementation of effective, sustainable solutions requires the action of all the key players, including, essentially, the Roma themselves, to develop, implement and monitor the policies that affect them.

In addition, the Commission considers that it would be better to use Community instruments and policies to achieve the inclusion of the Roma, that there must be an exchange of best practice, such as the ACCEDER programme in Spain or the desegregation efforts in Hungary. To be effective, the policies must be targeted and respect the specific situations of the Roma communities to achieve the goal of social integration.

In the spirit of your report, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, the Commission will continue to support the social inclusion of the Roma by reinforcing the protection of the individual rights of all the Roma, in particular women and children, taking into account the problems of the Roma in the framework of policy coordination at European level, in particular as relates to employment and social inclusion, via a more active implementation of the structural funds and the European Social Fund, and, finally, by reinforcing the institutional capacities of Roma civil society.

I wish to thank you for your report, Mrs Kósáné Kovács. I can tell you that my colleague, Commissioner Špidla, and I are very aware of these problems. I would add that our Fundamental Rights Agency is to give us two reports on the situation of the Roma that I hope will allow us to propose and promote what you have just explained to us so well.

Thank you, Mrs Kósáné Kovács, and thanks to Parliament for its support.

That concludes this item. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

Coming up with a European solution to the problems which the Roma are facing requires us to take into account that they are citizens just like we are, even if they are subject to exclusion. Representative organisations and Roma communities must play an active role in drawing up inclusion policies.

Increased efforts are required to improve their living conditions and access to education and health services. These are the minimum conditions required for them to be able to get and hold down a job in the countries where they live. The opportunities for mobility have had the totally opposite effect for them, making discrimination worse. Women are in an even more vulnerable position because they are subject to numerous forms of discrimination from a gender, ethnic and social perspective.

There are national programmes for inclusion and combating poverty, which have produced modest results. The economic crisis must not be used in any way at all as an excuse for not implementing the social inclusion programmes. If anything, it is a reason for concerted action.

Roma, like any other disadvantaged group, may pay dearly as a result of the crisis's impact. The unusual reactions which we have seen in Italy are a warning. We can think about solutions to problems or find the culprits. The right has always preferred to put the blame on others, mainly the vulnerable. As a representative of the left, I would rather we find solutions.

I would like to congratulate Mrs Kósáné Kovács on her report, which presents a comprehensive analysis of the socio-economic status of Roma communities. Her report formulates numerous forward-looking recommendations, calling for example upon the Commission to take into consideration in its technical policies the impact of the policies toward the Roma, and to recommend introducing a unified system of requirements into development programmes. Member States' unfounded plans and the scattered projects, most of which are funded by the European Union, do not yield true results. We need a common action plan that rests on solid legal bases and that is able, by means of sanctions, to ensure the implementation of Member States' undertakings. The Roma communities must be involved in the process of planning, implementation and monitoring, from the lowest level to the international consultative bodies; uniform benchmarks and deadlines must be set, in order to verify that the financial resources invested are used effectively.

Poverty and social exclusion are geographically concentrated, and research has clearly drawn up the map of European poverty. The majority of the Roma live in small regions 'condemned to death', and even maintaining their current quality of life costs an enormous amount. Over the long term, it could paralyse budgets and threatens to break down wider social cohesion. Therefore Community strategy must make possible an immediate emergency intervention in these areas, by means of distinct programmes funded from development funds set aside at EU level, which should be able to deal with the problems in all their complexity, as well as by ensuring the permeability between funds and, if necessary, by introducing region-specific forms of support.

As a representative of the right, I believe in the contribution of every citizen to the general well-being and prosperity of society. I think that the integration of all social groups into society and social cohesion must be a goal approached without any display of populism and loud fanfare. The sustainable, effective integration of the Roma must be based on their economic contribution and the involvement of every one of them in the labour market.

In my country, which is no exception, the Roma are socially marginalised and live in poverty. In practical terms, their education stops at a very early stage. In fact, research carried out by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in 2007 indicates that the proportion of graduates is almost zero: barely 0.2%. This lack of education puts the Roma on the very bottom rung in the labour market and is the cause of their high level of unemployment. For them to become integrated effectively, apart from the issue of education, their living conditions also need to be improved and they must be actively included in the labour market. However, none of this can come about without the involvement of the Roma themselves, without their active, conscious desire for things to change. I see this as the major challenge facing all of us.

in writing. - (HU) The events of the past years have demonstrated that it is time to address seriously the economic, cultural and health situation of Roma living in the European Union. The degree of social disadvantage in certain regions is of nearly tragic proportions, and in the current economic crisis threatens us with a social explosion. Therefore I particularly welcome the report by Magda Kósáné Kovács, which seeks an answer to this serious social problem. I am also pleased with the objectives set in the report, but an assessment of the situation, information campaigns and reinforcement of civil society are not in themselves sufficient. We need concrete, decisive steps in the areas of education and job creation.

If sufficient financial resources are not available for these objectives, then the initiative will remain a dead letter. We need an EU Roma strategy as well, for these proposed objectives to impact the Member States' economic, educational and health policies; for only in this way will it be possible to guarantee a life of human dignity for the 10 million-strong Roma community and to hasten their integration.

The strategy for improving the situation of European Roma demands an action plan, and therefore I hope there will be people willing to continue the work begun in this report, which presumably will spread over several parliamentary terms.

While in Italy the government's approach to the Roma issue has been not entirely consistent and at times highly questionable with respect to humanitarian principles, in Europe an effort has always been made to maintain the difficult balance between integration and security. The European Parliament's resolution on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU is an example of this.

The repeated recourse to emergency legislative measures to address problems associated with the Roma clearly indicates an inability to tackle a phenomenon that is not new. What is needed instead is a systematic approach and coordinated, long-term solutions in the areas of education, healthcare and, most importantly, labour market policies, since employment and education facilitate social acceptance and integration.

Europe is calling for an end to the discriminatory practice of evicting occupants of Roma slums and instead for the development of specific housing projects that will redress the housing problem facing these communities.

In short, we require consistent policy choices that combine solidarity and responsibility, enabling us to offer a balanced response to an emergency that is otherwise in danger of getting out of hand. We are well aware that this is a difficult route to take, but there is no other way to reach our destination.

I would like to call on the Commission to adopt concrete measures to support the Roma's integration into the labour market through providing funding for training and retraining, as well as measures aimed at a strict application of the legislation on combating discrimination in employment.

I wish to reiterate the need to create within the EC a specialist department to support interaction between the Commission and national governments, aimed at implementing the projects targeted at the Roma minority concerning their social, economic and cultural integration.

We are all aware that the problem posed by the Roma's situation is not only a national problem for each Member State separately, but is a European problem and must be resolved at this level.

I would like to stress that the new Member States in particular need proper support from the EU in integrating Roma, both from a social perspective and in terms of the labour market.

It is well known that the number of Roma who do not have access to the European Union's labour market is worrying. We must therefore stop putting off the creation of effective European programmes to boost primarily the Roma's access to education so that unemployment stops being an aspect of life constantly passed on from one generation to the next.

The free movement which Roma from the new Member States currently enjoy has not meant that access to the EU labour market has been just as easy. All we can say is that the only thing which Roma migrants in other Member States have done is to export their own poverty.

Against the backdrop of the current economic crisis, it is even more difficult for Roma citizens to access the labour market, which means that a large number of them are living below the poverty line.

We are therefore facing a major challenge during a period of economic crisis in terms of encouraging employers to offer jobs to the largest minority in Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen.

Mrs Kósáné Kovács's report on the social situation of the Roma and improving their access to the labour market in the EU reflects the high level of political responsibility the European Parliament has towards the citizens of Europe at the height of the global economic crisis. The report highlights in detail all the major challenges facing the improvement of the economic situation and social inclusion of the largest ethnic minority in Europe. During these times of crisis, it is important for us to defend the values on which our union is based and to protect the weak members of our society.

Educational provision for the Roma, implementation of specific employment policies, guaranteed access to health services and, last but not least, promoting the battle for equality for Roma women must be the means used to resolve in the long term the issues affecting this section of European society.

The report clearly and distinctly puts forward the principle for non-governmental organisations and the Roma getting involved in drafting and implementing policies for social inclusion. I believe that, as we enter the fourth year in the Decade of Roma Inclusion, Member States must monitor more seriously the specific recommendations made by the Commission on implementing this wide-ranging European project.

Thank you for your attention.

Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Stauner, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the principle of effective internal control is one of the most important budgetary principles that the Commission must observe when implementing the budget and utilising the funds. The European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Parliament have been calling for effective, efficient control of the budgetary resources for years, and numerous attempts and suggestions have been made by the ECA, in particular, seeking to ensure that the Commission uses these resources appropriately and economically. Nevertheless, the ECA has not been able to give the Commission a positive statement of assurance for years. I need only remind the House of the occurrences in connection with irregularities in the implementation of the Leonardo programme a few years ago, and other support areas that have always been very susceptible to irregularities and perhaps even to fraud.

In January 2006, the Commission adopted an action plan towards an integrated internal control framework, again with the aim of obtaining a positive statement of assurance from the ECA. As stated in our report, there is no doubt that the Commission has made some serious efforts to develop the action plan. However, it is quite clear to Parliament that the implementation of the measures is a long way behind schedule. Therefore, the Commission must speed up the implementation of the envisaged measures considerably so that positive effects can be seen in the ECA's Annual Report in the foreseeable future and also so that we Members of the European Parliament can grant a budget discharge with a clear conscience.

I do not want to go into the details of the still unsatisfactory implementation of the measures, but I would emphasise that efficient control activities are now all the more necessary considering that, in connection with the economic recovery package, almost all the criteria for the implementation of support measures have been significantly relaxed, including in the interests of providing rapid assistance. I need only remind you of the planned relaxation in the Structural Funds and of the significant changes in the eligibility principles with regard to the EU Globalisation Fund.

We know, of course, that all the support measures, particularly in the field of the Structural Funds, are implemented in close cooperation with the Member States, which is absolutely vital in order to guarantee the validity of the expenditure, but also generates substantial problems when it comes to control by the Commission.

We have known for years that the Commission cannot always approach such controls in the Member States as it would perhaps like and as dictated by the budgetary principles and the ideas of the ECA. Parliament has great difficulties in getting a final picture, particularly in the case of the annual summaries and management declarations at national level, which the Commission presented to us for the first time on 15 February 2008, as the documents do not keep to uniform criteria.

Therefore, our report - which was also adopted unanimously by the Committee on Budgetary Control - calls for continuous pressure to be exerted on the Member States to provide data that is both complete and comprehensible. It is my fervent hope that the Commission will continue to take seriously its task of introducing the internal control framework in future. Thank you very much.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I thank Mrs Stauner for her report and Parliament for the constructive dialogue we have had since the Commission undertook the action plan for a discharge, towards a positive statement of assurance.

In this context, the Commission feels that the statement of assurance issued by the Court of Auditors for 2007 is the best that has ever been obtained. The action plan has contributed to this improvement. I am pleased to tell you that the Commission brought forward to 3 February the adoption of its latest report on the progress achieved. As Mrs Stauner requested it in her report, this should allow you to take it into account in the discharge resolution.

Our communication of 3 February presents an initial assessment of the impact of the action plan as of 31 December 2008. It concludes that considerable progress has been achieved during the term of the current Commission. I will mention several of its points.

In terms of simplification, the proportion of the budget spent according to clearer and easier to apply eligibility rules has risen to 25% of the budget. In the framework of the economic recovery plan, we propose other simplification measures, in particular for the structural funds.

The Court of Auditors reported an improvement in the clarity and reliability of the annual activity reports on the Commission's services finalised under action No 3.

The Commission has reinforced the financial corrections- action No 11 in the structural funds -: in 2008, an amount of 1 billion 500 million was recovered. In comparison, the amount recovered in 2007 was 288 million.

The Commission services are increasingly applying common standards for control methods, ensuring improved coordination and sharing of the results. This is helping to reduce the administrative burden and allowing better use to be made of control results.

We continue to reinforce the responsibility of the Member States for shared management - action No 5 - and we have just received the annual audit summaries for the second time. The Commission will continue these actions along with other initiatives to improve the control framework.

Mrs Stauner's report stresses the key role of the concept of tolerable risk in the pursuit of future improvements. This concept aims to define at the policy level the acceptable balance between the control results and their costs. It is obvious that a zero error rate is impossible and it seems logical that the error rate may vary according to the area inspected.

The interinstitutional discussion of this concept is taking place on the basis of the recent Commission communication. Vice-President Kallas had the opportunity to discuss this in Parliament in January. I would like to stress the importance of this initiative, which will allow the discharge authority better to appreciate the quality of the risk management introduced by the Commission.

Our last report shows you that the Commission has completed the various actions. The Court of Auditors will make its own assessment of the impact of the various actions in its 2008 annual report.

I thank Mrs Stauner for her report, which is a call to improve our accounting framework still further.

That concludes this item. The vote will take place tomorrow.

in writing. - This report which aims to bring more transparency, efficiency and accountability to European spending, is more relevant than ever to implement the EU budget by following the principles of sound financial management. We need a genuine commitment to transparency and effective internal controls in order to extract maximum benefits from of our policies and priorities. Moreover, I fully support the view that if an action cannot be satisfactorily implemented in terms of cost and risk, then it should be reconsidered. In the current economic situation we cannot allow any wasteful spending or misuse of European funds. At the same time the institution needs to have less complex legal requirements. It is necessary to simplify the administrative and financial burden on applicants and benefeciaries of the EU especially since many instances unnecessary bureaucracy has resulted in impediment to effective policy implementation. The challenging task is to find the right balance.

Integrity of online gambling (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Schaldemose, on behalf of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the integrity of online gambling.

rapporteur. - (DA) Madam President, I am both proud and pleased to be able to present to you this evening the own-initiative report on the integrity of online gambling. As you know, the issue of gambling has always been extremely controversial in the European Parliament. Gambling was removed from the scope of the Services Directive, as well as from that of the E-Commerce Directive and it was also eliminated from the Television without Frontiers Directive. Why should that be the case? Well, I believe that most of us agree that gambling is indeed a financial service - the European Court of Justice has determined as much - but it is a completely separate financial service. We cannot compare gambling on the Internet with buying an electric kettle or engaging a carpenter to lay a floor, and it should therefore be dealt with separately. This is what the Member States have done up to now. They have laid down strict regulations in order to protect consumers against gambling addiction and against fraud and match-fixing, but also to prevent money laundering. In addition, their aim has also been to maintain law and order. However, not all gambling is the same. In fact, gambling on the Internet poses a number of specific challenges that land-based gambling does not, partly because of its cross-border nature and also because it is so readily accessible.

The negotiations surrounding the report have, at times, been more heated than I would have liked. We were very divided on the issue of whether gambling on the Internet poses a greater risk of someone becoming addicted to gambling, for example. I am a little surprised by this, because the figures speak loud and clear. A study from Sweden and other countries shows that the risk of someone developing an addiction to gambling is five to seven times higher if that person plays poker on the Internet than if he or she simply goes out and plays poker in the real world. However, I would be the first to admit that we do not know all of the consequences for consumers of gambling on the Internet. This is one of the areas in which we were actually able to agree on something, and that is that we need more information about how we can best protect consumers.

However, there are six points in particular in the report that I would like to highlight here this evening:

1. there is a significant majority in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection that believes that operators of online gambling should not merely comply with the gambling legislation in the Member State in which they provide their services, but also where the consumer lives;

2. clarification should be provided at a political level ahead of a clarification by the court as to how we should tackle the challenges and problems posed by the European online gambling market;

3. cooperation between Member States should be strengthened significantly;

4. we need to develop standards for protecting consumers against fraud, gambling addiction and the other dangers involved;

5. we need more research in the area; and finally

6. the European Parliament fully supports the initiatives and the process initiated by the Council and we urge the Commission to give its support to this, too.

Overall, I believe that the report will help to bring the gambling sector back into the political area in which it belongs. The report is a balanced one and, in fact, also received considerable support in the committee, despite it being a sensitive issue. It was voted through with 32 votes in favour and 10 against. An alternative resolution has been put forward by a minority in the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I have attempted to integrate as many of their views as possible in the report, but the political differences are so fundamental that it was not possible to include all of them. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support and I hope that my report will receive the support of a large majority tomorrow.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, Mrs Schaldemose, the Commission welcomes this own-initiative report from the European Parliament. It praises the work undertaken by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and by you, Mrs Schaldemose, as its rapporteur, and it welcomes, in particular, the research into the issues of integrity.

As my colleague, Mr McCreevy, stressed in his previous speeches, the approaches currently used in the Member States are too different to allow a legislative initiative. The latest discussions in the Competitiveness Council have clearly shown that the Member States would not reach agreement on such an initiative.

Moreover, the treaty offers some guiding principles. A judgement from the Court, the Placanica verdict, delivered in March 2007, has very recently confirmed that sports betting activities do constitute services in the meaning of Article 49 of the Treaty. The Member States have the right to legislate on gaming at a national level. If they wish to limit gaming activities, it is up to them to carry out the research to justify these restrictions, for example, in relation to addiction or fraud.

When it is proven that these measures are necessary, the treaty requires that they be taken in a way that does not discriminate between national operators and operators based in other Member States.

The Commission intends to fulfil its duty by investigating any complaint submitted to it and will introduce any procedures needed if it is shown that the treaty has been infringed.

It is encouraging to note that, following the application of infringement procedures, some Member States, including France, Hungary and Italy, have been brought closer to the Commission and have committed to changing their legislation. The Commission is working, of course, to help the Member States find solutions to respond to the infringement procedures.

The Commission has published research into the legal and economic aspects of the gambling market in 2006. In these conditions, the Commission feels that there is no current need to play a bigger role in producing research into national legislation nor into wider issues such as addictions, fraud or other reprehensible activities. However, this report provides some particularly useful clarifications.

That concludes this item. The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - (FI) Tomorrow we will see that many parts of Europe still have the political will to maintain their vitally important monopoly on gambling, and that is true of Finland as well. The European Parliament's support for the Finnish National Lottery, the Finnish Slot Machine Association, and the Finnish gaming operator, Fintoto, is important, because the infringement proceedings launched by the Commission are still an issue. It is important for the European sports movement and activities at grassroots level that the Member States can preserve their national gambling systems.

They are also a fundamental element in what is a special feature of sporting life in Finland, in which voluntary work supported by society is also a basic support for high-level sports. It is also easier to counter the side-effects of gambling in countries where the state has a monopoly. Online gambling accounts for just around 5% of all the takings from gambling, but the sector is growing at an enormous rate. That is why it is important that the rights of Member States remain as before, even in the age of the internet. We should not forget that after the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon the EU will have competence in certain areas of sport. This will help in the fight against the side-effects of professional sport, such as racism, doping and hooliganism.

Gross revenues from gambling on the internet amounted to EUR 2-3 billion in 2004. According to the aforementioned SICL study it now accounts for almost 5% of the total gambling market in the EU. A rapid growth in these services in the future is unavoidable and we therefore need clear and transparent rules.

The report by Mrs Schaldemose considers a different approach to the gambling industry in Europe and therefore I cannot support it. It makes no distinction between gambling operators that are licensed and operating in accordance with the law and those operating often without a license and unlawfully.

It is necessary to start from the fact that most European states have a gambling industry. I agree that individual Member States should continue to determine the rules for internet gambling. As long as there is no applicable evidence of threats to players, money laundering or corruption in sport we should not regard all of the companies as criminals. There are also serious firms who use the best technology and operate in accordance with the law.

I am not a supporter but rather an opponent of internet gambling. However, in my view a general ban would lead to the growth and illegality of these activities and a total absence of rules. I believe that the position I have drafted with my colleagues represents a fairer and clearer alternative to the rapporteur's report.

Ensuring food quality: harmonisation or mutual recognition of standards (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mrs Petre, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on ensuring food quality: harmonisation or mutual recognition of standards.

rapporteur. - (RO) I would first of all like to thank the European Commission for this welcome initiative of the Green Paper on agricultural product quality and for the consultation launched on this topic.

The Green Paper provides a response to a real need on the part of Member States to promote the image of their agricultural products, especially the benefits in terms of quality, both among European consumers and consumers in other countries. These high standards are demanded by consumers and are a means of achieving maximum added value. Although the codecision procedure does not apply, I hope that the European Parliament's opinion will definitely be taken into consideration during the phases to come.

I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, especially, the experts for the support they have given in promoting this report.

Simplification of marketing standards, keeping consumers better informed, particularly about the origin of food products, and better protection for European quality products at a global level are some of the most important proposals in the report.

Quality policy cannot be treated separately from the issue of the future of the CAP or from such challenges as climate change, the need to preserve biodiversity, energy supplies and water resource management. At the same time, consumers, as we all know, are showing an ever-increasing interest not only in food safety but also in the origin and production methods of food products.

Certification schemes are associated in the minds of consumers with a guarantee of higher quality. The purpose of standards must be to assist farmers in delivering quality products that meet consumers' expectations, avoid consumer disappointment and facilitate price comparison over a range of product quality.

As rapporteur, I would like to see a reduction in the level of complexity of the European system of basic standards and the numerous provisions which European farmers must comply with. I am in favour of simplifying and adopting rules that will sufficiently guarantee food safety in the EU.

I am also proposing means of simplifying the process for establishing standards by shortening procedures in the Commission, transferring this burden to other bodies or by referring to international standards. I also believe that any simplification must take account of the administrative tasks which come under the remit of the public authorities or stakeholders. As market trends change and technology advances, marketing standards may become partially obsolete and have to be adapted and updated.

The European Union must insist that all food products comply with its production standards, especially as regards health and safety. In addition to this, the European Union must ensure a level playing field between locally produced and third-country products. I am in favour of the mandatory introduction of labelling the place of production of primary products as 'produced in the European Union' or outside it.

I would also like this system to be extended to processed food products to take into account the origin of the main ingredients and raw materials and to establish a link between these items and the place where the product was last processed. I believe that rules must be adopted concerning the use of the terms 'mountain' and 'island', given the significant resulting added value for agricultural and food products from these less favoured areas.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Petre, for this report. The European policy on the quality of agricultural products represents a major issue for farmers, those involved in the food chain in general and, of course, consumers. This is why the Commission adopted the Green Paper on the quality of agricultural products and consulted the stakeholders before drawing up the legislative proposals.

The Commission welcomes your report, Mrs Petre, as well as the discussions that have taken place in the various European Parliament committees. These discussions are in addition to the 560 contributions received during the consultation period introduced to help the Commission to define the strategic directions which are to be published in a communication scheduled for the end of May this year.

The Commission intends to help Europe's farmers to communicate the demanding conditions of production with which they comply. I said that the proposal to indicate the place of production has received very little support, with even less support for the idea of a European logo showing compliance with European standards. On the other hand, there is a demand for 'country of origin' labelling.

The Commission welcomes the support for its policy of simplification toward trading standards. The Commission has always been in favour of simplifying legislation where necessary. Therefore, Mrs Petre, you spur us on and encourage us to continue our work.

The Commission has taken note of the request to define optional reserved terms, such as 'farm' or 'mountain'. I can tell you that this is also the view of the majority of those responding to the Green Paper.

As for geographic information, the Commission shares your view. The procedures should be simplified or, at least, speeded up. We are currently looking at the responses to the Green Paper to decide how to do this.

The question of an agency remains open. In the meantime, the advantages and disadvantages of such a body need to be studied with care.

As for the negotiations with the WTO, I can assure you that recognition of the European quality systems remains firmly on the Commission's agenda. A consensus appears to be on the horizon on the need to harmonise, to set up a framework for the certification systems and arrive at mutual recognition between these systems. Guidelines might be sufficient and would avoid too many administrative constraints.

This is a first step towards a true quality policy for agricultural products. The Commission is now impatiently awaiting the next steps and the fruitful discussions that we are expecting and speaking for my colleague Mrs Fischer Boel, I assure you that the Commission will involve Parliament in all the coming actions that it will take in this field. It is a field whose importance you have correctly emphasised, Mrs Petre, not only for the producers but also for all of us as consumers.

That concludes this item. The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - In a highly globalised world, farmers face increasing pressure. In order to be competitive, they can either cut costs or specialise in production of niche high-quality products. Thus, food-quality schemes do not only provide consumers authentic products but can also support rural development. To give farmers an alternative for rural development, we need to simplify the marketing standards and strengthen the incentives for small-scale producers to participate. But simplifying standards does not mean less quality or authenticity. EU standards for placing food on the market are already among the toughest in the world. To preserve confidence in quality schemes, it is necessary to implement them with reinforced controls and traceability systems. Furthermore, in the case of 'protected geographical indications' or 'protected designation of origin', it would be desirable to label the main ingredient(s) with the place of origin if not from that particular area. Consumers identify in these products specific qualities resulting from a certain origin or farming method. There are, however, cases when the ingredient indicated on the label is not exactly the same as the one really used in the food, for example 'Parma ham' not really coming from Parma.

in writing. - (FR) The consumer is increasingly demanding with regard to the quality, origin and safety of agricultural products. The EU has successfully introduced a quality labelling system that guarantees the authenticity of regional products and traditional production methods. The Member States and the EU now have a duty to promote these quality products and do more to protect them at international level. This supposes a guarantee of fair competition between European products and those of third countries by, in particular, protecting European farmers against any product which usurps a recognised nomenclature. Products whose names might be usurped should have WTO international protection and any request to register a protected designation from third countries should be subject to greater control. To provide better information to the consumer, it is important that the label specifies the country of origin of primary products and, in the case of processed products, the origin of the main ingredients and where the final processing took place.

At the same time, the EU must ensure that the principle of 'conditional access to the market' is upheld by recommending that the WTO adopts stricter protection standards for quality products, so that imported products can be subject to the same safety and quality requirements as European products.

in writing. - (PL) Madam President, quality is a key word throughout the entire food production chain, namely 'from field to table'. It is extremely important to make EU consumers aware of the high requirements and standards implemented in the area of foodstuffs, which farmers and producers of agricultural and food products have to meet, and of the associated costs. EU food is distinguished by its high quality and correspondingly high standards. The same cannot always be said of imported goods.

I do not think that we should create further certification systems at Community level, or further symbols which will differentiate food products in the EU. This will mislead the consumer. Instead, we should concentrate on promotional measures to inform consumers about EU symbols which are already in use and which consumers should view as a guarantee of quality.

Another challenge is to improve the process of assessing applications concerning regional products and to speed up the registration process. Unfortunately, the processing of these applications by the European Commission drags on for years. The Lesser Poland and Kielce regions of Poland are still waiting for registration of products such as fasola korczyńska (the Korczyn bean), kiełbasa lisiecka (Lisiecka sausage), wiśnia nadwiślanka (the Vistula region cherry), śliwka szydłowska (the Szydlow plum), jabłka łąckie (the Łącko apple), obwarzanek krakowski (the Cracow bagel) and fasola z Doliny Dunajca (the Danube Valley bean).

Cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Medina Ortega, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters.

rapporteur. - (ES) Madam President, at this late hour on a Monday the Commission will probably have other things on its mind more worrying than this report. To be brief, what we are doing is simply responding to a report by the Commission, which is a report on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters.

This sphere is, in fact, not a Community one, but an intergovernmental one, in which the Council - through the regulation - has tried to encourage cooperation between the courts. I believe, however, that there has been a certain lack of rigour on the European Union's part in its attempts to achieve this. That is to say, certain measures have been taken, such as the formulation of practical ideas, the use of electronic media, and so on, but I recognise that it is quite difficult for the Commission to act.

I do not know what the Commission has achieved or what it hopes to achieve, but it seems to me quite difficult to achieve anything because of the huge difficulties involved in this form of intergovernmental cooperation. What we are asking is for the judicial authorities to collaborate, but we are talking about 27 countries, judicial authorities that use 22 different languages, with legal systems that have significant differences between them, and we are trying to achieve results.

The Commission has found that the results are not good, that there is a huge delay in the implementation of these cooperation mechanisms and, therefore, that we do not have the resources to achieve this. The ideal solution would be to use physical means. For example, what could the Commission do to equip courts, particularly those at a lower level, with technological facilities such as videoconferencing systems? Videoconferencing might be an idea that seems out of reach in many small courts within the European Union, but it appears to be the only way of achieving this.

I think the European Union ought to make use of institutions that already exist, and specifically the European Judicial Network. We should strengthen this institution so that the judges themselves, using their cooperation systems, can develop this type of communication.

On the other hand, the whole area of training judges is vital. This, too, is something that the Commission cannot do by itself. What the Commission can do, however, is to foster the development of courses of this type, providing training in Community law and in the knowledge of the various legal systems.

Aside from this, there is another huge difficulty, which is the problem of languages: how can a Spanish judge, for instance, communicate with a Finnish judge, when the two languages are so different? It cannot be argued that the judges, as well as having to be experts in their own law, which is fairly complex in itself, should be obliged to have knowledge of this kind.

What can we do from the practical point of view to help the judges with regard to interpreting and translation? What could we do to help them to achieve this? In drawing up this report, I am not setting out to take a severe or harsh approach towards the Commission. I think the task is quite a difficult one. What I would like to know, taking advantage of the fact that we have here a Commissioner who is interested in this subject, is what the Commission thinks can be done to give greater rigour to this 2001 regulation, which was a little vague, a little too much based on voluntary action; I do not know whether, from the practical point of view, it can produce any results or whether it will be possible to make progress with it.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I wish first to thank Mr Medina Ortega, who raises a whole series of vital questions. It is true that judges and practitioners in each country need to be more aware of this regulation.

It should be stressed that the direct taking of evidence as mentioned in Article 17 of the regulation has simplified and accelerated the obtaining of evidence without posing any particular problem. The central bodies mentioned in the said regulation have an important role to play in monitoring the courts required to handle requests presented under the present regulation, and in the resolution of the problems that they encounter.

The assistance provided by the central bodies may be essential for small courts faced for the first time with a problem linked to the taking of evidence in a cross-border context.

IT and videoconferencing, used alongside a secure e-mail system, should, Mr Medina Ortega, be a standard resource for sending evidence. The usual task of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, as you said, is to facilitate this legal cooperation in Europe. Since it came into force, the implementation of the regulation on the taking of evidence, on several occasions, has been at the centre of the network's work. A handbook on the application of the regulation was produced in 2006 and distributed among all the European courts in 2007. The European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters may, without doubt, use its contacts - you are correct in this, Mr Medina Ortega - to involve itself more deeply in achieving greater compliance with requests to take evidence within the timescales set out in the regulation. That is true.

I want to carry on and briefly examine the outlook. It is true that the regulation sets precise criteria for the form and content of the request. The request must be completed according to a specific form and contain specific information: the name and address of the parties to the proceedings, the nature and the matter of the particular case and a description of the evidence to be supplied. The regulation also states that the request must be presented in one of the official languages of the Member State in the receiving court or in any other language that the receiving Member State has indicated as acceptable but, as you have just underlined, language is not the least of the problems.

A request for the taking of evidence should normally be carried out quickly. If it is not possible to carry out the request in the 90 days following its receipt by the receiving court, this court must inform the issuing court and state the reasons for this.

In fact, it is only possible to refuse to carry out the request for the taking of evidence in exceptional and strictly limited situations.

Such was the regulation. A study of its application was carried out in March 2007 and, on the basis of the study results, the Commission adopted a report in December 2007. The report was drawn up according to Article 23 of the regulation. What does it say? That the application of the regulation has somewhat improved, has been simplified and has speeded up cooperation between the courts on the taking of evidence in civil and commercial cases.

It has therefore already achieved two main objectives: to simplify cooperation between Member States and speed up the taking of evidence.

Simplification has been achieved, in particular, by the introduction of direct court-to-court transmission, although sometimes the requests go to the central bodies, and by the introduction of standard forms. Progress has also been noted in the speed with which requests for the taking of evidence are handled. Most are carried out faster than prior to the regulation coming into force, fortunately, and within the 90 days set out in the regulation.

I would therefore say, Mr Medina Ortega, we think there is no need to modify the regulation. However, it is imperative that its operation be improved. In the action plan it adopted in November 2008, the Council entrusted the Commission with the creation of a European e-Justice Portal. The creation and entry into service during this year of the first version of this portal is obviously an absolute priority for us and for me.

As for the use of videoconferencing, that too will be made a priority. The European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters is, for the moment, preparing a handbook on the legal aspects of the use of videoconferencing in the taking of evidence. Obviously, this handbook will be sent to European judges and will be finished for the end of this year. It will be part of the portal which, as I said, will appear before the end of the year.

Obviously the courtrooms will still need to be fitted with videoconferencing equipment. We hope to take advantage of the new financing methods during the revision of the 2010-2013 financial perspective. Financing options for cross-border projects already exist in the Civil Justice Programme, where the use of videoconferencing features as a priority.

I would say to you, Mr Medina Ortega, that I am with you on a major point which, in my view, must be a priority for Stockholm: I mean training for judges. For the issue you have raised this evening, the taking of evidence, we really do need suitable training for the judges. For me this will be one of the guidelines for the coming Stockholm Programme.

In any event, thank you for this helpful report which has been most enlightening.

That concludes this item. The vote will take place tomorrow.

Implementation of Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (short presentation) 

The next item is a short presentation of the report by Mr Doorn on implementation of Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts.

rapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, this report is about the implementation of the eighth directive on statutory audits of annual accounts. It is a good thing that Parliament is paying closer attention to the implementation and transposal of the legislation we pass here. We in Parliament can decide on the most outstanding rules and regulations, but if those rules and regulations are not implemented and complied with in the Member States, we are wasting our time here.

In the transposal of the eighth directive, too, many things have gone wrong. Key definitions are framed differently in different countries and the number of Member States that have independent public oversight is a long way short of 27. The report calls on the Commission to take steps quickly to correct these deficiencies.

We also wonder whether the method of harmonisation employed, namely minimum harmonisation, is indeed the right way to attain the uniform application of key concepts. Perhaps we do need to think again whether key definitions of this kind are the way forward or whether a different method of harmonisation - one that is not open to multiple interpretations - needs to be used.

Finally, Madam President, the report discusses the Commission's recommendation on the limitation of the civil liability of accountants. Should further measures be necessary in order to achieve convergence in Europe, we shall look forward to the Commission's proposals.

The objective must and will remain to aim for the effective and independent auditing of accountants. The economic crisis has taught us that strict auditing and oversight are indispensible.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, honourable Members, I would like first to thank Mr Doorn for his report on the application of the directive on statutory audits of accounts. I would like also to thank the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and more particularly Mrs van den Burg, who has contributed to the production of this report.

In the context of the financial crisis, it is essential that all Member States who are currently behind should quickly transpose the directive to achieve the objectives set. The Commission continuously monitors the transposition status of the directive in the Member States. A dashboard is regularly published on our website.

The results relating to the Member States' performance should clearly improve this spring. Mr Doorn's report has certainly facilitated such an improvement. As your report emphasises, the Commission has already adopted the recommendation on quality assurance and the recommendation on the limitation on the civil liability of statutory auditors. I thank Parliament for its support for these two initiatives.

The recommendation on the limitation on the civil liability of statutory auditors is part of a strategy to reduce the concentration in the auditing market. To explore other options along the same lines, a consultation on control structures in audit companies and on their consequences for the auditing market was published in November.

The European Parliament is asking the Commission to assess the national laws transposing the directive and to inform it of the effects of the measures taken by the Member States in the wake of the recommendation on the limitation on the civil liability of auditors. At the appropriate time, we will be happy to prepare these assessments, taking into account all the issues raised in the report by Mr Doorn. This is a commitment from Commissioner McCreevy that I am happy to pass on to you. I thank Mr Doorn and I dare to hope that we will see practical results.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Facing oil challenges (short presentation) 

The next item is a brief presentation of the report by Herbert Reul, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on 'Possible solutions to the challenges in relation to oil supply'.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this report on oil supply I make a plea - and this was also agreed in committee - for emphasis to be placed on the importance of oil in the European energy supply of the future. Oil will clearly remain a very important source of primary energy in the EU even in the medium and long term.

We have been seeing a steep rise in demand caused by economic and population growth and also by the desire for individual mobility. In recent months and years we have been concerning ourselves in varying ways - the report also concentrates on this to a large extent - with the logical question that arises as to how to reduce consumption, how to reduce demand. How can we lower our consumption or cover it with other energy sources too?

This report seeks to look at the fact that we politicians should be thinking about whether and how the resources, the supply side, can be increased and what can be done in this regard. Three or four points are mentioned in this regard. Firstly, massive investment is needed to produce and exploit the available oil: USD 350 billion per annum is the figure always quoted in this connection.

Secondly, it must be pointed out that we need to be much more active in the field of technological innovations. We also need to think about how to exploit all the available reserves as efficiently as possible. This brings the focus not only to the issues of technology and the usability of land but also very quickly to foreign-policy considerations, of course. In this regard, too, in a number of points I cannot list exhaustively here, this report attempts to point out that we must step up our efforts to make unconventional oil resources commercially viable: so as to contribute to diversification, to answer the question as to how transport routes too can be changed, and to raise the question as to what contribution foreign policy can make in terms of strengthening relations and mutual dependency and reliability between the European Union and the oil-producing countries.

This report does not attempt to answer all the oil-related questions but rather seeks to examine a number of issues that have not been central up to now. It disregards all efficiency and energy saving issues, not because they are unimportant but because they are dealt with elsewhere. A number of new questions should be raised in this connection - we should even consider, for example, whether sufficient young blood is entering the technology field: young people who are prepared to get involved in this field and to seek new solutions.

That was a brief summary of the substance of this report.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, I wish, on behalf of the Commission, to thank Mr Reul for having prepared the report on the possible solutions to the challenges related to oil supplies I also wish to thank the members of the various committees that have put forward views on the issue for their valuable contributions to this important debate.

The economic conditions have greatly changed since the Commission communication of June 2008, entitled 'Facing oil challenges'. At the time, crude oil reached USD 140 a barrel, with major effects on the general economy and on private individuals in the European Union. Since then, the price of crude has fallen by a good USD 100 to below USD 40 a barrel.

However, the analysis carried out at the time by the Commission remains relevant to the structural conditions of the oil markets, world energy demand in the medium and long term and the importance of European Union policies on energy and climate change. All these factors will change our forms of production and consumption and our behaviour.

Many of these questions were discussed in detail in the second strategic analysis of energy policy adopted in November 2008, which has been the subject of debate on other occasions in Parliament. Furthermore, the adoption by the Council and the European Parliament, in December 2008, of the package of proposals on energy and climate change was a major step towards resolute action on our future energy needs, in particular with the setting of the objective for the use of 20% renewable energies in all energy consumed by 2020.

The Commission gives a favourable welcome to most of the points raised in Mr Reul's report. We note the support for new investments in replacement energy sources, such as renewable energies, and the priority given to energy-efficient goods and services. These features were put forward by the Commission in the European Economic Recovery Plan.

We, of course, welcome the importance given to the intensification of the dialogue with the producer countries to find pragmatic solutions to the problems faced. It is clear, given the growing connection between energy and foreign policies and the need to ensure energy security, that good relations with the producer countries must be promoted to make the operation of the international markets more predictable.

The question of transparency on oil reserves must be raised in this context. As for the transparency of oil stocks, this question was broached at the time of the second strategic analysis. On this issue, the option of a weekly publication of information on commercial stocks is currently being studied.

On the issues of energy savings and diversification of sources, we note the arguments put forward on the potential for energy savings in the building sector and we await with interest the conclusion of the debates on the revamp to the directive on the energy performance of buildings.

As for the parts relating to the need to diversify energy sources in the transport sector and exploit the potential of energy-efficient vehicles, I note that the recovery plan includes an initiative on green cars.

In conclusion, I would draw your attention to the Commission commitment further to develop the action on all the questions raised in relation to oil prices. These questions form part of the general policies on energy, climate and research.

We are pleased to continue our cooperation with the European Parliament in all these fields and I thank Mr Reul again for having provided some information and explanation, which will be a very valuable guide for our future energy policy.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

Mr Reul's report is extremely important in the context of the current economic crisis and the challenges linked to climate change.

As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have consistently supported the line that we must not play down the importance of investments in clean technologies and renewable energy as solutions for reducing the dependency on oil, cutting carbon emissions and, last but not least, as a solution for creating new jobs and stimulating economic growth.

I welcome the fact that this report too mentions biofuels as a resource which has not been sufficiently exploited, and I hope that the recommendation to facilitate market access for them will be taken into account by the European Commission. The use of biofuels offers a viable economic and social alternative for rural development and environmental protection.

At the same time, I am pleased with the increased attention being given to energy efficiency in buildings, which has been included as a priority in the European Economic Recovery Plan and mentioned in Mr Reul's report as a solution for reducing the demand for fossil energy resources. Energy efficiency has the benefit that it will also reduce the size of consumers' bills at a time when the economic crisis is having an increasingly adverse impact on them.

in writing. - (EL) Now, more than ever, the European Union needs a common European energy policy which will promote energy security and energy solidarity and, at the same time, support viable energy choices. Today, oil is the most important source of energy in Europe, mainly due to its widespread use in the transport sector. By way of illustration, it has been stated that in 2030 the EU's reliance on oil is expected to reach 95%. We cannot ignore the fact that imports basically come from countries in which political instability prevails and cannot therefore be considered secure.

Furthermore, today Europe faces three challenges, the financial, the energy and the environmental challenge, which inevitably limit our choices. Oil is an outdated source. Its cost has doubled since 2005, its price fluctuates constantly and it is linked to high CO2 emissions. The reorientation of energy policy is therefore the only way forward. Supporting nuclear energy or new mines in Africa is not the solution. The solution is to support European and national measures to promote energy efficiency and invest in projects which make use of renewable energy sources.

Commission Reports on Competition Policy 2006 and 2007 (short presentation) 

The next item is a brief presentation of the report by Jonathan Evans, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the reports on competition policy 2006 and 2007.

rapporteur. - Mr President, the European Commission produces its annual competition report and it is traditional for the European Parliament to cast its eye over the report and to produce an own-initiative reaction to it.

In this case, because of timing factors, the reports for 2006 and 2007 have been brought together but - taking up one of the points mentioned by Commissioner Barrot a little earlier - it is the case that the context of our consideration of these reports has changed rather markedly, since we in fact began the exercise of considering the report some time ago. At that time, we were focused on the whole business of the modernisation of competition policy, the significant amount of work taken forward by former Commissioner, Mario Monti, and by the current Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, and on looking at the impact of that in terms of the Commission's ability to deal with the abuse of market power and to deal more effectively with mergers and state aid. By and large, that has been a very good story in these reports and this is very clear from the reaction that we have from Parliament's own report. We have seen record activity on the part of the Commission in terms of dealing with hardcore cartels, we have seen the development of the leniency system, we have seen record fines put into operation by the Commission and we have seen record activity in terms of mergers and state aid notifications as well.

This is a process that is gathering pace in terms of modernisation because the Commission is currently bringing forward proposals, in a White Paper, on introducing private damages. That is something, similarly, that our committee and Parliament have been supportive of.

Our committee has drawn attention to two specific concerns - what we regard as being the unequal relationship between producers and retailers, particularly in relation to food retailing. Parliament has, in fact, put down a written declaration on this, signed by more than half of the Members. Our committee has also expressed some concern about abusive practices in the services sector.

However, I mention the change of context because, of course, we all recognise that since the reports were published by the Commission, the Commission's work - in terms of state aid particularly - has really taken on a rather different dimension. Almost on a daily basis, the Commission is now looking at the effect of the bail-outs that are taking place in the context of the current financial turmoil. It is very important - and our report says so - that, in addressing those matters, we recognise some of the challenges that there are for an effective, open market.

It is very important that, when the Commission gives its approval, it is giving that approval in ways which are compatible with the Treaty and do not create such significant market power in future that it becomes a scenario for abuse in its own right.

The banking sector in the United Kingdom at the moment is one very clear area where there will have to be, when economic circumstances become a little calmer, a general review of the new architecture that we have got and of whether that architecture really is compatible with the operation of a free, fair and open market. We have received reassurances from Commissioner Kroes in this regard but, nonetheless, our committee has put those pointers down in this report. Generally our view is that the Commission is to be congratulated in its work and that is the thrust of the report, which I anticipate will be passed tomorrow by a very large majority.

Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, Mr Evans, first I wish to thank you on behalf of Neelie Kroes and the entire Commission.

We really welcome the unambiguous support of the European Parliament in its report for a firm and sustained application of competition policy in all these fields of action: the fight against trusts and cartels, the control of merger-acquisition operations and State aid.

The Commission particularly welcomes the importance given by the European Parliament to the staffing needs of the Competition Directorate General as it faces a growing workload in the current economic crisis.

In this context of recession, the Commission remains determined to take decisive action against calls for protectionism. The Commission welcomes the European Parliament's warning against the suspension of the competition rules, which offer important support in this effort. It should never be forgotten, Mr Evans, that these competition rules are also there to stimulate productivity and to allow us to come back in even better condition after the crisis.

2009 must be a year of cooperation. We are relying on the support of all the European institutions and of our international partners to re-launch the economy and ensure the correct operation of the markets.

Mr Evans, thank you. You can be sure that Mrs Kroes, who must already have said this to you, has noted your report with a great deal of interest.

The item is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

The next item was to be a brief presentation of the report by Claire Gibault, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on equal treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts.

I think it is a very interesting report. Unfortunately, Mrs Gibault has informed us that she is unable to attend this evening to present her report. In compliance then with the Rules of Procedure, I am unable to give the floor to anyone else as she has not delegated anyone. The brief presentation of her report will not therefore take place.

However, the vote on this report will be held tomorrow, as set out in the agenda.

in writing. - I welcome the efforts of the Commission in the field of competition policy, its effective challenging of cartels and the record fines that were imposed on offenders in 2006 and 2007. I fully support the Commission conclusion that European energy markets are not functioning properly. In that regard, it is very disappointing that the European Council has failed to resolve the issues identified by the commission in its sectoral analysis. Energy costs represent a share of household budgets that is growing at an alarming rate, and with the effects of the financial crisis we are likely to see a substantial increase in poverty across the EU. It is unacceptable that energy market inefficiencies are distorting the market to the detriment of businesses and consumers. To address irrational energy pricing we should probably consider the creation of an independent energy regulators in all member states who would have the competancy to ensure that any increase in pricing levels of public utilities like energy and water, drainage, airport charges etc..., would have to be justified.

in writing. - I strongly support the consumer protection orientated calls of this Report from MEP Evans, in particular the call for the Commission to conduct a sector inquiry into on-line advertising. Consumers are frequently misled by deliberately confusing online offers and advertisement despite European legislation that seeks to prevent this. The Commission must act to ensure legislation in this area is upheld and not just a lip service to consumer rights.

I welcome the calls for the Commission to undertake and analysis of the effects of competition on unequal relationships between suppliers and retailers. This is a problem of particular importance in Ireland. This disparity in competition policy should not be permitted to continue and consumers are being punished further in an already challenging economic time.

I also welcome the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBERS) which allows Member States to authorise aid in favour of SMEs, regional development, training, employment and risk capital. Measures which support entrepreneurship and innovation and bolster SMEs in this difficult time should be delivered quickly. SMEs are the cornerstone of the economy and it is our duty to ensure that they are supported to the best of our collective ability.

Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 10.55 p.m.)

Closure of the session

I declare the 2008-2009 session of the European Parliament closed.

Opening of the session

I declare open the 2009-2010 session of the European Parliament.

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

Decision on urgent procedure

The next item is the vote on the use of the urgent procedure for the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the request for application of the urgent procedure put before us this morning, in implementation of Rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure, was submitted to us by the Council last week and relates, as you said, to the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.

The aim of this proposal is to implement the new recovery plan, as recommended for these areas by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas at its meeting last November.

As the Council pointed out in its request for application of the urgent procedure, this regulation needs to come into force before the start of the main fishing season on 15 April, which means that the obligatory consultation of this Parliament needs to be carried out in this plenary session so as to pave the way for a political agreement within the Council in the coming weeks.

In view of this, and of the fact that the European Union needs to meet its international commitments and to do its part in the crucial efforts to deal with the acute crisis in bluefin tuna stocks, the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries has unanimously approved this request for application of the urgent procedure. I therefore encourage you to confirm this approval in this morning's vote.

(PT) Madam President, just a brief point of order about the agenda for this week. Wednesday 11 March is the European Day for the Victims of Terrorism. This day was proposed in the first place by Parliament in a vote that took place on 11 March 2004. We were then debating an assessment of the area of freedom, security and justice. It was the day of the tragic attacks in Madrid. It was originally proposed for 11 September but, given the tragedy that occurred on that day, Parliament voted for it to be on 11 March.

Several days later, on 25 March if my memory serves me correctly, the European Council adopted this date as European Day for the Victims of Terrorism. Yet now, we have a plenary sitting tomorrow - 11 March - and I see from the agenda that there is not even a memorial of any kind. I would like to know if something of this sort is planned for this week's part-session.

Mr Ribeiro e Castro, it is my understanding that the President will make a statement tomorrow at the opening of the plenary about the day you refer to and the special circumstances. This will play a part in that regard.

Type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Schwab, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles - C6-0210/2008 -.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start - and not for the sake of formalities but out of genuine feeling on my part - by offering my heartfelt thanks to Commissioner Verheugen, the Commission, its staff, the Czech Presidency, which is unfortunately unable to be with us today, and those on the committee for their positive and constructive cooperation on this dossier.

If you look into how environmentally-friendly measures for cars can be achieved, you are sometimes surprised that so much time is spent looking into other measures. I think that we, as Parliament, as a European body, have together taken an important step forwards that has not, so far, really managed to demonstrate its importance to the general public or in the political debate.

The regulation that we are passing today is environmentally friendly since, as part of the CO2 package, it represents an important contribution, on the part of European policy, to the reduction in CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. At the same time, however - and I would call this clever environmental policy - it also helps consumers - drivers - to pay less while, at the same time, acting in an environmentally-friendly manner, as it leads to considerable savings, not only in terms of CO2, but also in terms of the consumption of petrol and diesel. In addition, it also - and this, too, is an important point that was particularly important to Parliament and its Members - leads to improvements in the safety of European roads, and not only in relation to goods vehicles, but in relation to cars as well.

I have no intention of going through the individual points of the regulation headline by headline, but I do think that there are a few important political signals that we should go into at this point.

The first point is that, by introducing a mandatory tyre pressure monitoring system for motor vehicles, we will be bringing about a situation whereby better tyre pressure, through an improved driving performance of tyres that the tyre industry is capable of realising, will see drivers in Europe consume up to 5% less fuel without seeing the costs rocket. A tyre pressure monitoring system that is already on the market costs around EUR 100, sometimes significantly less, and the resultant cost savings for consumers will be significantly above that.

The second point that I think merits special attention is the fact that we have succeeded in obtaining the mandatory fitting of a stability system - known as the ESP system - into vehicles as early as 2011 and that we did this not against the will of the European motor industry but with its express participation and support, as this will lead to a considerable improvement in safety on European roads. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the relevant technical specifications were not yet sufficiently ready, we did not manage to also secure the mandatory fitting of the emergency braking systems and the lane departure warning systems - I apologise for these somewhat technical terms, which do not generally come up in the public debate on this issue - by the year 2018 in goods vehicles, in particular. This measure will lead to a significant improvement in the safety of European roads, especially of our motorways. All I can say is that this could reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries by around 35 000.

Finally - and there are still a few differences of opinion on this issue - we have also brought about a situation through this regulation whereby tyres will produce considerably less noise. This does involve some costs, it is true, and for that reason, we thought it was particularly important to include text in the regulation stating that the reduction in noise emissions by road traffic cannot be solely down to tyre manufacturers and, indirectly, consumers, but that it is also a responsibility of the Member States in terms of the road surfaces they provide, and I am extremely grateful that the Council did, in the end, adopt this stipulation.

I thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to an interesting debate.

Madam President, honourable Members, I, too would like to begin by expressing thanks, in this case to the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, and to those Members of this House who participated in the preparatory work, for their truly constructive and engaged cooperation, which makes agreement right at the first reading possible.

What we are actually dealing with here is what appears to be a very technical regulation, yet it is a regulation with a large and far-reaching political significance. What we are aiming to adopt today represents a milestone when it comes to improving road safety. This regulation will make European cars safer. It is a milestone in terms of the environmental compatibility of European vehicles, as environmental compatibility, of course, is something that will not only be achieved through producing more fuel-efficient engines - cars also offer other entirely different options for saving fuel and reducing pollution. At the end of the day, it will also form an important part of our policy of better lawmaking, as it will lead to a truly drastic simplification of the entire regulatory environment.

Allow me to begin with the aspect of safety, which was the most important element in this project. Road safety in Europe is still an issue that demands our earnest attention and that causes us great concern. The rules that we are laying down here, and that will apply as standard to European cars from 2011, will lead to 35 000 fewer deaths and serious injuries a year on Europe's roads. The introduction of the electronic stability programme for passenger cars and for commercial vehicles, in particular, can save almost 3 000 lives a year and prevent serious injuries for 25 000 people. This is, ultimately, a piece of safety equipment which, especially when it comes to goods vehicles, which are often involved in serious accidents, has only rarely been used up to now. The costs to manufacturers will be far outweighed by the overall economic benefit.

This package of measures will play a considerable part in implementing the European Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. It makes low rolling resistance tyres mandatory and requires the installation of tyre pressure monitoring systems and gear shift indicators. These measures will reduce average CO2 emissions by 6 to 7 grams of CO2 per kilometre. That is, therefore, a really very noteworthy contribution. What is more, I do not wish to miss the opportunity to point out that this proposal will lead to a significant reduction in noise pollution from roads since reducing tyre noise levels will bring about a significant improvement in this situation.

Allow me, at this point, to stress once again that we can only achieve sustainable mobility in Europe if, as part of an integrated approach, we include the potential of all the factors that are involved here, which means the vehicle itself - which is what we are discussing today - but we also have to discuss the transport infrastructure and the driving behaviour of the people involved. I am very pleased that that is exactly how the European Parliament sees it.

As for simplifying the legislation, this regulation will bring about an impressive simplification of the regulatory environment. This single regulation will rescind 50 existing directives and, wherever possible, replace them by international rules. Lower administration costs, better transparency and greater international harmonisation will mean noteworthy savings for the industry, and that will help reinforce its competitiveness. At the same time, the Member States will benefit from reduced spending on administration.

When it comes to cars, it is scarcely possible not to mention the fact that the European motor industry currently finds itself in a very serious crisis, the most serious for decades. It is natural, therefore, to wonder whether this is the right time to be implementing technical regulations. Let me be quite clear in my response to that, when I say that what we are aiming to adopt here today is one of the results of the CARS 21 process, in which we worked intensively with manufacturers, the Member States and civil society on how the framework for the European motor industry will look in future and how we envisage the European car of the future. I would like to emphasise strongly that, even in this crisis - and specifically in this crisis, in fact - European manufacturers must not slacken off when it comes to developing and bringing onto the market cars that meet the requirements of the early 21st century, and those requirements are quite clear. Consumers want vehicles that use less fuel, are better for the environment and are safer.

The vision for the European car of the future that resulted from CARS 21, and the common line of all the participants when it came to the future of this industry, is exactly that - what we want is for Europe to send out to face the international competition not only qualitatively the best cars, but also those that consume the least, are the most environmentally friendly and the safest, and I am absolutely convinced that, with products like that, the European industry will retain its leading position in the international vehicles market. Thank you very much.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like, first of all, to congratulate Mr Schwab on the compromise that he has produced in collaboration with the Council. Not every issue was covered, but that is the way with compromises.

The introduction of mandatory safety systems for vehicles is something I particularly welcome. The mandatory introduction of new safety technology such as ESP will mean that, in future, it will not only be those who buy premium cars who will benefit from a higher standard of safety on the road, but also the drivers of goods vehicles. In doing this, we are making a crucial contribution to the safety of Europe. This must also unconditionally apply to tyre safety.

It is right to clearly class the wet grip, and thus the safety, of tyres as more important than rolling resistance, which helps reduce CO2 emissions. Tyres' rolling resistance, depending on the driving conditions and speed, accounts for 20 to 30% of fuel consumption. It is therefore clear that, given the current environmental debate and in order to reduce petrol costs, a reduction must be achieved. However, it is necessary to realise that, without rolling resistance, which occurs through the deformation of tyres and their elastic properties, safe and comfortable driving would be impossible. We therefore have to see safety in another light here, too. The new developments by the tyre manufacturers show that it is possible to have both safety and lower rolling resistance. In this way, we will also enable the European motor industry to take, and retain, a world lead.

The compromise motions that we will be voting on tomorrow send a clear signal away from the CO2 hysteria and towards greater road safety.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank my colleague, Andreas Schwab, for handling a very complex dossier very skilfully. We should also perhaps say in the absence of Council that the negotiations there have been tough but fair, and we have a very good outcome.

I would like to pick up on a number of points built on what the Commissioner said. I am privileged to have been part of the Cars 21 initiative from the very beginning, and we are now seeing the impact of that integrated approach. This is important terminology and a classic example of how a number of different provisions have been brought together in a rolling update of the regulatory framework affecting motor vehicles, but one which the industry is expecting.

We set down a road map in Cars 21 about the environmental and safety challenges that we expected the industry to meet, and the crucial thing there is to give them stability and knowledge so that they can plan and design their new products in a sensible and sequenced way, albeit with demanding deadlines and targets. We do not want to resile from those challenging targets, but to give them that stability. As Günter Verheugen pointed out, with the industry in such a dire position at the moment because of a lack of demand, that regulatory stability is crucially important.

I would like to highlight two points. Firstly, the agreement to bring in electronic stability control systems at the earliest possible date is a very major contribution to safety and I very much welcome that. Those of us who have had the opportunity to test those systems will understand their efficiency. Secondly, I want to highlight issues around the international framework, the repeal of the EU directives and their incorporation into national legislation. I welcome that, but I think it is now more important than ever, Commissioner, that that process becomes much more transparent about the line the Commission is taking on negotiating those directives which are being done in another body, a UN body, and not within this House.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, let me begin by congratulating Mr Schwab on his report and thanking him for his extremely cooperative approach to this whole matter.

Last Thursday night, a colleague of ours, Linda McAvan, was involved in a very serious car accident. Her car was destroyed, but she walked away relatively unhurt. This was because the car she was driving had the most modern safety features and this enabled her not to be seriously injured. That is the context in which we are discussing this report. Road safety saves lives, as Commissioner Verheugen commented, and is so important to the well-being of many families in the European Union. We should not lose sight of that, even in these very difficult times.

That is why I was determined to oppose those people in this Parliament and in the Council who wanted to weaken this Commission proposal. I believe the original Commission proposal is a very good one, and we were determined to resist changes to it.

There was one main weakness, however, in that proposal, which is that there was no provision for the selling off of tyres that did not meet the new requirements after the implementation date. I believe that to be a major flaw. That is why I proposed to the committee - and the committee accepted - an amendment stating that tyres that did not meet the standards after the implementation date should be sold off after 12 months.

However, in the current circumstances of the car industry, given that cars are not being sold, it was quite clear in the discussions we had with the Council that, in fact, 12 months was probably unrealistic, and we had to consider the serious environmental consequences of getting rid of tyres that are perfectly good and sound. Therefore, we were prepared to accept, in the trialogue, 30 months after the implementation date as being the period before which tyres not meeting the requirements should be sold off. However, thanks to the intervention of Mr Schwab, if the Commission believes that there could be an earlier date, that is provided for in the comitology procedure. This was an important area of strengthening.

I would also draw attention to the important environmental measures - particularly tyre pressure monitoring systems - which will not only save on CO2 but also make cars safer, because under-inflated tyres are a cause of many accidents. We have reduced rolling resistance and included gear shift indicators in this proposal, which was not in the original proposal. This will not only benefit the environment but also save motorists money - it is cash in people's pockets, which is very important at this time.

The point about safety has been well made. As I say, tyre pressure monitoring systems are very important, because under-inflated tyres - much to my shame, the United Kingdom is one of the worst culprits for having under-inflated tyres - are a cause of accidents. Lane departure warning systems and electronic stability control are also important. I congratulate Mr Schwab on bringing the implementation of these forward by a year, because they will be of major advantage in terms of safety.

As Mr Harbour and the Commissioner have pointed out, simplification is part of this proposal and that is very important.

Finally, I would draw attention to what we have done in terms of demanding greater emphasis, in road services, on reducing noise. This is because road traffic noise is a cause of stress, and stress is a cause of ill health and, indeed, of fatalities, and it is therefore important to address that issue.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is a constructive report with clear environmental and safety objectives. The committee was clear with regard to noise and health. As many as 210 million Europeans are currently exposed to traffic noise which, according to the World Health Organisation, presents a direct danger to health. Tackling tyre noise is not the only way to reduce traffic noise, but the best results are achieved by a combination of measures, of which dealing with noise emitted by tyres constitutes an important part.

Some people, perhaps even some in this House, say that there is conflict between noise emissions and the safety properties of tyres. There is no evidence for this in any of the detailed and independent studies carried out. I am therefore disappointed that the compromise does not reflect what we voted through in the committee. As regards lorries, 90% of tyres already meet the noise levels contained in the compromise. This is not what we would call a high level of ambition, unfortunately.

Madam President, I would like to welcome this report and congratulate Mr Schwab on its development.

We must welcome anything which makes roads safer. Certainly, the vehicle itself is the most important aspect of this, as well as ensuring that vehicles are of a safer standard.

As the Commissioner said, this is the consolidation or combination of more than 50 other rules. I welcome this simplification because all over Europe, vehicles that are manufactured need to be of the highest standard and vehicle manufacturers need to be responsible for achieving this standard - not only in relation to car tyres, but also in relation to the other aspects mentioned here this morning, such as electronic control and other modern features which ensure that the cars and the vehicles we put on the road are of the best possible standard.

Madam President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur, and in particular Mr Titley and the Commission, for this sound proposal.

My thanks to the Czech Presidency, on the other hand, are somewhat more ambivalent. I have to say that we were put under heavy pressure by the Council in this trialogue and that the Council showed little ambition. Quite the opposite, in fact, in that the Council warned us in advance against setting our demands too high so as not to jeopardise the manufacturers in these times of economic crisis. I see this completely differently, and I think that the majority in this Chamber does too - particularly in times of economic crisis, what we need is clear standards and for the European industry to be motivated and given incentives to set its standards high and develop models for the future, and not for the current situation. Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions clearly play a very important role in this.

The issue of safety is clearly also important, while the issue of minimising noise, which was given short shrift in this debate, must also not be overlooked, as more and more people are falling ill as a result of noise, with the attendant high costs for society. For that reason, it is also important that this regulation should be in line with relevant standards.

Overall, we have achieved a good compromise. We did not sign the first reading agreement as we were critical of the procedure and also of the pressure from the Czech Presidency, but we can live with this compromise, and we, as a group, will be voting for it.

Madam President, overnight we have had another terrorist murder in my constituency of Northern Ireland. Before turning to the subject in hand, let me take a moment to express condolences to the family of my policeman constituent who has been so brutally murdered by the IRA and to condemn this further act of gross terrorism.

With regard to the matter before the House, I would have to say that I am rarely lobbied in my constituency in favour of an EU regulation and I suppose I would have to say that on even fewer occasions am I persuaded. On this occasion, however, I was pleased to be persuaded, because this proposal contains provisions which both improve road safety and happily assist a company in Northern Ireland which is at the cutting edge of technology and production of tyre pressure monitoring systems. Thus a proposal which makes the fitting of such systems mandatory is not just good for road safety; it is also good for jobs in my constituency.

With devastating levels of road deaths across the EU, measures which make our cars - and thus our roads - safer have to be welcome. It is one area above all where regulation has a definite role to play. It should be sensible, rational and necessary regulation, not regulation for regulation's sake. On this occasion, however, I think that this report has got the balance right, and I congratulate the rapporteur on his report.

(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the high degree of professionalism shown by Mr Schwab in amending the draft regulation of the Commission to include measures which will increase the competitiveness of the European car industry while, at the same time, enabling Member States to monitor effectively market adherence to motor vehicle type approval requirements. For example, by checking tyre pressures, we can reduce fuel consumption and thus also emissions, and by introducing modern electronic drive control systems in 2011, a reduction in the number of accidents on European roads will be achieved one year earlier. Noise reduction is another benefit and one which relates both to tyres and road building. This regulation will reduce the administrative burden and will simplify legal regulations in accordance with the UN agreement on unifying vehicle requirements. This regulation is an excellent example of integrated legislation and I am delighted that the Czech Presidency was well prepared for it and that an agreement between Parliament, Mr Schwab and the Council will therefore be reached at first reading.

(DE) Madam President, a difficult compromise has been reached and I am of the opinion that Mr Schwab has produced a masterpiece here, so from now on, I will be referring to him as Grand Master Schwab.

In order to increase the safety of car drivers on Europe's roads, the early introduction of the ESP anti-lock braking system is particularly welcome. In addition, the fact that the wet grip values for tyres will, in future, be improved again is something that is to be viewed as a positive development, as is the fact that tyre pressure monitoring systems, lane departure warning systems and advanced emergency braking systems are to be considered for other categories of vehicle.

I would, however, like to criticise the fact that the manufacturers have gone ahead with higher tyre noise levels for goods vehicles and I likewise do not welcome the failure to introduce safety measures other than the ESP earlier than is proposed.

I would, furthermore, like to point out that no precise specification of the performance requirements with regard to winter tyres' ability to initiate or maintain vehicle motion was included in the compromise with the Council. I personally find it incomprehensible that no specification of the required driving properties on black ice or mud, for example, was made.

Class C1, C2 and C3 tyres that do not meet the provisions of this regulation as set out in Annex 1 will now be permitted, under the compromise on transitional periods, to be sold for a further 30 months. Parliament had envisaged a 12-month transitional period for this, which would have been what was necessary here.

In closing, I would like to remind you all, once again, of the 180 km/h maximum design speed, as I believe this to be a very sensible measure.

(NL) Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Schwab for his commitment, as he was simply left with his back to the wall at the trialogue. When I studied European law, codecision powers were evidently quite different from today.

The first-reading deal that we now have before us, which was negotiated by four MEPs - including myself as shadow rapporteur - differs markedly from the text adopted by Parliament. This differs from the Commission proposal - the economic crisis was misused to submit an atrocious proposal. Indeed, everyone complains that it lacks substance, and yet it is evidently being accepted.

In the opinion of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, democracy and the role of Parliament are being undermined. After all, if the text adopted by Parliament at first reading is not included in the trialogue negotiations, a second reading is needed, as that is the way it works. We also think that it sends out a bad signal when four Members agree to a text in trialogue and the whole House simply follows suit.

The ALDE Group will be voting against this proposal for reasons of principle. This is mainly for procedural reasons and not because we consider the contents poor, although there is much room for improvement there.

Madam President, I want to raise a related matter. The Commission will know that three 'F' gases are among the six major greenhouse gases. I was rapporteur on the Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC) Directive relating to their use in mobile air conditioning.

It would appear that loopholes are being exploited between that legislation and type approval legislation, which was the tool chosen to implement the directive. I have been alerted over the last few weeks to plans by car manufacturers to avoid any refrigerant change at all, in 2011 and beyond, by applying type approval of certain components. This would mean that the deadline for prohibition of the use of R134a would now be 2017 rather than 2011. Hence, the avoidance of tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions will no longer happen.

National type approval authorities are ultimately responsible for the implementation of the MAC Directive. For example the VCA, which is the type approval authority in the UK, has recently stated that it will approve, after January 2011, new types of vehicles fitted with existing - already approved to Regulation (EC) No 706/2007 standards - MACs containing 'F' gases with a GWP greater than 150. As a consequence, we have evidence of car manufacturers delaying - if not stopping altogether - development and investment in innovative sustainable technology. Can the Commissioner please comment?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at this point, I can but offer my sincere thanks for the broad support for this proposal from all sides of the House. What we have, of course, is a compromise, and there is always scope to want a little bit more in such cases. I can also say that I, personally, and the Commission would have been prepared to go a step further. What we have now is what we were able to achieve, however, and it represents a major step forward.

In particular, I would like to emphasise once again what Mrs Rühle said. Politically speaking, the crucial thing, especially in this situation, is to improve European vehicles in areas that will be crucial in future. One thing is quite clear, and that is that the crisis in demand is not just the result of the general economic conditions and the economic uncertainty but also has something to do with the fact that the vehicles that European manufacturers are offering have perhaps failed to meet the requirements of the European market in recent years where fuel consumption, environmental friendliness and safety are concerned. That is why it is so important that this is now quickly rectified.

Please allow me to say something about the issue that Mrs Doyle mentioned. I am aware that there is an erroneous interpretation of the requirements pertaining to type-approval in a number of Member States - as you have just quite correctly pointed out - but it is an erroneous interpretation, one which is not in line with the legal framework that is in place. The Commission will ensure that the necessary clarifications are issued and that the negative consequences that you have highlighted, Mrs Doyle, will not occur.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am, of course, pleased by the congratulations, but I must say that, in the trialogue, you are only ever as strong or as quick as those you are working with. I am therefore happy to share the credit for Mr Bulfon's compliment with all of you.

I must say, however, and I think this is extremely important, that I did not feel pressurised by anyone, nor did I feel under political pressure. The only difficulty that there was in this legislative proposal - and I do not want to hide this, it was also discussed a little - was, of course, that of framing this ambitious legislation so that we would not be losing jobs in the European Union, but safeguarding them. This balance was not always easy to achieve on individual points, but I believe that, in the end, we did find a very sound middle ground solution that satisfies all the interests.

All the same, I have to say that, for all the processes that we have settled in trialogue over recent weeks or months, there was repeated criticism that things were moving too quickly. That is something that we could certainly discuss at the beginning of a parliamentary term and then stick to for that entire term, but there should be no criticism that processes are democratically unsound at the end of a term - the time when particular issues are being resolved - after three years of participation in such a process here in Parliament. I accept the criticism, but I think that this issue is something that would need to be resolved immediately after the elections for the entire parliamentary term.

It is also important for this proposal to be put back in the context of Mr Sacconi's proposal, which has been successfully passed. His proposal was about reducing the CO2 emissions from motor vehicles to 130 grams, with 10 grams to be envisaged for additional measures. One part of these additional measures has now been regulated. I cannot wait to see how we will take up the rest of these grams that have yet to be decided and what proposals the Commission will put forward for Parliament to decide upon.

I might add that, when it came to the issue of the transitional period, we had to find a middle path, from an economic point of view. We have not laid down the 30-month period conclusively, but instead, the Commission is to carry out another impact assessment for each individual type of tyre, on the basis of which we can then decide until when the deadline can run for each type. It is my belief that it makes the most sense economically to remove tyres lawfully produced in the European Union as quickly as possible from circulation, but only when the market really offers the proper potential to do that. I would like to close, therefore, by offering my sincere thanks, once again, to all those who were involved.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Schwab for the balanced report he has compiled. This report meets the needs of the industry by creating simplified, transparent legislation through replacing no fewer than 50 basic directives, thereby reducing the administrative burden. We are therefore helping a competitive car industry.

It is important for all of us to make Europe's roads safer and reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries by introducing standard equipment. The ESP system must become accessible to everyone and no longer be an optional extra. Obviously, we must not forget either the impact on the environment which the new tyre pressure monitoring system will have, with its reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. This will also be accompanied by a reduction in noise and sound pollution in general. New technologies will enable us to have safer, greener cars.

Integrated pollution prevention and control: industrial emissions, titanium dioxide industry, use of organic solvents, incineration of waste, large combustion plants (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Krahmer, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) - C6-0002/2008 -.

Madam President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we will shortly be voting on the directive on the prevention of industrial emissions. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted a series of compromises by a large majority. I hope that we can hold that course, as these rules will harmonise the environmental requirements for industrial installations across the EU. Doing so improves the protection of the environment whilst, at the same time, ensuring fair competition.

At the heart of the compromises is the European safety network. This concept introduces Community-wide limit values for pollutant emissions by industry. These define clear requirements for the licensing of industrial installations. In order to obtain a permit, they must be better than the specification from the safety network. This approach allows sufficient room to manoeuvre to set individual requirements. What it certainly means, however, is the end of the opportunity to abuse that room to manoeuvre and operate installations with poor emissions ratings via derogations. With the safety network, we will achieve clarity together with the necessary flexibility. There will be absolutely no need for stretchable derogations that are open to interpretation.

When I made this proposal, I was accused of being a 'green activist'. That - and I will put this somewhat carefully - is an exaggeration. This is about improving the implementation of EU rules that have been in force for years. Best available technique - which is what the European safety network is aimed at - should have been standard in all industrial plants in the EU since last autumn, yet that is still far from the reality. Best available technique is currently seeing judicious use in three Member States.

Oxides of nitrogen and sulphur are some of the primary issues in industrial environmental pollution. There is potential here for a reduction of 60% to 80% if the best available techniques are consistently applied. Those are the European Environment Agency's figures. This technique is not science fiction. It is not something from the laboratory, it is not at the laboratory stage, it is available, it is affordable and it works. Despite that, many Member States are saving themselves the effort, because there is good money to be had even in pollution-spewing installations. Some Member States have been simply overlooking the need to invest in modernising their plants for years. That distorts competition and damages the environment and I am therefore arguing for a new approach for the improved implementation of best available techniques.

The compromise packages will also reduce expenditure on bureaucracy, which only costs money and does nothing to help the environment. We are therefore linking the number of reports that plant operators have to send to the authorities to the risk posed by their plants and to whether the operators meet the requirements imposed on them. The same applies to inspections by the authorities. Where there may be danger, a closer look should be taken. Where nothing happens, there is no need for constant monitoring.

For many in this Chamber, soil protection is a sore point. A constructive debate on this topic is, unfortunately, clearly no longer possible, although it was possible to reach compromises. They reduce the soil status report to the essentials - the status report need not be comprehensive and need not always be carried out. Instead, we are concentrating on the actual risk posed by a given plant. Analyses are required where relevant quantities of hazardous substances are actually handled.

Furthermore, the clean-up of sites to their original condition is unrealistic, for which reason the compromise now talks of clean-up to a satisfactory condition. That does not change my own personal view that soil protection is not an area that should be regulated at EU level. It would be better left to the Member States.

IPPC affects almost all sectors of industry. That being the case, there has been very intensive lobbying over recent days. In some areas, improvements on the original compromises were actually necessary, one example being in relation to agriculture. The calculation of threshold values for poultry farms is too bureaucratic. Instead of differentiating by species between turkeys, ducks and broiler chickens, we should keep the threshold of 40 000 places for poultry.

The production of natural manure, liquid manure and slurry, furthermore, is not something that belongs within the scope of this directive. The subject is relevant, regulation serves a purpose, but please, not in this legal act. A farmer's field is no industrial plant. Farmers have many more items on their wish lists, and the decision about these two points is appropriate. I therefore went to some lengths to get the agreement of the shadow rapporteurs on this point.

The same applies to power generation from waste gases in steel production. This process is very efficient and produces energy from an otherwise useless by-product. The marginal reduction in the emission of pollutants that was desired could only be achieved with a large degree of financial expenditure. This was about keeping things in proportion.

I find the behaviour of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, in pulling out of the compromise and going through the entire report again, scattering amendments everywhere, distressing and regrettable. Such an approach is not constructive. Reaching political decisions requires at least a minimum level of mutual reliance and working together. I can understand that members of the PPE-DE Group might not be completely satisfied with the various compromises. All I can say, in that regard, is that I would have been very happy to have discussed their proposals, but at no time during the compromise negotiations with the shadow rapporteurs were such proposals put forward. Their uncoordinated last-minute actions mean that there is now a danger that exactly the opposite will be achieved - sound and correct proposals are being jeopardised.

I would like, at this point, to offer my sincere thanks to the other shadow rapporteurs, in particular, Mr Turmes, Mr Hegyi and Mr Blokland, who were reliable partners in negotiation despite differences in substance.

We have an opportunity here, today, to send a signal for both better environmental protection and fair competition. I hope that we will use that opportunity for a plan that is supported by major economic and environmental groups. Please support the compromises! Thank you.

Madam President, I am delighted that we are debating today the proposal to reform the directive on industrial emissions and I would like to specifically thank the rapporteur, Mr Krahmer, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their excellent work on this dossier. I would also like to thank the Committee on Legal Affairs for its positive contribution.

Over recent weeks, the Commission has collated reliable evidence proving that the current directive on integrated pollution prevention and control is not being applied adequately and that industrial emissions have remained at excessively high levels. This situation has caused a serious impact on the environment and on the health of European citizens. Furthermore, it is distorting competition between European industries.

This unacceptable situation must stop. The main component of the integrated approach on the basis of which the directive operates is best available techniques. These techniques bring significant environmental and economic advantages.

First of all, they reduce emissions and limit the use of resources, thereby contributing to long-term improvements to the security of energy supply in the European Union. They also provide incentives for ecological innovation, which is needed in order for European industry to respond to future global demand for environmental technologies.

In order for us to adequately exploit the advantages of the best available techniques, their application framework must be strengthened and improved. That is the objective of the Commission proposal. It clarifies and upgrades the role of BAT reference documents (BREF) in the application of legislation. This makes the licensing terms of businesses throughout the European Union more similar and, by extension, achieves greater convergence in conditions of competition.

BREFs are drafted through a transparent procedure with the broad participation of the Member States, industry and other relevant agencies. The effort required in order to draft and approve them is considerable. We must support the approval procedure and the institution of the BREF in general. This will allow BREFs to play a bigger role in defining the terms on which operating licences are granted to industrial companies, which will result in our industrial plants' meeting the highest possible environmental requirements laid down in the legislation of the European Union.

The Commission proposal provides the necessary flexibility for derogations from BREFs, provided, of course, that they are warranted by local conditions at the time. However, a detailed statement of reasons and justification is required for every derogation, so that possible abuse can be prevented. At the same time, for certain sectors of industry which have a particularly serious environmental impact, minimum mandatory requirements must be set at European Union level. Moreover, relevant minimum standards have already been adopted for sectors such as large combustion plants or waste incineration plants.

As you are aware, this issue has been a particular cause for concern to the rapporteur to the European Parliament. Even though minimum mandatory requirements may be considered useful as regards certain industrial sectors, it is not certain that it is necessary or useful to define minimum standards for all sectors. Minimum standards should be adopted only if and inasmuch as they are necessary and warranted from an environmental point of view.

One typical example is large combustion plants, which bear a large share of the responsibility for atmospheric pollution. The best available techniques are anything but correctly applied in this specific sector. That is why the Commission has proposed new minimum requirements for large combustion plants on the basis of the conclusions from the relevant BREF. Provision is made to apply them in 2016.

These are measures which will help considerably in achieving the relevant targets of the thematic strategy on environmental pollution in an economically viable manner. Furthermore, the net benefit from the requirements in question, both at European Union level and at national level, offsets the relevant cost.

Finally, apart from improving the application of the directive, the basic objective of the reform is to simplify the legislation and reduce administrative costs to both industry and the competent authorities, in accordance as ever with the principles of the European Union's better lawmaking programme.

That is why the proposal merges seven current legislative acts into one directive. This will improve the clarity and cohesion of legislation, both for the Member States and for companies. The benefits of this simplification are numerous.

Reducing pollution caused by industrial plants is a basic priority for both environmental and economic reasons. The proposal tabled will simplify the current legislation and, at the same time, will strengthen the application framework for the best available techniques. This will make a further contribution towards improving environmental protection and the viability of European industry. I therefore await your views on this important proposal and the constructive dialogue that will follow with interest.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that, as has been said, this directive represents the most significant tool for controlling pollution that Parliament has debated since the Climate and Energy Package.

It has not perhaps come at the best of times, given the financial crisis, which is putting the industrial system under pressure and has therefore caused disproportionate lobbying of parliamentary groups by these companies, which are worried about the financial implications of this directive, as in the case of the Climate and Energy Package. We are encouraged by the fact that we are still at first reading and therefore perhaps, at second reading, we will be able to regain some ground through corrections and improvements.

I have to say to Mr Krahmer, the rapporteur, that the road has not been easy. Mr Krahmer criticised the position of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, which questioned some compromises. I would like to point out, however, that no fewer than 60 amendments were tabled, at least a third of which were from Members of the PPE-DE Group. There is thus a general desire in Parliament to re-examine certain key points of this directive and unfortunately, there has been no meeting between the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur in recent days to discuss the 60 amendments. We must not forget that the directive has come about due to the fact that the previous directive has, until now, not proved easy to implement in the Member States. The system of controls and testing has become too diverse. As Mr Krahmer said, it needs to be amended. Greater effort is also required from the European Commission, however.

The reference documents on best available techniques (BREFs) take too long to prepare and therefore cannot guarantee that the directive is applied in a transparent manner. It is true that there is a very strong collaboration process in place with the involvement of industrialists, but if BREFs were to be adopted more quickly and on a regular basis, then we would also see an improvement in the protection of public health. I would also like to add that industrialists have certainly made few investments in the past: a greater commitment is needed, and I believe that, since too many people in Europe fall ill and die due to atmospheric pollution caused by industrial emissions, we must introduce appropriate clean-up measures and a strict system of monitoring and testing.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all,7 I would like to clarify that I am speaking in place of our shadow rapporteur, who is unfortunately unable to be with us today, but I am able to give the united position of our group. We fully support the compromise, which is the product of more than a year's work. Our thanks for this go to Mr Krahmer, who has played a very important role, listening carefully and even revising his initial positions. This compromise will lead to a greater degree of protection and lend support to European industry, partly by introducing flexibility.

As has already been said, the focal point of this consensus, this agreement, consolidates and extends the application of the BAT or best available techniques, reinforcing the rules and making them more transparent. The minimum requirements proposed for large combustion plants must be met in order to apply the BATs and air quality criteria to this sector. This is why, for our part, we are saying that the amendments tabled in plenary must not be carried. They weaken the compromise, particularly those aimed at narrowing the scope of the IPPC, the application of the BAT and the requirements for large combustion plants.

I must emphasise that our group, albeit after an animated internal discussion, has decided not to table any amendments. Therefore, we invite others to do the same and not to support the amendments that have been tabled in order to send out a strong, clear message at first reading.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the idea behind the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) was to enable us to achieve maximum environmental benefit for minimum cost, giving much flexibility to industry and to Member States. However, as the Commissioner has pointed out, that principle is being abused: many Member States have interpreted best available techniques in manners not intended by the Commission.

Therefore, I very much support the rapporteur's idea of setting a minimum standard. The fact that our rapporteur is German perhaps has some involvement in this; Germany has a very good record in this instance. I do not see why a Member State that has invested in making sure that its industry is setting high environmental standards should be undermined competitively and environmentally by those Member States that are not prepared to make similar investments.

I want to turn also to the opportunity this recast directive gives us to amend the Directive on large combustion plants. I am very keen on seeing emission performance standards introduced for large coal and gas plants because of the huge quantities of CO2 they emit. However, there is much debate taking place as a result of the concern we now have about global warning, concern which perhaps was not felt quite so acutely when we put this directive into law. To some extent, there is a balance between old, traditional pollutants and the new concern of global warming gases.

In my own country, it is quite likely that we are going to face severe electricity shortages from the end of 2015 with the closure of many old coal-fired power plants that have not been modernised in line with large combustion plant requirements.

Personally, I am prepared to see a trade-off. I am prepared at second reading to negotiate a derogation - an extension of the large combustion plant requirements - to keep old plants running so long as we do not end up building new coal-fired power plants, locking us into high emissions of CO2 for decades to come. However, it has to be a genuine trade-off: there has to be a genuine commitment from Member States to make the changes necessary to reduce their CO2 emissions in order to allow the continued pollution from existing plants for a few years longer.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, firstly my thanks to Mr Krahmer, who has been a very constructive and well-organised rapporteur for this directive.

What are we doing here? We are promoting best available technologies in Europe for the sake of health, for the sake of the environment, but also for the sake of the competitiveness of European industry. We should be aware that, in much of industrial production in Europe, labour costs are smaller today than the material costs and the costs of electricity, water and other resources. We will therefore gain enormously from this directive, which takes us away from looking only at end-of-pipe technologies to push through the best available documents and best technology already used by an industry. That is exactly where we have to go. This also strengthens our suppliers of green technology in Europe. There is a huge world market for green processing, and we should put Europe on the map.

As Greens, we are happy with this European safety net, which will reduce dumping possibilities for certain governments, and we have improved monitoring and access of documents for citizens.

It was a very good process but, unfortunately, I do not understand Mr Vernola. You have negotiated all these compromises with us in a good way. Life is about trust - as is politics - so I do not understand why, at the very end, you who have such a good knowledge of this dossier are now giving in to politicians like Mrs Jackson and other politicians who do not care for health or for competitiveness. I think this is a shame. It is a shame that the biggest political group in this House is no longer a reliable negotiating partner. We cannot negotiate for weeks and then have the compromises undermined at the very last moment. This is not a serious way of doing politics on such an important file.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although this is a consolidation of several directives and there are therefore limited possibilities for amending the legislative text, this new IPPC Directive is a necessary and useful tool for promoting not only a dramatic reduction in emissions by taking advantage of best available techniques, but also for precipitating a new trend in industrial investments.

With the attention to detail and input of all the shadow rapporteurs and, first and foremost, the staff and the rapporteur, Mr Krahmer, whom I would like to thank for his honesty and patience, we have maintained complete transparency in adopting the BAT, exchanging information and publishing the operative conclusions of these documents on the Internet. We have ensured that the participative consultation procedure established with the Seville Forum will continue. It is important that we do not wander from this course; I would appeal to all the rapporteurs to maintain the consistency we have demonstrated in months of open discussion.

I myself worked on the soil protection directive. We are unfortunately still awaiting the Council's opinion on this directive that is crucial for maintaining a natural balance in the release of carbon into the atmosphere, as Commissioner Dimas rightly said recently. Certain amendments, including in the draft IPPC Directive, aim to undermine the mandatory reclamation requirements for disused industrial land: they do not intend to link the provisions to the other requirements to be introduced by the soil directive. All this is, in my opinion, unacceptable, and not for environmental reasons, but in order to safeguard public health and prevent any misuse of public resources in the development of business and the life of EU citizens. In the past, including in Italy, there have been too many such cases of infringement of the permits laid down by the previous IPPC Directive, leading to discrepancies, both from an environmental perspective and in terms of market and industry rules. My country has already paid a high price for uncontrolled industrial development involving Seveso, Eternit and others, with consequences for the landscape and local people.

To conclude, I welcome the limitation and inclusion of provisions on incinerators. Regulation in this area must not be watered down, so that we can prepare to move beyond this practice towards a zero waste society. The amendments discussed by all the groups to permit stricter controls on furan and dioxin emissions are also justified. I think that in this light we should consolidate this debate with a House vote. This is an important directive and I hope it will be adopted.

Mr President, our industry is important to our economy, but also frequently causes air, water and soil pollution. The European Union has been tackling this kind of environmental pollution for decades, and recently all the attention in the environmental field has been focused on CO2 and climate change. Sometimes, it seems that this is the only environmental problem. Al Gore has left a clear mark.

There is a danger here, however, of all environmental problems being reduced to climate change; yet we face many more environmental policy challenges than this. Creation is also threatened by the emission of atmospheric pollutants, 40-80% of which originate from large industrial installations. It is with good reason, then, that we are seeking to achieve sound environmental protection by means of this Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC Directive).

We in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety have considered the proposals in detail and have reached an acceptable compromise on many points. Only on the subject of emission standards for large combustion plants do I believe the report still falls short. This is precisely where the greatest environmental gains are to be made.

I have tabled a couple of supplementary amendments, therefore. For example, the emission standards for power stations must be comparable to those for waste incineration plants in terms of stringency, particularly if we consider that power stations are co-incinerators of waste. In addition, I propose closing a loophole in the legislation: gasification, which is comparable to regular combustion, must meet the same emission standards. Recent case law has shown this not to be the case. The legislation is in need of repair, therefore.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Dimas, ladies and gentlemen, it is a clear goal of this directive to simplify the current legal provisions in the area of industrial emissions and to incorporate them into a single directive, thereby cutting bureaucracy. However, as far as I can tell, there is little to be seen of this in the Commission's specific proposal.

For me, cutting bureaucracy does not mean the creation of new reporting obligations and complicated procedures but rather, above all, the avoidance of duplicated regulation and unnecessary burdens. For agriculture, in particular, the Commission proposal will bring about a flood of new bureaucracy. Expanding the applicability would mean that animal husbandry and breeding businesses that are, in no way, comparable to the industrial plants that this directive is actually aimed at will also be included.

What is more, the Commission proposes rules that are already contained in a nitrate directive or the water framework directive or the groundwater directive. I ask for your support for our amendments in order to prevent such duplicated regulation. The calculation of the upper limits for animal husbandry must also be reasonable and comprehensible in relation to poultry. Please vote with me against the division into chickens for fattening, laying hens and turkeys for fattening. In Germany, we call this kind of nitpicking 'counting peas'. There must also be no attempt to use this directive to re-introduce the subject of soil protection by the back door. Soil protection is important. There must be efficient national laws to deal with it.

I would like to say to the rapporteur that I, personally, along with other members of my group, very much welcome the concept of a European safety network. It represents a good compromise. By setting emissions limits that the Member States must adhere to as an absolute upper limit when granting permits to large industrial plants, we will be putting a stop to the inflationary use of derogations that has thus far taken place in certain Member States. In that way, we will be guaranteeing a uniform high level of safety. Member States will then no longer be able to gain a competitive advantage at the expense of the environment.

(SV) Mr President, this is a very important piece of legislation. Among other things, it has led to the improvement of a very big problem we had in Sweden with acidified lakes. However, it is also important not to permit additional derogations or longer time limits in this directive so that we are able to continue this positive development of less fallout of hazardous emissions over Europe. For this reason, we want to remove these options for further extension of the derogations.

We would also like to see a clear limit for carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions trading is not an adequate tool for dealing with the climate crisis that we are facing. This is something we will see now that we are entering a recession, when a considerable number of emissions allowances will automatically become available. They will be sold at a very low price, which means that we will lose several years of the changeover necessary in order for us to be able to deal with this in the long term and it also means that, after this recession, we will be less well equipped and have a poorer ability to cope with this development if we do not establish such supplementary measures as emissions requirements for large combustion plants. I therefore think that it is a huge shame that these amendments have been judged impermissible for the vote.

Mr President, I support this measure and its aim of promoting best available techniques for environmental protection, but I do have concerns about Parliament's methodology on it. This is essentially a directive for regulating heavy industry, but buried in the text and in the annex are a number of paragraphs that directly affect farmers.

There was no opportunity for the Agriculture Committee to give its opinion and, unfortunately, some of the proposals that affect farmers are quite inappropriate. In particular, the requirements on manure and slurry duplicate the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The lower thresholds on poultry drag small family farms into a complex regulatory framework designed to control global industrial giants. This directive is not the place to regulate small farms.

(PL) Mr President, in the draft legislative resolution on industrial missions, a strong tendency to limit the important environmental aspects of the current directive is emerging while, at the same time, attempting to push through more extended references to the greenhouse effect.

The numerous motions for amendments have drastically enhanced the standards for thermal energy plants emissions which are not directly toxic in nature, while, at the same time, other more liberal draft amendments only slightly improve the regulations on combustion or co-incineration of waste.

Carbon dioxide emissions are not toxic, whereas dioxin, furan, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, heavy metals and other highly dangerous compounds are a real and direct threat to human health and the environment.

Close monitoring, both of the types of waste incinerated and the harmful substances arising as a result of the process, is an important condition for the safe thermal utilisation of waste. The introduction of lenient threshold values requiring preventive measures to be taken when emissions are exceeded may harm the environment and human health.

The approach proposed shows up unequal treatment for particular classes of installation, with a particularly restrictive approach to thermal energy plants using conventional fuels.

Mr President, at the heart of this directive is the problem of control and of costing. How can we ensure that laws adopted by the EU as a whole are applied, and how can we legislate without knowing the cost of what we want? The rapporteur wants to bring in a universal system of uniform emission limits, which would have to be worked out in a huge bureaucratic exercise that would take at least eight years. No one knows how much it would cost - it is called the European safety net.

I tabled Amendment 134 on staying outside the high-emission industries with standards based on best available techniques, leaving the implementation of such measures to the discretion of the Member States. That is realistic and affordable and observes the principle of subsidiarity.

If the European safety net is adopted, I hope the Council and the Commission put pressure on Parliament to have an impact assessment done on the idea. The question is whether we have the will to make a uniform European Union-wide system - a European safety net - work. The answer is that all the evidence so far shows that Member States lack that will. They will not support a European environment inspectorate: they want to stick with national enforcement agencies. The right answer to our quandary is not to invent a huge new bureaucracy that will never spring into life, but to use our money to bring up the standards of morale of national enforcement agencies to do their job in helping to put EU law into practice.

I commend to you Amendment 129, which exempts standby generators in healthcare facilities from pollution controls that would treat them as though they were operating 100% of their time. That amendment will save money at a critical time for health budgets. I commend to you the amendments on large combustion plants: unless we get these into the directive, my country will face power blackouts. People have enough to blame the EU for without that!

My final point concerns compromises and Mr Turmes's attack on me: the first reading is not a time for compromises, but rather a time when we fire off all our amendments and ideas and discuss them. We cannot have compromises that prevent discussion.

Finally, I commend to the future Parliament the current Rule 55, which would allow us to have a renewed first reading of this very important directive. It seems wrong to have the first reading in the old Parliament and the second reading, without a first reading, in the new one.

(NL) Mr President, the new Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC Directive) will ensure that businesses have to equip all large installations with the best available technology. This is already compulsory in some countries, and the time has come to align our course and create a level playing field. So far, so good.

However, ladies and gentlemen, I would especially ask your support for the amendments seeking to lay down requirements for coal-fired power stations in future. An emission ceiling must be introduced for these power stations, and this can be done by using carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) or by co-firing 40-50% sustainable biomass. An emission ceiling for CO2 is the only way we can continue to use coal whilst also achieving our climate objectives.

Some MEPs argue that the electricity sector falls under the new trading scheme, and that therefore no new requirements are necessary. This reasoning is flawed, however, as the ETS not only allows exceptions for coal-fired power stations but also permits the energy-intensive industry to be compensated for increased electricity costs. This removes the cost incentive to reduce CO2.

Anyone believing that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the answer to everything does not need to lay down requirements for cars or ban light bulbs, and has no need of a Sustainable Energy Directive. We have to be consistent. If we lay down requirements for cars and lighting, we must certainly also lay down requirements for coal-fired power stations, as these are the real polluters. It is also true that, if we want an easy way to reduce CO2, we should be looking not at the steel or cement industries but rather at the energy sector.

Mr President, if there are any weaknesses in the Nitrates and Water Framework Directives, I think issues in relation to pig, poultry and dairy activities must be addressed there. I do think the compliance costs would outweigh the benefits of their inclusion in this particular piece of legislation. But there are other legislative vehicles for tackling these particular sectors and they must be looked at on that basis.

On the issue of large combustion plants, the EU ETS operation today does not safeguard against design lock-in of unnecessary pollution in many new high-cost and high-emitting installations, particularly in new coal-fired plants which, when built, would expect to operate for over 40 years, thus making it difficult and more expensive to meet overall climate goals.

CO2 emission performance standards would help ensure the electricity sector is decarbonised to a timetable consistent both with limiting increases in global average temperatures to less than 2 °C and with bringing new, cleaner technologies on-stream. Industry needs, above all, legislative certainty to make investment decisions on these large, expensive, capital projects. A 350 g limit would ensure that only the most efficient state of the art gas-fired plants, for example, are built. CO2 standards that apply from, say, 2020 would mean that new coal-fired plant stations could only be built after entry into force of this proposal, providing they use CO2 capture equipment from 2020 onwards, by when we expect CCS to be commercially available. Existing installations would have a longer period to comply with the standard, either by adding CO2 capture technology or, indeed, by closing down. Installations could also comply with the standard in other ways, for example, by co-firing biomass or by using the heat from cogen techniques.

As rapporteur on the recent EU ETS review, I am concerned with the overall level of ambition across all our policies. The latest science shows us that we need to have stricter emission limits over a shorter timetable if we are to achieve the 2 °C target which, by our vote on the climate and energy package in December, we as a Parliament accept as necessary for the environmental, social and economic future of society. The ETS alone will not be enough to cut electricity sector emissions on the scale required.

To conclude, there is comfort in an ESN, but I am still worried that this may be an incentive to the lowest possible common denominator and minimal emission reductions - in other words, a race to the bottom. Please convince me otherwise.

Mr President, although I support the aims of the proposals to simplify and clarify the requirements of the legislation and ensure better and more even implementation, I have three primary concerns. Firstly, the Commission has not only sought to simplify and ensure better implementation, it has also greatly increased the scope in certain areas. I think there is a balance to strike between environmental protection, on the one hand, and on bureaucracy and cost to industry and smaller installations, such as farmers and healthcare installations, on the other.

Secondly, the minimum requirements for large combustion plants present significant problems for parts of the UK power sector. I am told these concerns are shared by Poland, France, Italy, Spain and some eastern and southern Member States. The requirements would mean that, without a time-limited derogation, the possibility for short-term continuation of national emissions reduction plans or energy security would be at risk.

Finally, I am greatly concerned by and opposed to the European safety net. I do not think this is a good idea. I find that the minimum emissions limit values would become the default values rather than focusing on full application of the more ambitious best available techniques, and could well reduce the level of environmental protection whilst, at the same time, vastly increasing the costs of implementation. I would ask all Members to consider these points carefully before voting.

Mr President, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I will restrict my remarks to the impact of this proposal on the farming sector across the European Union. I endorse the comments of other colleagues who have concerns about 'spreading the net' and dragging farmers into the coverage, as industrial polluters.

Agriculture must be monitored for its emissions, but I do not accept that we should do it in this way. I would suggest that the Nitrates Directive in its current form does much of what we are talking about. Perhaps we need to look at that directive, which is causing problems in many Member States, at how it is being implemented and at whether it is being implemented effectively.

In addition to that, there are concerns about dragging in poultry, in particular, because that European sector is under huge threat from imports from third countries, where no such restrictions apply. I would support amendments to the effect that this should not happen in the current proposals. Likewise, the inclusion of dairy farming is of concern, and I would support colleagues in my own group, and others, who have tabled amendments to take these sectors out of the current proposal.

I repeat my suggestion that, when it comes to agriculture, there is a myriad of directives covering emissions and pollution control in this sector, and so maybe it is time we looked at recasting all of those so that farmers who are required to implement them can fully understand and appreciate what they are meant to do. It is one thing to draft legislation, as we do in this House, but we sometimes have no connection with how it is being implemented, and by whom it is being implemented, and whether that implementation is effective.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the revision of the directive on industrial emissions is long overdue. A piece of legislation in which all the significant measures to reduce pollution depend on the best available technique should be adjusted at least every five years, rather than after 13. After such a period, the techniques have moved on far ahead of us.

At the same time, we must note that, despite the march of technology, the targets associated with our directive from back in the day have by no means been met. That is why I have such a high opinion of the compromise achieved in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Its implementation will get us where we need to go. I find the hysteria when we deal with soil protection or the wishes of the farmers' unions incomprehensible.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament wants to achieve environmental targets without impeding economic activities. Doing so is very much looking to the future and not looking backwards, as the proposals from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats do.

(FI) Mr President, a lot of effort went into the preparation of the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) Directive last year, and although the directive in its final form is of huge importance for the EU's industry and its citizens, it has nevertheless been trampled underfoot by the climate and energy package. This is a pity because the directive will have a considerable economic impact, in combination with the climate package, on measures already decided. For that reason, they should be in the right proportion to the climatic and environmental benefits achieved by means of the directive.

The measures for improvement proposed under the aims of the directive must, above all, be cost-effective, otherwise it would not be worth taking up the challenge of combining seven different directives into just one. We need to be able to cut the current costs of bureaucracy and action, although I am disappointed to say that the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety fails to do that. The licensing authorities must be able to consider freely the emissions regulations for installations, taking into consideration an installation's age and technical standard, its environmental impact and condition, and the costs of measures for improvement. This would be a way of guaranteeing sufficient flexibility for existing energy production plants, especially peaker and emergency power plants, to function up to the end of their working life.

Similarly, it would be very awkward to adopt a European Safety Net scheme in the form proposed by the rapporteur, for several reasons. We do not know where or how an ESN would be set which, in itself, is an unreasonable state of affairs. Secondly, local permit authorities are clearly in a better position to take account of prevailing conditions, such as an installation's age, location and, for example, its water intake, which is a guarantee of flexibility, in contrast with the totally inflexible ESN. Permit conditions are already generally very stringent. Even tighter controls in connection with new permits will incur huge costs without any essential benefit to the environment. In practice this would even impair standards of environmental protection. I am pleased that the amendment tabled by my group clears this up.

Here, I would like to say a special thank you to my colleague, Mrs Jackson, for her Amendment 134, which my group has decided to support. Once again, we are witnessing the sort of practical wisdom that results from experience. The amendment finds a compromise on a large number of the hardest questions.

Mr President, since I have limited time, having thanked Mr Krahmer for his hard work, allow me to focus on Amendments 136-139, where some 40 colleagues, including myself, suggest that this directive should include an environment performance standard for large combustion plants, limiting CO2 emissions in the future. At this very moment, it is unclear whether these four amendments will be voted on later today.

A recast includes the provision stating that if new developments merit amendments and suggestions, going beyond the original proposal, then that should be possible. I believe that recent science is enough substantive evidence that we need to be more ambitious than we thought just one or two years ago when it comes to climate change mitigation.

The Emission Trading System (ETS) is, in my opinion, not sufficient to reach the 2 °C target that the EU has agreed on. As currently designed, the Emission Trading System will lead to a carbon-free power sector only after some 60-65 years. That is why we have tabled these amendments, where we call for all power plants that are built in the future to limit their emissions to 350 g CO2 from 2020 and onwards and those which are already in existence should be retrofitted by 2025 or closed down. The proposal is technology neutral and can be achieved by different means. I would strongly urge the President to agree that we can vote on those amendments, and I encourage members to give their full support.

(CS) Mr President, I am constantly seeing how the excessive cost of ever higher environmental standards for European manufacturers reduces competitiveness and hits employment as long as similar standards are not also adopted by China, Brazil, the US and other economies. It troubles me all the more that the Commission has not carried out a study into economic impacts on employment, in order for us to take an informed and responsible decision concerning the new requirements for what is otherwise a very desirable reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxide. And I am in favour of pressure to modernise factories. Today, when Member States are implementing crisis measures to reduce costs on companies and factories, I must also point out that the proposals from the ENVI Committee are capable of being fulfilled only by very competitive companies, while small firms would have to restrict or shut down plants and lay off employees. I will vote against expanding the scope of this directive on reducing emissions to include households, small plants, small farms and even schools and churches and the like at a time of crisis. This is disproportionate and therefore not sensible. I would like to thank Mrs Jackson for her proposal for an amendment.

Mr President, I will stick specifically to agriculture. First of all, I have to admit that I am a farmer but I do not have pigs, I do not have poultry, though I do have a greenhouse in the garden. I think it is very important that the Commissioner realises that, as has already been said, it is specifically designed for industry.

Commissioner, I beg that you rethink the situation when it comes to the directives on agriculture. We already know that agriculture is under huge pressure. We have heard many times in this Chamber the question of food security. Please reconsider the amendments which are particularly damaging to it. I think that many of the amendments that are not connected with agriculture are extremely good and I congratulate Mr Vernola on his report.

Commissioner, you talked in your presentation about distorting competition. I am going to ask you a simple question, and please try to answer it today. Will you put in place legislation to stop imports of foodstuffs coming into the European Union which are not reared to the same standards as we have in the European Union?

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members who have participated in today's debate. They have made a constructive contribution to it. I would especially like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Krahmer, for his excellent hard work. Before I close, I would like to say a few words on some of the key amendments that have been discussed today.

Firstly, I welcome your broad support for the thrust of the Commission's proposal and, in particular, for the strengthening of the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) and the status of the BREF documents. This is the cornerstone of the Commission's proposal.

There are many amendments that are acceptable to the Commission, at least in part or in principle. In particular, many of the amendments help to clarify the text of the Commission's proposal or to improve transparency in the development of the BREFs and in the permitting and enforcement practices of Member States. Better information and participation of the public in these decisions is very welcome.

I also share the concerns expressed on the need to avoid the misuse of flexibility in setting permit conditions. As I mentioned earlier, minimum requirements can be very useful and necessary tools to tackle specific problems where certain sectors have not taken the necessary steps to implement BAT. However, the systematic setting of minimum requirements is not necessary and risks creating an additional administrative burden for little environmental gain. Therefore, I consider that minimum standards should only be set where needed to achieve a better implementation of BAT.

In considering minimum requirements on large combustion plants, it is important to keep in mind the significant impacts that such operations have on the environment and on the health of European Union citizens. BAT for large combustion plants was agreed in 2006 and it is the Commission's view that the minimum criteria should be applied from 2016. We need to ensure that the measures put in place for the sector bring it into line with BAT at the earliest opportunity and facilitate the achievement of the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution.

Another key element to ensure that the legislation is effective in its objectives is that of the provisions for compliance and enforcement measures. In the past, we have identified some shortcomings in this regard and it is, therefore, of paramount importance that the new legislation sets clear provisions to ensure the law is properly implemented. For this reason, the Commission's proposal introduces minimum provisions for inspection, review of permit conditions and reporting of compliance. These changes will ensure the proper implementation of BAT and reduce distortions in competition. The Commission will be extremely vigilant on this issue.

I would like to say a few words about the thresholds for intensive agricultural farms, mainly poultry. The same threshold is currently applied for all poultry, without taking into account the different types of species. The rearing of different species leads to different environmental impacts, in particular, due to the different weight of the animals. The proposed new thresholds have been set on the basis of the environmental impact of the species concerned. The new thresholds would include a limited number of additional farms compared to the current scope, and would reduce ammonia emissions in a cost efficient manner to meet the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, in some areas.

I will provide Parliament's secretariat with a list detailing the Commission's position on the amendments.

Commission's position on amendments by Parliament

Krahmer report

The Commission can support fully, in part, or in principle, Amendments 1, 5-8, 12-14, 16, 18-21, 27, 34-37, 40, 42-44, 46, 48-56, 58-62, 64-66, 68, 69, 71-73, 75 and 79.

The amendments which the Commission cannot support are Amendments 2-4, 9-11, 15, 17, 22-26, 28-33, 38, 39, 41, 45, 47, 57, 63, 67, 70, 76-78, 80, 93, 97, 114, 115, 117, 129 and 133.

Mr President, I want to keep this short. I would like to offer my thanks for the constructive contributions that I have heard Members make to the debate today.

To conclude, I just have a couple more things to say. Firstly, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the Commissioner for not categorically arguing against the concept of minimum requirements for the safety network. This proposal is no work of the devil, nor is it a bureaucratic monster. It is an instrument for solving problems and one that we should give a chance to. For that reason I would like to take this opportunity just to call for your support for it once again.

The other thing I wanted to say I will direct at my British friends, and 'across all the parties'. My dear British friends, I do understand, Caroline, I can see your problem. I can well understand that the energy security of a country will be put above compliance with an air pollution limit for a certain period of time. I have a lot of sympathy for that. I am also the last person who would fail to grant Her Majesty additional time when it comes to building new coal-fired power stations. This is something that we can talk about. The problem is that that is exactly what we have not done. At no point in the last four months has this conversation taken place.

I want to urge you, at this point - looking forward to second reading now - to be open-minded once again and to say 'let us talk about a compromise now' and, to that end, to give up the resistance - which, in my view, is completely irrational - and the fundamental opposition to the minimum standards, which is unjustifiable from the point of view of either competition policy or environmental policy. I think that a compromise can be reached on this, something I also hope to see at the end of the second reading. Incidentally, I am not of the view that we should not seek compromises at first reading. This legislation is too complex for that. I do not wish to end this parliamentary term as rapporteur and hand on legislation to the next Parliament where the text of the directive that is debated is inconsistent, illogical and contradictory. I therefore ask for your support for the compromises when we vote in an hour's time.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 10 March 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

I welcome both the integrated approach (the consolidation in a single text of seven separate directives on industrial emissions) and more stringent provisions governing the use of best available techniques aimed at finding innovative solutions for reducing the pollutant effect of production. The development of certain less polluting products entails the involvement of different parties, such as companies, the competent authorities and NGOs. This directive offers opportunities for cooperation between the various parties (local administrations and companies), thereby enabling them to encourage innovation. There are good examples of this in the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as in East European countries such as Romania.

The proposed single directive on industrial emissions, along with all the recommended options of the policy package, will improve the legislation's effectiveness in achieving its environmental and health objectives in the most cost-effective way. It will also reduce unnecessary administrative costs (with an expected net reduction estimated between EUR 105 and 225 million per year) and minimise distortion to competition within the EU without hampering the competitive position of European industry.

While industrial activity has a fundamental role to play in maintaining and increasing economic well-being, we must not lose sight of the impact it has on the environment.

As part of the review of the Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPCC), the emphasis has been firmly placed on establishing limit values for certain combustion plants and on using the best available techniques (BAT) to ensure an adequate level of environmental protection. I supported the introduction, from 1 January 2020, of a limit value of 350g of carbon dioxide for electricity-generating combustion plants bigger than 500 MW as these plants cause an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, by implication, a deterioration in global warming.

Introducing a limit value would act as an incentive in terms of investing in techniques for cutting emissions, with all plants having to comply with this limit value by 2025.

I believe that the reduction in pollution originating from various industrial sources will help the European Union achieve its aim of maintaining the rise in global temperature below 2 ºC. The effectiveness of this directive will be seen following the inspections which will be carried out at all combustion plants, and it will also be reflected in compliance with the terms of authorisation.

The decision about integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) represents an opportunity for Europe to obtain uniformly high standards of protection. In the sensitive area of industrial emissions, it is important that European businesses are given an incentive to put in place the cleanest and most efficient technology available. The 'best available technique' principle should be reinforced in future. In its implementation, however, attention must be paid to ensuring that this pioneering project of the IPPC Directive does not become overloaded with bureaucracy once again, leaving Member States and businesses with an impossible job.

We should therefore carefully weigh up how much of a reporting obligation is actually required and to what extent implementing the concept would, if anything, be detrimental.

What is more, the unnecessary burdening of small and medium-sized enterprises also overshoots the objective, as does the overregulation of areas such as soil protection, an area that actually falls within the competence of the Member States. So, let us instead concentrate on the essentials, namely the harmonisation of environmental standards and the entrenchment of a high level of environmental protection in industrial activities.

Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (debate) 

The next item is the report by Mr Cashman, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (recast) C6-0184/2008 -.

rapporteur. - Mr President, I look forward to this debate, and particularly to hearing from those who are not so keen on enhancing transparency and public access to documents.

I wish to begin by thanking the seven ministers from the EU who have declared their support for my report. In particular, they are, and I quote: 'therefore, glad to see that Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report on 17 February 2009 that shares our vision of a more transparent Union'.

I find it staggering that, when we are trying to reconnect to our citizens, people do not support transparency and openness. I find it equally staggering that, when we are trying to connect the institutions back to the public, there is a lack of willingness to enhance public scrutiny and accountability.

Some Members have raised doubts about whether all the amendments that my report proposes are within the scope of the legal basis of the regulation - Article 255 of the Treaty. I should like to set their minds at rest: the object of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is: 'to give the public a right of access to documents of the institution which is as wide as possible. That right of public access to the documents of the institution is related to the democratic nature of those institutions.' Do not simply take my word for it - I am quoting verbatim from the Turco judgment of the Court of Justice. It is in the spirit of that judgment that we must interpret Article 255 of the Treaty.

Take our Amendment 44 on classified documents. It is simply disingenuous to say, as the Commission has, that the classification of documents as confidential has no link with public access to such documents. Under the present version of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, documents may only be classified in order to safeguard the essential interests protected under Article 4(1). So the link is already there. What we have done is to draw the logical consequences from that link and incorporate rules on the classification of documents into the regulation itself. These rules, which are carefully modelled on the rules the Council and the Commission already apply, define limits on the public's right to access to documents, just as Article 255 requires, and there is nothing in the Treaty to prevent the institutions adopting these in the regulation.

Take our Amendment 24, which refers to agencies and bodies created by the institution. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as amended, will lay down the principles, conditions and limits of public access to the documents of those agencies, but it will not, in itself, create obligations for agencies.

If you read our Amendment 29, for example, you will see that the regulation applies only to documents held by the institutions, although it does set the standards that agencies will be expected to follow in adopting their own rules on public access to their documents, in accordance, I might add, with the joint declaration adopted by the Council, the Commission and Parliament on 30 May 2001.

Let me also point out for those who cannot witness it, the sadness that the Council is not here to attach the due importance to this extremely important report.

I know some of you were also concerned that we went too far in seeking to ensure that Member States did not undermine the level of transparency the regulation aims at. I believe I have come a long way to meet concerns, as you will see from compromise amendments that remind the Member States of their duties under Article 10 of the Treaty not to stand in the way of the achievement of the Community's objectives, including transparency and democracy.

The amendments by Mr Nassauer may bring some reassurances to his group and other MEPs who are concerned that some private information may get into the public domain. That will not happen and cannot happen under my report. There is still the space to think that personal and private data will remain protected, so I will listen with great interest as to why those who oppose this regulation do so.

Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you for a very substantive report on the Commission's proposal for a recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. This is a very important and cherished subject and I appreciate the enormous work that has been done by Mr Cashman, as rapporteur, and also many other active, interested and skilled people in this House.

This is a subject that touches upon fundamental and sometimes conflicting rights of citizens, associations and undertakings. We need to look very carefully at the necessary changes to be made to this Regulation and we need to remain focused on openness. All three institutions have agreed that, overall, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has worked remarkably well for almost eight years now. Parliament, Council and Commission are much more open now than ever before. You could say that the change of rules led to a change of practice and to a change of minds and attitudes.

At the same time, Parliament, Council and Commission also agree that legitimate interests have received adequate protection. We should not forget that the EU institutions have granted access to a higher number of documents, while a decrease in the number and rate of refusals has been registered. So I hope you agree that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has proven its value. For this reason, a complete overhaul is not necessary.

Having said this, even a good tool can always be improved. The legal base we have as our starting point is Article 255 of the Treaty, as has already been mentioned by the rapporteur. Following that, the Regulation shall define principles and the limits governing the citizen's right of access to documents. As regards the report at hand, I note that some amendments go beyond the scope of Article 255 of the Treaty and therefore these amendments cannot be accepted. But - and this is an important 'but' - they point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. The Commission will certainly look at that with a constructive, pragmatic and open mind.

It is good practice to assess from time to time whether legislation works well and achieves its objectives, and it is in this spirit that the Commission drafted its proposal for a recast of the Regulation. The use of the recast technique meets the objective of better lawmaking. Since this Regulation touches upon a fundamental right of citizens, it is of the utmost importance to adopt a single, clear and readable legal text.

The recast technique does not tie the hands of the legislator more than the traditional way of amending legislation. Irrespective of the choice of legislative technique, the Community legislator may not go beyond the aim of the proposal.

We are committed to continuing to enhance transparency and openness, and I firmly believe that this is a good way to do it. In this context, however, I have to mention that a number of the amendments concern provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 which the Commission did not propose to amend. We are not in a position to accept them because they go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal.

Having said this, the Commission is, of course, willing to take on board good ideas, although we are at the moment still in the early stages of the procedure. I would like to confirm that the Commission is willing to have discussions with the two co-legislators and that we want to try to find common ground in order to reach a balanced and workable compromise text. However, the Commission prefers to come forward with an amended proposal when the two co-legislators have stated their position. We cannot and will not prejudge or anticipate discussions or negotiations.

We should also bear in mind the changes that the Lisbon Treaty - if and when it enters into force - will bring about on this important issue. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 will then apply to all institutions, bodies, agencies and offices of the European Union, albeit to a limited extent for the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank. For citizens, the Lisbon Treaty will mean real progress when all EU bodies will apply a common set of rules on access to documents. Such a single set of rules ensures consistency but, at the same time, it must be tailored to fit the great number of bodies with very different mandates and competences.

I would also like to repeat what I have said on previous occasions in this House and elsewhere. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is the cornerstone of a policy on transparency, but we also need to think about what we can do proactively outside the formal legislation. That is why I announced at the joint committee meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of 20 January that I am taking the initiative to prepare an openness action plan. Improved registers, greater user-friendliness and accessibility, active dissemination, and quicker publishing of documents are some examples of what I want to address in this action plan and, of course, continue to discuss with the other EU institutions. This is a pragmatic and efficient way to mainstream transparency into all our policies. We need to lead by example.

In this spirit, we should also look at ways to make our institutions and the way they operate more understandable to citizens. We need an active policy of informing citizens and making them aware of how Europe-wide policies affect their everyday life. Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is, of course, an important tool but, beyond the legal text, it is how we put this into practice that really counts.

To sum up the Commission's position on Mr Cashman's report at this stage of the procedure, I would like to say the following. There are some amendments the Commission cannot accept because they go beyond the legal base of Article 255 of the Treaty. There are other amendments we cannot accept because they go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposed changes, but in some cases, such amendments nevertheless point to important issues that may well be addressed in another context. Also, the Commission is always willing to take on board good ideas in whatever context it may be. Once we have Parliament's and the Council's positions, you will have the position from the third corner in the institutional triangle.

I look forward to an interesting and thought-provoking discussion to come. The subject deserves that, and our citizens are entitled to expect clear and well-functioning legislation on public access to our documents.

draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have one minute for the Committee on Legal Affairs and one for the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. Therefore, I would like to combine them, since the two things have much in common in this case.

Mr President, we in the Committee on Legal Affairs have discussed the recast issue at length. I will say straight away that we are not at all pleased: indeed, we think that the use of the recast procedure for this kind of act was not a particularly bright decision, not least because, as the Commissioner said, the real task here is to understand how a regulation that has worked fairly well, but could be perfected, can, in fact, be improved. So, the outcome, whether through the use of this procedure or through the practical proposals that have been made, is surely a step backwards compared with the current situation. Something must therefore be done about it, and it is more difficult to do this with the recast procedure than with a full legislative mandate.

The second thing I would like to say is that there is no point in beating about the bush: I am pleased that the Commissioner is announcing welcome initiatives on transparency and openness, but the fact remains that the Commission's proposal excludes documents that are currently open and transparent from the scope of this legislation. That is the truth of the matter, and it is also true that a number of Member States, including her own, have said as much quite clearly and have said that it is unacceptable.

Today, the problem is that if we want to improve a piece of legislation, we cannot all simply defend the status quo because if we do, we run the risk of being less transparent, less comprehensible and even, may I say, less democratic.

Mr President, transparency is the basis of democracy. Unfortunately, the European Union can hardly brag about its transparency. Directives need to be changed, but so do attitudes. What can you say about the statement by the Council that outsiders should not be given documents relating to legal advice in connection with legislative procedure? Outsiders, citizens if you like, should not be given them then. I cannot understand how European Union citizens can be outsiders.

Attitudes, therefore, have to change. Legislation has to change to make the legislative documents of the Council, Parliament and Commission transparent, and the emphasis here is on legislative documents. If I make a comparison with my own country, for example, and the Finnish Parliament, we could not imagine the statements of its Constitutional Law Committee being secret. That would mean the people would not be told the reasons why this or that law is being enacted; and the Council says we should not say anything because the public are outsiders.

In legislation, in the formulation of directives, in everything, we need to work on the assumption that we should increase transparency, and there is also room for improvement in voting procedures. We should have electronic voting...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, we should not waste the opportunity presented by this excellent report to reach agreement at first reading - I mean, during this Parliamentary term - so as to create legislation ensuring greater transparency in access to documents. Excuses are not acceptable, and I hope we have the time and the common sense to reach such agreement on this excellent report.

In the report, we in the Committee on Petitions express our concern at the fact that, where infringement proceedings are brought against a Member State as a result of a petition by citizens, the Member State has the right to deny access to the public documents used in those infringement proceedings, thereby shutting the door on citizens' participation.

We are also very concerned at the lack of interoperability and the technical block that exists in the European Parliament regarding the use of interoperable documents, that is to say, open-standard documents, which are not compatible with the software and IT platform that Parliament is currently using, which is specific to a single company.

The fact is that the European institutions do not guarantee citizens genuine access to the content of documents without imposing discrimination of a technical nature. That is unacceptable, because people cannot access the documents that we are creating. As I speak at this moment, no one can access my words without a technical platform provided by a particular firm that has a monopoly on this information. That really is something that goes against transparency and access to information.

Mr President, we fully share Mr Cashman's aims and commitment to transparency, but we must not forget that there is a regulation that is being recast here. Together, we have pushed the current transparency legislation through. The four Nordic Member States have written to the committee about this regulation, stating that it increases citizens' trust in the EU and that it provides the greatest possible degree of transparency. Mr Cashman and I have always worked very well together, but this time we did not have enough time to sort out all of the issues that were unclear. In other words, it is quite early on in the process, but I welcome many of the proposals and look forward to our continued cooperation.

When the Transparency Regulation was adopted, the 'yes' votes from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats were decisive in winning the vote. This time, too, the PPE-DE votes will probably be significant for the final outcome, which will presumably come during a new Parliament. The PPE-DE Group will use its votes to strengthen legal certainty, predictability and clarity when the rules are formulated as the process continues. We want increased transparency and citizens must be able to follow the democratic debate. We believe that the matter requires more preparation, so that there are common impact assessments with regard to the institutions' way of working, for example.

A number of amendments, around 40 to 50 of them, which relate to the Commission's right of initiative, have caused some discussion. The only thing I would like to add is that it should not result in a greater lack of clarity, as that would run counter to the aim of the recast. What is on the table today will probably be modified after the elections. The PPE-DE Group wishes, then, to achieve a degree of transparency that can receive the support of all EU citizens and Member States. This requires those involved to know what the rules are - that being the aim of the proposal. Sanctions cannot be used, either, if there are no clear instructions. As regards sanctions, there is already existing legislation to be taken into account. We therefore see the proposal as an as yet unfinished product, but we fully agree with Mr Cashman that it should lead to increased transparency and that is what we have indicated in our amendments. Transparency is an important part of democracy.

I have five minutes for the PPE-DE Group, so could I just say my last few words?

(SV) We say 'yes' to transparency, but we want to avoid the naivety that can expose people to danger or abuse.

Will the PPE-DE Group lose the three minutes, or what?

I do not know what to say. The agenda specified two minutes, but I am sure that you will have a further opportunity to speak.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I will speak in English in honour of our rapporteur. With this very interesting report, Parliament is doing three things. First of all, it is taking realities into consideration. We are speaking now about privacy in the era of the Internet and not privacy as an abstract notion. We are taking into account the use of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 which has, for some time, been applied to problems but also with good use.

We are taking into account the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the proposals by the Ombudsman and other agencies, and the case-law of the Court. We are also taking into account the Commission's real proposal with its possibilities and its drawbacks - and I think there are some drawbacks.

The second point - and this is very interesting - is that this report is based on principles and not technicalities; a balance between access to documents and the safeguarding of private life; a generalised access to documents but with very precise rules; a very important distinction between public and private interests and this notion of European public interest which is very important to those of us who love Europe; a distinction between legislative and non-legislative procedures which is also interesting; parity between EU transparency and Member State transparency.

Lastly, the most important thing is that this report tries to establish a complete system of transparency - not transparency for every institution separately, but transparency on an interinstitutional basis where all the institutions are taken into account and where the principles of good administration and the Charter of Fundamental Rights are also taken into account. There is also a very common set of classified information, albeit with spy movie names such as EU Confidential, EU Top Secret, but it is important to have a common set of rules in this matter also.

What we are trying to achieve here is transparency as a general rule, with exceptions where those exceptions are justified by the protection of other rights, but to have a common set of rules whereby transparency is the most important one but other exceptions are also taken into account.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, excuse me if I am not able to stay to hear the Commissioner's answer. I believe there is something significant missing from this debate and that something is the Council which has, in truth, been absent from the entire debate, including at committee stage. This, moreover, is the material point: there exists, particularly within the Council, a concept of Europe as the sum of the governments of national states. Consequently when these governments meet together as legislators, these affairs are, shall we say, confidential; citizens must then await the final outcome.

This simply cannot be tolerated when we know that the European Union has legislative powers and citizens have a right to information throughout the entire legislative process. As confirmed and demonstrated by the judgment in the Maurizio Turco case, citizens have a right to information on the positions of national delegations within the Council as well as on legal opinions. That is why we pledge our full support for Mr Cashman's report, which embodies a different idea of Europe; that of European democracy.

I believe that Mr Cashman should also be supported in his attempt to put forward proposals that go above and beyond those made by the Commission. The European Commission would be mistaken if it were to ask us to limit our activities as a legislative body to the proposals put forward by the Commission. I believe that our right to extend the mandate is even enshrined in the treaties. I hope that Mr Cashman will accept our proposed amendments, particularly on greater financial transparency, and I believe that as the European Parliament, we should set a good example.

I read today in the press that our decision to publish parliamentary attendance - this has nothing to do with this report - a decision taken in this House, has, however, apparently run up against technical problems that will prevent it from being implemented before the European elections. There is no technical problem, this job can be done quickly and easily, and I hope that as Parliament we will set a good example on this as well as on the rapporteur's necessary and positive changes to the Commission's proposal for improved access to documents. We hope to hear something from the empty Council benches sooner or later, if only a public explanation of their reasons for opposing our proposals. They must have the courage to publicly defend the idea of a Europe that must make its decisions on legislation in secret, something I regard as wholly unacceptable.

Mr President, transparency and public access in respect of everything to do with legislation and political decisions is one of the most important factors behind being a democratic society. Transparency and public access create a sense of participation and confidence in the political system. The opposite - secrecy and the withholding of documents - creates mistrust and a sense of not being involved, and can sometimes aid in the development of corruption and the abuse of power.

An increasing amount of national legislation, with the principle of public access we have in Sweden, for example, is now being made at EU level. The decisions have been transferred to EU level, but transparency and public access have not followed. Our citizens see this, of course, and that is one reason why we have a low turnout for elections to the European Parliament. Citizens find it difficult to penetrate and understand the decision-making process within the EU system and feel, quite rightly, that decisions are taken and legislation is created at EU level without them having any real opportunity to study all of the documents. They therefore have no opportunity to discuss, debate or influence the decision makers.

We all want to increase the turn-out for the Parliamentary elections, but, if we are to succeed in this, campaigns and exhortations to go and vote are simply not enough. In order for this to be meaningful, we need to do everything we can to provide citizens with information and awareness. We must establish a dialogue with the citizens instead of the one-sided provision of information from above. Public access must be the main principle, secrecy must be an exception. There must be a specific method for permitting secrecy in specific cases and there must be strong grounds for doing so where that is the case.

The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and I have submitted amendments to, among other things, broaden the definition of documents, make more documents accessible to the public and prevent any individual Member State from being able to submit a veto. Commissioner Wallström said that a good tool can always be improved. Unfortunately, this report will not bring improvements, but will, in fact, make things worse. However, it can be improved by supporting the amendments tabled by myself and the GUE/NGL Group. Therefore, for the sake of democracy, vote in favour of the GUE/NGL amendments and increase the citizens' ability to get involved.

Thank you, Mr President, Mr Cashman has written a good report, for which I would like to express my support. The Commission's revision of the 2008 Transparency Initiative will make public access to EU documents more difficult. If this report is adopted, it will go a long way towards rectifying that. However, we still lack access to the advisory working parties within the Commission. According to a statement from the organisation Alter-EU made just before Christmas, we have satisfactory listed information on only two thirds of the members of the working parties involved in producing legislative proposals within the EU. This is completely unacceptable. As a citizen, I need to know whether it is tobacco industry lobbyists or health organisations that are advising the Commission when an initiative to improve public health is to be produced. I also need to know whether it is the chemicals industry or the environmental organisations sitting round the table when an aquatic environment plan is drawn up.

(DE) Mr President, one reason why we fell into the trap of globalisation is specifically that we failed to avoid the Europe trap. The Europe trap essentially lies in our failure, then as now, to act according to the tried and tested principles of transparency of the Scandinavian and other states.

I have now been a Member of this Chamber for 10 years and it was not by chance that, when I arrived here - not with this intention, but it came to me very quickly - I found myself saying, 'oh my word, transparency is the crucial issue', and for that reason, I set up the European Transparency Initiative back in 2000. The initiative was adopted by the Commission word for word, it is just that there is still little by way of substance.

Commissioner, you can read up on what I said to your fellow Swede Anna Lindh - in a long speech at the Nice Summit - in this area. You, as a Swede, understand what this is about. You do know what should really be done.

In the European Union, however, the reality when it comes to transparency issues is that the task we face is like trying to clear an avalanche with a shovel. We are not getting through, and new snow keeps on coming. There is only one way to rescue this European Union, and that is to have real transparency on the Swedish model plus that of the US Freedom of Information Act right now, immediately. Without it, you will experience yet more avalanches, and this time they will hit populated areas.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we decide laws at European level for several hundred million people, and that is why transparency is required. We all agree on the objective - transparency is important, and I also think that we, as the European Parliament, have no need to hide. We are under the media spotlight, we are watched by journalists, our work is already transparent.

We all agree on the objective, but we must be allowed to argue about the methods of achieving it, and just because someone disputes and wants to get to the bottom of those methods that does not necessarily mean that he or she wants everything to be done behind closed doors. Rather, such people are often just people who ask questions. Here in the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we have a lot of critical questions, such as about the competition procedure in the Council, such as on the issue of whether we need to make all the legal service's documents public, such as the question of whether the private affairs of an MEP should now be the subject of public discussion. We fight for data protection for our citizens, yet MEPs are to be expected to make everything public. Asking questions like this is allowed.

The key point, the reason why there is also a lot of scepticism in our group, is the question of the legislative process. When we vote, everyone can look up how individual MEPs have voted. All MEPs must also bear responsibility for the way they vote. This is already in evidence as things stand. In a legislative process, though, in the trialogue, when we discuss things amongst ourselves, there also has to be a place for carrying out negotiations.

We know that, if everything were public, the form of negotiations that we have today would no longer exist because you would be putting your head above the parapet as soon as you tried to seek out and to bring about political compromises. That is why there is still a large amount of scepticism in this group about this proposal. We will clarify the final position of our group tonight.

I would like to make one thing clear on behalf of my group, however, which is that we do want transparency, but the methods of achieving it must continue to be up for discussion. We do all agree on the objective. Looking at the individual European institutions, it is not Parliament that is the problem. It is, rather, the Council, which is not represented here today, that represents the problem as, alas, we have no idea what goes on in the Council's working groups.

(SV) Mr President, Commissioner Wallström, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Cashman and others who have contributed to the fact that we will soon be taking a new and long-awaited step towards making our work more accessible to our citizens. Vice-President and Commissioner Wallström has also fought hard and long.

When Sweden joined the EU, many people were worried that documents would leak out via that country, which has a very strong public access principle, but this has not happened at all. Mr Cashman can tell us about this, because if someone is in favour of transparency and accessibility, that person will also know where the limits are for working material, secrecy and disclosure.

In the Committee on Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abstained from voting. I hope that you are now in favour of increasing public access within the EU, so that the Swedish Presidency, together with the rest of us, will be able to take this important and key democratic issue further for all EU citizens. However, I can understand the PPE-DE Group's hesitancy - after all, it was your group that ensured that we were forced to have a secret vote when Turkey was to begin accession negotiations. Is that what you want? I hope that Parliament will now stand united and that we can proudly say to our voters in the EU elections in June that the EU will become increasingly open - that we have no hidden agendas and that we want to be scrutinised on and judged by what we do - and with a transparency of which we can be proud. We do a lot of good things and it would be good if the citizens were better able to follow the work that we do.

(PL) Mr President, it is clear to everyone that the decision-making process of the Community's institutions and bodies must take place openly and publicly. That is the basis of democracy. Based on this principle, citizens and elected authorities should have the broadest possible access to the documents held by the European institutions, which includes this Parliament. This will enable citizens to truly participate in the political process and to ask the public authorities for clarification.

Despite the efforts made by the European institutions to increase openness and transparency, the situation is, unfortunately, far from satisfactory. The Committee on Petitions has stated that citizens are aware of the deficiencies and failures in the implementation of this right. It is extremely important that in rights infringement procedures, which are often brought as a result of citizens' petitions, citizens are assured of full access to all documents at each stage in their pursuit of their rights. This should also apply to the documents with which the European institutions are provided by the Member States. This has been a major problem, even for the Commission in the German Jugendamt case, where access to information was highly restricted, even though it was public information.

I would like to underline once again, that easy access by petitioners to the information they need should be the foundation for the success of the European transparency initiative. The principles of democracy demand it.

(DE) Mr President, the problem of the estrangement of the public from politics in the EU is something that is well known, which is why we attempt to demonstrate our citizen-friendliness over and over again. This includes regularly recurring initiatives to simplify access to the documents of Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

The Internet is, of course, a cheap and simple tool to achieve this. The EU's homepage has been revised and has, at least, been made more logical and easier to navigate around than it was in the past. In its Internet presence, the EU also highlights the importance of multilingualism as a significant factor in achieving greater transparency, legitimacy and efficiency within the Union. Yet it does not, in reality, live up to what it asks of itself. In practice, the consistent use of the three working languages German, English and French would, in fact, make it possible to reach the majority of the population.

Even the Internet presence of the current Presidency, which is in English, French and Czech, takes no account of the fact that German, with an 18% share of mother-tongue speakers in the EU, is the language with the most native speakers in the Union, while a further 14% of EU citizens speak it as a foreign language. I believe it is time that more attention was finally paid to this state of affairs.

Mr President, access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. People have to have the widest possible access to all information at the early stages of the decisions taken by the institutions, or on the background to these decisions, so that they can fully participate in the formulation of policies.

The EU aspires to be more democratic and accessible to its citizens, so granting the widest possible access to EU documents is crucial to the Union's efforts to increase citizens' confidence in its institutions and to the whole legitimacy of this institution. That is why I was rather disappointed at the Commission's proposal regarding this regulation, although I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the very good, dedicated and skilful work he has done in this context.

I would also like to thank Mrs Jäätteenmäki for her great efforts in this matter. Both of them have held to the guiding principles of openness and transparency where denying access to any document held by an institution is a definite exception. Such exceptions are, in some cases, necessary, but they should be limited to the smallest number on a clearly defined basis.

I also welcome the initiatives to push for the more proactive and clear disclosure of documents through improved Internet databases. Accessing documents is also a question of finding them. Often, information exists online but is hiding behind complex databases and here, we certainly need a lot more development.

Colleagues, we are defenders of democracy and, therefore, should have been more active already. We have to be very bold in defending broad access and transparency to all documents. I think that this is not the time to start compromising, or else we may compromise our status as good decision makers in the eyes of our voters as well.

(PL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate Michael Cashman on an outstanding report which affects one of the most important aspects of European democracy.

The European Union is undergoing systematic changes and transformations. Unfortunately, communication between the European Union and its citizens is not keeping up with these changes. The situation is similar with access to documents and information destined for the citizens themselves.

Transparency is a fundamental principle of the European Union, set out in Article 255 of the EC Treaty. Every citizen of the European Union and any natural or legal person residing or established in a Member State has the right to access European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

We can only get the citizens of Europe interested in and build their confidence in the EU institutions, in MEPs and national politicians if we provide complete and honest information. It is therefore our duty to increase the transparency and effectiveness of the institutions of the European Union to the greatest degree possible. We must focus on making it easier for users to access information and on continuing to simplify the system and its tools.

Although it could do with some improvement and streamlining, the regulation which affects this report provides a sound legal basis. I am therefore sorry that the Commission gave no consideration to the rapporteur's 2006 proposal on transparency.

Mr President, access to documents is one part of the process of transparency, but there are many other issues. The use of documents and information is key, and one of the big problems we have - and we acknowledge it, and the Commissioner in the Chamber currently is one of the best practised - is to get knowledge of the EU's decision-making process out there, because people do not understand the process. During the Lisbon Treaty debate in Ireland, people came up to me and said: 'you are urging us to vote 'yes' and you are going to lose your job'. They thought I was the Commissioner - perish the thought!

It is not enough to say that we give people loads of information, because in one sense, that would lead to a lack of transparency: it just covers things up with mountains of paper but no clarity. I would prefer that people fully understood how this place works and therefore could engage with it. I dare say that there are many in this House who do not fully know how this place works. I rest my case.

(LT) In an attempt to solve the Baltic countries' energy island problem, in particular with the growing threat to Lithuania's energy security following the closure of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant at the end of this year, the European Commission has drafted the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. I called on the European Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport to provide an opportunity to see the document. I was told that there had been no discussion with the high level group drafting the strategy on the possibility of publicising information and documents, as formulated in the answer: Sharing with the outside world. The European Parliament is being classed as the outside world, to which information is not provided. Time and again we have discussed the opportunities available to society to see documents held by EU institutions, have we not? If a Member of the European Parliament representing citizens does not have such a right, this is a disastrous situation.

Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank the Members for an interesting debate and for their many valuable comments.

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 will now be updated to 'version two', one might say. It is important to point out again that we are not starting from scratch: we already have a good basis, and it is just a matter of improving on that. This will also be a version for the age of the Internet, as was mentioned in the debate. Electronic registers will now be included, and add to that active dissemination, as examples of these improvements.

The ideal situation would, of course, be for us to disseminate information so actively that no requests for access have to be made since everything is already out there - with some exceptions, of course. I can give you one example of what can be done, which is that I have already made my own correspondence register available on the Internet, so you can see my correspondence and documents.

It is not possible for me to go through all the comments that were made during the debate, but I want to comment briefly on a few crucial points, one of which concerns the definition of documents under Article 3. This is one of the articles of the Commission's proposal that have been most discussed and, I admit, most criticised.

We maintain that the current definition leads to ambiguity and a risk of unpredictability and bad practice. Is this Post-It note a document, for example? Mr Cashman is saying it is, and according to the wide definition in the Regulation, it could very well be so - as could the other scribbles I have here. Sometimes it is not helpful to make a definition too broad. We still maintain a wide definition, but we will reduce the discretionary non-disclosure of documents. The definition that we propose is much wider than the notion of official documents often used in national legislation. It comes very close to the concept of information in the UK Freedom of Information Act and in the Dutch law on transparency, for example. The registration of documents is an obligation under internal Commission rules, but these do not determine whether a document falls within the scope of the regulation. So we clarified and helped with the definition of documents. This will also help citizens to know what is it you can and should ask for in order to get full information. A more precise definition of documents means safer administration and more clarity for citizens.

The Court has ruled that documents relating to an ongoing investigation are manifestly covered by an exception to the right of access and, therefore, that those files are currently not acceptable and this does not constitute additional restriction of the right of access. In no Member State do citizens have access to the files of the competition authorities - I just wanted to make that point.

I also acknowledge that we could have explained and phrased things better in Article 3. I believe we share the same goal, and thus it should also be possible to find a clear and unambiguous wording. This is an example of an area where we should be able to achieve a good compromise text.

Another fiercely discussed point is Article 5(2) concerning access to Member States' documents. Let me be clear that the Commission's intention has been to implement what the European Court of Justice has ruled, and Member States must effectively justify why they refuse access to one of their documents, just as the institutions do regarding all other documents. The bottom line will always be the rules in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

However, it is equally important that the Commission can have correspondence with Member States, for example, in the field of infringements of EU law. We need to have the possibility to quickly find satisfactory solutions from the perspective of both the Commission and EU citizens, as codified by EU law. Those kinds of contacts need to remain confidential, and that is also what the Court has said.

Finally, I shall just comment on the 'space to think' under Article 4(3). If we think carefully, I guess most people would agree that Parliament, as well as the Commission and the Council, needs a certain space to think. Documents related to decisions that have not yet been taken, or reflecting internal discussions, are not the same as other documents. What about the records of political group meetings or preparations? You have yourselves identified a number of problems and limitations arising from refusing a space to think, considering, again, what would benefit citizens most and what would be most helpful.

I must say that I would have preferred the Council to be here - as many of you have said - just as I would have preferred a fuller House, because these are absolutely crucial issues for all of us. The big task for us all in the next few weeks or months is to find common ground. That is also true within this House, and today's debate has shown that it is not always that easy. The more divisions there are, the more difficult it will be when the three institutions hold discussions. Parliament, the Council and the Commission each have their role, which should be respected, and I hope Parliament will speak with one strong voice, because that will benefit us all and benefit the end result, which I hope will be a balanced and workable compromise text.

rapporteur. - Mr President, those were interesting remarks, but I am afraid they have very little to do with the contents of my report.

I would point out that we have nothing to fear from public scrutiny and we have absolutely everything to fear as institutions from hiding information. We become more vulnerable. Commissioner, it is official documents which are accessible. Go back and look at the report. The space to think. Official documents. Within the notion of a space to think, that will not be official. Go back to the report. Accept our principles.

It has been an interesting debate but I have to say that the recast - which you defend - is not in the spirit of the interinstitutional agreement and it is not enough. You say it has worked well, but I am afraid the recast ignores vital jurisprudence on what actually needs to be done.

My reasons for delaying the final vote are so that we have absolutely maximum flexibility to negotiate with the political parties and with the institutions. I would further point out that there is nothing to prevent the Commission from amending its proposal at any time after the vote tomorrow, except perhaps institutional and political reluctance.

I find it somewhat patronising to be told that we will get action plans. Commissioner, I do not doubt your personal commitment to openness and transparency, but I do not want action plans for our citizens. I want rights enshrined in law which cannot be taken away - not gifts, but rights.

Parliament must therefore put political pressure on the Presidency to negotiate and it may be that we will have to negotiate without the Commission. Yes, Commissioner, I know the Council is not here, but I do not give up on one Council. I have been in politics long enough to know that you fight and you fight.

Let me finally quote this President, if you will allow me: 'My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government'. So said Barack Obama on 21 January 2009. I await a comparable announcement from the Commission or, indeed, from President Barroso.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at 12.50 p.m.)

Written statements (Rule 142)

The amendments by the European Parliament to the regulation on public access to the documents of the European institutions, especially to documents relating to the legislative procedure, are a catalytic step in safeguarding transparency and participatory democracy in Europe.

Particularly important in my opinion is the requirement that every initiative or document designed to somehow influence the decision-making procedure must be published.

We are all aware that various lobbies frequently try to influence the legislative procedure by putting forward their arguments. European citizens have every right to know what these arguments and interventions are. They must be able to judge the essence of them and evaluate the final stance taken by their governments, the European Commission and, of course, their MEPs.

At least the same level of transparency should also be provided at national level by the Member States for their citizens on the basis of an express requirement in the European Parliament report, a call which we hope will very shortly be adopted by governments and national parliaments.

1. EC-Armenia agreement: air services (

2. Agreement between the EC and Israel on certain aspects of air services (

3. Additional protocol to the Agreement between the EC and South Africa, to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU (

4. Next steps in border management in the EU (

5. Cross-borders transfers of companies' registered offices (

6. Future of the European Common Asylum System (

7. Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework (

8. Cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters

9. Implementation of Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (

10. Equal treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts (

Before the vote:

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, careers in the performing arts are not immune from the continuing existence of major inequalities between men and women.

As I have responsibilities in the arts, this is a subject close to my heart, as discrimination against women in the performing arts is still rife, particularly when it comes to senior positions: there are so few female directors in theatre, dance, opera and so on.

For example, it is important to widen the practice of holding auditions behind a screen in recruiting orchestral musicians, by analogy with the existing business practice of viewing anonymous CVs, partly because it is the only way that women will get jobs as orchestral soloists and also because it is a good way of combating racial discrimination.

Moreover, the balance between professional and family commitments is even more difficult for women in this sector, due to the unusual working hours connected with their profession, hence the need to have specific opening hours for crèches that meet the needs of artists.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe, as the ancestral home of culture, cannot continue to do nothing in the face of these problems that make it suffer.

11. Type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (

12. Integrated pollution prevention and control: industrial emissions, titanium dioxide industry, use of organic solvents, incineration of waste, large combustion plants (

Before the vote:

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, if I understood you correctly, you are indicating that the presidency does wish to apply the recast procedure to the Krahmer report today and the Cashman report. In that case, my group requests that we delay the vote until tomorrow so that we can study the implications of this.

Mr President, as I said earlier, I am in favour of this proposal, although I would like to point out that if amendments had not been tabled that go somewhat beyond what was adopted on the basis of a general compromise within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, this problem would not have arisen, since the compromise amendments were completely in keeping with the nature of this revision, namely a recast. If this had been the case, then we could have voted today, but we accept the deferral as it makes sense.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. -Mr President, it behoves Mr Watson, if he is making a suggestion that we should consider the recast implications, to explain to us now what the recast implications are. He might like to have a word with Mr Corbett before answering.

I am fairly relaxed about this, but it would be much more sensible, since we are teed up to vote on this and we are unlikely to change our opinion on the actual voting - plus, minus or abstention - in the light of the recast procedures, to vote now when we have the time rather than hurry and add this vote to the list tomorrow when we have a lot of other things to do. Therefore, I am opposed to moving it.

Mr President, I am very pleased that the President has finally given the floor to the rapporteur. I am also quite surprised!

At this time, we are still getting used to the recast rules. I would, however, like to draw attention to the fact that the application of these rules is no surprise, even just before a vote. We have already applied these rules consistently in committee and it is only logical for them to be applied consistently in plenary.

If we were to vote now, there would not be a single amendment and not a single compromise up for voting that have not been discussed. Everything is itemised on the voting list. For the same reason as Mr Sacconi, but with a different conclusion, I see absolutely no reason to postpone. We can vote now!

(Applause)

Mr President, as we have decided to vote, maybe you could indicate why so many amendments were ruled to be inadmissible. That is the problem, and that is the point originally raised in relation to the recast versions under review. We do not understand why some amendments are inadmissible. Could you clarify that as we proceed to the vote?

I know in general terms what the issue is about, but I regret that I am unable to inform you of the specifics. We are now, however, voting on amendments which have gone through committee, which are regarded as admissible, which are substantive and which may or may not represent the view of the House.

(IT) Mr President, I would just like to say that today's episode clearly shows that the recasting agreement does not work and that it will affect our powers as a sovereign authority. That is the problem with this procedure, as we are now demonstrating so well.

Mr President, I am sorry to prolong this discussion, but may I build on what was just said by my colleagues, Mrs Doyle and Mrs Frassoni? As one of the authors of several of the amendments, I was in contact with the President's office until 11.50 and could not obtain a clear 'yes' or 'no' as to whether the amendments we tabled - 136 to 139 - would be voted upon or not. It was unclear, and the last word was that the vote would probably be postponed. As Avril Doyle said, we simply cannot understand why these amendments are inadmissible. In the interests of clarity, we should have some more time and have clarification from the President's office.

I am advised that it has been ruled on and only certain amendments have been declared admissible, as is normal in any House. I think it might be helpful if a statement is made tomorrow by the President taking the vote so that there is clarification. But we must proceed to the vote now. I am sorry for those who are disappointed.

Before the vote on Amendment 88:

Mr President, on most of our voting lists, Amendments 88 and 89 are down as inadmissible and there is no indication as to how we should vote. Whilst you might well be wanting us to vote, we have a small problem with this, because we do not know what we are voting on and we do not know which way we should be voting.

May I suggest that some more thought be given to this new procedure we are using for recast, because there seems to be a lack of coordination and communication around the different political groups.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can help you out here and even point out to the President what he himself decided. We now have Amendments 106, 139, 88 and 89. The President has ruled Amendment 88 admissible. You all have a note to that effect in the voting list. If not, you will have to speak to those responsible within your group. I am sorry for that.

Mr President, some of the amendments you ruled inadmissible were also ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public health and Food Safety under the recast procedures. This Parliament has no right to introduce legislation. Its chance of influence is in amending legislation put before us. It seems that, in the way we have interpreted the recast procedures, we have castrated ourselves. Could you inform the President that if this Parliament is to demonstrate its true virility, we need to review these?

13. Statute for a European private company (

After the vote:

Mr President, in my judgement, the introduction of this beautiful high technology here was intended to save our time and increase our efficiency. You know my respect for the manner in which you preside here, but could you spare us the enumeration of the results in such detail. You can declare 'adopted' or 'not adopted'. This is enough. We have everything on our screens.

14. Guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure - Section III, Commission (

Before the vote on paragraph 13:

rapporteur. - Mr President, for the sake of conciliation, I should like to table an oral amendment, which has been distributed, to paragraph 13. The text should read: '[...] as well as internal security, particularly the fight against terrorism; immigration, demographic challenges [...]', instead of the old version '[...] as well as internal security, meaning particularly immigration, the fight against terrorism, demographic challenges [...]'.

I would ask Parliament to support this oral amendment.

Mr President, in the text on the voting list, there is a comma between 'terrorism' and 'immigration', when we had agreed a semi-colon. You could not hear this when Mr Surján read his text. We would like to have that semi-colon between 'terrorism' and 'immigration'.

Mr President, what we are talking about here are 'diversified gas transport routes', and I would also add 'and resources', because:

It is not only the gas routes, but also the gas sources that should be differentiated, and that would include here. If this amendment is rejected, that should be included in the original text.

rapporteur. - Mr President, I have no objection to this oral amendment by Mr Swoboda, which refers to the original text. In any case, I was told by the Tabling Office that this amendment is valid only for the amended one. If that is not so, I am in favour of this oral amendment being part of the original. Therefore, those who are following my advice will vote against the first part in this fifth vote and then we shall have an extra vote, which is not on the voting list, on this oral amendment, which I support.

Mr President, the oral amendment applies in both cases, but I know that the PPE-DE Group will vote differently on the split vote, so that does not change anything, I agree.

Mr President, we were not voting on Mr Swoboda's oral proposal, so if Parliament wishes to support his oral amendment, we should vote that this is still valid for the original text. Otherwise, we will have had four votes and rejected it, which requires five votes.

The oral amendment was incorporated in the first of the four votes. That is what it says on the voting list. It was incorporated in the first of the split votes and was rejected.

Mr President, no: in the voting list without the oral amendment, we were voting on the first part of the PSE Group amendment and that was rejected. In addition to the original PSE Group amendment, Mr Swoboda tabled putting the word 'sources'. I am neither against nor for. I am not complaining if the PSE Group is not complaining. I just want to clarify that according to my knowledge, the word 'sources' is not in the text.

That is correct.

Mr President, so we should have had a vote on whether we wanted it or not.

No. I asked if there were any objections to the oral amendment. There were none so it then formed part of the amendment which was voted on in the first roll-call vote and was rejected. That is the situation.

Before the vote on paragraph 31:

Mr President, that will be very simple. I suggest replacing 'fears' in the original text with the word 'concerns'.

15. Guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure - Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX (

Before the vote:

Mr President, we do need to make progress, but I see that there has been the most absurd inflation of roll-call votes. The last report to be voted - the Herczog report - has a roll call on every single amendment. Could we call upon Mr Corbett and other luminaries to devise some rationing system so that we can actually get to lunch?

16. Integrity of online gambling (

17. Ensuring food quality: harmonisation or mutual recognition of standards (

18. Commission Reports on Competition Policy 2006 and 2007 (

19. Small Business Act (

Before the vote on paragraph 8:

Mr President, I just want to point out - since hungry Mr Beazley made a point about the roll-call votes - that, on the following report, every roll-call vote was requested by the PPE-DE Group. So much for that one!

And Mr Beazley is a very devout member of the PPE-DE Group!

(Laughter)

That concludes the vote.

Voting time

Before we start the vote, I should like to inform Members that we are today introducing a new information system for the votes in the Chamber. The main feature is the display, on one of the large screens, of the official voting list prepared by the Tabling Desk. The display will highlight each single vote as it is announced, thereby making it easier for all Members to follow the vote.

The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see minutes)

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I seek clarification. Is it the case that the President has ruled that we will apply the recast procedure to the vote on the Krahmer report today and the vote on the Cashman report tomorrow? If that is the case, my group requests that we delay the vote on the Krahmer report until tomorrow, so that we can investigate the implications of the application of the recast procedure to that vote.

The President is considering these two points. When we get to the Krahmer report, we will take your procedural motion.

(DE) Mr President, I congratulate the House on this new information system. It would seem, though, that a couple of bits of information in the everyday routine do not work.

I am very pleased, meanwhile, that, on the 50th anniversary of China's occupation of Tibet, many of us have managed to display Tibetan flags. It has come to my attention, however, that the Bureau had said in advance that certain flags may not be put up, meaning that MEPs are unable to display them on this important day. Is there any up-to-date information on this issue?

I understand that there has been some confusion about this point, but the President has said that for the sake of good order today - and I am pleased to see so many flags in the Chamber; I am actually wearing one in my pocket here - the Tibetan flag may be displayed.

This gives me the opportunity to welcome to the Chamber Mr Tashi Wangdi, the representative of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.

(Sustained applause)

Mr President, I would like to say a few serious and important words, if you will allow me. We have just passed the anniversary of the barbaric murder, by a shot in the back of the head, of 20 000 Polish officers and intelligentsia in Katyń in 1940 on the order of the 'Father of Nations', Joseph Stalin. This meant the elimination of the leaders and elites of a nation fighting for its own, and Europe's, freedom.

Four years ago, I asked for a minute's silence to commemorate them, but the House refused. Therefore, I will not ask for this today and will free the presidency from what appears to be such a difficult decision. Instead, I want to remind us of this tragedy and to express the wish that our common efforts can prevent genocides of this kind on the European continent in the future.

(Applause)

Thank you, Mr Zaleski - the applause speaks for itself.

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Mr President, it is curious that, whatever the crisis, the answer in this House always seems to be greater European integration. Most people beset by the economic squalls we have had in the past six months respond by seeing the situation as scary and possibly painful. However, in this House, we see it as an opportunity for more regulation, more unification and more harmonisation at EU level, as this report shows.

The problem with this is that the people making that decision will be shielded from the consequences of it. Living in their palaces and chancelleries, surrounded and cocooned in their motorised convoys, their chauffeured cars and their official banquets, they will not be paying the price that our constituents will as a result of these economic policies. It seems to me axiomatic that we should respond to the economic crisis with more flexibility and by allowing countries to tailor their interest rates to suit their needs. Instead, we are doing precisely the opposite.

(MT) I voted in favour of this report because it places heavy emphasis on the importance of solidarity, on the fact that a common asylum policy needs to be built upon solidarity. However, I would like to underline the fact that there are certain paragraphs in the report that I cannot go along with and that I would have voted against had we been given an individual vote. I would particularly like to highlight the issue regarding detention policy. I believe that we must be very careful when referring to the detention of asylum seekers because it is not simply a question of deciding to put a stop to detention once and for all and to have it apply to everyone. There are certain specific circumstances whereby the use of detention policy is, and will, always remain important.

(NL) Mr President, I voted against the Catania report, as I totally and utterly disagree with the Commission's recent proposals on asylum policy, which the rapporteur welcomes in this report.

My particular fear is that the new directive, which provides asylum seekers with even easier access to the labour market and would even give them a large allowance on top, will create a pull factor similar to the collective regularisations that were carried out in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy, the consequences of which were simply disastrous.

Indeed, I should like to remind the House that, according to recent censuses, there are still more than 20 million unemployed in the European Union - the figure has most probably reached 25 million by now - which means that attracting even more asylum seekers is, in fact, a kind of collective suicide. In addition, I believe that this whole area must remain an exclusive competence of the Member States.

(NL) Mr President, I voted against the Catania report, as it clearly reflects an extreme left-wing bias aimed at rendering any efficient asylum management system simply impossible. All abuses of the existing systems in the Member States are defended and, if possible, cast in stone in legislation.

One example is the toleration of bogus asylum seekers who use minor children as a way of getting themselves a residence permit, and another is the opposition to closed reception centres for people who fail to meet the conditions for recognition as refugees and abscond upon their release. Clearly, every effort is being made to make life easier for actual and potential illegal immigrants.

The rapporteur is pleased that the Court of Justice rejects a list of safe countries, even though such a list is essential to keep the flow of refugees under control. The strategy of the left wing thus aims to overload the system such as to render any possible efficiency impossible. However, this is not what the majority of Europeans wants, and so this will be featuring prominently in our election campaign.

(DE) Mr President, I am in favour of a common asylum policy for the European Union that would lead to quick and certain decisions. That said, I am against this report, as it contains elements that are absolutely unacceptable, such as the broadening of the term refugee way beyond what the Geneva Convention currently states; rejecting the regulation of safe third countries that we had already managed to reach a positive agreement on; giving Frontex tasks that have absolutely nothing to do with it; allowing asylum seekers a free choice of which country is to be responsible for the procedure - which represents the abandonment of the Dublin Convention; and easier access to the labour market for asylum seekers. We want quick procedures and not the integration of asylum seekers who will possibly have to leave the European Union again after 14 days because they will not be granted refugee status anyway.

Overall, the development in the Union is heading in the positive direction of a common policy, but what has been proposed in this report is completely counterproductive. It is for that reason that I voted against the report.

Mr President, and so the European Union carries on acquiring one by one the attributes and trappings of nationality: a legal system, common external borders and now a common policy on who is allowed to cross those borders and settle within its territory. One by one, it has taken on all of the characteristics that international law recognises as definitive of statehood.

I wanted to compliment you, Mr President, on your ruling that it was acceptable for MEPs to demonstrate - as my neighbour did - little Tibetan flags on their desks. It stands in marked contrast to the way we had our placards snatched off us when we dared to display the word 'referendum' in this Chamber. I would like to ask you - because I know you, and other Members of this House, are interested in this subject - to ponder the hypocrisy of being in favour of national self-determination in Tibet but against national self-determination within the European Union. If you think I am being extreme by drawing a parallel between an authoritarian State in China and the European Union, prove me wrong by putting your Treaty to the people in the referendums that you promised. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!

Mr President, I shall be brief. I voted in favour of this report because anything that improves road safety has to be welcomed.

I have an additional point. We have concerns in Ireland about road safety issues. When roads are being maintained by local authorities, we have had some terrible tragedies on these roads, and this is an issue that perhaps needs to be looked at from a European point of view and standards put in place.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to welcome the report and thank the rapporteur for his good work. I have to admit that it is very rare for me to be lobbied, in Northern Ireland, to vote on an EU directive in a positive way, but I was on this one, and I was delighted to see such a positive vote today. For once it will bring some good news to my province, which certainly needs it.

Better safety and more environmentally sensitive and sensible proposals are always welcome. In the longer term, I hope it will also save existing jobs and maybe create new ones in the area. This is something that we can all welcome as far as Europe is concerned, being positive, good thinking, rather than holding the economy back.

Mr President, amid all the confusion about casting and recasting, this was a very difficult vote for many Members. In the end, I abstained on this vote because of my concerns about soils in particular. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has concerns about a soils directive and this is an issue that needs to be carefully examined. We made some progress in the amendments in relation to agricultural issues in general, but my vote in the end was to abstain, rather than vote against, because there is much in this report around the environment, about power generation and emissions of which I am in favour.

(DE) Mr President, I very much welcome the central element of the Krahmer report, the European safety network. Maximum emissions limits are being laid down which the Member States must adhere to as an absolute top limit when granting permits to large industrial plants. There is, then, a rough framework, so that everything moves flexibly and so that there is a level playing field. This will put a stop to the inflationary use of derogations that has thus far taken place in certain Member States. This means competition on an equal footing throughout Europe. In that way, we can together establish a high standard at the European level.

I must make it clear, though, that I vehemently reject the regulations on soil protection. I am of the opinion that more account should be taken of the subsidiarity principle. Regulations on soil protection have no cross-border effect. Soil protection is not a cross-border issue. I therefore continue to believe that the Member States can regulate soil protection themselves.

There is an attempt here, however, to use the IPPC Directive as a back door through which to bring in parts of the soil protection directive, which we successfully fought off in the past. I very much regret that my motions to delete the relevant parts were rejected by a very narrow majority, in one case by only six votes. I have therefore decided to vote against this report as a whole, despite the fact that I very much welcome the European safety network.

Mr President, I am not entirely happy with this report and the manner in which we dealt with it here today, but I did nevertheless vote for the report because I believe it reduces red tape. Industrial installations make a significant contribution to pollutant emissions in Europe, but heavy industry is one of the drivers of our economy and needs to be encouraged to produce greener emissions.

This is a major issue for my region of the West Midlands, which is one of the most industrialised in the UK. The integrated approach is welcome, but the stringent rules in this report are of concern, and I am concerned that the implementation costs should not be so heavy that they undermine the environmental protection provisions.

We need checks on the European safety net and we need to look at issues such as the spreading of manure and slurry which, I believe, would be disproportionate to the environmental benefits we get.

Administrative burdens and costs have to be proportionate to the environmental benefits, because if that is the case, we will have a win-win situation which would help businesses meet their environmental commitments, bring significant support in the fight against climate change, and have the potential to improve health conditions for young and old people across my region.

Mr President, I voted against his report. While there may well be good points in it, it eventually went too far. I am in favour of streamlining European Union regulations, but not if you make it more bureaucratic, difficult to operate and unfavourable to industry.

The attempt to bring agriculture into this legislation is, to me, totally unacceptable and is a step too far. It must be rejected. To bring in soil protection is not the responsibility of the European Parliament, nor can it be done throughout the whole of the European Union. That should be the responsibility of the national governments.

I have to ask why the Committee on Agriculture was not consulted on this particular issue. You cannot bring in regulations that are destructive and make pig and poultry farmers go out of business. The truth is that we are bringing in regulations in Europe, and restricting production in Europe, whilst allowing imports into the European Union that are not produced to the same standards as they are in Europe. I cannot accept that.

Mr President, there was some controversy about the recasting procedure and my name was mentioned in this context. I would like firstly to point out that the rapporteur who introduced this into our Rules of Procedure was Marylène Renault, not me.

Perhaps a word of explanation is necessary concerning the correct actions of the President of the Parliament. We often have pieces of legislation amending for the 15th, 16th or 17th time some existing pieces of legislation. That is very confusing for people who have to deal with this legislation. We have, rightly, embarked on a procedure for codifying such legislation - putting it in a single, readable, manageable text. We frequently have that before us and, because it does not change the substance, we have a simplified procedure for that.

However, when it comes to recasting, we have a difficulty. There, the Commission is putting forward a proposal to change one element of a package of existing legislation and to simply codify the rest without changing it. We have voluntarily restricted ourselves to tabling amendments of substance only to the part that the Commission is proposing to modify, and not to use the codification of the remaining part as an opportunity to reopen the substance. Maybe we should, as has been suggested by one of our colleagues. However, there would be a problem under the Treaty with regard to the demarcation of the right of initiative between us and the Commission. It is certainly not, however, an issue where colleagues were right to complain about the actions of the President. Under our existing Rules - which we gave ourselves as a Parliament and which we approved by an absolute majority of our Members - the correct procedure has been followed.

Mr President, I voted against this report because of its attempts to totally unnecessarily entwine agriculture into the huge burden of regulation which it would import. I recently met with some producers in my constituency. I saw the paperwork that has been heaped upon a particular producer because he is already within the ambit of these regulations. I shudder to think what is going to happen to ordinary producers of very modest proportions when they, too, are subjected to this huge and totally unnecessary burden of regulation.

I think it is a report that takes us very much in the wrong direction and, at the very least, I am happy that I was here to vote against it.

Mr President, I did not ask to give an explanation of vote on the Maňka report, because I was going to combine it with this one, because the two deal with how we are going to look at the budget in the following year, and I am not going to be here in the following year because I am disappearing off in June. I know that there is great upset across the other side of the Chamber about this matter.

I just wanted to lay down a few ground rules that have been ignored so far in these reports. We should watch out for how much money we are funding NGOs and agencies, where huge problems exist with how European taxpayers' money is being spent at this time. I give the example of the European Fundamental Rights Agency, which is currently under investigation by OLAF.

In general terms, at a time of huge economic downturn and hardship, maybe we should be looking at ourselves to tweak our budget so we can send more monies back to national exchequers where it is desperately needed and where the pain is being felt. And certainly at this time when big - almost irrational - decisions are being made by businesses and government departments around the world in employment matters, we should concern ourselves with having only one seat for this Parliament.

(NL) Mr President, I voted against this report. Although it is to be welcomed that illegal immigration and the fight against terrorism are prioritised and that this House is finally calling on the Commission to monitor closely the implementation of funds in Kosovo and the Balkan states too, bearing in mind the hasty enlargement to include Bulgaria and Romania, it is regrettable that no action is suggested in response to this, nor any conditions attached to it.

Incidentally, my party advocates a halt to enlargement after the accession of Croatia. Returning to the report, though - as has just been touched on, why did this House not take the trouble for once to advocate the abolition of a few of the superfluous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and European agencies that are not subject to any democratic control, often interpret their powers too broadly and call upon European taxpayers' money for nothing?

(NL) Mr President, it is excellent that Parliament is stressing equal access to language facilities for all the Members of this House. Parliament must become genuinely multilingual. It can certainly be said that the working conditions of persons employed by contractors should be in line with the language rules.

On the other hand, in the chapter on buildings, this House neglects to take a clear stance on the monthly travelling circus to Strasbourg that costs approximately EUR 200 million per year. This does not send out a good signal to European citizens, to taxpayers, which is one of the reasons why I voted against this report.

Mr President, in relation to the two budgetary votes, may I point out that a lot of people are asking: what contribution can the European budget make in terms of a fiscal stimulus in times of economic crisis? The answer is: very little. The whole of the European Union's budget amounts to less than 1% of GDP and it has been a declining proportion of GDP in recent years. It is, in macroeconomic terms, a very small budget and this is something that many of the Eurosceptics would do well to remember.

On the other hand, in certain areas, it can be of huge structural significance and gradually improve the structure of Europe's economy. On research and development, on some aspects of regional fund spending and social spending, we can help prepare our economy for the recovery.

I am glad that those aspects of the budget are gradually representing a greater proportion of the budget, and agriculture and some others are declining. However, I think that trend needs to be accelerated and we need to continue much more rapidly in that direction of shifting resources to where they can make a real difference.

(MT) I voted in favour of the alternative motion on this report and I abstained when it came to the principle motion. There is no doubt that integrity in the online gaming sector is extremely important. We must ensure that we fend off all criminal activity that could affect it. However, this does not mean that we must turn to protectionism. We must keep in mind that the liberty of providing services within the European Union is a basic, recognised Union principle, and therefore we must not resort to protectionism. Moreover, it is worth noting that the Internet, considering that we are talking about online gaming, already provides us with a range of security measures that we can build upon, such as the obligation to sign up before one is allowed to play, or the tracing of certain activity which could be fraudulent in nature, or even the identification of the credit cards that are used. Therefore, we must say 'yes' to integrity and 'no' to protectionism.

(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the growth of gambling on the Internet is a new phenomenon which does not recognise national boundaries, and which has negative consequences that we must confront without delay on a unified EU basis in order to provide effective protection for children and young people. Member States must introduce a common set of regulations on payments as quickly as possible, including checks on identity and age. The key issue of course is prevention and I am therefore pushing for a Europe-wide ban on gambling advertisements which are targeted at young people, just as we have for alcohol and tobacco. We must also monitor the other negative effects of this branch of the entertainment industry, including money laundering and organised crime in general. And as far as these areas are concerned, I am fundamentally opposed to a free market.

(IT) Mr President, I was unsure as to how to vote on Mrs Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling and for what reason. So I asked my pensioners. Yesterday I met a pensioner named Ugo Rossi, a retired craftsman. He told me: 'Oh, online gambling, I have lost EUR 10 000'. A little later I met a retired lady, Lucia Annone. She told me: 'Do not talk to me about online gambling, I have lost EUR 100 000'. I decided, however, how to vote when even my mother, who is 94, said to me: 'You gave me a computer and I have lost my entire pension for March 2009, EUR 450'. So no, Mr President, at that point, I decided that, in order to protest against gambling and so that it is eradicated throughout Europe, I had to vote against this report for that reason.

Mr President, in the case of online gambling, there must be clear and unambiguous laws that serve to limit, control and account for the nearly EUR 3 billion in annual gross revenue realised by the gambling industry. However, according to Mrs Schaldemose, that EUR 3 billion is only 5% of the total gambling market in the European Union.

Therefore, the importance and influence of this industry is obvious - as are its dangers. Gambling is often correctly associated with crime at international level, and cross-border gambling rings which are much easier to run via the Internet jeopardise the laws of various nations and harbour risks to national sovereignty.

It is also important to note the negative effects on health associated with gambling. As a medical doctor, I am well aware of the damaging characteristics of obsessive or addictive gambling. These are not issues that the European Parliament can underestimate.

When it comes to tackling fraud, criminal behaviour and financial and medical issues that correspond to online gambling, I call on the European Parliament to vote repeatedly on better and better solutions in future.

Mr President, I voted in the same way as Mr Busuttil on this particular report, and was concerned at the level of argument. In fact, the bilge that was coming up in this debate was unbelievable, exemplified by my colleague who has just left, Mr Fatuzzo. It is complete rubbish to say that, because three old people lose some money in a voluntary way, then we have got to ban online gambling across a continent.

This debate showed up many national differences, and there was no honesty in the debate at all. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs commissioned a study which showed that online gaming had no more damaging effect than ordinary gaming in a place run by a national lottery. There was one reasonable part, which was the part about fair return to guarantee integrity in sport. Alas, this debate has driven the online gamblers and the sporting governing bodies further apart than they have ever been before, rather than drawing them together to try and work out a common solution. It has absolutely shown the need for some forum where those two groups can come together and discuss this matter. Alas, this is obviously not that place.

Mr President, we all know that gambling is a very emotive subject. You only have to listen to the speeches that have been made before me. There are those who believe that gambling is the work of the devil and that those who take part deserve to be cast into hellfire and deserve all the losses they have on this earth and in the afterlife. Now that is an extreme view, granted, but if you were to look at some of the language used in this report - the issues of a transparent sector that safeguards the public and consumer interests, tackling fraud and other criminal behaviour, prevention of consumer detriment - those same emotions are expressed, albeit in a far more toned-down way, in this report when it comes to online gambling.

However, consider the hypocrisy of this report. It talks about online gambling in this negative and detrimental way, but it says nothing about the state monopolies that are hiding behind the emotive language to continue to drive out private innovative competitors. Let us be honest in this debate as to what it is all about. It is about keeping state monopolies, and we know where that leads to: it leads down the road to serfdom.

Mr President, quality food is not an aspiration in Europe: it must continue as a reality. But its production requires a fair and competitive return. Our agricultural producers must be able to earn enough to cover the extra cost generated by EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental requirements. When faced with cheap and inferior imports, the competitive advantage that quality should give is often not enough: hence the role that needs to be played by CAP funding in keeping our producers competitive. That has to be the quid pro quo for meeting the high costs imposed by EU regulation.

I also deplore the continuing exploitation of producers by the major distributors who now dominate the European food markets. Their abuse of their position of dominance continues, with producers exploited at every turn, even to the point of having to pay for their promotions.

Mr President, thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain how I voted. It may come as no surprise to you that I actually voted in favour of this report, given that the author was a very good Conservative, British colleague of mine.

What we need to be wary of in these times of economic difficulties is the call for ever more protectionism and the call to suspend our normal rules on competition and state aid. We see the call for protectionism from President Sarkozy, arguing that taxpayers' money should be used to protect the French car industry. We see similar packages in America. I was interested when I saw an advertisement the other day in an American magazine sponsored by the American car companies, which said, 'You did not want to buy our cars. Therefore we are going to take your money anyway through your taxpayers' money to keep our companies alive'. This is what it seems to have come down to. Because the companies were not supplying the goods and services that consumers wanted to buy, we are now throwing aside rules on state aid and keeping up companies that may not survive in the long term. We understand the importance of jobs, but let us make sure that we are making good economic decisions.

(CS) Mr President, SMEs, unfortunately, still do not comprise the backbone of the economy, especially in the new Member States, and yet they represent hopes for a certain degree of employment security. Of course, we need more flexible employment laws so that these small firms can also react flexibly to new demands and reward specialists more easily in line with new objectives. We need to make it easier to set up companies but also to liquidate them. And most important of all, we also need to have easier access not only to credit, but also to drawdowns of financial resources from European funds. All this we know. We have done a good deal of work over the past five years here in the European Parliament, but it is up to the Member States to take these things seriously and put them into practice rather than just talking about them. Now, at a time of crisis, it is abundantly clear what has been neglected in this area, especially in the new Member States. I have voted in favour of Mrs Herczog's report but the whole exercise is pointless unless the Member States are willing to work on it.

(SK) Mr President, I voted for Mrs Herczog's report. We have 23 million SMEs in the European Union. They represent up to 99% of all firms and provide work to more than 100 million EU citizens. In the current time of crisis, they therefore play a key role in economic growth, social cohesion and especially job creation. SMEs are dynamic and have a great ability to innovate and develop. The make a significant contribution towards implementing the Lisbon objectives.

Credit and loans are the main sources of finance for SMEs in Europe. The fact that SMEs are usually considered more risky makes it difficult for them to get access to finance. It is particularly necessary to provide favourable conditions for SMEs to obtain sources of finance, both through loans and from EU funds, and thereby to ensure the long-term sustainability of their business activities.

Mr President, I supported this report because - as we have already heard - small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Many Member States' plans for economic recovery stress the important role small businesses can play in bringing us out of the present crisis.

99.2% of my region's businesses employ fewer than 49 people. The West Midlands has the highest proportion of small businesses of any region in the UK. Providing that proper consideration is made of Member States' competences in areas such as collective bargaining rights, this report will go a long way towards making sure that we all think small first.

I especially welcome the emphasis in this report on the difficulties that small businesses are facing in accessing credit, time and resources for education and training, and - most importantly - for research. National borders, increasingly, are irrelevant to small businesses, which are doing more business with partners across Europe. However, we do need to protect them when they engage in cross-border trading through measures such as my recovery of debtors' assets report.

The EU also has a key role to play in ensuring that SMEs have access to funding, which means we should ensure that non-bank microcredit is made available. We can do this by using structural funds and developing microcredit institutions without taking money from the taxpayer. This initiative can curb unemployment and restart our economy.

Mr President, I welcome this report, with just one or two small reservations. We have heard from my colleague, Mrs Gill, how important small businesses are to the economy and how they are bearing the brunt of the difficulties at the moment. The trouble is that the European Union is geared entirely for big businesses, whether it is about legislation, access to markets or funding.

We often talk about better regulation, but what we really need is proportionality. We have to ensure that our legislation is proportional to the problems we are dealing with, and particularly in the IPPC, which we have talked about today. It is really about big business, not about small businesses, and we should reflect that.

I welcome initiatives like JASMINE, which I think are moving us in the right direction, but we need to think in terms of funding, market access and legislation and about the specific needs of small business.

Let me make one particular plea: we have a single market but we do not have a single Community patent. We have been at this for years and years now, and it really is a disgrace that we cannot sort out this problem. It could, by itself, be the biggest help for businesses in the European Union. Let us have some action.

Mr President, I should like to thank the interpreters for staying around, because they did not have the option that Mr Beazley took a long time ago of going for lunch.

I should explain that being in a big group is not everything it seems. It is very difficult to get speaking time in some of the key debates if you are not in agreement with the big group's line, without either dramatically compromising your position or kissing backside in endless mind-numbingly boring meetings, and that is why, for people like me, explanations of vote are very important.

I suppose, in general terms, I should be welcoming the Small Business Act, or indeed any attempt to recognise the needs of small business. In fact, it was bad regulation when I was running my own small business that got me into politics in the first place - just trying to change one particular thing.

However, I am pretty sure that any regulation that comes from this place will certainly be creating more small businesses. Alas, they tend to be big businesses at the moment, which, when you add a lot of European regulation, gradually turn into small businesses employing smaller numbers of people, because they reduce their turnover because of that regulation and move jobs from our continent. We in this House have to be very careful that we encourage individuals to start up new businesses and do not encourage jobs to move continents because we are regulating jobs out of existence.

Mr President, like the previous speaker, I would also like to thank all the interpreters for having to listen to our speeches. I am sure it gives you much less pleasure than it gives us.

Two of my personal mottoes, for reasons which may not be obvious, are 'small is beautiful' and 'size does not matter'. I represent London, which I think is the greatest city in the world, capital of the greatest country in the world. Even though we no longer have our smokestack industries, we are full of small, innovative businesses in the creative industries and fashion industry, creating jobs all the time in a real growth area.

As the previous speaker said, we see a lot of European regulation aimed at supposedly helping business, but quite often it is the result of lobbying by large businesses who want to keep small businesses out. There was one notable large business I had dinner with a few years ago that described small businesses as freeloaders. It is that sort of attitude that we need to tackle. We also need to help small businesses when it comes to public procurement and competing with large businesses but, especially in the current times, in dealing with the shortage of credit to make sure that viable businesses continue to grow and create wealth and jobs in the European Union.

Written explanations of vote

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Costa's report on the amendment of certain provisions of bilateral agreements in force on air services between the Member States and the Republic of Armenia. I think that a designation clause should be added so as to avoid discrimination between Community carriers and those of the European Economic Area and Switzerland. Furthermore, I support the amendment, added in Article 5, relating to air transport tariffs, whereby carriage wholly within the European Community should be subject to European Community law. I believe that these amendments benefit businesses operating in the air sector as well as citizens, through the bureaucratic simplification of procedures and the resolution of the legal conflicts that usually occur in cases where Community regulations and bilateral agreements coexist.

in writing. - I realise that the Costa report deals with technical aspects of air services between the Union and Israel. Nevertheless, I voted against the report as a sign of my protest at the Israeli Government's outrageous actions in Gaza, even if there is no excuse for the rocket attacks on Israeli settlements orchestrated by Hamas militants and one can understand that Israel reacts.

The problem is that the recent invasion of Gaza was totally disproportionate and largely indiscriminate, with casualty rates one hundred times higher amongst innocent Palestinian men, women and children than amongst the Israeli army.

I am voting in favour of the report on the Agreement between the EC and Israel on certain aspects of air services. I agree with the rapporteur's proposal that the agreement be signed.

I believe that the amendments regarding the designation, the taxation of aviation fuel and the pricing clauses are appropriate with regard to the bilateral agreements currently in force. I hope that basing ourselves on mutual trust in the opposite party's systems will help the implementation of the agreement.

Mr President, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Costa on the agreement between the European Community and Israel on certain aspects of air services. I agree with the rapporteur that economic cooperation should be encouraged with the State of Israel for some services, such as air services, not only because of the mutual benefits, but also the positive external effects throughout the surrounding area. I myself am rapporteur for the report on developing a common aviation area with Israel, within the framework of the Commission's proposal on a global agreement on aviation with this important partner of the European Union in the Middle East and in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and one of the main trading partners in the Euromed area.

Moreover, for a long time, Israel has been a member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, has met its obligations and adopted policies that are in line with international legislation in this area, especially with regard to security and protection, but also environmental protection and the welfare of airline employees, all of which means that the aforementioned comprehensive agreement should be implemented at Community level, while paying close attention to the environmental repercussions of increasing traffic and to equality of access conditions.

I voted in favour of the additional protocol to the Agreement between the EC and South Africa, which is intended to take into account the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU.

As a result of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, the European Parliament will give its assent to the Council's draft decision concerning the conclusion of the additional protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.

I think that it is particularly important that all the agreements signed by the EU with third countries include Romania, as an EU Member State. Romania is a member of the European family with full rights and must be included in all documents relating to the EU. Romania must enjoy all the rights and obligations of an EU Member State.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I abstained from the vote on Mr Borrell Fontelles's report on the additional protocol to the Agreement between the EC and South Africa, to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU. I find, in fact, that I do not entirely agree with the work carried out by my fellow Member.

Thank you, Mr President, a great deal of progress has been made since the Schengen Agreement was implemented. The treaty radically changed the lives of many European citizens by focusing on a new approach to border management.

The new phase, dedicated to integrated border management, started in 2002, which led to the creation of a common corpus of legislation, a common coordination mechanism, operational cooperation, common integrated risk assessment, trained staff and burden sharing between Member States in the run-up to a European Corps of Border Guards.

Now that this phase has been completed, it is time to look ahead so as to achieve truly integrated border management to meet the two objectives of enhancing security and facilitating travel for third country nationals. To that end, I am in favour of the proposals presented by the Commission to Parliament, many of which have already been addressed in my report on the Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders. In this case, it seems inevitable that we will continue along this path and give our favourable opinion on the creation of a system of entry/exit registration, facilitating border crossing for travellers and the introduction of an electronic system of travel authorisation.

Member States are still responsible for controlling their respective borders, but only a general agreement and a common policy will allow us to tackle the fundamental challenges of managing borders and migratory flows.

An area without internal borders cannot function without shared responsibility and solidarity in managing its external borders. The main reason for this should be borne in mind: the EU's external borders are crossed every year by more than 300 million travellers.

Truly integrated border management must work towards two basic objectives: enhancing security and facilitating the crossing of borders by those who are intending to enter legally and for legitimate reasons.

We cannot, however, continue to adopt separate new initiatives without a comprehensive master plan for the EU's border strategy. It is also important to evaluate existing systems so as to weigh up whether there is a real need for new instruments to be created, as well as their viability, reliability, interoperability and cost, and also whether the protection of individuals' fundamental rights is being given sufficient consideration.

I support Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert's report on the next steps in border management in the European Union.

Faced with the challenge of enhancing internal security at the same time as facilitating travel for third country nationals, the Commission has proposed three solutions: registration of entry and exit, essentially in order to deal with the phenomenon of people overstaying their visas; facilitation of border crossing for bona fide travellers; and the introduction of an electronic system of travel authorisation, following the example of the system that has been in place in the United States since January. On the latter point, I would emphasise the importance of the Commission's policy study analysing the effectiveness, impact and practical feasibility of a system of this type: we need to have access to an objective assessment of its usefulness and of its real, not just assumed, added value.

We must not forget that there are two preconditions before we can introduce this impressive tool: we need to speed up the implementation of SIS II in order to enable biometric checking of passports and visas, and we need to examine the impact of the system on the protection of personal data, to ensure that the measure is proportionate.

Such a rare event deserves to be highlighted. This own-initiative report on the future of the management of the EU's external borders is a reasonable one, and it is tinged with a degree of realism in that it proposes, as a first stage in re-examining border management in the EU, a critical, in-depth analysis of the operation and effectiveness of the existing systems and how they interact.

Without being gullible, we can be optimistic, and then perhaps we can have a debate.

Just as an example, to help us understand the state of mind of the authors of this text, here are two passages from it.

The first recognises that 'striking a balance between ensuring the free movement of a growing number of people across borders and ensuring greater security for Europe's citizens is a complex exercise...'. That much is true, but in another place we read that 'measures to enhance border security must go hand in hand with facilitation of passenger flows and the promotion of mobility in an increasingly globalised world'.

This level of schizophrenia is quite beyond us.

Right from the start, I, as shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament for this report, have had serious reservations about the usefulness and the effectiveness of the entry/exit system mentioned in the European Commission's communication. Implementing such a system, which is directly inspired by the 'US-VISIT' Programme, would mean making huge investments only to see very uncertain results obtained with regard to the fight against both illegal immigration and crime. This is what the US experiment shows, in any case.

Moreover, the planned measures, which are based on the massive collection of personal data, pose risks to the protection of privacy in my opinion. This view is shared by the European Data Protection Supervisor.

The adoption of a number of my amendments, which were aimed at highlighting doubts concerning the need and the proportionality of the system and at criticising the culture of suspicion that increasingly pervades decisions relating to external border management, have led me to endorse the report in plenary.

At a time when the global economy is plunged into crisis, there are, without doubt, other priorities for the European budget.

The own-initiative report on EU border management is important as it will act as a guide for the legislation which the EC will propose in 2009. As the PPE-DE rapporteur, I believe that the text must provide clearer support for preparing the next steps in integrated border management.

With regard to the EU entry/exit system, part of the data required to create this system was already collected by systems such as VIS, SIS and EURODAC. The Commission must manage the interconnection of these systems and expand their functionality in order to streamline costs.

The option for EU citizens to use automated gates as part of the Registered 'Bona Fide' Traveller Programme is welcome as it will help speed up traveller flows and prevent congestion. However, I have suggested changing the term 'bona fide traveller' to 'frequent traveller' to prevent the remaining travellers being considered as 'high-risk'.

Creating the Electronic System of Travel Authorisation is not justified financially. This is why I have suggested its replacement with the compulsory use of biometric passports by third country citizens not requiring a visa when entering the EU.

In order to achieve the EU's strategic objectives, the Commission should not start developing new tools from scratch until the existing ones are fully operational and reliable.

The security of external borders is an area which has not been looked into sufficiently, either by us in the European Parliament or by other Community institutions. I supported this report because I strongly believe that the importance of better identification of third country nationals lies not only in the fact that it will keep out people who should not be given entry, but rather it will facilitate access for those travelling legitimately.

Among the numerous necessary recommendations and observations made in this report, I would like to dwell in particular on how important it is to have a comprehensive master plan in place for border management. Even though, at the moment, other priorities are dictating institutional changes in the EU, it is becoming essential for us to integrate the numerous border programmes, either proposed or existing, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and costs.

I also want to emphasise the importance of coordinating this potential plan with the experience and objectives of the Schengen area, which is the clearest example of the type of open area all of us want in Europe. We do not need temporary procedures, let alone a host of mutually incompatible mechanisms.

I voted in favour of this report because I feel that removing internal EU border controls is a major step in the process of European integration, but it also involves new problems which we need to take into account.

I welcome the Council's initiative in preparing legislation proposals for the 2009-2010 period on introducing an entry/exit system, a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA). Although I believe that these programmes must be implemented as soon as possible, and operate as efficiently as possible, they need to be prepared properly.

The correct operation of the entry/exit system will depend from both an equipment and operational perspective on the success of the systems VIS, SIS II and EURODAC. I believe that it is absolutely essential for a comprehensive master plan to be drafted which sets out the general framework for the EU's border strategy and ensures coordination and cooperation between the various systems and authorities with responsibilities in this area.

We must also take into consideration the experience in the US in this area. I agree with the author that a programme like US VISIT may work from a technical viewpoint and that the programme is not therefore, by definition, an obstacle preventing normal traveller flow.

A legal system that is vulnerable to fraud, hard to impose and frequently not put into practice is an invitation to infringement - when not simply to ignorance - of the law. Taking into account the available information, it must be believed that this is one of the difficulties of the different European legislation on immigration. It is well-known that the dissuasive effect of a law depends more on how likely it is to be applied than on the sanctions that it carries. These concerns imply recognition of the need for the European authorities to collaborate on applying existing legislation and also on seeking to adapt the legal framework to the reality described in various reports.

Finally, in the name of both solidarity and equitable justice, it must be stressed that there is a need for consideration to be given to the burden that managing external borders represents to the Member States in question.

I voted in favour of this report on the next steps in border management in the EU. I would, however, like to draw your attention to a number of important aspects that should be taken into account in future.

An area without internal borders will not work if there is no responsibility for managing those borders. Increasing border security, which should proceed in tandem with improving the free movement of people in an increasingly unified Europe, is an important element in this. However, the ultimate objective should be to strike a balance between ensuring the free movement of people and providing greater security for the citizens of Europe.

The key element should be an approach based on the goal of protecting privacy in such a way that the personal data of travellers are not abused and the travellers themselves have confidence in the authorities holding that data. The use of personal data is beneficial to public safety. However, let us remember that public confidence in the activities of the authorities must form the basis of any legislative activity in this area. To achieve this, personal data needs to be strictly protected and properly supervised.

Mr President, I intend to support Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert's report on the important issue of the next steps in border management in the European Union and similar experiences in third countries. I agree with the rapporteur that it is essential to evaluate and assess existing measures within the framework of border management before investing further resources and developing the systems that the Commission seems to prefer, namely an exit/entry system for all third country nationals, a registered traveller programme (RTP) also open to them and a framework for the development of local registered traveller schemes and automated border controls. These procedures have great potential but it needs to be stressed, and in this respect, I welcome the rapporteur's work, that absolute priority must be given to guaranteeing the protection of personal data and the development of technology that is minimally invasive from the point of view of people's confidentiality, not forgetting, finally, a thorough cost-benefit analysis.

Bearing in mind the importance of free movement as part of the European project, the purpose of the measures adopted over the years has been to ease controls at internal borders. However, these steps must be mirrored by measures which tighten controls at external borders.

In a situation where, for instance in 2006, up to 8 million illegal immigrants were registered in the EU, I consider that the Commission's initiative to introduce an entry/exit system, a Registered Traveller Programme and an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation during the 2012-2015 period is necessary. A European area without borders, turned from a wish into reality, can only operate if we assume joint responsibility and if we show solidarity in managing the external borders, a task in which Member States located at the EU's borders, including Romania, will play a major role.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are already border protection systems available, such as EUROSUR and FRONTEX. It is therefore vital in terms of their functionality to assess to what extent the new initiative can supplement them, without creating the risk of duplication. Furthermore, our concern must be constantly focused on respecting a person's right to privacy, as well as on developing new, less invasive technologies.

I would like to say first and foremost that I completely disagree with one of the main conclusions of the report, which is that the removal of border controls on internal EU borders is one of the greatest successes of European integration. The removal of border controls is merely an inevitable consequence of the EU neoliberal project and its vital interest in the free movement of capital, goods and persons (in other words, workers). The EU should be chalking up successes first and foremost in the areas of peace and social policy, but unfortunately, of course, these are always far fewer in number.

The report also takes it for granted that in the area of administering the EU's external borders, we should copy the systems introduced in the USA. This is simply wide of the mark, bearing in mind the very real and strongly enforced 'iron curtain' between the US and Mexico. With regard to the external borders of the EU, I would also like to stress that the recent past in Europe has clearly shown that political and social problems cannot be solved through police or routine measures.

in writing. - (SV) In this explanation of vote, we Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament aim to explain why we chose to vote in favour of Mr Lehne's report on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company. We believe that this is an important complement to the Lehne report on the European private company statute.

We believe that the lack of a common set of regulations for the transfer of the registered office of a company creates problems for companies wanting to move across borders within the internal market, as they are currently forced to liquidate the company and thus wind the business up in order to be able to move their registered office. We also think it good that the European Parliament is proposing that the transfer of a registered office must not involve the circumventing of legal, social or tax conditions. We also welcome the fact that the European Parliament emphasises that the transfer of the registered office should be tax neutral.

However, we do not agree with all of the conclusions of the committee in connection with the discussions of the report. For example, we do not agree with the wording in recital G to the effect that the European Parliament cannot issue legislation that runs counter to the case law of the European Court of Justice. We would like to point out that it is the European Parliament, together with the Council, that makes the law, and it is then the job of the European Court of Justice to interpret that law, not the other way round. Furthermore, we would like to see the words 'the European Parliament emphasises the positive effects of tax competition on economic growth in the context of the Lisbon Strategy' deleted from the report.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Lehne's report on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company. In fact, I believe that company cross-border migration should not be regarded as one of the crucial elements in the completion of the internal market but, as is often the case, as a way of bypassing national laws on various subjects (not least taxation). I am therefore against this report because there is a real risk that the cross-border transfer of registered offices will circumvent the legal, social and fiscal requirements of the European Union.

Mr President, I supported Giusto Catani's report. In my opinion, we need to revise the Dublin regulation so that the decision of the country responsible for considering an asylum request takes account of the individual needs of the asylum applicant. We need to emphasise the integration of asylum seekers into their new environment and to ensure that they are given the opportunity to learn the language of the country they are staying in, as this will increase their chances of being assimilated into their new culture.

I voted in favour of this own-initiative report by the Italian Member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, Giusto Catania, on the future of the European Common Asylum System.

The text of this report focuses on the situation of asylum seekers, whose fate is really something of a lottery depending on the country in which they land, and whose detention conditions are, at times, only just about bearable. This is a situation that affects border countries in particular, but which needs to be taken into account at European level. The fundamental rights of asylum seekers are at stake, as is the ability of certain countries to cope with these migratory pressures. This is a joint responsibility.

This report has the merit of providing a clear account of the situation and of specifying the challenges to come for the European Union in the context of this debate.

Through this vote, I am joining the French socialists in denouncing a situation which is no longer acceptable and which Europe, as a democratic institution and human rights protector, must remedy.

in writing. - I am opposed to moves towards a common immigration and asylum policy in Europe. I believe that a harmonised asylum system will undermine the UK's sovereign right to decide for itself who should and should not be allowed to claim asylum in my country. Furthermore, I believe that a common asylum system will weaken the accountability of British ministers and parliamentarians to the citizens who elect them.

I accept that developed countries like my own have a humanitarian responsibility to people from third countries who have faced or would face persecution, torture or death if they were to return. However, I am worried that by taking away the UK's independent ability to monitor and regulate asylum entrants, we would potentially be exposing ourselves further to the threat of terrorist attacks.

I support Mr Catania's report on the future of the European Common Asylum System.

All political refugees have the right to enter the European Union and, once their status has been recognised, to reside on European territory. Unfortunately, this right is not currently applied uniformly by the Member States: recognition of this status may vary from one Member State to another from 0% to 90%.

If we are to establish a uniformly high level of protection throughout the EU, we must be able to introduce a number of elements quickly. These include establishing a single asylum application procedure and single standards for qualification as a refugee, introducing a legal and effective mechanism for solidarity between the Member States - some countries are flooded with applications, while others escape more lightly - improving reception conditions for applicants, particularly for minors, and reducing the use of detention, and creating a European Asylum Support Office.

This is what is at stake in the whole of the 'asylum legislative package', which we have just started to look into as we reach the end of this Parliamentary term.

The thinking behind Mr Catania's report is that applicants for international protection are necessarily bone fide, but in fact, everyone knows that asylum is often nothing but a pretext used by prospective economic immigrants to avoid being turned away. The Member States, for their part, are allegedly necessarily deaf to their distress, repressive and too slow to take decisions. Nobody points out, though, that it is the abuse of the procedure for illegitimate purposes that slows down the assessment of genuine asylum applications.

It is no doubt these beginnings that have given birth to some of the report's proposals, such as the suggestions that the country responsible for consideration of an asylum request should take account of the applicant's wishes, that this country should ultimately be determined by a European body, that applicants should have the same rights as long-term residents, that they should have freedom of movement within the territory of Europe, and so on.

We agree that there is a need for cooperation with those European countries that, due to their geographic location, are in the front line for migration flows and have difficulty dealing with them, but this absolutely must not result in a European policy that tells the States whom they must welcome into their territory, based on the whims of the asylum applicants and a supranational administration.

in writing. - We are in agreement with the main thrust of the compromise report and are therefore voting for it. Having said that, however, we do not agree with certain clauses, such as those dealing with detention. I feel that they do not fully reflect and precisely interpret the complex and difficult situation of small Member States like Malta.

Malta is facing a disproportionate flow of illegal immigrants compared to its geographical limitations (121 sq. miles), small population (400 000 people) and other limited resources (administrative, financial, etc.), which should be taken into consideration when regulating, debating or legislating on this subject.

In reality, there is only one objective behind this desire to create a common European asylum system, namely to give the Member States of the European Union the legal option of receiving as many potential immigrants as possible, more easily and without restrictions, which were deemed to be useless and contrary to human rights.

Europe has thus reaffirmed its position as a host for all migrant populations, and considerable emphasis has been placed on full respect for the principle of non-refoulement and on the duty to render assistance as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Hence - and this is indeed understandable for these pro-immigration types - the simple fact that each Member State still has sovereignty and its own procedures in asylum law inevitably leads to disparities in the acceptance of asylum applications and is thus a barrier to the general acceptance of asylum applicants.

Faced with almost 26 million internally displaced persons and more than 12 million refugees in the world, what we need to do is not find more reception solutions, because it will never be enough to deal with the exponential growth in demand, but rather allow and encourage these people to stay in their own countries, to find work there and to base their families there.

The report by the Communist Member, Mr Catania, recommends the establishment of a European pro-immigration policy.

Essentially, under the pretext of defending human rights, he wants to turn Europe into an open community that is prepared to take in all the misery in the world.

To this end, he proposes a top-down harmonisation of asylum law, the principle of non-refoulement, the avoidance of detention, and even the extension to refugees of the Directive on the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents.

Mr Catania is pretending to have forgotten that most of the illegal immigrants arriving in Europe - 75 000 of them in 2008 on the Mediterranean coast alone - are not political refugees but economic refugees, fleeing poverty in their countries.

This abuse of the right to asylum, contrary to the Geneva Convention, is not mentioned at any point in the report, and with good reason: it is convenient to make the 'white man' feel guilty by reminding him that he was a terrible colonialist and that he now needs to pay for that in every sense of the word. Legends die hard.

By trying to transform asylum law into a normal branch of immigration, Mr Catania is paving the way for a variety of abuses and is turning illegal immigrants into scapegoats.

I welcome the fact that the Commission has proposed a regulation updating EU asylum law since, given current circumstances, this is urgently needed. The number of refugees is constantly rising, and the current regulations and directives governing asylum are no longer coping with the situation. I therefore believe it to be essential that the Commission's reforms are implemented as soon as possible, and I would categorise the following points in those reforms to be of particular importance.

There must be a common asylum system, and one that leads to 'uniform and reasonable time limits'.

The rights of refugees must be bolstered - because of their status as particularly 'in need of protection', refugees cannot, as a matter of principle, be taken into custody.

There must be uniform border controls so that people who have a right to international protection can get access more easily.

The Dublin system currently in force, under which the wishes of asylum seekers, for example, their choice of a European country, cannot be taken into consideration, must be revised to the effect that people who are recognised as being in special need of protection are also able to live in another EU country.

The individual Member States must always retain the ability to decide independently who and how many people they accept, and why they do so.

I support the Commission's proposal and the own-initiative report, but I would point out, once again, that, on this issue, rapid and uniform implementation is crucial.

in writing. - (NL) Mr President, I voted against the proposal by Mr Catania today on the future of the European Common Asylum System. My party, the Dutch Socialist Party, does not believe that harmonising asylum policy and dressing up an agency to govern this in future would lead to a more even distribution of the number of asylum applications among the various Member States. Asylum applications are determined more by the presence of family members and acquaintances in certain Member States, which attracts new asylum seekers.

I also take the view that harmonisation would lead to lower-quality asylum policy in countries where this policy is relatively well regulated at present, as Member States would use this standardisation to seek out the lowest possible level. Such a race to the bottom is undesirable and, ultimately, would only hit asylum seekers. As much as I appreciate Mr Catania's efforts, I cannot support his conclusions on this.

in writing. - (DE) While cooperation on asylum issues, given the massive streams of refugees, is important, the good sense of the proposed European asylum agency is dubious. Further upgrading can be arranged without the need for such an agency, while some of the measures envisaged fall within the competence of other organisations such as Frontex. It is absolutely not acceptable for this new agency to produce risk analyses that the Member States are then compelled to use, which is to say it would be prescribed which asylum seekers the Member States must accept. This is a profound intrusion on the sovereignty of the Member States, and the only response is to reject it.

Even though, in some cases, the reasons that make someone decide to emigrate may be similar to those which drive asylum seekers, the two systems must be sufficiently distinct, whether in legal terms or in terms of administrative procedures.

With this important proviso, a point that must be considered is the fact that, because borders within the Schengen Area are effectively open, decisions taken within one Member State may have implications for another. At the same time, the idea of Europe could be understood as a whole in the eyes of an asylum seeker who views the 'European Union' as an area that is homogenous and, in their understanding, the antithesis of the danger that they are fleeing. Finally, it will be difficult for an asylum seeker fleeing from a real threat to his or her life to choose their point of entry to Europe, or to be able to carry out the administrative processes that are necessary and required for a candidate for immigration. All these considerations make coordination and collaboration between Member States necessary, without the above meaning that asylum should become an alternative means of gaining entry to immigration, or, even less so, a means of getting round the illegality of certain migratory flows.

Mr President, I cannot agree with many of the points in Mr Catania's report on the future of the European Common Asylum System and, for that reason, I must vote against it. While I agree with Mr Catania on the fact that the institution of asylum is an essential part of democracy and protection of human rights, in order to ensure that it remains, so it is absolutely necessary to avoid any kind of possible abuse.

To that end, rather than a common asylum system in Europe and rather than building a 'Europe of asylum', to use the words of the European Pact on Asylum and Immigration, adopted by the European Council last October, it would be more desirable to build a 'Europe of rights', which is to say, a Europe that combats the causes behind the increase in the number of refugees as pointed out by the rapporteur, which adopts a stronger international role to resolve conflicts in certain countries, which exerts pressure more decisively so that respect for dignity, human life and fundamental freedoms is guaranteed, wherever that is not yet the case. Combating the effects of these serious violations of rights does not resolve and will never be able to effectively resolve the underlying problem, for which other instruments should be used.

In recent years, the number of refugees in the EU has grown to 12 million, in addition to which there are 26 million internally displaced people.

A common European asylum policy is necessary, as the asylum policies of the 27 EU Member States are too different - which, in practice, means playing with people's futures, and that is preposterous. During the first phase (1999-2005), the EU attempted to harmonise the approach of Member States' policies on the basis of common minimum standards. The second phase has been working on a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted asylum or subsidiary protection.

The report we shall be adopting today welcomes the establishment of a European asylum agency but regrets the slow progress on implementing the second phase; for which, of course, the non-entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon is to blame. I support the call for the improvement of the existing legislation with regard to both the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Directive determining the conditions for reception, and the Directive that grants or withdraws refugee status.

The report has my support, as it is important that a standard of protection be introduced for refugees and that all Member States show solidarity in shouldering their responsibility and cooperating purposefully.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Stauner's report on the Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework of the Union's budget. The principles of sound financial management and budgetary transparency are fundamental, not only in order to obtain a positive statement of assurance from the European Court of Auditors, by means of simplifying legislation on controls and the resultant potential reduction in associated costs, but also, in the medium term, in order to monitor more effectively the use of the resources of the citizens of the European Union and, as a result, to enhance the legitimacy of EU action. For this reason, I believe it is fundamental to begin cooperation with the Member States and with independent audit institutions, as, moreover, already pointed out by the rapporteur.

Courts are dealing with international and cross-border evidence law on an increasingly frequent basis. Such cases may relate to Austrians who have accidents in Germany, defective goods or services procured from another Member State, witnesses who live at the other end of the EU or defendants who move abroad. The right to legal redress absolutely must not cease because evidence is located outside the Member State in which the court in question is located. Those on the ground tell us that, just as in the past, there are unsolved questions in connection with the cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters. Since these matters do still require solving, I have voted in favour of this report.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Medina Ortega's report on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. It is clear that, in order to promote efficiency and hence avoid any unnecessary waste of time and money, direct contacts between courts and full cooperation between them should be promoted. Moreover, more use should be made of information technology, in particular, secure e-mail communications and video conferencing, since they are, at the same time, more effective in terms of results and more cost-effective. Lastly, I agree with the rapporteur when he welcomes what is being done in this respect in the context of the e-Justice programme.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Doorn's report on implementation of Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts. I completely agree that it is necessary to urge the Commission to promote national quality assurance structures, in close collaboration with the Member States, which ensure independent and external quality assurance for accountancy firms. Moreover, I feel that it is right and necessary to monitor and report on how far the goals of the Directive have been met, or are expected to be met.

in writing. - British Conservative MEPs are in favour of equality of treatment and access for men and women in all aspects of society, including the performing arts. We have supported this report today on that basis.

However, we wish to record that we disagree with the concept of quotas as implied, for example, in paragraph 12 of the report.

Thank you, Mr President, I voted in favour of the report. A few days after International Women's Day, here we are again in this Chamber discussing social inequality between the two sexes. Even the world of performing arts, as clearly highlighted by the Commission, is not spared these problems.

Throughout the performing arts sector, women are still struggling to achieve a fully developed role, rarely reach positions of senior responsibility in the major cultural institutions, and are often paid less than their male colleagues. In particular, the untypical hours that typify working in the arts make it difficult to reconcile the female roles of worker, wife and mother, often forcing women to choose between career and family.

I would like to conclude, then, by stressing the need to guarantee an equal gender mix in the decision-making and consultative bodies involved in recruitment, promotion, rewards and funding, as well as in the other branches in the sector, in order to introduce statistical monitoring to produce comparative analyses of the working situation faced by women in the various countries of the Union

I voted in favour of the report on equality of treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts because inequalities in career prospects and opportunities between women and men in the performing arts are very much present and persistent. There is also an absolute need to put into practice the democratic notion that 'equal work must be matched by equal pay', which, in the arts as in many other sectors, is still not the case.

in writing. - Performing art has flourished for thousands of years and in every society on Earth. It is therefore questionable as to why the EU feels the need to impose its will on what is otherwise a sector that flourishes precisely because it is largely free of interference from Brussels.

I do not think it is my place as an MEP to tell those involved in the performing arts how they should regulate their own affairs. In fact, I think it is my job to ensure that performing artists and organisations that facilitate performing arts are as free as possible from well-meaning, but misplaced and naïve, initiatives like this one.

I am all in favour of the equal treatment of men and women in the eyes of the law. However, I believe that political pressure should never be allowed to interfere with artistic decisions. We stood firm in this House with regard to the reaction provoked by depictions of the Prophet Mohammed in Danish newspapers. My fear is that by eroding artistic freedoms, even slightly, we are also eroding the values of free speech and expression.

We voted in favour of this report because it underlines the scale and persistence of the inequalities between men and women in the performing arts and their impact on society as a whole. It also emphasises the absolute necessity of promoting and encouraging women's access to all the artistic professions in which they are in the minority.

As is stressed in the report, the percentage of women employed in artistic professions and in the official culture industry is very small. Women are also under-represented in positions of responsibility in cultural institutions and in the academies and universities where some arts are studied.

That is why we agree with many of the proposals presented here, emphasising the need for promotion of women's access to all the artistic professions and other professional activities related to performance in which they are in the minority. Member States also should be encouraged to remove any impediments to women's access to management positions in cultural institutions, as well as in academies and universities.

We also emphasise that discrimination towards women is problematic for the development of the cultural sector because it deprives the sector of talent and ability. We also recognise that talent needs contact with the public in order to be given recognition.

in writing. - (SV) It goes without saying that we in the June List stand for equal treatment, equal pay for equal work and the fundamental principle of the equality of men and women. We have therefore voted in favour of this report.

However, this is a 'yes' vote with a clear proviso. We are opposed to the European Parliament attempting to determine how the individual Member States should, for example, structure their national childcare or apply a quota system.

The present report is a typical example of the meddlesomeness and zeal for regulation that characterise the European Parliament. Instead of acting as a forum for the pressing challenges that require cross-border cooperation, it is continually interfering in issues that are, and should remain, national matters.

in writing. - This report highlights the persistent inequalities in career prospects and opportunities between women and men in the performing arts sector. I support this report which urges Member States to take specific measures to encourage and promote women to further their careers where they are under represented.

in writing. - I believe that gender inequality should be phased out of our lives. In today's civilised world, the disparity between men and women, and majorities and minorities, must be done away with. The European Parliament must observe its past legislation and uphold the values of universal solidarity. There must be a gender mix in the decision-making process for the performing arts and various other areas. In order to find true talent, the most capable performers and deserving applicants, women must be given equal status with men in the same fields. Where men are favoured over women, or vice versa, there must be serious corrections and viable protection to end this inconsistency. Depriving a group on the basis of sex or any other characteristic will not be tolerated by the EU, and it is our duty to ensure this applies across the field of the performing arts (and others areas as well). For this reason, it is my duty and that of the PPE-DE Party to give a vote of confidence to any legislation that supports equality, corrects wrongdoings, and better preserves cohesion between members of the opposite sex.

I voted for this report and Mrs Gibault and I cooperated very well. We must not forget that women in the performing arts in general are still under-represented, and specifically in management positions in this area. We must not forget either that we are talking about a sensitive area with a large multiplier effect, conveying a powerful message to its audience and society. We do not have sufficient nurseries and crèches. There is also the fact that working hours in the performing arts are long and non-standard. If these aspects are improved, the objective proposed in the report of having a representation level of 30% in the arts can be achieved.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Gibault's report on equality of treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts. I agree with the aims of Mrs Gibault's report: to recognise the way in which identities are constructed socially and culturally in the performing arts and to propose specific solutions which could correct the imbalances associated with existing unequal situations. All available skills sources should be used for the good health of the sector as well as for the personal development of men and women. Lastly, I feel that it is imperative to find solutions very quickly for opening crèches in cultural undertakings with hours adapted to rehearsal and performance times.

Mr President, I support Mr Schwab's report on CO2 emissions and improving road safety. It is essential that the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions do not undermine other equally important aspects of car design, and do not negatively affect road safety. I believe that stimulating and investing in the development of an innovative European motor industry will effectively enable us to protect jobs in this sector, which has been worst hit by the financial crisis.

Now there are new technologies to fundamentally improve transport safety (e.g. electronic stability control systems) or to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions (e.g. low rolling resistance tyres), if such technologies are fitted as standard in new motor vehicles.

in writing. - MEP Schwab has proposed a report which aims to increase car safety through the introduction of increased safety measures requirements for car manufacturers. All new vehicles manufactured in the Union will be subject to compliance with the technical requirements and measures which will reduce their environmental impact, decrease associated noise pollution and increase their road safety. The regulation combines advances in European manufacturing and technology and increased levels of safety protection that the European consumer can expect. These innovations will help to reduce CO2 emissions, fuel consumption and noise pollution.

I am delighted to support this report which will benefit us all.

I have voted in favour of this report, as consumers need and want safer and more environmentally-friendly vehicles. As for car safety, I particularly welcome the mandatory fitting of ESP (electronic stability systems) in passenger cars from as early as those built in 2011.

As far as tyres are concerned, I believe the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions through the use of better tyres with less rolling resistance, as well as the introduction of electronic tyre pressure monitoring systems, to be worthwhile. The reduction of CO2 emissions must not, however, be at the expense of the safety of the tyres, which is to say, their wet grip.

I am also pleased that existing stocks will not - as originally planned - have to be taken off the market within 12 months, but instead only 30 months after the introduction of a new standard. This avoids the need for tyre stocks to be destroyed, which would cause additional damage to the environment. Furthermore, we are allowing our supply businesses, hard hit, as they have been, by the economic crisis, a sufficient transitional period to get to grips with the high level of requirements made of them.

Any citizen on the planet who is aware of the magnitude assumed by global warming can act to halt the progress of this process endangering Earth. In the case of drivers and the vehicles which they drive, these efforts are set out in the report voted on today.

'Green driving' means reducing fuel consumption. The EU is advocating a possible reduction in these costs of EUR 20 billion by 2010. It is also advocating a possible reduction in CO2 emissions of 50 million tonnes. It goes without saying that the effects of these measures will only be evident in the long term. However, it is helpful that their implementation is coming into force one year ahead of the Commission's proposal.

in writing. - I support this regulation which will make cars and roads safer by bringing in new technologies. These include tyre pressure monitoring systems, wet grip requirements and lane departure warning systems. This report reduces CO2 emissions through new standards which tyres must reach, which will improve fuel efficiency and cut fuel bills.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Schwab's report on type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles. The aim of the report, which is excellent, is to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market while, at the same time, providing for a higher level of safety and environmental protection. These type-approval requirements have been harmonised at Community level in order to avoid differing systems from one Member State to another, and to ensure a high level of road safety and environmental protection throughout the Community. I therefore fully agree with Mr Schwab, since the proposed Regulation aims to significantly simplify the type-approval legislation in the field of motor vehicle safety and tyres with one Council and Parliament Regulation.

in writing. - (SV) The original IPPC Directive, along with the other six directives, has not been fully implemented in the EU Member States and therefore, these directives do not fulfil their purpose. It was therefore decided to recast these directives and we have voted on them in Parliament today. We Swedish Social Democrats are in favour of a recast and we can see that it contains certain improvements on the current rules. However, we chose to vote against the directive in the final vote, as we believe that some of the amendments that were voted through will make the directive considerably less good than the Commission's original proposal. For example, we were unable to accept additional exemptions for large combustion plants.

Another reason why we felt compelled to vote 'no' is the fact that we are missing an opportunity with this directive to seriously reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. By voting down the amendments that our delegation was involved in tabling, advocating limit values for carbon dioxide emissions for new large electricity generation plants, this House has shown that it does not take the work of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases seriously. We cannot support such a proposal.

in writing. - We strongly support the original IPPC Directive. Industrial activities covered by existing Directives emit 55% of the EU's CO2 emissions, 83% of SO2 and 34% of NOx. Under the current directive, permits are issued by the Environment Protection Agency which require industrial plants to apply 'Best Available Techniques'.

During the vote this morning, there were a number of problematic amendments regarding the new IPPC proposal.

1. Minimum Requirements. Ireland is against the minimum requirements amendment, as this will penalise Irish industry and the work recently undertaken to achieve the status of the current directive. Resources would be better spent enforcing the directive in those Member States which are non compliant.

2. Poultry and Manure and Slurry. There were a number of amendments seeking to bring more poultry and manure spreading within the scope. I have voted against this amendment to avoid double regulation, as the Nitrates Directive suffices on manure and slurry. On poultry, the IPPC already controls 40 000 poultry places. An amendment would reduce the threshold values from 40 000 to 30 000 for laying hens, 24 000 for ducks and 11 500 for turkeys. There is nothing stated in the impact assessment about how these numbers came about and on what scientific basis they were established.

2. Instalments. I also voted in favour of flexibility for instalments

in writing. - (DA) The Danish Liberal Party's MEPs, Anne E. Jensen, Karin Riis-Jørgensen and Niels Busk, have voted in favour of Amendment 96, proposed by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, to delete Article 16, paragraph 4, because the spreading of livestock manure is contrary to the objective of IPPC, which is to combat emissions from large industrial installations. Moreover, this matter is already included under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Nitrate Directive (91/676/EEC).

in writing. - The initial provisions of this report would have left National Health Service hospitals in my region of north-east England and elsewhere in the UK facing massively increased costs for their heating boilers.

NHS hospitals need to have a significant amount of spare boiler capacity to cope with emergencies and in case there are technical failures. The directive would have assessed the hospitals' boilers on the basis of their potential emissions, rather than their actual emissions - thus causing them to incur substantial costs to obtain a permit.

I supported the tabling of amendments to exempt part-time stand-by boilers from the scope of the directive.

Notwithstanding these concerns, we must act in concert to address the common threat of climate change and environmental pollution.

This proposal for a directive seeks to revise and bring together, in a single text, seven separate directives on industrial emissions.

The Commission's proposal states that it provides for an integrated approach with the aim of ensuring that environmental aspects are taken into account, in the most comprehensive and balanced way possible, when permits are issued for installations. The aim is to impose effective limits on emissions through the employment of best available techniques (BATs), which must be applied more consistently than to date.

As the report states, this legislative process could have implications for 52 000 industrial plants in Europe. That is why we support some proposed derogations for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which should not be subject to the same obligations as large industrial units. However, we support greater intervention in industrial units that have incinerators and co-incinerators and more inspection than is being proposed by the European Commission.

The amended text attaches some value to public consultation and the role of environmental NGOs, takes into account the interests of micro-enterprises and SMEs and reclaims some decision-making power from the European Commission. For these reasons, in the end, we voted for the proposal, in the hope that in Portugal, there will be more government intervention in supporting and monitoring air quality.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against Mr Krahmer's report on industrial emissions. I do not agree that competent local authorities should have to lay down measures to limit emissions for individual installations, and hence attain an emission level which, on average, meets the requirements laid down in the BAT reference documents, with some leeway so that proper account can be taken of local circumstances. This task should be wholly assigned to a Community authority, not a local or national one. The specific characteristics of a region must not be a discriminating factor in this field, since different minimum thresholds result in extremely variable costs and returns, which then inevitably affect the true competitiveness of businesses.

The recently adopted climate and energy package demands decisive action on our part to meet its targets.

Previous efforts by the EU to reduce industrial emissions have been hampered by lack of cohesion and coordination, and by high levels of disparity. I therefore warmly support the Commission's initiative and the rapporteur's suggestion. Replacing numerous directives on industrial emissions with a single, coherent act is definitely a step in the right direction. I am also prepared to support any initiatives aimed at cutting red tape, increasing the flexibility of regulations regarding the inspection of installations and increasing transparency. I fully support the rapporteur's proposal to increase the role of the European Parliament in working on future regulatory changes.

The proposal for a directive by the European Commission on industrial emissions and the amendments by the European Parliament reveal, once again, that the real objective of the 'green economy' is not to protect the environment, but to safeguard the profits of capital. The pronouncements by the European Commission about limiting emissions of greenhouse gases are misleading and disorientating.

This directive concerns more than 52 000 industrial plants which account for a large proportion of emissions in the Member States of the EU and are even jointly responsible for the failure to achieve the targets set by the European Commission itself for reducing atmospheric pollution.

The most important amendments by the European Parliament considerably limit the scope of the directive and introduce elements of ambiguity and uncertainty which always operate for the benefit of the plutocracy and strengthen the unaccountability of capital. At the same time, industrialists themselves are reduced to a decisive factor in defining emission levels, which will be set in accordance with their needs and priorities, in other words, on the basis of the profit motive.

The impasse in environmental protection is being included in the anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist fight by the workers against the economic sovereignty of the monopolies and their political power and against the EU and the parties which support the European one-way street.

in writing. - The Commission's proposal on a Statute for a European private company allows an opportunity for non-serious companies to circumvent the rules on worker participation. If the private European company has its registered office in a Member State with low or no workers' participation and performs its activities in another Member State with high participation, the company can circumvent the rules. The Socialist Group in the Parliament has however, together with the ETUC, reached a compromise which improves the Commission's proposal substantially. The compromise now states that when the companies have a certain quota of their employees in another Member State with higher worker participation compared to the Member State where the company has its headquarters, the more favourable rules for worker participation will apply. Although the compromise is far better than the original proposal, we have not succeeded fully. The levels to trigger worker participation are still high compared to the rules in some Member States and there are also problems with the definition of what is regarded as being a higher level of worker participation. We - the Danish and the Swedish delegations in the Socialist Group - have therefore decided to abstain our votes in the final vote.

This afternoon, we voted on the Statute for a European private company. In the end, I voted against the proposal, for the following reasons. Firstly, I take the view that this proposal increases the legal uncertainty in the European Union. The relationship between the national private company and the European private company, between the applicable national law and the text of the regulation, is not made sufficiently clear. How is circumvention of useful national legislation to be prevented? How does the proposal accord with consumer protection?

No satisfactory answers are provided to such questions. We also voted on another report by Mr Lehne today, in which he makes recommendations for improving the cross-border transfer of company registered offices. I actually think this a much better idea than the European private company. If the Commission were to endeavour to facilitate the cross-border transfer of company registered offices, reducing red tape, the whole proposal for the European private company would be redundant.

The significant differences between the legal systems of Member States often force companies that want to begin operating abroad into very costly processes. This is particularly true for SMEs, which have smaller structures.

With the creation of this statute, another step is taken towards the lifting of these obstacles, especially in a sector that is fundamental to the European economy.

The creation of the 'European private company' allows SMEs to establish their subsidiaries using the same statute, regardless of where they have their head office. They will be able to do business just as easily abroad as in their own country.

The time and money saved by SMEs through this measure, resulting from the Small Business Act, point out a clear course for future European business policy.

For these reasons, Members representing the Portuguese Social Democratic Party are supporting the report.

in writing. - Mr Lehne has proposed an own-initiative report proposing a Council Regulation that aims to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to facilitate cross-border transfers within the Community of the registered office of a company formed in a Member State of the Community. The aim is laudable. However, we must be cautious that this facility is not abused to undermine national company law while ensuring that the Statute (Societas Privata Europea) represents a viable alternative for businesses.

There are many proposals among the numerous amendments which remain highly contentious, including references to minimum capital, checks on registration, references to national law, cross-border components and employee participation. Certain amendments proposed by the ECON committee have called for uniformity in certain areas by 2010, including tax, effectively restricting the application of national law.

While accepting in principle the proposal of a European company operating according to the same principles EU-wide, the scope of this proposal should not extend to restricting national taxation decisions, which remain firmly the preserve of individual Member States.

in writing. - (SV) I voted against in the final vote with regard to the Statute for a European private company (SPE). The basic idea of introducing a common European company form for private companies is a very good one. It is a reform that is definitely needed.

The Commission's proposal is very poor. The boundary between when national law is to be applied as opposed to the statute for a European private company is very unclear. A large proportion of companies' rules and regulations are to be dealt with in their articles of association. Even if this may be a positive step for some companies, some issues are such that they must be clearly specified in the statute: for example, the boundary between the competence of the company as an entity and protection of minority shareholders. Moreover, the degree of employee representation within management is poor.

The SPE statute has been significantly improved during the Council's ongoing negotiations, and I am still hoping that the final result will be good. However, it is not that proposal that we are to adopt a position on today. It is the Commission's proposal, as amended by Mr Lehne, and that makes my decision quite simple: the lack of clarity and the problems contained in this proposal overshadow the positive aspects of the reform, and there is an imminent risk of us having a statute that will run counter to its purpose. Furthermore, in view of the positive progress that the Council has already made, support for this report would throw a spanner in the works with regard to the Council's work.

It is not the Council's proposal that we are voting on, it is essentially the Commission's proposal. I have therefore chosen to vote against it.

in writing. - This initiative creates a new European legal form intended to enhance the competitiveness of SMEs by facilitating their establishment and operation in the Single Market. I support the report which will lead to greater protection for workers and the information they are provided with by their company.

The German Social Democratic (SPD) delegation has voted in favour of the option of establishing a European private company. We would like to issue the following explanation, however.

Worker participation is a cornerstone of a democratic and social Europe. For that reason, the right to information, consultation and worker participation, without restrictions, must take the same form as in the existing rules on the European company (Societas Europae - SE) and the European cooperative society (Societas Cooperativa Europaea - SCE).

The version of a European private company now agreed represents an improvement on the Commission's proposal in this regard - which is the reason we have voted in favour - but fails the objective of adapting to the existing rules. The risk of circumventing workers' rights to participation has not been completely averted.

The process is not yet over. We call upon the Council of Ministers to improve the proposal in the following ways:

the addition of clear references to the Directive on a European company (SE), in particular, to its standard rules in respect of the election of members to the administrative or supervisory board,

the simplification of the impracticable provision of Article 34; the significant lowering of the thresholds,

the stipulation that a European private company really is active across borders.

We call on the Commission to finally get the 14th Directive on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a limited company moving, as the rights of worker participation in the cross-border transfer of registered offices can only sensibly be ensured by a Europe-wide directive on worker participation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Lehne's proposal for a Council regulation on the Statute for a European private company. I support the work he has done to lay down autonomous rules on points that are crucial for the 'daily life' of the SPE, such as minimum capital, employee participation and checks on registration. Lastly, as far as references to national laws are concerned, I believe that the aim of the regulation on SPEs, namely to create a uniform form of undertaking throughout the Community, is thoroughly welcome and worthwhile.

At a time of a raging economic crisis, developing the SME sector is a highly desirable thing. We must strive to raise the administrative and legal barriers that are preventing anyone who wants to from starting up in business. Procedural requirements, red tape and high costs of registration should not get in the way of people who want to develop their business idea. New firms mean new workplaces, and hence economic recovery.

The European Union consists of 27 Member States with different legal systems and different systems for setting up companies. Creating an EU-wide form of business establishment - the European private company - will definitely make life easier for anybody who wants to start up in business, and will help to make the principle of the free movement of capital more effective.

Uniform requirements on establishing and carrying on an activity, a low share capital requirement and simplified registration methods will definitely make the European private company a success. It will provide an attractive alternative to national regulations. It will be fast, cheap and free of unnecessary formalities, but ensure a proper degree of legal certainty.

in writing. - (SV) This report calls for yet more financial resources for area after area within the EU, while in the Member States, savings need to be made in areas such as healthcare, schools and social care.

Furthermore, several areas indicated in the report, such as the financial crisis, climate change and energy policy, are associated with huge costs that are completely out of proportion to the EU's budget. These are matters that need to be dealt with in the individual Member States under their domestic political processes, which will result in a democratic basis for the sacrifices that need to be made.

We have therefore chosen to vote against this report on the Commission's budget for 2010.

Faced with the worsening economic and social situation in various Member States, to date the EU has not taken any effective initiative that has not been aimed at protecting financial capital.

We urgently need to adopt immediate Community measures which will help to effectively respond to the needs of workers, the productive sector, and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, by mobilising the necessary financial resources.

However, the EU has debated and adopted a budget for 2009 as if nothing were happening - a Community budget which, in relative terms, is the lowest since Portugal's accession to the EEC - once again showing its class nature.

Faced with evidence of the depth of the capitalist crisis (in its policies), the EP has failed to conceal the true situation. The resolution now adopted therefore timidly says that the Community budget for 2010 must be closer to the limits set out in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-2013 - which, in addition to being clearly inadequate, is not even observed - and also recognises that the category of expenditure is 'insufficient'.

As we are 'once bitten, twice shy', we hope that this proclaimed concern and intent are not merely short-lived wishes, bearing in mind the forthcoming European Parliament elections, and that this is not, as always, simply a case of good intentions.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having carefully read Mr Surján's work on the Guidelines for the Budget 2010 procedure, I decided to vote against the report. I do not believe that the European Parliament's credibility comes from promotion or from establishing links to budget items. In this way, the real motivations prompting the European institutions to act are lost sight of. Moreover, while I agree with the principle of maximum transparency, I believe that the funds to be allocated to the various sectors should be shared out without any discrimination in terms of efficiency or results. Sectors that have performed poorly must also be subsidised. In fact, perhaps they are the ones that are most in need of Community institutional support.

in writing. - (SV) At a time when cuts are being made in healthcare, schools and social care within the public sector, savings should also be made within the EU institutions. We believe that the budget should most definitely be cut for the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. The EU's taxpayers would not notice any difference if a strict savings plan were to be imposed on these two institutions.

We are also opposed to the increase in staffing levels in the political groups in the European Parliament. This is not a necessary cost given the current situation.

Opening a museum of European history, as the Bureau of the European Parliament has decided to do, is also a bad idea. Experience shows that such a museum will be designed as propaganda for an increasingly federal EU.

We have therefore chosen to vote against this report concerning, among other things, the European Parliament's budget for 2010.

We welcome the fact that linguistic issues are now regarded by the EP as a 'fundamental principle' in its priorities for the Community budget for 2010:

'Cannot stress enough the fundamental principle that all Members should be equally provided with full and quality services allowing them to work and express themselves and to receive documents in their native language ...';

'Considers that 2010 should be a year when the utmost effort must be made so that Members of all nationalities and languages are treated equally in terms of their possibility to carry out their duties and all political activity incumbent upon them in their own language if they so choose';

'stresses, ..., the principle of democratic legitimacy through all its composite Members and their right to full multilingualism; therefore considers that this budget can and should be used to work towards this goal ...'

However, we cannot forget that the proposals presented on the budget by the MEPs from the Portuguese Communist Party - which called for all the official languages of the EU to be available at meetings (both those held within the Community institutions and external meetings held as part of Parliament's work) - have successively been rejected over the years.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not endorse Mr Maňka's report on the guidelines for the 2010 budget procedure, and I therefore voted against it. In point 5 of the motion for a resolution, in fact, mention is made of a complete adaptation in view of Croatia's accession to the European Union. However, as is written in the resolution, in situations such as these, with 27 Member States and one potential entrant, it should be the newest arrival that adapts, not the rest of the countries. Furthermore, I do not feel able to support the extension for a second year of the pilot programme on enhanced cooperation between the EU's Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, since I do not consider it worthwhile or effective.

in writing. - This report addresses significant weaknesses in the current regulatory framework. In particular, I have been concerned about the lack of accountability of EU-based companies trading in the UK which are able to advertise in the UK, but do not need to apply for a licence. Indeed, the UK vice tax has only encouraged this worrying pattern of companies establishing themselves overseas and thus avoiding the need to apply for a UK licence. I therefore welcome this report, which should go some way to tackling this problem.

in writing. - Consumer protection is of paramount importance to all Member States. It is also an area in which Member States can cooperate to ensure protection for consumers availing of cross-border services. Mrs Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling is an example of how a pragmatic, cooperative approach from Member States can result in an approach that has consumer protection at its core.

The report recognises that the integrity of online gambling is best dealt with by recognising the principle of subsidiarity in this area and allowing Member States to regulate the industry themselves. However, it calls for cooperation and coordination on combating fraud and crime and addressing social and public order problems such as addiction and personal data protection.

Central to the report is the safeguarding of the integrity of sports and sporting events. It is absolutely essential that sport is first and foremost recognised for its social, entertainment and health values and that these values are in no way threatened or manipulated for financial gain. Online gambling is enjoyed by many European citizens. We must ensure that these citizens are protected and I believe that Mrs Schaldemose's report is an important step in that regard.

in writing. - I support a more open gaming environment in Europe. For too long now, national monopolies controlled by governments have prevented new entrants from offering gaming services in Europe.

Online gambling offers a new way for consumers to enjoy their gaming experience. I have no problem with responsible gamblers participating in online gaming activity offered by responsible operators. This report seeks to ensure a high level of consumer protection and to ensure a fair and transparent gaming environment in cyberspace. It is also important in my view to take all reasonable steps to prohibit minors from gaming online.

Of course, there are concerns about the social effects of gambling and these are concerns that I share. However, I think that in the past, far too much responsibility has been put on gaming companies and not enough on individuals. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not to gamble is a personal decision and the individual must be responsible for the consequences.

Mr President, I am very satisfied with the result of the vote on Mrs Schaldemose's report on online gambling. It shows that the vast majority of Members of Parliament consider gambling to be an economic activity of a very special nature, to which the rules of the internal market cannot be applied exclusively.

The social impact of gambling and its effect on health, as well as the risks of crime associated with it and its special cultural aspects, must all be taken into account. That also applies to the many studies that show that the Internet as a tool multiplies these risks. Obviously, no one single authority alone could control online gambling throughout the whole of Europe.

Mrs Schaldemose's report also mentions the positive effects of gambling, which I think it is very important to preserve. In many countries in Europe, the proceeds from these games amount to significant sums of money that go, for example, to the arts, science, youth work and hospitals. Thousands of NGOs benefit from the funding that they provide, besides which gambling games are the biggest source of income for EU-wide sports organisations and, in particular, grassroots sports activities.

The fact that a majority in Parliament are keen to preserve the current national laws on gambling policy and do not simply want to replace them with a code of practice, which would afford consumers far less protection, does not mean that the market should not be liberalised. It simply means that liberalisation has to be on the Member State's own terms. Furthermore, if there is a desire to maintain national monopolies, the system must be non-discriminatory and legally justifiable.

in writing. - I voted against the report on the integrity of online gambling as I believe the alternative motion, which was rejected by the plenary, would have better reflected the up-to-date position in the online gambling sector.

I share concerns about citizens being ripped off and the worries about gambling addiction, but note that gambling is controlled in the majority of Member States in order to protect citizens against gambling addiction and fraud and to prevent money laundering.

We need to prevent problem gambling and under-age gambling, in addition to fighting fraud and crime. I believe that the alternative resolution would have addressed those concerns more effectively.

Consumer protection is vitally important to all the Member States. This is also an area where cooperation between Member States is desperately needed, particularly from the point of view of cross-border services. This report on online gambling shows that a pragmatic approach, based on cooperation, can ensure that consumer protection is at the heart of European Union policies.

This report recognises that the best approach for dealing with gambling matters on the Internet is to recognise the principle of subsidiarity in this sector and to leave regulatory matters to each individual Member State. That said, the report recognises that it is through cooperation and coordination that European Union Member States will best be able to combat fraud, crimes and social problems.

At the heart of the report is the importance of sport and the need to preserve its integrity and honesty. The social and cultural value of sporting matters must be protected and it must be ensured that sport is not mismanaged for the sake of money or for other similar reasons. Many people in the European Union enjoy online gambling. We must ensure that these people are safe from harm on line.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling. I am firmly convinced that in this sector, which, incidentally, generates a very important source of income for sports organisations, there must be complete transparency that safeguards public and consumer interests. Lastly, I feel that uniform legislation, and not diverse legislation such as that currently in force, can be very helpful in order to avoid online gambling being signalled as a social problem.

in writing. - Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the votes on Christel Schaldemose's report on the integrity of online gambling. However, I would like to use this opportunity to agree with the rapporteur, as the report points out several important and dangerous aspects concerning online gambling. In 2004, online gambling accounted for roughly 5% of the total gambling market in the EU and the numbers have been increasing rapidly over the past few years.

It is important to understand that different illegal activities such as credit card fraud, minors having access to gambling, match fixing, etc. are currently inevitable parts of online gambling. Also, the number of people addicted to gambling is likely to rise, as for many, online gambling is very convenient.

The impact of online gambling, as the rapporteur points out correctly, has not yet been examined in depth. Therefore, in order to protect citizens, it is crucially important that all Member States perform intensive research on the effects of online gambling as well as improve the monitoring and regulation of gambling markets.

in writing. - The Schaldemose report on the integrity of online gambling sets out Member States' responsibilities in regulating their gambling markets so as to protect vulnerable consumers, especially children, to tackle crime and to protect sporting events from risks such as match-fixing.

Gambling was removed from the Services Directive by MEPs on account of its special status, and there is clearly no willingness to create EU-level legislation. Labour MEPs therefore strongly support the report's call for Member States to regulate their gambling markets to protect consumers. The report also makes clear that such regulation must be proportionate and non-discriminatory, as set out in the EU Treaties.

As such, Labour MEPs believe that the UK Gambling Act represents Treaty-compliant legislation that aims to ensure fair and open access to gambling services, while preventing crime and protecting children and the vulnerable. A number of Member States are currently reviewing their legislation on gambling to ensure it is compliant with the EU Treaties.

Labour MEPs emphasise that authorities across the EU must remain vigilant and cooperate against all risks of crime, match-fixing, and threats to young people and the vulnerable from all forms of gambling. Labour MEPs welcome continued efforts by reputable operators of online gambling services to take action to ensure such concerns are met.

The operation of gambling and betting is not the same as other economic activities, as some in this House believe. In its case law, the European Court of Justice has confirmed that it is Member States themselves who determine what level of protection they consider appropriate to protect their citizens against the hazards associated with gambling.

The subsidiarity applicable here means that Member States must be able to control and to regulate their gambling markets in accordance with their traditions and cultures in order to protect consumers against the hazards of addiction, fraud and money laundering. In view of the additional risks involved in online gambling, I am convinced that national legislation cannot be replaced by pan-European self-regulation of the gambling industry.

Therefore, I join the substantial majority of my colleagues on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection who believe that a purely internal market approach to gambling is not applicable. I have therefore chosen to wholeheartedly endorse the Schaldemose report.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Maria Petre's report on ensuring food quality. I would, however, like to express my concern that the average consumer is unaware of the difference between protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI). I believe that conducting an information campaign on this issue is essential.

Member States need to promote those quality assurance systems which are already well known to European consumers. These systems should not be made uniform or merged into one. In order to ensure minimum standards for quality certification in the Community, they must be assessed and recognised on a European scale. Therefore, the Commission must have an office which would be responsible for approving and allowing the use of these systems on a European scale and which would ensure uniform and effective control at European and national levels.

I voted for this report as I agree with the introduction of a mandatory indication of the place of production of primary products based on a country of origin label, reflecting consumer desire to know more about the origins of the product they are buying. A system of this kind should also be applied to processed food products, indicating the origin of the main ingredients and raw materials, and specifying their place of origin as well as the place of final processing.

in writing. - (DA) The Danish Liberal Party's MEPs, Anne E. Jensen, Karin Riis-Jørgensen and Niels Busk, have voted in favour of Mrs Petre's own-initiative report on ensuring food quality, having weighed up the pros and cons and because there is only an overall vote. We feel able to support most of what is contained in the report, although there are also several things that we do not fully support.

in writing. - I was disappointed to have to abstain on this report, which should have followed up on the Commission's Green Paper in looking at how farmers across Europe get the maximum benefit in the marketplace from the high standard of their produce. It does focus on important issues such as country of origin labelling, developing the organic market, where European products are the finest in the world, and exploiting the strengths of farming in Europe to give our farmers an advantage when taking their products to market - and this part is welcome.

Unfortunately, however, the report has been hijacked by the protectionist elements in the Committee on Agriculture, and particularly by those who seek to justify massive market-distorting CAP subsidies and who want to make it harder for produce from third world countries to be imported to the EU.

Allow me to congratulate my colleague, Mrs Petre, for this excellent report.

There are a few points which we need to bear in mind when we are talking about European product quality:

1. Implementation of 'qualified market access' offers a solution for guaranteeing that the products available to European consumers, whether produced domestically or imported, meet the same standards.

2. The costs incurred by European producers in guaranteeing food safety and demands linked to cross-compliance, which should be covered by CAP funds.

3. The promotion of specifically European agricultural and food products. As I also requested in the report on the amendment of Regulation No 3/2008, the European Union's cofinancing rate must be increased. At the same time, however, we need to simplify the administrative procedures for the system of Traditional Speciality Guaranteed and offer better protection for products with a geographical indication or designation of origin.

I hope that the recommendations we are going to adopt will be implemented as soon as possible by the European Commission and Member States because we cannot afford to waste time in such circumstances when European citizens are being hit by the effects of an extremely serious economic recession.

Despite its good intentions, the report continues and even extends the policies which are at the root of problems experienced by many small producers, particularly in Portugal. Invoking what they call 'promoting the quality of European agricultural products', they increase production costs for those who are already having difficulty keeping themselves in production. This is especially true for small producers, as is the case for many small cheese dairies producing Serra da Estrela cheese of undeniable quality. It is unacceptable that producers should have to meet new requirements in order to continue producing, without the financial compensation that is due to them, whilst also having to support the costs of the 'official control' requirements. Contrary to the claims made, production of real quality is at serious risk of disappearing.

Applying harmonised production and marketing standards to both small producers and agro-industry is unacceptable. The application of these standards is destroying the diversity, in terms of production and of culture, of countries like Portugal. It is important to reverse this trend and promote production and consumption at the local level. Agriculture must be considered a sensitive activity, incompatible with this model of commercial liberalisation that is environmentally unsustainable and poses enormous risks to human health.

I agree with the report as I consider the reduction of bureaucracy and of the complexity of the standards system to be essential. That way, regulation and quality control for agricultural products will become easier.

The result of this simplification would be a reduction in administrative costs for public entities.

I also welcome the special attention given to designations of origin and the call on the Commission to ensure that this issue is included on the World Trade Organisation's agenda.

We cannot but endorse the intentions behind this report: to guarantee the quality of European food products, the competitiveness of producers, simple but comprehensive information for consumers regarding the origin of products, compliance with designations of origin and quality labels, a better definition of traditional or organic products, and so on.

The rapporteur is quite right to stress that we need to stipulate that agricultural and food products imported into Europe must meet the same standards as are required of European producers, which is unfortunately not always the case at present. He is also quite right in his wish to implement conditional access to our markets.

There are, however, still some problems that need to be solved, including that of unfair intra-Community competition, where one Member State lays down stricter standards than are provided for at Community level, primarily for reasons of public health or environmental protection. In such cases, the State must, whether you like it or not, be able to apply the same rules as you are calling for at WTO level.

Another problematic aspect is consistency with this Parliament's environmental concerns - we should be concentrating on reducing food miles (eating locally produced, seasonal products) rather than on a necessarily imperfect adaptation to the global market.

in writing. - (SV) This report, which does not form part of any legislative process, recommends a number of costly proposals, such as an EU agency for product quality and new sales promotion and sales supporting measures within agriculture. We would also like to point out that this report contains wordings that could lead to a more protectionist policy for agricultural goods on the part of the EU.

As usual, the June List observes that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU's agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of heavy subsidies to various groups within agriculture.

In the vote, I was in favour of Maria Petre's report on ensuring food quality. The issue of harmonising and mutually recognising standards with regard to food is very important for ensuring human health. Awareness of the relationship between the incidence of various diseases and the quality of food consumed is becoming increasingly common today. Only, the term 'healthy food' does itself appear to be paradoxical. Can anything that is not healthy to humans be described as 'food'? The quality of food products has a fundamental significance to the safety of food for our citizens. These products must meet clearly-defined criteria based on current knowledge and the principles of hygiene, and these criteria should also contribute towards protecting the environment and respect the principles of the proper treatment of animals for slaughter. Food products must also be properly packed, transported and stored.

To ensure good food quality, consumers must also be given complete information on the products they buy, the ingredients, any genetic modifications, the place of manufacture, the storage conditions, how to prepare it and the use by date. The rapporteur favours the introduction of a European service responsible for certification and food quality at Commission level to ensure that minimum certification requirements are met. This would provide a uniform system of control at EU and Member State level. On the basis of an earlier resolution, the report also favours the introduction of a special quality mark for European products.

The global financial and food crisis means that people are saving on consumption, and that means a rise in market share for discounters. In addition, we are laying down restrictive production regulations for our domestic food producers and promoting quality seals and similar schemes. At the same time, we are importing products that do not meet domestic quality standards and for which compliance with such standards cannot be checked. This means that domestic farmers find themselves severely squeezed and we must ensure that, especially in this difficult situation, the rate of farms going under does not escalate and that we do not lose our capability, across the EU, of self-sufficiency in food production.

People who are prepared to pay for the quality of their food can all too easily lose their ability to keep on top of what is what amongst the jumble of quality seals and symbols - not everything that is labelled as 'organic' is produced in the domestic market and not everywhere where a particular country is given as the country of origin do all the ingredients actually come from that country. There is some playing fast and loose here, and food scandals and labelling scams are repeatedly being uncovered. Ultimately, consumers have to be able to rely on labelling. This initiative appears to be taking us in that direction, and that is why I have voted for it.

The report which my colleague, Maria Petre, presented to us today contains a series of recommendations which I confidently support. These range from simplifying the administration involved in guaranteeing quality standards and reducing the financial burdens on producers to supporting traditional products, as well as those with a designation of origin or geographical indication.

At a time when we are facing a serious economic crisis, it is our duty to take measures to support European farmers and processors and ensure that consumers have access to the best products at the most favourable prices.

I believe that we must ensure that we provide consumers with correct information about the origin of products in order to support European agriculture. However, we must not confuse these provisions relating to a European quality mark with protectionism aimed at blocking access to the Community market. I rather think that the purpose of introducing this mark must be to promote European products and the benefits which they enjoy over those from third countries and to provide European consumers with better information. At the same time, a system recognising the origin of products will help reduce fears about 'contaminated products'.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Petre's report on ensuring food quality and harmonisation of the relevant standards. I believe that the subject is extremely important, since food quality has an ever-increasing effect on the quality of life of European citizens. Indeed, the EU needs to insist that all food products comply with its production standards, especially as regards health and safety. In addition, the Union must ensure a level playing field between locally produced and third country products. Lastly, I share the rapporteur's opinion when she states that, with regard to PGIs (protected geographical indications), PDOs (protected designations of origin) and GTSs (guaranteed traditional specialities), Community technical assistance should be provided for the implementation of the above systems in the Member States and the related evaluation of the products concerned.

in writing. - (SV) I chose not to support Mrs Petre's report on promoting and increasing the labelling of food. The report contained good proposals with regard to the simplification of the rules and shorter handling times. However, these were, in my opinion, outweighed by protectionist wordings on conditional market access and the desire to set up a supranational authority for product quality.

When food is produced on the basis of the profit criterion rather than to satisfy grassroots requirements and the production and sale of food are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and are determined by food multinationals and cartels (choices which characterise the policy of the EU and of the governments of the Member States), then food can be neither cheap nor of good quality.

The supposed return to quality food is not intended to increase farmers' incomes or satisfy grassroots requirements. It is intended to increase the competitiveness and profits of the multinationals, to increase the exploitation of rural manpower, to concentrate land ownership even further and to control production.

The introduction and cultivation of GMOs and the series of food scandals show that the quality and safety of food in the EU are subordinate to the interests of big business.

The classification of food on the basis of quality is food differentiation on the basis of class in keeping with the market rationale' first-class food for high incomes and second-class food for working class families.

Farmers of small and medium-sized holdings have every interest in opposing the CAP and the EU and their being sold off to big business, as well as in joining the Greek Communist Party and the Workers' Rally, the workers and the self-employed in the social alliance, to overturn the sovereignty and power of the monopolies.

Updating the Competition Policy is a particularly important factor in the preparation of the new security structure and operation of the EU competition policy. The essential elements of this process are cooperation between national competition institutions and coordination through the European Competition Network. The European Parliament has expressed serious concern that without an effective ECN, updating the policy would, in essence, really only be a renationalisation of the competition policy, and that would obviously undermine the idea of assuring uniform competition policy throughout the EU. Based on the criteria of flexibility and pragmatism, the 2006 and 2007 reports give a favourable evaluation of the effectiveness and development of the ECN's work. The efforts to fund training and judicial cooperation between state judges to interpret EU competition law and ensure its implementation are also welcome.

in writing. - This report highlights the importance of the free trade and fair competition principle and affirms the importance of what was signed in the Treaty of Rome. We must ensure effective anti-trust measures so that we will be protected against restrictive trade abuse.

We voted against the report because they did not even accept a proposal relating to concern about the abuses of market domination by big business, particularly with regard to the big supermarket chains. These abuse their purchasing power to force down prices paid to suppliers in the European Union and in third countries.

Nor did they demonstrate the necessary determination to investigate the impact that the concentration of the supermarket sector is having on small businesses, suppliers, workers and consumers. In particular, they failed to evaluate the abuses of purchasing power which may follow from such concentration.

The resolution adopted continues the pattern of intervention in defence of competition and against public services. It follows in the footsteps of the notorious Bolkestein Directive, always insisting on the need to comply with the rules of the internal market. Also, regrettably, even as it speaks of the crisis and the difficulties faced by economies, it insists on the Commission being vigilant so that competition is not called into question. In other words, faced with the crisis caused by neoliberal capitalism, the solution is more of the same. That is unacceptable.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Evans's reports on competition policy 2006 and 2007. Huge progress has been made in the field of competition over recent years. Indeed, if we think of merger control between enterprises and state aid (a problem that became of prime importance following the financial and economic crisis on the markets), the Commission has done an increasingly large amount of work. That is why I share the rapporteur's view when he says that it is necessary to modernise the legal and institutional framework in the field.

in writing. - Given the state of the economic crisis which grips the European Union and which has a global reach, it was important for Parliament to find agreement. This report has finally found a route to agree between ourselves in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Obviously, concerns about state intervention are of the highest ranking but, given the nature of the damage caused by under-consumption and a shrinking manufacturing base, some relief at the level of government expenditure is necessary.

in writing. - Small businesses are the backbone of the European economy, accounting for 98% of all European businesses and employing up to 60% of the EU's workers. The European Commission is to be applauded in its initiatives to date and its continuing work aimed at eliminating red tape for small businesses. Ms Herczog's report recognises the work done by the Commission and calls for further steps in this direction.

While I certainly support many of the comments contained in the report on the Small Business Act, I was very disappointed that the report that emerged from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy contained a paragraph calling for a common consolidated corporate tax base. I would have hoped that there would be global recognition at this stage that the CCCTB proposal is badly thought out and ill-advised. This issue is of such importance to Ireland, especially in these economic times, that I had to vote against this proposal. Doing so will have no adverse affects on the commendable work that is being done for small business but will send out a strong message that we must take a stand against unproductive, unwieldy and ill-conceived proposals that will be of no benefit to the European economy.

in writing. - This act proposes various measures, some of which might be of assistance to small businesses, but whose overall effect is to promote EU control, churning of the population, feminist agendas and infiltration of businesses by EU officials 'on work experience'. These elements make it impossible for UKIP to support this proposal.

The global financial crisis and slow economic growth are having a negative impact on the level of entrepreneurship. Therefore, we welcome the following measures embedded in the SBA, the implementation of which would be most effective for economic growth: to create the most favourable conditions for SMEs to obtain funding; to simplify business transfer conditions; to provide honest entrepreneurs who have experienced bankruptcy an opportunity to start a business a second time. The initiative to create the most favourable conditions for SMEs to obtain funding (risk capital, micro-credits, etc.) is very important.

With energy and raw materials rising in price, SMEs are becoming particularly vulnerable. Therefore, implementing the SBA strengthens the aspect of competitiveness. Only complex measures, i.e. promoting higher standards of manufacturing processes and ecological standards for products within the EU, and popularising these same standards throughout the world, as well as enhancing supervision of the EU market, can contribute to common global challenges, such as climate change and diminishing fossil fuel reserves.

in writing. - Every initiative that supports SMEs or improves their conditions should be applauded, and this report has many valid arguments that will be of great value to SMEs throughout Europe. We must capitalise on the major benefits of the current progress and ensure that we include the creation of a superior operational business environment for SMEs, including a more effective regulatory culture taking root across Europe.

in writing. - This report proposes various measures, some of which might be of assistance to small businesses, but whose overall effect is to promote EU control, churning of the population, feminist agendas and infiltration of businesses by EU officials 'on work-experience'. These elements make it impossible for UKIP to support this proposal.

Although 99% of the EU's businesses are SMEs (23 million) - responsible for the creation of 80% of the new jobs in the EU in recent years - the majority of the rules normally created are aimed at the 41 000 large European companies. This fosters obvious inequalities in terms of competitiveness.

The time has come to reverse this trend and make a commitment to the sectors of the economy in which wealth is truly created, with a policy based on rewarding merit. This would put European SMEs on a par with their counterparts in the rest of the world.

Furthermore, because of their flexible nature, SMEs are companies that are accustomed to being at the forefront of innovation in their areas, making the Small Business Act an important step forward in realising the Lisbon Strategy.

That is why the Members representing the Portuguese Social Democratic Party (PSD) are supporting this report, which is, as a matter of fact, coherent with the measures proposed in Portugal by the leader of the PSD, Dr Manuela Ferreira Leite.

in writing. - The Commission's proposal for a Small Business Act is part of a communication containing legislative proposals, guiding principles and measures to be implemented to help SMEs in Europe. I welcome the articulation of ten guiding principles which focus on the needs and requirements of SMEs and aim to help them realise their full market potential.

The provisions for legislation that is fully aware of the needs and requirements of its intended recipients are welcome, as is the adaptation of public policy tools to the needs of SMEs. Vitally important is the introduction of means of using the present crisis to respond to the environmental crisis by increasing efficiency, through thorough environmental management systems. As the Rapporteur on EU-ETS, I am aware, as I hope we all are, of the need to act and act promptly if we hope to solve this challenge.

While I agree with much of this report, I am wary of proposals for a corporate consolidated tax base and voted against accordingly.

Despite all the big talk and apparent good intentions of defending SMEs, the report has other objectives, namely: encouraging free competition and the internal market or, in other words, supporting the large economic and financial groups; insisting on the liberalisation of services, including public services; and also, behind a façade of pseudo-help for small and medium-sized enterprises, aggravating the exploitation of workers.

In fact, in the name of the 91.5% of businesses in the European Union that employed less than 10 workers in 2003, they want better conditions in order to destroy essential public services, deregulate the labour market and call into question social and working rights. This is neoliberalism in its most visible form.

That is why we voted against this report: in defence of real measures in support of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and in defence of other policies that safeguard their role and significant contribution to production in the industrial, agricultural and fishing sectors, and to employment with rights, trade and meeting the public's basic needs.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have approved this report, which lists, in the form of desires that will no doubt remain unfulfilled for a while, the ways and means of making life easier for small businesses in the European Union.

However, I have some comments to make.

The admittedly discreet call for a kind of positive discrimination in favour of SMEs, I quote, 'owned by under-represented ethnic minorities' is pointless, incomprehensible and completely ideological.

Access by SMEs and, in particular, local SMEs, to public procurement contracts, which the rapporteur intends to promote further, was hindered by the texts adopted 15 years ago by this very House, despite the warnings that they would have adverse effects. These texts effectively promoted access to public procurement contracts by large companies, particularly foreign ones, that had the information and the administrative and legal resources to bid for these contracts, while local SMEs did not have those resources.

It is an extraordinarily complex business for SMEs to access existing national and European aid, due to the requirements of European legislation itself.

In short, one once again gets the impression that we are having to adopt European texts to deal with the foreseeable problems produced by other European texts.

I voted in favour of the Herczog report on the establishment of a Small Business Act.

Our SMEs are the first victims of this current economic and financial crisis, having seen the banks restrict their access to credit, and the motor driving their growth must be restarted as a matter of urgency. Introducing a European Small Business Act will make it possible to strengthen SMEs' competitiveness so that we can finally turn words into action. The European Parliament has sent a clear signal to the Council and to the European Commission in order to ensure that the Small Business Act is actually implemented, namely 'priority for SMEs', so that these new measures can be understood and applied by all such enterprises, particularly by including the following actions: avoiding unnecessary burdens, promoting the emergence of innovative medium-sized companies beyond the Community definition of SMEs (250 employees), and making it easier for SMEs to get access to funding and public procurement contracts so as to increase their growth potential.

I nevertheless find it regrettable that this action plan is not a legally binding instrument.

I voted in favour of Edit Herczog's report on the Small Business Act, as I regard it as important legislation which affects the smallest organisms of the economy, which are currently responsible for around 100 million jobs in the EU. They account for almost 99% of all enterprises in the EU. In this context, and because the present crisis threatens severe economic disruption, we need to implement legal regulations at EU level which will help these enterprises to function. This should, in particular, cover issues such as the transfer of ownership in enterprises (particularly in the case of the illness or retirement of the owner) and for harmonised time limits for the payment of transactions (to avoid 'credit crunches').

The document also accentuates the importance to these enterprises of innovation, scientific research, patents and inventions and protecting intellectual property, and e-commerce. SMEs should also be assured access to sources of finance, including European funds and credits. A separate, but no less important issue, is reducing the red tape which plagues many SMEs. Also worthy of mention are the ten principles to guide policy towards small enterprises, both at EU and at Member State level. I also believe that underlining the need to support and promote the activity of SMEs at a cross-border level in the internal market is essential.

The Commission's communication on the Small Business Act takes on a particular significance in the current circumstances, as it sets out the basic principles that should underlie the development and implementation of policies, at both European Union and national level, in order to create equal conditions for all SMEs operating within Europe. On a more operational level, it also includes a package of more than 50 separate measures, including four legislative proposals that translate these principles into action. Support for SMEs must be a top priority, particularly in this period of serious economic crisis. Investment by SMEs is one of the key factors in the keenly awaited recovery.

Given that most of these actions fall within the competence of the Member States, we need to find ways of involving the Member States and Community bodies in order to guarantee that SMEs can gain added value from the measures affecting them. Certain amendments tabled by my group aim to make the 'think small first' principle an essential part of all future legislation. I also support the idea of having a specific budget line for SMEs...

(The explanation of vote was cut short pursuant to Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

in writing. - Paragraph 68 of this report contains a reference to a common consolidated corporate tax base, stating that there should be a common basis for company taxation. That is something which I cannot and do not support. Taxation is a Member State competence, not an EU one, and any reference to a CCCTB inevitably brings concerns about EU corporate tax rates, which is not something I can support.

I therefore rejected the first part of the paragraph, and because the plenary voted overall in favour of that paragraph, I voted against this report in the final vote.

If small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are, for the first time, to be put at the heart of European legislation, it is no cause for celebration. It is, rather, a tragedy. 2009 will, no doubt, be a year of destiny in which the survival or otherwise of thousands of SMEs will be decided. If the big companies fold, the little ones will inevitably follow.

The much talked-about credit crunch looms large, in any case, in the contraction of the volume of credit. What is needed here is to ensure that Basel II does not lead to the money flow to SMEs drying up definitively. If we do want to cut red tape, the gain from simplifying a procedure - insofar as this would have any noticeable impact on a business - must not be lost again through new obstacles elsewhere. If nothing else, tendering and public procurement must also be made more SME-friendly in order to give these companies a chance. I voted in favour of the Small Business Act in the hope that, this time, it will, at long last, amount to more than a piece of paper specifying objectives and will actually be implemented.

Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Herczog's report on the Small Business Act. It is clear how important SMEs are within the European Union, and that is why I intend to support Mrs Herczog's careful piece of work. Policy, public intervention and the social environment must all meet the real needs of small enterprises, which truly form the backbone of the European Union. That is why I agree with the report, especially with regard to the legislative proposals for the general block exemption for SMEs in respect of state aid.

in writing. - (PT) It is well-known that SMEs are responsible for more than 90% of jobs in Europe. However, the crisis that we are experiencing has already seen, or will soon see, many of their workers become unemployed.

The relaxing of Structural Fund procedures, as promoted by the Commission, is a sign that should be welcomed as positive.

The globalisation associated with the current crisis has changed many of the circumstances that served as a basis for decisions taken at European level in the past and which were, at the time, considered correct.

Taking this into account, I am convinced that, for example, some aspects of the regional and cohesion policies must be revisited.

We must also examine the current financial conditions faced by SMEs. These are decisive, especially when they have to pay back loans at a time of economic stagnation.

I therefore support this report, since it is precisely at these moments that we must think about SMEs and their contribution to innovation, economic growth and employment.

That is why there is a need for anticyclical policies at European level. This requires steps that are far more decisive to be taken, so as to create a truly macroeconomic policy at European level, which still does not exist.

in writing. - I welcome this report and was pleased to vote for its main text with little exception. I cannot agree with a common consolidated corporate tax base as there is no agreement for this. Similarly, on the issue of penalties for exceeding limits on late payments, I prefer the Late Payments Directive so as to avoid confusion.

Given that small to medium-sized businesses are the strongest element of growth in the economy, this proposal helps to strengthen the conditions for such growth. The south-east of England should benefit from such an approach.

I voted for the European Parliament Resolution for a 'Small Business Act' for Europe as it is very important to create better framework conditions aimed at providing an environment promoting innovation by SMEs, in particular, by introducing ways to improve the protection of intellectual property rights and to fight against fraud and counterfeiting more effectively throughout the European Union.

A combined effort is required on the part of financial institutions, the Commission and Member States to ensure SMEs' access to finance and to offer them the possibility of consolidating their capital by reinvesting their profit in the company. I voted for the amendment asking for immediate action to ensure that charges are not levied prior to SMEs' commencing activities, in order to ensure that they are able to build up their own resources. I also called for the EIB to devise new forms of financial instruments and tangible new solutions to tackle the obstacles that collateral presents to accessing credit. I also called on Member States, in light of the current financial crisis, to encourage banks to guarantee SMEs access to credit on reasonable terms.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) - Common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (recast) - Port State control (recast) - Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system - Investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector - The liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents - Civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners - Compliance with flag State requirements (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on:

the report by Luis de Grandes Pascual, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) (PE-CONS 3719/2008 - -,

the report by Luis de Grandes Pascual, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (recast) (PE-CONS 3720/2008 - -,

the report by Dominique Vlasto, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (recast) (PE-CONS 3721/2008 - -,

the report by Dirk Sterckx, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (PE-CONS 3722/2008 - -,

the report by Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC (PE-CONS 3723/2008 - -,

the report by Paolo Costa, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (PE-CONS 3724/2008 - -,

the recommendation for second reading on the Council common position for adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims (14287/2/2008 - C6-0483/2008 - (rapporteur: Gilles Savary) and

the recommendation for second reading on the Council common position for adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on compliance with the flag state requirements (14288/2/2008 - C6-0484/2008 - (rapporteur: Emanuel Jardim Fernandes).

Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, today, with the ratification of the Erika III package, we are bringing to a close an undertaking that began more than three years ago. The feeling I have at this moment is certainly one of satisfaction, and I am sure that everyone who has trodden this path with me feels the same. We are now writing a new chapter in the history of Europe, by making it an area of greater safety on our seas.

The aim of the Erika III package is to protect our seas and, as you are all well aware, its roots lie in the terrible oil slicks from the Erika and the Prestige, which caused severe damage to the coasts of southern Europe.

We have learnt the lessons from our past and realise that we have to act immediately to prevent such things from happening in that way again. Europe must not underrate the strategic value of maritime transport to its economy: 90% of the European Union's foreign trade goes by sea, as does 40% of our intra-Community trade.

That accounts for all the work that the EU has had to put into the legal framework for maritime transport over several decades.

As I say, it has not been a path strewn with roses: far from it, because, although we were all united by a common goal, the Council's initial miserly attitude made it a difficult journey. At the same time, to be fair, I would like to praise the firm political will shown by the French Presidency to bring such an important topic to a conclusion.

I also hardly need to stress the decisive role played by Vice-President Tajani, who gave the final push to reach consensus. Lastly, but no less importantly for all that, I would like to highlight this Chamber's steadfastness in upholding Europe's interests and protecting the citizens whom we represent.

Focusing now on the topic itself, I would like to make a number of comments on each of the proposals that make up the package. I can tell you right now that most of my concerns have been dispelled.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one issue that gave me great cause for concern throughout the negotiations, since it touches on an essential aspect of the package. I am talking about the independent nature of the bodies and authorities created for the purpose of adopting the best possible decisions within the shortest possible time. I am talking specifically about the independent authority that is to be set up to make what is always a very difficult decision: whether to admit a vessel in distress into a place of refuge. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the final decision that has been adopted. The way things stand is that each Member State will set up an independent authority with the resources and powers needed to adopt the best possible decisions in the shortest possible time. Only once a detailed assessment of all the risks has been carried out will the authority finally decide whether to admit the vessel or to send it away.

In this respect, it is proper to acknowledge Mr Sterckx's tenacity in carrying through this difficult undertaking. I am also pleased at the progress made on the vessel tracking instruments, which are essential for reducing the number of risk situations. With regard to the report by Mrs Vlasto, whom I congratulate on her excellent work, I would like to highlight the substantial improvement that will be made to the current inspection regime in Community ports, which will become more effective through being based on a risk profile. I would also like to thank Mr Kohlíček for his willingness to enter into a dialogue and for the good work he has done.

Another aspect that I would like to highlight is the ambitious proposal in the field of passengers' rights which, until now, have not been regulated in Community law. This advance was due to Mr Costa's efforts until the very last second.

With regard to the Savary and Fernandes reports, I am delighted that the Council has at last decided to abandon its obstructive position, which was not leading anywhere useful. This change has enabled us to reach a solution, albeit a minimal one. At any rate, I have to say I am pleased because the package is now complete.

Lastly, I will move on to my own report. After being examined by the Council, it has been split into two legal instruments.

The key points of my report can be summarised as follows: with this fourth revision of the Community legislation regulating the activities of inspection bodies, we have succeeded in strengthening the surveillance mechanisms by creating an independent assessment committee with permanent powers and the ability to act on its own initiative.

We have also succeeded in laying down a fairer, more flexible system of sanctions that is also more effective than the one we had before, since it penalises those who do not act as they should, but it does so according to the severity of the infringement committed and the organisation's financial means.

Finally, we have managed to make progress on the very tricky issue of recognition of classification certificates, by setting out the terms on which recognised organisations will have to recognise each other, but without endangering maritime safety, and taking the most stringent rules as our reference in order to safeguard the standards of excellence that characterise our European naval industries.

Mr President, the European Commission published its proposals on the Erika III package on 23 November 2005, and I hope you will allow me to pay tribute at this point to the Commissioner responsible for transport at the time, Jacques Barrot, because, with this new package, he has worked very ambitiously to improve maritime safety in Europe.

The Erika III package puts the finishing touches to an overall legislative effort that has taken 10 years since the tragic shipwreck of the Erika off the coast of Brittany. It has allowed the European Union to plug what were initially some serious loopholes, in order to become an international point of reference when it comes to maritime safety.

In the wake of these disasters, European citizens angered by such maritime disasters had the right to expect politicians to respond firmly and vigorously to put a stop to irresponsible behaviour.

Our ambition was to create an area of responsibility within which each party involved in maritime transport must take its fair share of the responsibility for its choices and actions and, where appropriate, for its errors and mistakes.

The Erika III package thus covers several stages in maritime transport, with true complementarity between the various proposals - it is an overall approach that led us to view each of our reports as forming part of an indivisible whole.

Today, when this House is being asked to give its opinion on the outcome of a conciliation procedure that will bring a conclusion to this long process - more than three years' work - we as rapporteurs are delighted with this joint approach, which has enabled us to achieve what I believe to be a very satisfactory result.

I would like to thank my fellow rapporteurs, who have all considered this general interest before turning to their own individual interests, which has allowed us to achieve, together, a good result that none of us could have achieved individually.

With regard to my own report, Parliament has got what it wanted on almost all the important points in it, firstly because ships will be inspected not only in ports but also at anchorages, as we called for. This is very important, because it means that ships will not be able to call at locations where they know they will be able to avoid inspections.

Next, we managed to get a very strict regime for conducting inspections: Member States will be able to cooperate to plan the inspections of a following port of call without harming the inspection of high-risk ships, and the interval between inspections of these ships must not be more than six months.

The most pleasing aspect of our negotiations with the Council, however, is that repeated bad behaviour will be punished. Inspections in our ports may give rise to temporary access refusal measures and to bans on operating in our waters, and possibly even to a permanent ban, in other words, a definitive prohibition on entering European ports and anchorages. This measure targets hulks.

To achieve this, there will be a tolerance limit - a threshold of unacceptability that cannot be breached, because ships issued with a definitive refusal of access to our ports or anchorages will be designated as hulks, which will have a deterrent effect.

We reached agreement with the Council on this point in conciliation, so the conciliation meeting on 8 December was very positive. My thanks to the French Presidency of the Council and to Dominique Bussereau, because I am quite sure that it was the personal commitment and all the work done by the Presidency's teams that have enabled us today to submit a very satisfactory result, which I call on Parliament to approve without reservation.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are finishing off a job we started 10 years ago; I still remember clearly the indignation aroused by the accident involving the Erika in December 1999: the speed with which Commissioner de Palacio presented proposals at that time, the cooperation of the Council - which, under pressure from public opinion, was at least partly responsible for ensuring that the first two packages were ready by June 2002 along with, among other things, my report on monitoring and a European policy for the monitoring of ships and for ports of refuge.

I also remember clearly our indignation at the Prestige disaster in November 2002 - incidentally, we were also holding a part-session here in Strasbourg at the time. Back then, we wondered why we had adopted all those measures if things could go so badly wrong at the application stage. Parliament played its part back then.

I would remind the House of a report by the Temporary Committee on Improving Safety at Sea, chaired by Mr Jarzembowski, in which we made it clear that, although the regulatory framework was in place at both European and international level, we still had to ensure practical application and follow-up of those rules by people on board ships, in ports and elsewhere in order to ensure that shipping was as safe as possible.

Things still went wrong in places in terms of the practical application of these rules, and the Commission responded to the questions that were asked in the European Parliament at the time with seven proposals by Commissioner Barrot. I think that these formed a successful whole, and I also wish to thank Commissioner Tajani for following them up. In my opinion, all this forms a successful whole. The existing rules are improved and supplemented by two reports, one by Mr Savary and one by Mr Fernandes. Thus, we have provided a balanced package.

I should like to say a couple of things about my report on vessel traffic monitoring. An existing network called SafeSeaNet provides a means of exchange, enabling all Member States to talk to one another and exchange information. All ships must be equipped with AIS, an automatic system that provides information on ships entering European waters, enabling us to locate and contain the risks. The AIS is also there for the benefit of fishing vessels, improving safety for these vessels, too. We insist once again - and I think that this is important - that the ship's crew be treated fairly in case of an accident and not erroneously regarded as criminals.

We have also tightened up the arrangement for the accommodation of ships in distress. We knew already that we needed plans, but now an authority is needed too, one that is not only involved in drawing up these plans but also takes care of their implementation. The authority needs to have expertise, be competent to take independent decisions and be permanent in nature. It should be already available, therefore, rather than needing to be put together in a hurry in case of an accident. Commissioner, we are still awaiting a scheme to compensate ports of refuge for damage, but I am counting on your presenting a proposal on this at the appropriate time.

We have spent 10 years working on this, then. This time, we are doing so without the pressure of a disaster. I should like to thank both the Slovenian and French Presidencies, as Mrs Vlasto has already done. I believe that no decision would have been possible if it were not for them, but I should also like to stress that Parliament has been very tenacious, and has been united in pushing through its positions on many points.

For this I wish to thank all my fellow Members who played a part, the shadow rapporteurs, the rapporteurs and everyone else. We remember today someone who is no longer with us, but who played a huge role in bringing about this package, and that is Mr Piecyk. I should like to express my warm thanks to him posthumously.

Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot issue a directive banning accidents, nor one declaring that there will be no more storms at sea, but I think that everything politicians can do to improve maritime safety is currently being done.

Ladies and gentlemen, maritime disasters can be the single most destructive events that occur in the transport sector. Maritime transport has been connected ever since mythological times with a range of beliefs and traditions. Until recently, it was managed through various sets of regulations. Gradually, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has established clearer regulations based, among other things, on customary law. The establishment of these rules was absolutely not an end in itself. They have to ensure the safe transport, both of goods and passengers, and they specify the technical requirements for ships and infrastructure and the rules of navigation, inter alia. Other regulations -among the topics recently discussed in the European Parliament - unify the minimum requirements for crew training. Others attempt to exclude the possibility of maritime disasters occurring. However, despite all technical measures, large-scale accidents can occur. Until the Prestige tanker disaster, the countries of the European Union were unaware of the need for a thorough unification of accident technical investigations in the branch of maritime transport. The inability to investigate the Prestige disaster or to identify clear causes of the accident showed the need for investigation methods to be unified. This includes the establishment of fixed deadlines for commencing and completing investigations and a structure for the final reports. The establishment of objective investigatory commissions clearly has a place here. It was necessary to link the individual sections of the directive with the IMO requirements and other documents from the third maritime package and, at the same time, to use the provisions of other binding documents that are in force in the European Union, e.g. in the area of the confidentiality of personal data.

I think the conciliation procedure will manage to achieve a highly successful resolution to all of the questions that remain open, including a clear formulation of the requirement concerning decent treatment for the crews of ships involved in disasters. The formula used here conforms to the corresponding parts of the Sterckx directive, i.e. an EU information and control system for operating ships, as my colleague has otherwise briefly mentioned. In conclusion, I would like to express my thanks for the collegiate approach to the task shown by the amendment proposal authors, for the very amenable attitude of the European Commission staff and of the individual countries holding the presidency, i.e. Germany, Slovenia and France, who participated in the work. A major contribution to the quality of the text was also made by the specialist assistants. I received support in the first phase of the work, for example, from Hannes Kugi, among others, and in the conciliation procedure from the remarkably tireless Katrin Huber. It is thanks also to them that the resulting directive is a practical and usable document which can only be recommended for the attention of the specialist public.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this evening, in this session, we are concluding a lengthy piece of work and I believe that we should all consider ourselves satisfied with the results achieved. We should be satisfied for a variety of reasons, which are those that concern the Union as a whole, because it is clear that allowing the European Union to create for itself regional regulatory areas where international standards already exist to govern them, and to come between the Member States and international organisations in defining rules, is something that must only be done when necessary. Yet it is clear that it was necessary. Unfortunately, the incidents that set the process in motion made it clear.

The result achieved is a result that, I believe, cannot satisfy everyone, in the sense that it is an honourable compromise of a lengthy piece of work, which has seen all the institutions involved - the Commission, Parliament and the Council - play their part, with each representing the interests they are appointed to represent, so to speak. This ensures that the whole sector and the whole framework of maritime safety have today taken a step forward. After all, my colleagues and I have had the honour and the opportunity to tackle more specific problems. I had the responsibility and pleasure of dealing with the liability of carriers, in the event of accidents involving passengers on board.

I must, of course, admit that, as always, the result falls short of our stated ambitions, ambitions that sometimes even seemed like they might be achieved. The ambition was to immediately extend cover and protection to everyone who gets on board a ship, whether in international waters, national waters or on rivers. However, the reality of the situation, so to speak, required that the scope be partially reduced. I am aware, let us say, but I cannot fail to point out that something is missing from this set of rules, owing to the fact that many ships that travel indiscriminately between rivers and the sea are not covered in this way and, certainly, this is a point that should be covered somehow. I am sure that the Commission will make provisions along these lines as soon as possible.

We set, however, a rather long period to ensure that voyages in domestic waters are also covered. This problem regarding the length of time is a problem of transition periods, and perhaps it is an issue that we underestimated. I am afraid that the risk we run is that they are too long and that we will therefore have to wait too long for this. It is better, however, that they are there, rather than not having changed anything.

The other main discussion point - and, still, the point we have reached - is that this protection begins at a certain time. Certainly, we can now tell our fellow citizens that when they get on board a ship they are covered, in basic terms, from the end of 2012, irrespective of how they travel. To sum up, we have, also from this point of view, enabled all citizens to feel a little more European, since the same cover will apply in any sea, in any location, for any ship.

Mr President, Commissioner, here we are at the end of a legislative marathon that, as has been mentioned, has taken ten years and that, as we were reminded in a debate this morning, has been given the inappropriate name of 'Erika III'.

It is inappropriate because, after the Erika, there was the Prestige; after the Prestige, there was the Tricolor; and, after the Tricolor, there were unfortunately plenty of other maritime disasters both in European waters and beyond.

Above all, though, it is inappropriate because, as Mr Sterckx pointed out, this is cool legislation, for the first time - in other words, it is free of the passions, excesses and polemics that take over in the wake of disasters such as the Erika and the Prestige. I think it is very much to the credit of Mr Barrot and the Commission that they have proposed it, but it was also a formidably difficult matter.

The Member States are not exactly inclined to legislate in fields like this when nothing serious has happened; sometimes, on the other hand, they go overboard with the legislation when there are accidents. In any event, this really is a major piece of legislation, since it contains seven texts.

It aims to make the European maritime space - or rather, that of the Member States - one of the safest in the world. This is perfectly justified given that it is also one of the busiest in the world and, in geographical terms, one of the most complicated in the world. We have a number of straits, including the Bosphorus, Gibraltar and Pas-de-Calais - through which 800 commercial ships pass every day - which are among the largest ports on the planet.

We therefore had a lot of work to do, not, unfortunately, to ensure that there are no more accidents - life will always be random - but so that we could be sure that we had done our best to prevent them, and also to punish the causes of any such accidents.

The structure of this package is simple: it is a virtuous circle, in which each link in the transport chain - from the port state to the insurer, via the charterer, the classification society and the flag state - is responsible for its own actions and in some way applies pressure - or at least that is what we are betting on - to clean up transport conditions and to ensure that they are using a responsible transporter that complies with the standards.

Thinking about it, moreover, perhaps it would have been worth basing our model, in terms of its broad principles and structure, on what we are trying to do in the field of finance: The financial ratings agencies have been just as inadequate as the maritime classification societies.

Certain Member States accommodate flags of convenience, or tax havens as they are known in the field of finance. Certain operators are not wanted, and are subject to blacklisting or bans in the maritime field. This is, then, a quite exemplary piece of legislation and, moreover, one that fits into the framework of the IMO at international level.

I would also say that, in political terms, this is a truly remarkable success for the Community, because the link between the Commission and Parliament has made it possible to produce a very complicated text and piece of legislation about which the Member States were very reticent.

I would like to thank Mr Tajani and the Commission. I would also like to thank the French Presidency, because I think that Mr Bussereau realised that this could be something very important during the French Presidency, and I would like to thank all of my fellow Members, because everyone here knows that we made use of subterfuge and magic tricks to get to this point. We have only managed to bring in this maritime package in as much as we have been united, and have shown solidarity to such an extent that certain fellow Members have, so to speak, inherited some stowaways, such as my text and that of Mr Fernandes, which the Council did not want.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have succeeded. I would have liked to go into the details of my report, but I think I will have some time to speak at the end, which will give me the opportunity to do so.

(Applause)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, discussion of the Erika III maritime safety package is drawing to a close. This process is more than three years old and, during that time, we have argued strongly for more safety for passengers, oceans, seas and maritime routes. As a Portuguese and a Madeiran, it is thought that I was especially committed to this project and its main goals: ensuring that Member States comply consistently with their obligations as members of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), adopt that organisation's conventions and fully apply their mandatory provisions. The negotiation process was difficult. For Parliament, the Erika III package was always a package and never a collection of cobbled together measures.

At the time of first reading, Parliament adopted some amendments. These included the obligation for the flag state to ensure that inspectors and investigators have the correct training and to create capacities for assessment, approval and authorisation of ship and equipment building, the obligation for Member States to obtain documentary evidence of ships' compliance with international standards - if a ship is not newly built, the Member State is obliged to liaise with the previous flag state and ask it to pass on the necessary documents and data - and the maintenance of a fleet database, which must include the main technical information on each ship, including infringements of IMO conditions.

At that time, we reached political agreements on six of the eight proposals. My own proposal and that of Mr Savary remained to be agreed. We have now reached agreement on how these two proposals also can be included in the final text of the Erika III package. Thanks to Parliament and its perseverance, to the Slovene and, especially, the French Presidencies - whom I thank - and, finally, to the common will of us all, we can now conclude this third maritime safety package. It is important to highlight the ratification of international conventions using the national method in this process. That was a position which I supported out of respect for the various ratification systems in existence in the various Member States. Whilst waiting for the IMO audit scheme to become mandatory, Member States have to subject their maritime authorities to such an audit and publish the results. Member States will put in place a quality management system for their maritime authorities, which is certified in accordance with international standards. Before authorising a ship to fly their respective flag, Member States have to check that it complies with international rules.

Member States have to make sure that ships which fly their flag and have been detained in the context of a port state inspection are brought into conformity with the relevant IMO conventions. When a Member State's flag appears on the blacklist or the grey list of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control for two consecutive years, it has to submit a report on the reasons for the poor performance to the Commission.

In parallel with the common position, Member States will confirm in a joint declaration their commitment to ratify the main international conventions on maritime safety before 1 January 2012, apply the IMO Flag State Code and the related audit scheme for maritime authorities, and encourage the IMO to make these two instruments mandatory worldwide.

To conclude, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the adoption of this third maritime safety package is a significant victory in the European legislative process. The Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have proposed, debated, come to agreement on and accepted a text that improves the lives of citizens and businesses, promotes better security on the seas and oceans and prepares our future. My participation in this process was a great honour. When we vote on this package shortly, we will be paying tribute to the victims of all the past or recent maritime tragedies: from the Prestige to the Erika, and from Bolama to Estonia. We will also be helping to avoid or reduce the consequences of similar events in the future.

Mr President, today we have completed a difficult task, a hard road that the Parliament, Council and Commission have trodden together, beset by difficulties to be overcome, technical problems and some not inconsiderable conflict.

Now I would like to address not only all my fellow members in this Chamber, who are about to put the final seal on our work to introduce a new maritime package, but also all the European Union citizens that you represent. On the eve of the European elections, concluding this difficult task means sending out a strong message from the institutions to all European citizens. The job of the European institutions is to impose rules in response to issues raised by the public. When they have to, they can overcome difficulties and reach an agreement for the greater good of the half a billion Europeans who live within our borders. They are capable of sending out a message to guarantee safety. They are capable of sending out a message to protect the environment. They are capable of sending out a message to defend the rights of passengers. They are capable of sending out a message to protect companies and ensure the rules are respected.

Because, in Europe, we traditionally base our legal system on cast-iron legal certainties, introducing new rules to the maritime sector means again giving European citizens rules, rules that they can respect, rules that can improve conditions in the transport system; better conditions for this important sector that affects our seas. This is the reason I wanted to stress the importance of your vote over this package because, over and above its actual contents, it represents a political message sent out by the European institutions. The scope of this decision transcends our immediate needs, transcends the issues we are dealing with, that you have decided to turn into rules with the consent of the Commission and the Council. I would like to reiterate: this is a political choice, a message we are sending out to European citizens to have faith in their institutions, because they are able to tackle problems and resolve them.

So I certainly want to thank the Commission staff that made it possible for first Mr Barrot and then myself to work as effectively as possible. I want to thank the French Presidency and the Slovenian Presidency. I want to thank Mrs Bussereau for all the work she put in during the knottiest stage of the negotiations, and I also want to stress the important work done by all the rapporteurs, the Committee on Transport and Tourism and Parliament as a whole. My thanks also to Mr de Grandes Pascual, to Mrs Vlasto, to Mr Sterckx, to Mr Kohlíček, to the Chairman, Mr Costa, to Mr Savary - whom I thank once again for his work - to Mr Fernandes for his contribution and his ability to ultimately close the negotiations by overcoming even partisan or entrenched attitudes in the attempt to give the public some tangible answers.

Our challenge was to consolidate European legislative instruments to fight illegal shipping and prevent maritime accidents and the pollution of our seas. We must now use all the maritime transport regulatory instruments at our disposal to prevent the recurrence of the accidents that spurred us to action. These instruments firstly concern the Flag State, which bears primary responsibility for maritime safety, and a political line has now been drawn. All European Flag States must, without exception, be on the white list and be in possession of instruments designed for this purpose. A consolidated framework for European accreditation of classification companies will also allow us more effective control of our shipping.

Other devices will be applied to the Port State. Certain ships and shipping companies must no longer be welcome in our waters because they do not meet minimum safety regulations. Coastal states are subject to yet another set of measures: effective monitoring of ships over short and long distances represents an essential preventive tool. Reinforced rules on the accommodation of ships in distress in a place of refuge will make sure we can prevent shipping accidents from turning into environmental disasters. We must act to prevent whilst also taking responsibility for the consequences of accidents and learning lessons from them. Shipping companies must take out adequate third party and passenger liability insurance policies. A common investigatory framework will also provide us with optimum feedback on accidents so we can learn from them. It goes without saying that risk cannot be removed altogether from maritime transport, as it is from other sectors, but it is the duty of the law maker, the duty of whoever represents the public, to do their best to limit these risks as far as possible.

So I believe that this is our common goal. I believe that we have made a step forward that is important by any standards. The package you are about to adopt certainly represents a great stride in the right direction and - I reiterate - a great political message, a great sign of will by the European institutions to provide answers to the questions asked by 500 million citizens.

Thank you very much, Mr President, thank you very much, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me, first of all, to thank all the rapporteurs on behalf of my group, not only for their work itself, but also for the fact that we have achieved what we set out to do, namely to treat the proposals as a package. By treating them as a package, we forced the Council to move towards us as you know that the Council most definitely did not want to adopt two proposals. Only by standing together did we manage to get the Council to take on these two dossiers, and we succeeded.

I share the view of the Vice-President that this package is a great success for the citizens. That is something we should say in the election campaign, too.

Looking around, there are not that many Members here for this debate this afternoon, despite the fact that putting this package together was one of the greatest achievements of the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

The citizens perhaps do not understand, sometimes, why we sit for so long and why everything takes so long. Here, however, they can see, that this package consists of regulations on monitoring, regulations on classification societies, accident investigations, insurance obligations, liability regulations, on port State control and flag State control. We need to tighten up the requirements for all these different aspects in order, where possible, to prevent accidents and, where accidents do happen, to be able to react quickly.

Mr Sterckx, I would like to offer my particular thanks to you once again, as you were the rapporteur in the special committee that I had the honour of chairing, and we met again after the Prestige sinking to consider what we still needed to improve. Through Mr Barrot, the Commission essentially adopted our proposals and we actually finalised them through the legislative process.

To that extent, we can be really pleased to be able to agree the third maritime package after all these years. Let me make two more points, however. The first is that we should thank Dominique Bussereau who, as a French minister, in the end pushed the package over the final hurdles, enabling it to succeed. We should give him particular credit for that.

Mr Vice-President, all eyes are on you, now! You, the Commission, with your fine European Maritime Safety Agency, must now ensure that the Member States also implement and apply this. It is only when what we have decided is actually applied that we will be able to succeed in preventing the recurrence of accidents like those of the Erika and the Prestige. We should be fighting together to achieve that. Thank you very much.

Mr President, I have just had a real race to get to the Chamber. I was in my office listening to Vice-President Tajani and the other speakers, and I feel I have to congratulate all the rapporteurs and the Commission. Like Mr Tajani, I, too, would like to warmly and gratefully acknowledge the work carried out by Commissioner Barrot, which was very important, and also the goodwill shown by the French Presidency.

I want to say here that this maritime package is going to usher in a decisive change in Europe, one that will foster quality and transparency in the maritime sector. I believe it will ensure that we will never again witness the spectacle of the lack of transparency that we have seen in the past, after those two terrible accidents of the Erika and the Prestige, particularly the lack of transparency surrounding the Prestige accident. In this context, Mr Kohlíček's report, for which I am a shadow rapporteur, is a guarantee - in fact, the guarantee - that investigations in the maritime sector can, in future, be carried out in total transparency. It will ensure that all of us - the general public and the authorities - will know what was behind or what happened after every accident, so that the same mistakes can never be made again and so that anything that is done badly can be corrected.

Europe has to go further in this field and I am sure that our work is not going to end here, because we have always been leaders and also because maritime traffic is not going to stop growing.

Thank you, Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the result that has been achieved here and to thank the French Presidency for its efforts. The result that we have achieved is a great success for the environment and for European shipping. In recent years it has largely been the EU that has set the standard for the impact of shipping on the environment through legislation and through the work of the International Maritime Organisation. Shipping is a global activity and, for the sake of fair competition and for the sake of the environment, it is important to have common rules at a global level. However, the EU could take the lead and set the standard by demanding more stringent rules. We must ensure that the EU Member States actually comply with the IMO agreements and this is what we are doing with the legislative package that we are concluding here. The seven directives in the third maritime package will prevent pollution, ensure a better coordinated response to accidents and prevent poor ships from entering EU waters. I have paid particularly close attention to the Directive on port State control and the Directive on the investigation of accidents as the shadow rapporteur for my group, and I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Vlasto and Mr Kohlíček, for their proficient and successful work. We have achieved a better method of inspecting ships, so that it is the poorest ships that are inspected most often and we have a method of investigating accidents that will provide legal protection for those questioned, the witnesses, and that will also mean that what we learn from the accident report can be utilised in future and that the information can be exchanged between Member States.

Thank you, Mr President, we have every reason to express our deepest satisfaction with the maritime package and I would like to say thank you on behalf of our group for the sterling work carried out by the rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council in this area. Now, ship surveys affect large ships in particular, and I would like to highlight a problem with small ships. We have special competent bodies to carry out inspections, but we do not have sufficiently clear rules for the seaworthiness of these ships or for when the inspection is to be carried out. This is particularly the case with regard to fishing vessels, small fishing vessels that have been rebuilt, either to continue fishing or to be used for tourism-related purposes. This often involves an increase in weight and an increase in engine size, which alters the centre of gravity and reduces seaworthiness, and, in my country, Denmark, we have seen numerous tragic accidents as a result. We need to introduce a fixed requirement for every vessel, whether new or rebuilt, to undergo a seaworthiness test. Therefore, like Mr Costa, I would like to ask the Commission to extend the provisions on survey and approval to include these types of ship as soon as possible.

Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, we, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, support this final compromise. We are pleased that Parliament has prevailed, with the result that all eight legislative proposals form a single package to be voted on together. I would like to thank all the rapporteurs from the bottom of my heart for their collaboration.

Marine safety urgently needs stricter European legislation in order to save lives and prevent environmental disasters by preventing accidents. There must be no repeats of the shipping accidents involving the Erika and the Prestige.

Port State control means that ships that call at EU ports can be better monitored and - this is something we think is important - these ships can face sanctions where they fail to satisfy the safety provisions. The monitoring of ships in territorial waters is extremely important, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, as pollution of the seas and the oceans recognises no boundaries. That is why cross-border action is urgently required. In the liability regulation in favour of passengers on passenger ships there is, unfortunately, only a regulation for the maritime area. We Greens would have liked to have seen it apply to inland waterways too.

Finally, we are pleased that, after a long delay, the Council has also decided on the obligations of the port States and the insurance and liability of shipowners. With this port package, we have taken a mighty step forwards, knowing that these rules can and must be improved still further in future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, repeated accidents and an increase in the transport of dangerous goods by sea constantly raise acute issues regarding strengthening the safety rules governing all maritime straits in the European Union and the resources needed in order to enforce these rules.

In particular, it makes sense to classify these straits and approach routes to them in accordance with the procedure relating to 'Seveso zones', because transport must come down to a drive to reduce costs whatever the consequences.

The Commission and the Council, under pressure from economic disasters set off by the financial crisis, are finally thinking about calling tax havens into question. If this can actually be put into action, it could be a real step forward.

Along the same lines, how many more maritime and environmental disasters do we need to have before the Commission, the Council and this Parliament will finally turn their attention to the long-standing scandal of flags of convenience? Perhaps, though, it would be wiser for the European electorate to fill Parliament with more MEPs who care more about working for the safety of their fellow citizens than about standing up for free trade, which destroys people and the environment.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, last September, I drew attention to how the electronic data of ships required in these reports could easily find their way to pirates operating off Somalia. This was not heeded. These reports have been modified, but not for the better. In fact, there is now contradiction between them. I will try again.

Whilst Mr Sterckx obliges ports not to turn ships away, Mr Savary says that they can deny entry if insurance certificates are not being provided. Add the further contradiction of Mrs Vlasto, which extends port control to ships anchored offshore. So, if a vessel with no papers lies offshore and then, due to extreme weather, becomes at risk, it must be allowed entry because Mr Sterckx established the right of ships in distress to a place of refuge. So we come to the situation of a vessel with a dangerous cargo finding its way into a port by manipulating these contradictions. What happens if it then results in a serious incident, closing a major port? Would the compensation mentioned in Mr Sterckx apply to all of that and, in any case, who pays? These reports need a real overhaul.

Finally, the Fernandes report endorses various IMO recommendations. Fine - the UK has already signed these - but the EU wants to add its own fleet database, to which I and others would object. I say 'would' because the Fernandes report is to be adopted without a vote. How democratic is that? Whatever happened to the comments made here this very morning that this is an amending House?

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs, who have answered the big questions raised by the challenges of maritime safety and have faced up to our responsibilities.

We all remember the disasters involving the petrol tanker Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002, and their tragic ecological, human and economic consequences.

A new arsenal of laws to protect Europeans from maritime disasters will now, finally, see the light of day, providing, in particular, for systematic inspections of the most antiquated ships, compulsory insurance to compensate the victims of ecological disasters, and also audits on the flags of European countries, which, as we know, are still far too often flags of convenience.

It was high time to take these measures, which do indeed restrict the vast room for manoeuvre that shipowners have been allowed for centuries. They bring an end to the impunity of owners of hulks, and inspections will be made even more effective by being targeted at such ships.

The safety of the seas and oceans is not up for negotiation: it is this, and not money, profit and unrestricted trade, that should be the primary reference value.

I do have one regret. It is going to take a long time to implement all these new repressive and preventative laws. As an MEP for the North-West region, with its numerous shorelines, I am relieved and proud to be voting in favour of this third maritime package.

(EL) Mr President, the package of seven proposals on shipping is an important development in preventing accidents and in safeguarding an effective response in the event of an accident. As far as the latter is concerned, I should like, as shadow rapporteur, to refer in particular to what was agreed on refuges for vessels in danger. I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Sterckx, and the entire negotiating team on achieving a valuable compromise on this important issue.

If one small accident, one small crack, for example, in the tank of an oil tanker, is not contained and confined, it may result, in the event of vibrations from rough seas or difficulties in decanting the cargo to another vessel, in a huge ecological disaster if there is no refuge where appropriate measures can be taken. At the same time, fear on the part of the crew that they are in danger of suffering criminal or civil consequences or the fact that the vessel has inadequate insurance may prevent refuge from being sought, with unfortunate consequences.

The present compromise safeguards the independence of the experts who decide if a ship in danger is to be given refuge, fair treatment for seamen in the event of an accident in accordance with the ΙΜΟ, the obligation of uninsured ships in refuges, compensation for ports and refuges for damage, on which the Commission will present various policy options, and the obligation of oil tanker owners to notify their cargo if it exceeds 1 000 tonnes. At the same time, all vessels, including fishing vessels, will need to fit an automatic recognition system.

To close, I welcome the fact that Parliament's actions have pushed the Council into adopting a final common position on all seven legislative proposals in the package.

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the package on which we will be voting tomorrow would have come to nothing without the will of the European Parliament, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that has been done.

If the European Union creates a legal instrument that, as I hope, will make it possible to prevent disasters such as the shipwrecks of the Erika or the Prestige and finally to make the polluters take responsibility, it will be thanks to the European Parliament's perseverance in the face of the Council's timidity. There is no point in reminding you of the resolve that has been required in order to bring the reports by Mr Savary and Mr Fernandes to the table. This is a political victory for the European Parliament, and it is also a victory for steadfastness and working together.

Thanks to this 'maritime safety' package, the Member States will finally have to fulfil their obligations in the International Maritime Organisation and, in particular, carry out technical audits before issuing a flag to a ship. Another consistent step forward is the requirement for ships to be insured by financial guarantee certificates, which will put real responsibility on their charterers.

If Parliament adopts these texts tomorrow, the European Union will be showing that it has provided itself with an effective tool to fight against waste ships and against criminal charterers and owners, and it is to be hoped that the environment and the health of our fellow citizens will benefit.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the work that has been done in this field by Mr Tajani, who is here today, and the rapporteurs on transport law, because we have now embarked on the final stages of the process on maritime law with the aim of covering all transport in Europe. It is therefore in relation to that work, which has seen a real delay in maritime transport, that, I hope, Parliament will also be able to round off an important strand on maritime transport during this session or, at any rate, as soon as possible.

(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that we can end the current Parliamentary term with the final adoption of the last of the maritime packages. I remember, however, that when I first came to the European Parliament in 1999, we had a serious maritime accident off the French coast with the Erika, which gave its name to the first set of legislative proposals designed to avert and prevent accidents.

We thought we had warded off the danger, but soon afterwards, the coastline of Galicia was ruined by the tar from an even worse accident than the previous one: the Prestige. Since then, we in the Committee on Transport and Tourism have worked on a succession of legislative packages in an attempt to overcome the excessive resistance we have encountered among shipowners, oil companies, classification societies and also certain Member States, which rejected the three proposals for being too stringent.

Over the last 10 years, we have adopted a number of directives and regulations, some of which we have had to go back and revise because they proved ineffective in their initial versions, as a result of the cuts made by the Council.

We adopted legislation to introduce double-hulled vessels, a European fund for major oil disasters, and ports of refuge, and now we are revising and adopting legislation on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea, the investigation of maritime accidents, the Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system, port state control and, lastly, the regulation and directives on ship inspection and survey organisations. All this is good and it is desirable that it should enter into force and be implemented by all the Member States as soon as possible.

I am pleased at that. However, this Parliament's term is coming to an end. I am leaving Parliament, and I am going with the regret that we have not succeeded in making it compulsory to introduce control systems - which already exist and have been patented - to show when and what amounts of bilge and oil tank residues have been illegally dumped into the sea by a particular vessel. In other words, they are a kind of black box or tachometer that can be inspected by the maritime authorities whenever a vessel enters port.

I believe we owe the marine environment greater attention and stricter procedures to avert all the pollution we cause. I also think that, if we fail in this, it will affect our food chain and our lives, and we will end up paying a high price for it. I trust it will not take another 10 years to control illegal discharges at sea more effectively and efficiently.

Thank you, Mr Ortuondo Larrea. I am sure that your efforts will be remembered in this House, and I am also sure that, wherever you are, you will continue fighting for the objectives that you are leaving here. They may be unfinished, but they are well on the way to completion thanks to your efforts.

(EL) Mr President, after five years of debate and consultation with the Council, the much-vaunted shipping package of six directives and one regulation has been stripped of any positive content to do with the safety of life at sea and environmental protection. In other words, the mountain has brought forth a mouse.

The Council, loyally expressing the anti-grassroots policy of the European Union and the interests of capital, is implementing all the demands of operators and shipowners and of the monopoly business groups which oppose any measure which might even minimally affect their profitability. Thus, they have managed, through this long, drawn-out procedure, either to remove the teeth of every positive provision designed to control safety rules for ships or to postpone them indefinitely.

No measure has been included to protect and upgrade the human factor, the seamen, the primary factor in the protection of human life at sea and the environment. The submissions put forward by the European Union since 1986, within the framework of the common shipping policy, that issues relating to the human factor, to improved working conditions and training of seamen, will allegedly be examined in the future, are misleading and false, given that they have been deteriorating all these years. That is why the Greek Communist Party will vote against the so-called shipping package in its entirety.

(IT) Mr President, Mr Tajani, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism could not, and cannot, avoid the task of providing a holistic response to the need to improve shipping safety and also to lay down the measures to be taken in the event of accidents. The third maritime package also deals effectively with issues of the liability of carriers in relation to their passengers and the goods they carry. It was about time, always assuming that the matter is not disregarded, as I have the impression is happening in the case of airline passengers' rights.

I actually believe that the goals for category A ships to come into line by 2016 and the even later deadline set for category B, C and D ships are too lenient and give the carriers too much leeway. I hope that this largesse by the European Union is repaid by the carriers' prompt compliance with the new regulations. We needed, and still need, common standards for classification companies which are responsible for monitoring ships and granting shipping permits, and also very clear rules governing inspections and the addition of ships to the blacklist.

I therefore welcome the proposals and also the measures for managing accidents and shipping and environmental disaster risks and the relevant responsibilities, which I call on the Commission to make a greater commitment to uphold. The far-ranging package also considers measures on investigations, on competences and on just sovereignty in the event of maritime accidents, a compendium which, I hope, will help clarify issues of liability and compensation. I therefore voted for the set of reports.

(NL) Mr President, Commissioner Tajani, the course of the maritime safety package has been turbulent, but the outcome is pretty good. This is largely thanks to the fact that Commissioner Tajani and his officials stood side by side with the European Parliament in encouraging the Council to seriously set to work on a number of crucial points that were so important to Parliament.

After all, there must be compulsory cooperation at European level if maritime safety is to be improved at the end of the day. Fortunately, we have now sorted out a number of missing links, although Parliament would have liked to go further on a number of points. The fact that independent accident investigation has now been made compulsory in case of major maritime accidents is progress, as this will make it possible to really get to the bottom of the cause.

There is already a great deal of experience with this in aviation. Just last week, a Turkish Airlines aircraft crashed near Amsterdam in the Netherlands and, thanks to independent accident investigation, the cause had been determined within a week, putting an end to speculation. It is real progress that we now have independent accident investigation, irrespective of culpability, in shipping too. The rapporteur has done an excellent job in this regard.

Mr President, I should like to highlight another point in this package, namely the improved regulation of maritime passenger liability. This is a good thing, but it is also good that inland waterways are excluded, as small inland waterway vessels cannot be treated in the same way as seagoing ships navigating on the high seas. The two things are different and, ultimately, it is good that this has been confirmed in the proposal.

(BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the maritime community has long discussed the need to improve the regulation, control and monitoring of vessel traffic due to risks of incidents, environmental pollution, danger to human life and illegal trafficking which, unfortunately, is far from negligible. The integration of new technology into maritime traffic and the intensification of piracy, combined with the lack of any strict, general control, are premises underlying the problem. Amending the directive establishes and develops conditions for a maritime safety network, as well as conditions for developing an effective, automated IT system. These are achievements which must be assessed on behalf of the European Parliament, Commission and Council.

The framework for dealing with problems involving hazardous waste is important. The application of the directive will not allow vessels carrying hazardous, unidentified cargo to pass through European waters looking for somewhere to dump its cargo. Exercising control over maritime traffic is an absolute necessity. A maritime safety culture must be created, the logistics for this process must be set up, a technical and technological basis must be provided for the system, a system must be created for distributing information efficiently while protecting part of this information which ensures the safety of traffic. I welcome the efforts which the European Maritime Safety Agency is making, including with regard to developing a Vessel Traffic Management and Information System, while providing an integrated database, which includes displaying vessels in real time, along with other data linked to their cargo and its properties. Even though the 'Erika' incident is already a textbook case in terms of learning to manage and analyse risk, I do not want a case like this to happen again or any more similar incidents to occur.

(RO) The compromise reached for the third maritime package will improve passenger safety, as well as help protect the environment and reinforce control systems.

The blacklist drawn up for ships which repeatedly breach the regulations will, just like in the aviation sector, mark an important step in improving safety. Erika III is of particular importance to Romania as, in the wake of the documents recently adopted, An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union and Black Sea Synergy, it may have an important say in the success of the process for extending European principles and good practice to the other littoral states which are not part of the European Union, using the new instrument proposed by the European Commission via the Eastern Partnership.

The measures relating to maritime transport must be supplemented by increasing cooperation between littoral states in order to make the most efficient use of resources and reduce the pollution resulting from activities carried out in ports and on shore, as well as along the whole course of the Danube. The Black Sea can only be protected effectively through concerted action in every area.

Mr President, the package has been a very difficult one for Parliament and the Council. There has been much negotiation and debate, and I am glad to see the issues have been finally resolved.

The adoption of this package is a victory for the European Parliament and certainly for the rapporteurs who have fought to ensure that we delivered on behalf of our citizens, even against very strong opposition from Member State governments.

This law will impact on a variety of areas, including the standards of European flags, ensuring improved inspection procedures for ships. What we have now is more transparency and stricter inspections. Essentially, this package will deliver safer vessels, meaning a lower risk of environmental disasters and loss of sea life.

From the point of view of Ireland, the timing is extremely important by virtue of the fact that we have a Latvian ship tied up in an Irish port where the crew have not been paid, they have not been given enough food and they have no way of getting back to their Member State, Latvia. These are the kinds of issues that have to be tackled, and I look forward to the implementation of the package.

(RO) The third maritime package is extremely important. The EU would like to develop the maritime corridors as part of extending TEN-T. This maritime package helps increase maritime transport safety and puts into practice the lessons learnt from the sea accidents which have taken place in recent years involving the ships Erika and Prestige, along with accidents in the Black Sea.

In the case of the Black Sea in particular, this package will be particularly important as many of the Black Sea littoral states are on the Paris Memorandum blacklist or grey list. Shipowners' liability should be applied in the event of an accident, including accidents which occur on inland waterways. I believe that ships in distress must be received in specially equipped areas where they can be given the assistance they need. However, the way in which these services are paid for must be clearly regulated.

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when the Erika was shipwrecked, I was one of those Members in France who called on the French authorities to close the sluices so that the salt pans would not be polluted.

When the Prestige disaster occurred, I was co-rapporteur, along with Mr Sterckx, as we were jointly responsible for the topic of transport - I myself was responsible for the environment - and we quite justifiably called for greater safety in maritime transport. I well remember how hard we fought in this very Parliament for an inquiry committee on the Prestige to be set up: it certainly made an impression.

Today, therefore, I think we can all be pleased with the fact that many international and European rules have moved forward as part of the maritime package, and I hope this will soon be nothing more than a bad memory.

However, I would like, if I may, to draw attention to...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, I would like to reiterate, on the record, in relation to this most important maritime package, recital 3 of the review of the EU-ETS Directive, which was passed by an overwhelming majority. This directive deals with our carbon dioxide emission reduction targets and the timetable for the same.

Recital 3 states that '[a]ll sectors of the economy should contribute to achieving these emission reductions, including international maritime shipping and aviation. In the event that no international agreement including international maritime emissions in its reduction targets through the IMO has been approved by Member States and/or no such agreement through the UNFCCC has been approved by 31 December 2011, the Commission should make a proposal to include international maritime emissions according to harmonised modalities in the Community reduction commitment with the aim of its entry into force by 2013. Such a proposal should minimise any negative impact on EU competitiveness, taking into account the potential environmental benefits.' Comments please, Commissioner.

Mr President, we have come a long way as a Parliament since the Prestige, a tragedy to the coastline of Galicia and to its ecosystems. We have come a long way since the Erika polluted and destroyed the wonderful coast of Brittany. We have come a long way since Sea Empress, Exxon Valdez and other shipping disasters.

This package is a testament to the work of Parliament, the Commission and also, if belatedly, the Council. For me, the significance of this package will be felt for many years to come. It is a testament also to the work of all our rapporteurs and MEPs who, over the years, have pushed for such legislation.

This package is a victory for this Parliament, for Members from all the political groups, particularly on the Committee on Transport, although I hope Members would allow me to make special mention at this time of Mrs Miguélez Ramos and the late Mr Willi Piecyk.

Mr President, during the discussions that have taken place in this Chamber, amidst all the general satisfaction of seeing the Council, Parliament and Commission adopt rules that provide the public with tangible answers, I believe one overriding question has emerged: will all these good rules - that have been arrived at through compromise and a lot of hard work - be properly applied? Will the Commission be able to ensure they are complied with? Will the Agency be able to cooperate effectively with the Commission in ensuring the enforcement of these rules? I refer to the comments that were made during the course of the debate - I am thinking in particular of remarks by Mr Jarzembowski and Mr Romagnoli - but also the letters that were sent to the Commission during recent months, by Mr Sterckx and Mr Simpson, who also raised the same problem.

I believe I can confirm the commitment of the Commission, which strongly urged the approval of this package, to ensuring its observation by the Member States. I intend to call on the cooperation of the Agency - which is an institution in which I believe and one that has always worked effectively and fulfils its role of supporting the Commission and also of supporting the Member States in the best possible way - to implement this regulation as it has done with other regulations. I visited Lisbon, where the Agency is based, and I found a great spirit of cooperation, great willingness and also great commitment and enthusiasm for applying all the rules in the package. These will be guaranteed though the safety system, Safe Sea Net, and also all the other state-of-the-art technological tools used to help the public ensure that European Union rules are actually applied. As you are well aware, when the law gives the Commission a specific responsibility, the Commission is able to call on the Agency to help it perform tasks of a technical nature.

I intend to continue moving in the direction taken by my predecessor, Jacques Barrot, and call on the cooperation of an agency that I consider to be efficient, well-run and full of people with the right attitude who believe in the work they are doing. And that applies, for example, to the inspections that aim to check the correct application of regulations or the implementation of traffic monitoring information systems. On the last point, I wish to stress the essential part played by the Agency - and I address my remarks to Mr Sterckx in particular - in the implementation of Safe Sea Net, the European platform for the exchange of data on maritime traffic, and in the setting up of a European long-range ship identification and tracking centre.

These tasks comply with the Agency's regulation, even though they are not specifically mentioned, because the latest amendment dates back to 2004, but they will certainly be included in the next revision of the regulation, which is currently being prepared. The fact that these specific tasks are not mentioned in the directives or in the specific regulations has no bearing on the division of roles between the Commission and the Agency.

My intention, by replying, is to reassure Parliament of the Commission's will and determination to apply the rules that we are approving with the support of the Agency. It would be pointless to tell the public: 'We've done something positive for you', if we were then unable to apply this positive thing and ensure it was respected. We should bear in mind that the Member States, represented by the Council, are part and parcel of this agreement. Because they are joint legislators with us, I believe the Member States will apply the rules we are approving. There is no doubt that the Commission will ensure this commitment is respected and upheld and we will do so with the technical support of the Agency.

Mr President, I think we have reached the end, and we should all be very pleased that we have arrived at this moment after such a long journey. If the codecision procedure is ever justified, I think it is in the case of this package and the way it has been handled.

The key to this package lay in the need to bring the Commission, the Council and Parliament to an agreement. Parliament did very well to take the lead - it can be seen to be justified now more than ever - and in pressing to have this package considered absolutely essential. Right from the start, we would not accept any kind of split or separation, so as to achieve a whole that could guarantee safety at sea.

I think we can be confident that there are guarantees for the future that ad hoc political measures will be superfluous. We will thus save ourselves from disgraceful situations in which certain people in power criticise the positions of some governments and have to praise the positions of others. In future, therefore, the major decisions will be in the hands of independent committees, who will make rigorous, authoritative, immediate and capable use of decision-making tools. That will ensure that the decisions made are rigorous, right and fair.

That is because we have had to balance many different things here in this package: classification societies have had to be brought together with marine equipment; all interests have had to be put clearly on the table; and, above all, Parliament has had to show leadership.

We should be pleased at the fact that Parliament has shown this leadership. It can now proudly say loud and clear that the European Union has not waited for the IMO - the International Maritime Organisation - but that we have taken the lead.

It was our duty, and we did not need to wait for anyone. I think we can feel pleased and have hope for the future, trusting that mistakes will not be repeated and that we have learnt the lessons of the past.

Mr President, to finish, I would like to say that the work everyone has achieved will allow us - if Parliament adopts the package, of course - to worry much less about the protection of our seas, our coasts and our fellow citizens.

The important thing now is to implement the recommended prevention and enforcement provisions, which need to be properly effective in all our countries. If we can do that, we will have helped to safeguard our maritime heritage.

I am grateful to the Commissioner, who has shown himself to be determined to ensure that the European directive is implemented, rather than just being discussed.

Mr President, once again, I note that there is a consensus in Parliament. The vast majority supports the contents of this package, the compromise we have reached. I think that that is a sign to everyone involved that this is not an ideological conflict but rather is a matter of making practical arrangements to improve maritime safety.

I should also like to thank the Commissioner for his answer to my question on the uncertainty over the agency and its role. In case we have forgotten, the agency was one of the components of the first Erika package.

The agency was one of the first proposals: an agency bringing together the necessary know-how and specialists to ensure that we - the Commission in particular, but also Parliament - have support in what we do, in drafting legislation.

Now then, I welcome the consensus, and am also proud of what we have achieved, but I do think, Commissioner - as both you and Mrs Vlasto have already said - that everything now depends on the quality of the implementation. The aim is to have high-quality authorities - for the accommodation of ships in distress, for example - in all Member States. If their quality is below par, you must take action.

Thus it is now up to you - the Commission, the Commission services, the agency - to ensure that the Member States do indeed do what they have incorporated in the legislation in the fields of port state control, classification societies, SafeSeaNet and all the matters we are now finalising or improving.

Commissioner, we shall be monitoring you, and if you should retain responsibility for transport in the next Commission, we shall continue to monitor you, to ensure that the quality is indeed as we had intended. All the best, then. We shall keep an eye on you, and shall support you again if further proposals are needed.

I would like to take the unusual liberty for this place of correcting my fellow Member, because it not just a question of whether the Commissioner will remain in office so that we can keep an eye him but also of whether we will remain in office. So much for the correction. I would like to thank everyone who has collaborated on this package. This document is paradoxically becoming the first major success of the Czech Presidency in the European Commission, whether we want it to or not. Concerning the comments of Mr Toussas, who spoke with some bitterness about how the package generally ignores work conditions at sea, it is true that the package actually does not directly address the work conditions of ship crews, except for decent treatment for the crews of ships experiencing difficulties and the crews of ships involved in maritime disasters,. However, I believe that the European Parliament, together with the Commission, will return to this topic in the near future. After all, we are similarly involved in other fields of transport so it would only be logical. Until now, the important matter of the maritime transport safety has not been sufficiently addressed in the same way as inland transport. And I believe, to return once more to my starting point, that as long as we can join forces with Commissioner Tajani in our common task, we will be able to cooperate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also add my own thanks to everyone who has been engaged in this long and important task. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks and say a true thank you because now, European legislation, the European rules on maritime safety, are certainly better than they used to be. Now it is, of course, the Commission's job to ensure they are applied and I am sure that the Commissioner will do his bit to ensure that the rules do not remain empty words. Fortunately, some of the rules will immediately come into force. In some other cases, the Commission will have to ensure that the directives are transposed into national law.

Of course as soon as one chapter closes, another one immediately opens. We left many issues to one side but now we should perhaps revisit them. I will only mention two: we have not yet properly finalised the details of ports of refuge and I hope that this does not lead to any dangers if we have any difficulties on our seas; the other problem is the extension of passenger cover to inland navigation as well as the extension of domestic navigation.

We could say much more, but there would not be much point. The thing that it is worth doing at the moment is perhaps to thank yet again the Commission for its initiative and the Commissioner for the conscientious way he has followed through the actions of Parliament - and also to vindicate the part played by Parliament without allowing ourselves to become overly self-righteous. I believe that when we take a look at the proposal that embarked on the legislative process and think back to the way it was stripped down from the Council's initial stance to achieve the final result, I think we can state with pride that Parliament has done its job, which is much more than being - I cannot say 'custodian' because the Commission is the custodian - let us say a determined proponent of European legislation and the role Europe must perform for the common good.

Mr President, everyone in Parliament, with just a few exceptions, knows what it means to legislate and to bring added value to a text from the Commission. From that point of view, I would like to echo what Mr Costa said: for Parliament, this is not just a textbook exercise to be proud of, but an exciting reality at a time when Europe needs a lift.

I would like to say, because I am not sure whether this has been emphasised sufficiently, that this legislative package of seven plus one texts will, in fact, be going at two speeds: there are five plus one on which we will be asked, tomorrow, to ratify the conciliation procedure and agreement, and two others - the reports by Mr Fernandes and myself - that will go to second reading, because they were initially rejected by the Council.

As we have, almost miraculously, reached agreement with the Council, due to the fact that our fellow rapporteurs were kind enough to give us a vehicle within their own reports so that the Council would agree and be required to state its position, we are only at second reading on the reports by Mr Fernandes and myself. Of course, we do not want them to be amended, and I do not think they will be, as no amendments have been tabled. We hope that they will be adopted in their current form tomorrow. This will allow us to re-integrate the package, having achieved a very pleasing success with respect to the Council.

I would say to you, Commissioner, that the ball is now in the Commission's court: we are all aware that, in order to monitor the implementation of this legislation, in many fields, legislating here is not enough - the texts need to be transposed in the Member States.

Personally, with regard to the requirement for insurance against damages to third parties, in other words, serious pollution and damages subsequent to a maritime accident, I think we need to ensure that, in particular, the major international conventions are ratified, because that is a commitment made by the Member States. I also think it would be good for the Commission to report to Parliament on this subject in 2012.

Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the French Presidency for the opportunity that it gave us to see this package through to the end. Special thanks go to Vice-President Tajani and to the Commission for its significant contribution in the final phase of the negotiations. I also thank everyone for your comments and contributions. I wish to give a special mention to all the rapporteurs, especially Mr Kohlíček, and, if you will permit me, also to the shadow rapporteur, Mrs Miguélez Ramos. They ensured that disputes between Member States, such as occurred with the wreck of the Prestige, will not happen again and that everyone really recognises their responsibility when the worst happens. I thank Mr Costa, with whom I worked throughout the process, especially on the report relating to the responsibilities of passenger carriers while I was rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, for ensuring that all modes of maritime transport guarantee the protection of their passengers; that means of financially compensating passengers exist for when the worst happens; and that those who are potentially the worst affected are also the best protected, quickly and even in advance, regardless of where the blame lies.

Means of legal recourse exist that are sufficiently clear, accessible and based on information that is clear and available in advance. As I have already said, the adoption of this third maritime safety package is a significant victory for the European legislative process. The Commission, the Council and Parliament have accepted a text that improves everyone's lives, promotes better security on the seas, oceans and inland waters, and prepares our future. By voting for this package tomorrow, we are paying tribute to the victims of all the past or recent maritime tragedies and we are honouring citizens and businesses.

I hope, Mr Vice-President, that the provisions to be adopted tomorrow in this package will be observed so that the citizens' expectations that have now been created can be transformed into a real strengthening of their safety and their rights.

(DE) Mr President, as we close this debate having thanked Vice-Presidents Barrot and Tajani and the French Presidency, and specifically Mr Bussereau, we should also thank those who work on the Conciliation Committee and the Committee on Transport and Tourism who have been working with us on this for a number of years. They have played their part in making possible the success that we have achieved and for that I ask that we thank them.

(ES) Mr President, I would just like to add something to what Mr Jarzembowski has just said. We would also like to thank him as the Chairman of the Temporary Committee on the Improvement of Safety at Sea, which was set up to clarify the Prestige case, which, in some way, lay at the root of everything we have been dealing with here today.

In case we lose touch with Mr Jarzembowski, I would like to tell him that we will always remember the ability he demonstrated on that committee.

Mrs Ayala Sender, from the chair I naturally add my congratulations to someone who has certainly been a very effective chairman, and wish him every happiness and success.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Ladies and gentlemen, the compromise which has been reached will consolidate the EU's legislation on safety and the transposition of important international instruments into Community legislation. By adopting this, the European Parliament will set a new benchmark in terms of standards for investigating accidents involving vessels.

These measures have been adopted as a consequence of the accident involving the tanker 'Erika', but I want to remind you of another, more recent case. On 13 February 2004, 7.5 nautical miles from the Bosporus, the ship 'Hera' sank with its entire crew of 19 on board, in circumstances which are still unexplained. Five years after this tragedy, which took place in one of the busiest and most monitored spots in the world, no one can say how and why this ship sank. Furthermore, no one can say what rescue operations were carried out after the emergency signal was received.

The investigation into the reasons and consequences of this accident has reached a dead end at the moment. The only thing which can be confirmed with any certainty is that 17 European Union citizens and two from Ukraine perished. No one has yet been made to answer for this.

It is obvious that the new rules we are adopting will not prevent such tragedies, but I hope that they will ensure that a transparent, complete and objective investigation is carried out so that we can bring the guilty parties to book for this.

The charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Greening of transport and internalisation of external costs (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

by Mr El Khadraoui, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - C6-0276/2008 -, and

by Mr Jarzembowski, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the greening of transport and the internalisation of external costs.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to come straight to the point and clear up a few misunderstandings. I have read from various sources that, by bringing in this Eurovignette Directive, we are trying to give the road transport sector the kiss of death in these economically difficult times. I have also read that we mean to make road pricing compulsory for all passenger cars in Europe.

The truth is, of course, that we do not mean to impose anything at all; on the contrary, we wish to offer a wide range of possibilities to help Member States who so desire to introduce, in their own time, the 'polluter pays' principle into the road transport sector. That is, we want to establish a framework, to lay down ground rules that Member States must observe if they wish to internalise external costs.

This should bring us one step closer to a more sustainable transport system. I wish to add straight away that this is no miracle cure. Very many more measures will have to be taken if we are to work wonders. If we do nothing, however - as the Commission is well aware - road transport will increase by 55% by 2020. We therefore have to do something.

What we are proposing here is a minor revolution in itself, if I may say so, but it is just a start, and will require an ambitious follow-up within a few years. With the help of the majority in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, we managed to draft a balanced, reasonable, coherent proposal. I should also like to thank everyone involved. It was not easy; points of view differed very widely. However, I hope that we retain this balance after tomorrow and thus send out a strong signal to the Council, which needs to draw up another common position.

What are the essential points? Firstly, which externalities are to be introduced into the system? We opted for the areas of air pollution, noise and congestion. Regarding the last of these, we have actually made a concession to the road transport sector by saying that countries wanting their systems to cover congestion should make a link with passenger cars. This is optional, not obligatory.

Secondly, on the subject of earmarking, we do not regard the revenue from these charges as an additional tax that is allowed to simply flow into State treasuries. Such revenue must be reinvested in the transport system with the aim of keeping external costs down. This must be the ultimate objective.

Thirdly, there is interoperability, which is vital, and I think the Commission still has some way to go in this regard. We want to prevent lorries having to take along 27 different tins in future in order to pay all the various tolls around Europe, and so I think that clear initiatives are needed to this end.

Fourthly, there must be the possibility of further action in future. Within a few years, an overview must be drawn up of the internalisation of external costs in all modes of transport. We must consider the possibility of adding other external costs, too, but we must also favour charging schemes based on kilometerage over time-based schemes.

Overall, the impact of all of this is actually limited. We estimate that the operational costs could rise by 3% if this Directive were to be applied in the field throughout Europe. Consequently, I wish to propose to my fellow Members that we stick with the package supported by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.

In other words, I do not support the amendments by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that seek to remove congestion from the system, nor can I support the amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, no matter how appealing I find them. Let us preserve a coherent whole and take a step forward in this way.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying that the mobility of people and goods is quite simply of key importance to citizens' quality of life, growth and employment, the social and territorial cohesion of the European Union and for trade with third countries.

That is why the European Community quite simply needs an infrastructure that meets its needs and equitable transport rules for all modes of transport. Given that transport also has negative consequences for people and the environment, it must, of course, be further greened, in order, also, to play its role in fighting climate change.

However, I have to tell you, Mr Vice-President, that what you put forward to us as a basis document on the greening of transport was a little too sparse. I am sorry to say that there is no consistent overall plan and you leave everything open - everything is palmed off on subsidiarity. If you say that we have to green transport, that must apply throughout the European Union and cannot be made subject to the wishes of the Member States. It must then apply to everything from the railways to marine transport.

You cannot just pick out road transport - and, in fact, specifically only goods vehicle traffic - and then say 'we will leave it up to the Member States to decide whether or not they want to have road tolls.' If you want a fundamental change, you need to put forward an integrated plan for all means of transport - and that is something we made very clear in the committee. Then, however, you also have to do that with scientifically-based impact assessments that take account of the consequences for competition amongst means of transport, mobility costs and the competitiveness of Europe.

The second communication, on the internalisation of external costs, is another example of the compartmentalisation under your system, proposing something and yet not proposing it. As regards the internalisation of external costs, you again set out a great big handbook that provides a multiplicity of ways to perform calculations, but then, in the end, you say 'we will calculate according to a flat-rate value.' No one on earth could understand that. You also fail to take account of the contributions already made by the various means of transport, be it in the form of general taxation, petroleum tax or vehicle tax.

You know, it is the same story with the Eurovignette. My group agrees with the other groups that exhaust emissions and noise should be taken account of in the external costs and in the charging thereof. Congestion, though? Mr Vice-President, congestion is caused by an insufficient provision of infrastructure by the Member States. To give the Member States money for managing their own shortcomings would be downright madness.

What is more, you are very much aware of the fact that companies have long borne the costs of congestion, as it leads to higher wage costs and higher fuel costs. With that in mind, it must be said, Mr El Khadraoui, that it makes no sense to internalise the costs of congestion - quite the opposite, in fact. We must attempt to get rid of this congestion through the prudent upgrading of infrastructure and the deployment of intelligent transport information systems, yet we must not burden businesses, already struggling with rising costs, with additional costs in the form of road tolls. There is no point in that.

Mr Vice-President, your communication on noise protection measures on the railways is positive, in principle. As the man on the English-speaking street says, though, 'Where's the beef?' What are you actually proposing? You say there are many options. No, you are the Commission! You have the right and the duty to put forward proposals that we can then implement. That is why the Committee on Transport and Tourism is calling on you to actually table a proposal for a directive on the introduction of noise-related track access charges so that, by re-investing the money collected by means of such track access charges in the railway companies - including private companies - we will be able to help see new noise-reducing brakes actually installed. All of us in this House have a clear goal and that is that noise pollution by the railways must be eradicated. We want to promote the railways, but then their journey through the serene Rhine valley must also be effected in an environmentally sound manner. So help us do this - propose something really tangible!

Mr President, we have reached the end of yet another debate on a subject that I resolved to bring to the attention of this House as soon as I had obtained the support of Parliament, in other words, our aim of not imposing a new tax on European citizens. As far as the Commission is concerned, the fact that the new Eurovignette is optional is evidence that we are not imposing a new tax. Above all, the sums collected will not be generally earmarked for the budgets of the various Member States but will be allocated to make a difference in a particular sector, namely pollution, the internalisation of external costs and the construction of safer roads and infrastructure.

I wish to thank Parliament for the commitment it showed to the greening package, particularly with regard to the review of the Eurovignette directive. The draft adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism based on Mr El Khadraoui's report sends out a strong message to Member States because it proposes a more flexible framework that legally authorises the adoption of new instruments to combat negative effects within the transport sector and also within the parties involved in the sector. It does this by showing a political intent to gradually encourage the introduction of fair and effective tariff scales for the use of infrastructures whereby the polluter pays, instead of the taxpayer having to foot the bill.

I feel that the opinion approved by the Commission, which is under discussion today, reinforces the Commission's proposal in some key respects. As far as the allocation of resources is concerned, I believe the proposed amendments are consistent with our suggested approach, which aims to defend the allocation of revenue from tolls and reduce the external effects of road transport, and I believe I can support them. As far as the type of external effects that should be taken into account, I say no to CO2 but yes to taking congestion into account. A modulated congestion charge would allow us to fight climate change more effectively than if we applied a one-off tax on CO2. It is essential for the economic effectiveness of road transport and useful for ensuring sufficient income to fund new transport capacities and I believe that the compromise we achieved constitutes a sound basis for discussions with the Council. We must nonetheless take great care to ensure that the final result represents an encouragement to States rather than a deterrent and does not impose conditions that are too complicated to manage.

I harbour certain reservations, however, about the specific amendment concerning sensitive mountain areas. The Commission proposal already authorises a pollution cost multiplication factor known as the mountain correction factor. The fact that we simply authorised the addition of this tariff charge to the existing surcharge, decided in 2006 to fund the great tunnels through the Alps, amounts to a double tariff charge and this is an obstacle to achieving a single market in my opinion. Hence my puzzlement.

Now I would like to move on to Mr Jarzembowski's report on the communication accompanying the directive. As he clearly showed during his speech, Mr Jarzembowski is highly critical of the Commission's position: for once. we are not in agreement after all these years of working together. The report is clearly critical. I will attempt to concentrate on two points in particular, two points that I feel are crucial. I wish to stress, on the one hand, that the Commission has carried out an impact assessment that covers all transport methods and analyses the effects of the various internalisation options. I feel that this analysis lays the foundation for the internalisation strategy proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, the Commission has proposed a common internalisation framework based on a principle that concerns all transport methods and takes into account past initiatives. It is a pragmatic approach that respects the acquis communautaire and takes into account the recently adopted proposals - I am thinking of the extension of the ETS to aviation and the international agreements on aviation, the maritime sector and inland waterways. Of course we can debate whether or not the Commission's proposals go far enough, but I must stress the fact that the Commission has dealt with the topics it was asked to cover, in other words, an integrated plan to make transport greener, supported by specific legislative proposals.

I wish to end by bringing up one aspect on which the Commission and Parliament are in agreement: the need to find a legislative approach to the problem of noise pollution in the railway sector. The Commission will submit its proposals within the framework of the first railway package revision, due to be adopted in the autumn. We will, of course, be pleased to hear your suggestions on this matter.

Thank you, Mr Tajani. In your relations with Mr Jarzembowski, you will have seen how right Karl Marx was when he showed how people's institutional position also determines their political position on various subjects.

Mr President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy mainly looked into two aspects of this directive, the first of which was oil.

Of all the major world economies, Europe is the most dependent on the transport of goods using oil. Let us not deceive ourselves. Although the price of oil is going down at the moment, it is only because the global economy is shrinking. Once the economy starts to recover, we are once again going to see the same problems of oil shortages, and the European economy's main Achilles heel in the future will be our dependence on oil for the transport of goods.

The second aspect relates to technology and exports. If Europe introduces a relevant Eurovignette system, it will also promote the rise of European economic players. The United States, China, India and Indonesia are economies that will have the same problem as us. This is therefore an appeal for the implementation of an ambitious policy, both with regard to the internalisation of external costs to anticipate the necessary changes from oil and to promote European industry in all the technological apparatus surrounding the Eurovignette.

Mr President, Commissioner, our rapporteur, my esteemed fellow member, Mr El Khadraoui, began with some reassuring words. No European charges are to be imposed. Instead, the rapporteur is concerned with ground rules for the internal market, aiming to facilitate sustainable transport in Europe. However, the position he adopts as rapporteur gives Member States a licence to impose very high charges, up to a few euros per kilometre, with the congestion charge and the mark-up on top. Mr President, in the Commissioner's words, what we have here are not ground rules for the internal market but barriers to the internal market.

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wishes to make its position here today clear. We are staunch supporters of investment in sustainable transport. Therefore, the internalisation of external costs for air and noise pollution can count on our approval, provided the revenues are invested in making road transport cleaner - something that enjoys broad support. However, the proposed congestion charging and mark-up are a bridge too far for the PPE-DE Group. Congestion charging has a very limited impact on the environment and does not solve the problem of congestion, and would also constitute an extra heavy burden in these times of economic crisis, an extra burden on SMEs, which is also bad for employment.

The rapporteur has reached a compromise with the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe by making a link with passenger transport, which was crucial to obtaining their support. The Council will not accept that - so much is already clear. This puts the rapporteur in a position he himself wants but the ALDE Group does not.

Therefore, I should like to end my speech on behalf of the PPE-DE Group with an old saying: we may lose the battle, but that does not mean we have lost the war.

Amendment of the agenda

Ladies and gentlemen, as I am in the chair, I have to read you a communication which states that, at its meeting on Monday, 9 March, the Committee on Foreign Affairs approved a motion for a resolution on the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka and, in view of the alarming situation there, it requested that the motion for a resolution be included on the agenda for the current part-session in accordance with Rule 91 of the Rules of Procedure.

The motion for a resolution will be deemed adopted unless at least 40 Members submit a written objection by noon tomorrow, Wednesday, in which case it will be included in the current part-session for debate and voting.

The charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Greening of transport and internalisation of external costs (continuation of debate) 

We shall continue with the debate on the reports by Mr El Khadraoui and Mr Jarzembowski on the transport sector.

I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague, Mr El Khadraoui, and Mr Jarzembowski.

The transport sector is one of the key sectors contributing to the European Union's economic and social development. At the request of the European Parliament, the European Commission proposed internalising external costs and amending the Eurovignette Directive. However, the moment that has been chosen to do this comes at a very difficult time. As a result of the economic crisis, the volume of orders is dropping, carriers are facing increased costs, companies are going bust and jobs are being lost.

Although the texts being proposed by the Commission mark a step forward in the development of transport which respects and protects the environment, they can and must be improved. I do not think that Mr Jarzembowski's approach, where we only criticise without making any improvements, is the right one. In my personal opinion, a directive which cannot be applied to all Member States on a mandatory basis will not achieve its aim and may significantly distort the internal market through the barriers which some Member States, if they so wish, may introduce to block the free movement of persons and goods.

This is why I consider that the process of internalising external costs must be applied to every kind of transport and double taxation must be avoided. In this way, if some Member States have decided to introduce road tolls they should not then introduce an additional pollution tax later on. This is also actually the stance adopted by Mr El Khadraoui, which I support.

The costs incurred by traffic congestion are rising to 1% of GDP. We must therefore act to reduce this, but the cost of these measures must not only be paid by goods and passenger transport operators. Congestion is caused by all vehicles and, especially, by a defective infrastructure. Member States must invest in the construction of motorways, high-speed railway lines and in those alternatives which can cut traffic congestion. Intermodal transport will facilitate the transfer of goods from the road network to a rail, ship or air freight system, making the transportation of goods and passengers more efficient.

In conclusion, we need an integrated strategy for developing European transport which protects the environment, but without internalisation of external costs affecting the competitiveness of road transport.

Mr President, I agree with Mr Jarzembowski when he says that mobility is essential to society. I also agree with Mrs Wortmann-Kool when she says that here, too, we must pay particular attention to the internal market. However, to my mind, this compromise does take us a step in that direction. The internal market is important, and so it is also important that agreements be made between Member States. In addition, this is just a first step towards a system we are going to have to think over in its entirety anyway at a given point in time and to adjust at certain points.

A large majority of our group supports the compromise reached with the rapporteur, for which I thank him. The internalisation of external costs - and I have listened closely to the rapporteur's words - is not a regular tax. The revenues thus generated must be used to reduce the external costs. This is an essential component of Parliament's position. If this does not happen, we no longer have a compromise.

Therefore, we agree to the inclusion of air pollution, noise and congestion in the internalisation of external costs. In the case of congestion, however, if the aim is to fight and reduce this phenomenon, all road users causing it must be treated in the same way without any discrimination between the various elements responsible.

I also think it a good thing, therefore, that a Member State must present an action plan and state how it plans to reduce congestion. All in all, earmarking is important - the rapporteur too has pointed out that this is an essential component. It is not disputed in Parliament that earmarking, the use of the revenues, is very important.

I should like to say to Mrs Wortmann-Kool that, if these two conditions - equal treatment of all the road users responsible for congestion and clear earmarking of revenue from the charge - are not met, and if the Council is not in agreement, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe will also withdraw its support for the compromise.

Thank you, Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank both rapporteurs, especially Mr El Khadraoui, for this difficult work on trying to reach a compromise. I think that part of the compromise is being voted on by the Committee on Transport and Tourism - the part relating to the use of earmarked taxes - but the plenary sitting will clearly be voting on a certain part, such as congestion. I would also like to thank my fellow Members for their understanding in relation to not removing time-based charges in countries at the European Union's borders, where heavy goods vehicles generate considerable pollution, queuing at the borders for long periods, day and night. Finally, once we have adopted this directive in one form or another, I very much hope that, regardless of the crisis, the Member States will nonetheless not subordinate the short-term situation to long-term goals. In my view, this would be very important in resolving the problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow's decision on external costs in the road haulage sector is a decision about whether haulage, ultimately, is sustainable; whether, in future, there is to be fair competition between road and rail; and whether the polluter pays principle is finally to be made to apply to road traffic - at least to some extent.

The costs are not new - they have been around for some time. It is just that, at present, they are paid for from national budgets. We surely must put the environment and the health of those living close to transport links above having uncongested roads. The burdens are well enough known to all of us. Health impacts along transit routes have been documented and that is our call to action.

The stricter exhaust emission standards for goods vehicles, for which we had had such high hopes, were inadequate. Any improvement in each individual goods vehicle meant nothing, as simultaneous growth cancelled everything out. That means that we need new, targeted measures in order to provide a better framework for a market that has come off the rails. It also means, however, that the likes of relief for heavy road-users, which are still in existence, need to be abolished, as what this does is give extra reward to polluters for polluting.

We demand the most comprehensive possible inclusion of all the external costs that arise that currently have to be borne by the budgets, and I will finish with my old ceterum censeo: the sensitive area of the Alps needs special protection.

Mr President, the abolition of customs borders and exchange rates within Europe has increased the scale of the economy. The government has created a dense network of ever wider motorways. Many goods are now transported over long distances, sometimes even at various stages of the production process.

These developments have a negative impact on the environment, and their costs are not borne by hauliers. Partly as a result of this, freight transport has become increasingly cheap over the years. This encourages even more transport and increases the environmental impact still further.

In nearly 10 years as a Member of this House, I have often heard talk of charging this environmental damage to hauliers, but unfortunately the results are still unsatisfactory. Sometimes it seems as though politicians are more interested in the calculation models themselves than the results that can be obtained using them. Decisions taken on this in 2006 have yielded insufficient results.

As far as my group is concerned, the objective must be to give the most environmentally-friendly modes of transport - transport by rail and water - more of a chance, and to curb the most environmentally damaging - road and air transport. In the absence of a clear objective such as this, calculation models and more European rules only produce bureaucracy, at no benefit to humans and the environment.

My country, the Netherlands, is an example of how not to do things. A discussion on road pricing - taxing road traffic according to the distance travelled - has been under way there for nearly 20 years, and has now become completely deadlocked. The only impression voters are left with is that congestion is being taxed without there being any prospect of a solution to the problems in the form of improvements to the railways and public passenger transport services.

Europe must not repeat such errors by Member States. It must, however, remove all the barriers to regional and national measures, enable effective coordination of these measures, improve cross-border payment of charges and provide professional drivers with better information on what measures to expect outside the area where they live.

The proposals by rapporteur Mr El Khadraoui provide scope for this, and therefore have the support of my group. In addition, rapporteur Mr Jarzembowski mainly calls attention to the noise nuisance from rail freight traffic, and we agree with him. At the same time, however, I should like to point out that the construction of more and more high noise barriers along railway lines cannot be the solution.

Mr President, following a long, tiring debate, we are on the verge of adopting Parliament's position at first reading. I am fairly pleased with the result, and very pleased with the cooperation with the rapporteur. It is good that Member States are to be given the opportunity to pass on external costs to the polluter. Let us not hesitate to pass on the costs of congestion, air and noise pollution to what will ultimately be the consumer.

I do take the view, though, that Member States must retain the scope to vary the costs. In addition, it must be possible to trace back the burdens imposed clearly and transparently to the actual costs incurred. We cannot allow Member States to introduce a kind of punitive tax. Amendment 40 will therefore have to be removed from the report.

I should also like the Council to tell me whether it shares Parliament's view that the revenues from the Eurovignette must be used to reduce the external costs. This is essential to my support for the Eurovignette Directive.

In addition, this proposal must not remain isolated. Lorries are not the only road users responsible for congestion costs; other modes of transport generate them too. With the exception of maritime and air transport, which will be covered by the Emissions Trading Scheme, these hauliers too must pay their external costs. This is a fair way of encouraging hauliers to clean up their act.

I should also like to take this opportunity to request support for my Amendment 76. I do not understand why the Commission decided to change the old text on regulatory charges to 'any urban road'. The imposition of such regulatory charges is a national competence. It is the Member States who must decide on the way they wish to impose such a regulatory charge, provided it is non-discriminatory, of course. I propose that we return to the old text from 2006, therefore, and I ask for your support for this.

On a final note, it is of the utmost importance that the Commission ensures that the Member States do not use this directive to impose unduly high charges on freight transport. The Commission must take very seriously its tasks under Article 11(1). If a Member State makes a mockery of the external cost charge calculation or of the maximum value, the Commission must come down hard on that Member State.

(DE) Mr President, the economy, the environment and people - these are the three cornerstones within which we must fit European law relating to road charging and the Eurovignette. When it comes to freight transport in Europe it is probably right to say that we must rank these three priorities differently, according to reverse alphabetical order, no less. We must now prioritise as follows: people first, then the environment, then the economy.

We, the Commission and Parliament, want to do that. The Commission has produced a very sound proposal on the subject of internalising external costs, proposing a truer reflection of costs in transport - in freight transport, but not just there - and we have former Vice-President Barrot and current Vice-President Tajani to thank for that.

We improved the proposal in the Committee on Transport and Tourism. In particular, we put an even greater emphasis on the concerns of those affected most - people, the environment and the economy. In this context I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr El Khadraoui, and to all those who played their very constructive and active parts in this work.

We have also kept a sense of proportion. Europe cannot and should not regulate everything and in every detail. The Member States, as the shapers of their own specific conditions, must also have their place. This also applies, and especially applies, to this much debated topic today, of congestion. In this case, it should not be about punishing those who find themselves stuck in congestion but about coming up with constructive solutions to help prevent it. Design should take precedence here, not bans.

As is also frequently the case with our text, the devil is in the detail. In its original proposal, the Commission proposed, after careful cost calculations, to forget everything and have a final upper limit on costs after all. In the committee, we rejected that as nonsensical in the then Amendment 20. Tomorrow, this item will be voted on again as Amendment 40. The rapporteur is in favour. I ask all of you to support this item - we need to win this vote.

In closing, I would like to say that I find it very regrettable that the Czech Presidency has not deemed it worth the effort to send a representative to Parliament for this important legislative proposal.

Mr President, I will speak on the El Khadraoui report. I would like to thank the rapporteur and his staff for all their hard work and for finding a compromise when, at times, it looked impossible.

There are a number of points that need to be made in this debate. Firstly, this is the start of a process, not the end, and contained within the compromise is the right of Member States to introduce congestion charging or not. I also want to remind honourable Members, particularly from the PPE-DE Group, that this Chamber has consistently demanded from the Commission a proposal and strategy to internalise external costs in all modes of transport - but in particular road transport - and this has indeed been highlighted as our roads become more congested and global warming more severe.

There is also a need to see a more balanced road sector that is not only economically sustainable, but also environmentally sustainable, and one that recognises that it has to pay a fair price for the costs it creates - be these environmental or infrastructure costs. We cannot have a 'do-nothing' attitude, although I note that this phrase has become synonymous with the Conservatives over recent months. I know the formulation of this report has been difficult - some Members believe it goes too far, whilst others not far enough. However, as a first stage, I think that this compromise deserves support. I look forward in the future to other externalities being included and would stress my group's support that all revenue from Eurovignettes should be earmarked for use in the transport sector so that transparency and public opinion can be brought closer together.

This report is a serious attempt to deliver what Parliament has called for over many years. It will be an important tool in combating congestion, in improving the environment and in facilitating modal shift, which is why it deserves our full support. And Commissioner, I would not worry too much about disagreeing with Georg Jarzembowski - we in the Socialist Group have been doing that successfully for years.

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the third time I have had occasion to deal with this subject. During the previous term, I had the pleasure of acting as rapporteur for an own-initiative report on the topic and then, not long ago, we approved the previous version of the Eurovignette.

We should not forget the reason why this process has dragged on for so long. At least three factors are simultaneously at play. Until recently, road and other infrastructures were paid for only by taxpayers. The Eurovignette is paving the way to allow us to begin shifting at least part of the responsibility for paying the financial burden of infrastructures onto the user, in a manner that is clearly fairer. In other words the Eurovignette is an instrument designed to ensure fair taxation, despite all indications to the contrary at the moment. Ensuring this takes place in a different way will depend on financial engineering within the various states, who are not allowing Europe to deal with the matter - because otherwise we would be only too willing to do so. The present Eurovignette applies the 'user pays' principle. Now we have the problem of switching to a 'polluter pays' system, which is another great principle that we must seek to tackle.

As far as I am concerned, the compromise we have reached is a good compromise and we must seek to hold onto it as far as possible. This is evidence that, if the Council agrees, we will effectively be able to pass...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(GA) Mr President, I would like to say that I understand the reasons behind this report. However, in so far as it relates to me it is unfair, as this duty, the Eurovignette, is adding to the costs of countries that are a long distance from the centre of the market.

The Commissioner said that mountain regions are opposing the Single Market. What about areas like my own constituency in the West of Ireland, from where 1 000 lorries depart every week? They are hit while going to the market. And what is this about it being a single market? It is not! Costs are being raised for peripheral countries because you want the greening of the market. You can't have it both ways, however. You must think about the countries on the periphery and give them a fair deal, Mr President, something which is not done in this report.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, no serious scientist doubts that there must be a drastic application of the brakes to the consumption of fossil fuels, as the raw materials are limited and as the combustion of fossil fuels is the main cause of the climate chaos.

We all know that around a third of fossil fuels are squandered on travel and transport and that goods vehicles, in particular, cause enormous damage to people and the environment that the taxpayer then has to pay for. Everyone essentially agrees to the principle of paying the true costs. Yet, when it comes to the specific measures to implement true costs, we hear a thousand excuses.

It is thoroughly incomprehensible why the actions being taken in response to the crises are not much more consistent. It is wrong to continue to promote the unhealthy and bloated transport economy. The 20-20-20 target will otherwise grow ever more distant. We must be clear that this dishonesty jeopardises the future of our grandchildren.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank Mr El Khadraoui. He has achieved a workable compromise under really difficult conditions.

For us transport policy makers, it is a quantum leap forward that air pollution, noise and congestion can now also be included in the tolls. This reinforces the polluter pays principle. The polluter pays principle prevents profits going into private hands while the damage is paid for by society. That is a social democratic concept. Parliament has resolved to introduce this principle to all modes of transport step by step. There will then, at long last, be fair competition between the railways, lorries and inland waterways.

It must also be made clear at this point that it will be entirely up to the Member States whether or not these additional tolls are implemented. Nobody will be forced to do so. All we are doing here is setting up the basic framework for it so that there is no patchwork of different toll models across Europe, thereby avoiding discrimination, as road haulage should be treated in a comparable way throughout the internal market. For us, this is not about additional income streams but is, instead, about directing transport more strongly by means of price signals. The Committee on Transport and Tourism is right to want to see the mandatory ring-fencing of this additional income for use in reducing external damage.

However, there is still one fly in the ointment, as I see it. Unfortunately, the committee decision, as it currently stands, links the introduction of congestion costs for goods vehicles to the inclusion of other modes of transport, such as passenger cars. That will prevent the introduction of congestion costs in those Member States, such as Germany, that do not want a toll for passenger cars. That therefore denies us an important instrument of taxation in the field of transport policy.

My conclusion is as follows: tomorrow's vote offers a breakthrough in transport policy after decades of discussion about external costs. I hope that we will receive the necessary majority to achieve that breakthrough.

(NL) Mr President, the only reason - at least the way I see it - to look seriously at this proposal at all is that it creates a European framework for Member States to work within, which ultimately benefits the internal market. Indeed, the 'green' concept is being misused with increasing frequency for the purposes of a kind of protectionism. The sectoral driving bans in Austria are a good example of this.

We have come a long way. A few tricky points remain under discussion, however. Let me be clear that, as far as I am concerned, the possibility of a congestion charge for road freight transport is inadmissible, and I also consider the abandonment of earmarking unacceptable.

As my colleague Mr Sterckx said earlier, if, at second reading, it emerges that there is no majority in this House and in the Council in favour of these positions, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe will withdraw its support for the proposal. Road freight transport is an important driving force for our economy. It is particularly important that we do not lose sight of that fact - certainly not at this time.

Allow me, too - I say this particularly with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in mind - to conclude with an old Dutch saying: the bull-in-a-china-shop approach rarely works.

(PL) Mr. President, the crisis which is increasingly taking its toll on road hauliers should caution us against introducing new charging regulations, unless what we want to do is to exacerbate the crisis. Transport has always been the lifeblood of the whole economy. We have had negative experience reforming the common agricultural policy, and this is likely to repeat itself now.

We must remember that road hauliers are not, in the main, vast enterprises, but small businesses with a handful of vehicles. Let us not make them pay for the upkeep of the country. This is already being done through tax on fuel, insurance, road checks and through many other charges. Introducing payments for external costs would significantly increase the cost of transport and mean paying twice for the same thing. It is clear that goods need to be transported, as there will always be producers and customers for goods which will need transporting, but do we have to make them responsible for the costs of infrastructure? I move for the suspension of all further action until better times, or for the complete rejection of the Commission's proposal.

(DE) Mr President, transport, and above all road transport, is responsible for 30% of CO2 emissions, and even with this directive we are still miles away from achieving fair competition between the different modes of transport.

The EU has had a mandatory rail toll since the mid-1990s. It applies to every locomotive on every kilometre of track, and it is practically unlimited in size. On the roads, it is left up to the Member States to decide whether they charge any toll at all. It applies only to goods vehicles, only on motorways and only to goods vehicles weighing 12 tonnes or more. That is unfair competition. It leads to the traffic moving from the railways to the roads rather than, as your fine grandiose speeches often indicate, from the roads to the railways.

The rail toll in Slovakia is twice as high as in Germany, and the Slovaks have no road tolls at all. That is just madness. That is why we need this directive. We need the true reflection of costs. If Members from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats believe that the costs of congestion should not be included, they should at least vote for the inclusion of the climate costs, the accident costs and the noise costs. Then they will be credible.

Those who vote 'no' on this issue are giving up on climate change and setting our children and our children's children on the road to ruin, as they will have no future on this planet. We need regulation that is much tougher than what the Commission and the majority of this House have proposed.

(PT) Mr President, the revision of the Eurovignette Directive should have been used to encourage more sustainable and environmentally-friendly road transport. Simply put: in my view, with the result obtained in committee, we have taken the wrong road.

We have not chosen measures that encourage more sustainable carriage of goods. Instead, we have sent out the wrong message at this time of global crisis, with a revision for which all the indications are that it will only exacerbate the already precarious situation of many transport companies. Many of these are small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the majority of Europe's businesses.

We know that measures aiming to combat pollution or stimulate technological innovation, such as cleaner engines and intelligent vehicles, are essential. The problem, which is starting to cause serious difficulties, lies in the imposition of a congestion charge. As far as the so-called 'peak hours' are concerned, the cause of these is, above all, local motorists who are travelling to their job or business, or for leisure. By coming up with the imposition of a charge that affects the carriage of goods, we will simply be punishing those who supply the workings of our daily lives, and who do so in the fastest, most flexible way, door-to-door.

We will also be acting unilaterally if we fail, for example, to take action in terms of changing working hours, accident prevention or road planning and maintenance, and will therefore call into question the very mobility that defines our societies and the market economy. We are also impugning other measures taken to promote the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union. For my country, Portugal, as well as for all the peripheral countries, this measure is nothing more than a throttling of economic activity, as we will merely be net contributors of any transit charges.

Mr President, in summary: with this charge we will be misconstruing the environmental objectives, which are important, causing more difficulties and even bankruptcy for small and medium-sized enterprises, and therefore directly contributing to increasing unemployment and social instability in European societies. The choice is ours, and let there be no doubt that we will be called to account for the consequences of our decisions.

(ES) Mr President, I would like to express our profound disappointment, not least from the viewpoint of the Socialist benches - despite being geographically peripheral - at the dreadful timing of this report. Firstly, it has come too soon. We have not even evaluated Eurovignette II yet, which only began to be implemented about six months ago, but here we are opening another new dossier.

In addition, we are in the grips of a cruel financial, economic and social crisis, which has had devastating effects on goods transport. It therefore sounds like a bad joke to propose a measure now that necessarily means raising the cost of goods, especially those transported in the countries on the fringes of Europe, which are precisely the ones that are worst affected by unemployment and lack the alternatives of railways or motorways of the sea. They simply do not exist and, moreover, there is no willingness at the border.

Furthermore, the European Parliament has historically called for internalisation for all modes of transport and not just for the one that is already subject to cross-border charging. We asked the Commission to make a really creative effort to achieve an intermodal system based on solidarity and thus maintain consistency in our European commitment to a co-modal logistics chain. This text contradicts that in its partiality.

Lastly, I am disappointed because I feel it is dishonest to tell people that this instrument will solve their daily congestion problem for ever.

If that were the case, the road haulage sector would be the first to call for this instrument, because that is the group that already pays for the delays caused by urban traffic jams.

The rapporteur is proposing a compromise that deserves praise for its sharpness, but it contains an obvious legal weakness which the Commission denies, even though it can see it, not to mention the confused message that we send out to citizens when we establish European rules that the Member States are free to implement or not as they see fit.

As I have said, this has come at the wrong time, and it is an incomplete instrument that shows little solidarity, at least with the fringes of Europe.

Mr President, I want to say a word on the need to include CO2 emissions in the Eurovignette. CO2 emissions from heavy goods vehicles amount to almost a quarter of emissions from road transport and, while cars are gradually getting more efficient, HGV fuel efficiency has not improved in the last 15 years.

If we do not include CO2 in the Eurovignette, what other options do we have? Precious few, because pigs will fly, as we say, before Ecofin ministers agree on EU-level fuel taxation. Worse still, if a Member State wants to bring in a toll system that reflects the external costs of CO2, they will not be allowed to do so unless we now include CO2 within the Eurovignette. Excluding CO2 from the Eurovignette would be particularly unfair given that all Member States now have binding CO2 reduction targets to meet under the effort-sharing decision. They need to have a range of tools at their disposal.

Mr President, I rise to speak specifically on Mr El Khadraoui's report on the Eurovignette, the subject of which has been before this House in numerous forms on many previous occasions. My position remains the same in that I do not see the need to pile extra taxation onto an industry which is already badly hit by the economic downturn.

In the United Kingdom, over GBP 50 billion is already taken from road transport each year and only GBP 10 billion reinvested in transport as a whole. So much for hypothecation. At a time when we are facing the biggest economic crisis in living memory, and businesses, large and small, are going bankrupt each week, why are we at a European level discussing measures which would exacerbate the problem?

In this context, may I also say to Brian Simpson that it is better to do nothing than to do it wrong, as I am sure his party will find to its cost in the next few weeks.

On a more general note, I should make Members aware that, in the UK, these matters are decisions for local authorities in the context of implementing road pricing. In my own region, the West Midlands, all seven of the local city councils of differing political complexions rejected the idea of implementing such a scheme.

In Brian Simpson's own region, citizens overwhelmingly rejected road-pricing in a local referendum in the Greater Manchester area.

So I would ask this Parliament, and the European Commission, what part of 'no' do you not understand? It should not be for the EU to dictate a 'one-size-fits-all' approach in this area. It should remain a matter solely for national and local determination.

(DE) Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity - as soon as we have quiet again in the Chamber - to offer my sincere congratulations to the rapporteur. It was a tough job, and yet noteworthy progress was made, and progress that represents a small step on the road to the complete greening of heavy goods transport, especially in allowing no compensation for the additional charges and in including noise, air pollution and, to some extent, congestion, with some room for discussion about whether - in particular in the case of congestion - this is not somewhat too little.

I am, however, dissatisfied with certain elements and I would like to say a few words in that regard. The problem of climate change must, by now, be something that everyone knows about or is at least aware of. We have therefore also decided on special requirements, especially for heavy industry, that are not particularly easy to comply with and that are very much open to further discussion. However, what no one in Austria and in the rest of Europe understands, under these circumstances, is that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has prevented one of the largest causes of CO2 emissions, namely heavy goods transit traffic, from having to pay even a single euro cent for the costs it has given rise to. That is something you will not be able to explain to your constituents, ladies and gentlemen. They have to pay these costs through their taxes, and you really cannot explain that.

If the rapporteur for the PPE-DE Group believes that they have lost a battle here, I would say to her that I hope they lose many such battles, as that would be good for the vast majority of people in Europe.

(BG) The report on road tolls contains suggestions which will make transport in the European Union significantly more expensive, especially over long distances and when using carriers from periphery countries of the EU, like Bulgaria. It will not only be the carriers which will suffer as a result of this, but also their direct customers, retailers and end customers in the European Union. Road transport operators are being hit hard by the financial and economic crisis. We are seeing a 50% reduction in the demand for transport services compared to 2007, as well as 110% more bankruptcies in this sector compared to 2007.

Due to the lack of similar regulatory requirements, European carriers are not as competitive as firms from third countries which carry out a large number of shipments in the European Union. Companies which have invested in green vehicles in recent years are in a particularly difficult position. At the moment, they cannot service their leases and are consequently faced with bankruptcy. Taking into account these conditions, I firmly support proposals 71 and 72 which recommend a 'congestion' factor should not be included in the directive. I also think that it is extremely important not to allow resources collected from road tolls to be transferred to other means of transport. This will have an adverse impact, especially in countries with an underdeveloped road infrastructure, as is the case in my country, Bulgaria.

(RO) We need a coherent, sustainable European policy in the transport sector which respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Internalising external costs for pollution and noise is a positive measure.

The tolls paid by heavy vehicles to use road infrastructures will support, in the long term, the huge investments in the infrastructures included in the European and national economic recovery plans, at the level of both Trans-European transport networks and of other categories of road infrastructures, including mountainous regions where, in many cases, it is particularly difficult to construct roads.

However, in the short term, it is still the Member States' responsibility to find specific quick ways of financing these investments through the sensible use of the funds which the EU provides to them, both as part of the TEN-T financing and through the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund, as well as through franchises and public-private partnerships.

The European Commission must support, using the instruments which it has available, the integrated initiatives for extending Member States' infrastructure networks, especially in the new Member States.

As regards introducing a charge on those using the infrastructure to help solve the problem of congestion, I believe that this proposal should be examined in more depth, bearing in mind that congestion does not depend exclusively on cars, but more significantly on Member States' ability to plan and implement efficiently national infrastructures at regional and local level.

For this reason, I believe that there needs to be a better correlation between spatial development plans, town plans and traffic management, especially in urban and peri-urban areas where congestion causes the most problems.

Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating my friend and colleague, Mr El Khadraoui, who, it is fair to say, despite appearances suggesting the contrary, has actually proved himself capable of producing a very sound and workable report. I am happy to add my support to it, and indeed to the underlying principle that the polluter should pay.

On this side of the House, we attach great importance to air quality, about which we are all very concerned, and we all know that lorries pollute. As Mrs Lichtenberger put it, 'there is documented evidence'. Now Mrs Wortmann-Kool, who has left, spoke about the obstacles to the internal market and Mr Jarzembowski, despite his report on the greening of transport, also expressed reservations about the Eurovignette. I would say to both of them that the biggest threat to all markets will be if we get overtaken by pollution. I do not believe that an extra 2-3% will be a huge burden, but it will show that we are taking serious steps to counter pollution.

Mr O'Neachtain expressed reservations and concerns about Ireland and other peripheral countries. He seems not to understand that this is optional on Member States. It will only apply in Ireland if his government actually decides it. I think he, and probably Mr Bradbourn, will have learnt one lesson this afternoon, which is that it is dangerous - and makes you look rather foolish - to speak on a report that you either have not read or that you clearly do not understand.

On another point, as an aside, I believe that we should, and could, do much more to encourage freight off the roads onto the waterways, where one barge can carry as much as 15 lorries. I therefore think that we should support the initiative of our erstwhile Belgian colleague.

(FR) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I would like to start by congratulating my fellow Members, Mr El Khadraoui and Mr Jarzembowski, on the high quality of their work and the excellent reports they have produced.

We are currently at a turning point, where we are trying to safeguard our industry whilst making it more sustainable, and to reach the 'three times 20' objective that was reaffirmed by the President of the European Union at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy, in this House last December.

In this context, the European Union has expressed a desire to legislate to take account, in transport costs, of other costs that have, to date, been borne by European society as a whole: this is the polluter pays principle that Parliament has always supported.

We voted for this for air transport last June, when aviation was integrated into the ETS system. In the maritime sector, the European Commission is currently looking into the best way of taking account of discharges from ships, and it is what we are proposing today with this text for the transport of freight by road.

I agree with those of you who have said that we certainly must not restrict mobility. We need to carry on as we have been for a number of years in encouraging this mobility in the European Union, and we need to ensure that there is fair competition between the various modes of transport.

We must not compel businesses at all costs to transport their goods by train or boat instead of by road freight - that would be absurd and anti-economic. What we need to do is make sure that businesses can choose the quickest, most economic and most beneficial mode of transport for their purposes, and for that to be possible, the price has to reflect the real cost of the selected mode of transport.

By giving the States the option of internalising certain external costs if they wish, this directive takes a first step in that direction - a first step towards true integration of the external costs in all modes of transport, which sends a powerful political message. It is important for us to support this when we vote tomorrow.

(PL) Mr. President, I would like to thank our rapporteur, Mr El Khadraoui. He has done a fine job. He has dealt with hundreds of comments.

More to the point, I would like to stress that it is road transport that is currently keeping Europe up and running. It is true that we are deciding on introducing additional charges, and it seems right that we should pay for what we use. But when planning our work on the directive, we did not plan on the crisis.

I therefore feel I must speak on behalf of the road hauliers and say that their actual situation is much worse, particularly with the fall in demand for international road transport. The hauliers have cited huge financial burdens, particularly those of tax on fuels. There has been a temporary respite in terms of fuel costs, but we, as the European Union, cannot guarantee fuel prices over the longer term.

I believe that both the European Commission and governments should enter into dialogue with professional road hauliers. We must explain to them how this initiative came about. And we must also convince them that our intention is equal treatment for all forms of transport, and finally, that we are responsible for a sensible, balanced European transport policy.

(ES) Mr President, the revision of the Eurovignette Directive is a very important issue that occupies us all and is also a cause for concern, particularly to those of us in peripheral countries who feel victimised by this proposal.

The European Commission has decided to approach the internalisation of the external costs of road transport by charging for three new costs: air pollution, noise pollution and congestion.

Although the principles behind the proposal - 'the user pays' and 'the polluter pays' - are reasonable, the solution proposed is definitely not, as it will discriminate against a sector which, for months, has been suffering from the disastrous effects of the economic crisis. Although it was not the intention to demonise goods transport by road, it has ended up being the target.

This proposal, ladies and gentlemen, is inappropriate and, far from achieving the expected objectives of sustainable transport, it will be a death sentence for a large number of small and medium-sized European enterprises that employ thousands of people in the European Union and contribute every day to the distribution of goods, ensuring that products reach the end consumer. Consumers will see how product prices will rise when these charges are implemented.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need a transport system that is competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly and does not rule out road transport, because at the moment, it is the only way to get everywhere. Modal change remains a dream and is far from becoming reality. Trans-European networks, motorways of the sea and cross-border connections are still plans and not realities in some cases.

When the world economy Titanic goes down, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot ask the orchestra to carry on playing, and certainly not in celebration.

(PT) Thank you to all those who were involved, particularly and especially my colleague Mr El Khadraoui, who gave his all in a manner very open to and ready for consensual solutions.

The proposal under discussion will allow Member States to levy charges with the objective of covering certain external environmental costs, as well as generating a significant income to be used for improving the European road network and minimising the environmental impact of some road transport. On the other hand, it could also mean significant costs, especially for the more peripheral countries such as my country, Portugal. That is why I insisted on Copel and vehemently opposed the mandatory extension of the geographic scope to cover all major roads.

I also opposed the application of charges generated just by the congestion of a few, which is a measure that will lead to unfair advantage and which fails to penalise those who pollute most. I do, however, recognise the need to keep accounts of these charges. Application just to trans-European road networks or to routes usually and significantly used by international road haulage, thereby allowing the Member State to choose the routes for which to introduce charges, is a lesser evil which could be minimised even further if application of this proposal were postponed until after the difficult global economic crisis we are currently experiencing.

(DE) Thank you, Mr President, I very much welcome this proposal. We are on the right road here, in particular, when it comes to incorporating the costs of congestion into overall road costs. We need to achieve cost reality here to really bring about a situation where market economic instruments regulate traffic. Otherwise, we will always have imbalances in this regard.

This debate has also shown up the tensions between the peripheral regions and those areas in the centre of our continent. Quite simply, it must also be the case that when people from the peripheral regions drive though our central areas, they must take account of the concerns of the population. That is very important and I do ask for understanding on this point, because on this issue some of the population has found itself pushed to the limit. The subsidiarity principle, as expressed in the proposal, allows the Member States to decide for themselves whether they want to internalise these external costs.

For the central areas - and for the Alpine regions in particular - it is clear that they will choose to do so. If peripheral regions decide not to take that route, that is something I can understand. Overall, however, we must strive to make the individual sectors in the transport industry bear the costs that they actually give rise to. That is the only way in which, in the long term, we can create a system that is truly sustainable and that satisfies the concerns of the population. Thank you.

(FR) Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr El Khadraoui on having reached a compromise, but we must not pretend that this text is not a very fragile one. It is suffering from the external costs of the crisis, by which I mean that there is considerable pressure and considerable concern on the part of the road hauliers.

Moreover, when it landed in the office of our co-legislator, it had quite a different nature, because oil was at USD 57 a barrel. It is therefore a text that was born under difficult circumstances, but I would like to say at this point, because I have been surprised by some of the things I have heard, that it is not a text that introduces a tax or a toll: it is the individual Member States that will decide whether to introduce a tax or a toll.

It is a text that, like the two previous ones, aims to define the conditions for road tolls in the various countries in order to avoid excessive distortions and so as not to create distortions of competition or discrimination.

We do, in my view, need to be quite clear on this. The text complies completely with the principle of subsidiarity, and it is also fair. I would say that I am very pleased with it on behalf of my own country because it will make it possible to obtain a contribution to the infrastructure of a transit country such as France from heavy goods transporters that currently go through the country without buying a drop of petrol and without spending a cent. I therefore think that this will be a beneficial text.

(RO) The Commission's desire to charge transport operators not only for the right to use the infrastructure, but also for the impact on the environment, known as internalisation of external costs, will impose a tax burden with severe repercussions for these companies, especially in the current economic crisis.

Specific impact studies based on relevant statistics need to be carried out before putting forward a directive like this. A realistic assessment is required of the consequences which will result from the implementation of such a directive and specific proposals on methods for calculating and posting external costs to account.

The internalisation of external transport costs is, in the long run, a measure which may help to make transport greener. I should mention that specific legislative instruments such as these are actually necessary in Member States such as Romania. However, I do not envisage yet that these external costs will be applied in the future, at any rate, not in Bucharest where I come from. I am referring here to traffic congestion, air pollution, sound pollution, water pollution, soil pollution or the impact on natural landscapes. I find it difficult to believe that the authorities in Romania will implement this directive, which is more of a burden than a help.

However, as Mr Jarzembowski also indicates, measures of this kind must be implemented after objective studies have been carried out, based on statistical data. We cannot ask transport companies to pay sums of money that have been arbitrarily set for external costs, all the more so as we are talking about significant sums.

(DE) Mr President, I wanted to speak again because a number of my fellow Members have spoken about the jobs issue in perhaps somewhat sanctimonious terms. I think we would all agree that it is incredibly important, especially in times like these, to safeguard jobs.

The freight transport industry is, of course, suffering in this situation, but it is not only the hauliers that are suffering - the railways, inland waterways and maritime transport are suffering just as much. All this directive does is to reduce the unfair advantage that road haulage currently enjoys over other forms of transport.

The question of jobs is a completely different issue. In that regard, we need to implement a prudent economic and reconstruction policy, and we must consistently push on with what we have decided in this House. This directive, however, has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Mr President, during the course of the debate, very many different positions emerged, sometimes conflicting, because they were linked with political stances as well as national positions. All this discussion therefore highlights the difficulty of the issue, but also its importance. I believe that we must find a compromise and the one we are arriving at in Parliament through Mr El Khadraoui's report is a good compromise on the whole.

I do not believe that the Commission set out to inflict an additional tax or wanted to penalise countries situated to the west and east, in other words, more outlying countries. In any case, the Eurovignette is not compulsory. We also tried to harmonise the system to establish a framework that prevents tariff fraud, so maximum values are also established. However, different stances, different ideas naturally emerged in our discussion. I believe that the text that will be sent to the Council will certainly undergo amendments because people do not see eye to eye within the Council either. We all agree with the 'polluter pays' principle, but then when we go into the practical applications, differences emerge between Member States, between political forces, between MEPs, between the Commission, Parliament and Council. The argument is therefore certainly thorny and complicated.

I do not, however, think we need to give credence to the critical viewpoint that takes a gloomy outlook because we are in the midst of a crisis. It is true to say that we are in the midst of a crisis but it is also true that the proposal is for the measure to be applied from 2012. I certainly hope - and I am absolutely sure I am right to say - that the crisis will be well and truly over by 2012. A little optimism is a good thing, but even the most pessimistic amongst us cannot believe that we will still be in the midst of a crisis in the year 2012.

Having said this, I believe that the Council will make amendments. This means that the first reading will not be enough and we will then have time over the coming months to assess the changes that must be made so that we can attempt to come to a successful agreement through the conciliation procedure. This will allow us to come up with specific answers for the public and allow us to apply the 'polluter pays' principle as an option from 2012 in the best way possible.

Mr President, I wish to make a couple of comments. I should like to start by asking my fellow Members not to be fooled by the off-putting statistics some have put forward. One example is Mrs Wortmann-Kool, who talks of additional costs of several euro. With all due respect, that is completely wrong. I can tell you to the nearest cent what the impact would be in the most extreme case: congestion would be 65 euro cents per kilometre at the absolute maximum: 65 euro cents in very heavily congested areas, and only for the few kilometres where there was congestion, not the rest of the journey.

Noise would add 1.1 euro cents to this. Air pollution would be a further 16 euro cents in the case of the most polluting lorries. If you add all this up, you arrive at an absolute maximum of 82 euro cents for the few kilometres where there is congestion. For the rest of the route, the 65 euro cents can be deducted. That was the first thing I wanted to say, and I addressed it also to those from the peripheral Member States.

Secondly, it is true that we are in the midst of a crisis, but the crisis will not last forever. What we are doing now is creating a framework to permit willing Member States to actually introduce a system of internalisation of external costs - following a national debate, in their own time and usually after years of preparation.

Thirdly, I note that quite a few of my fellow Members are seeking to anticipate all the Council's decisions, as the Council has yet to take a position. We should not be deterred by this one bit. Let us simply go for a position we support 100%. Afterwards, we shall enter the debate, the fray, with the Council. I can assure you that I shall do my best as rapporteur to secure most, if not all, of Parliament's position, which we shall then discuss at a later date.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me, as we close this debate, to add two comments. The first I address to Mr Evans. My group is in favour of the internalisation of external costs, and specifically exhaust emissions and noise. We believe this is reasonable. Yet, if you always put the polluter pays principle first - I am prepared to discuss this with you - then it is the Member States that cause the congestion by not providing sufficient infrastructure. The goods vehicles drive into congestion, 80% of which is made up of cars. To make businesses pay for congestion caused by the Member States is nonsensical. If you applied the polluter pays principle, Member States would have to give extra money to the goods vehicle owners as it is the States that cause the congestion by failing to provide adequate infrastructure in time.

We are in agreement that there does not always have to be additional infrastructure. Another way to prevent congestion is through intelligent traffic systems. There are lots of modern technologies capable of preventing congestion. To say, however, we have congestion, so the goods vehicles must pay for it, gives the Member States no incentive to remove the congestion, as to do so would cost them revenue. That, surely, cannot be right!

Mr Vice-President, you were right to say that you did not want to introduce new taxes by means of this proposal and you insisted on ring-fencing. Can we agree, then, Commissioner, Mr Vice-President, that, when the Council of Ministers fails to come out in favour of a clear ring-fencing of the revenue from the Eurovignettes, you will withdraw the proposal? You see, you said you do not want any new taxes. I completely agree with you that if the Eurovignette is to be made more expensive as a result of exhaust emissions and noise, this extra money must also be used to reduce the environmental impact of road transport and not to fill holes in the finance ministers' budgets. That is not on. With that in mind, I hope that you will stick to your position, in other words, no taxation without ring-fencing and withdrawal of the proposal where that is the case. Thank you very much.

There are three aspects of the present debate that need to be stressed: vehicle charging, environmentally-friendly vehicles and the internalisation of external costs.

The overriding priority of EU initiatives should be to guarantee the rights of EU citizens to unhampered mobility and its promotion through the consistent implementation of the EU infrastructure development plans. This is enshrined in principle 4 of the Treaty on the freedom of the internal market.

Investments in infrastructure development should be based on the designated environmental protection priorities which take into account the EU climate change targets. A modern integrated infrastructure should therefore be developed, while retaining the principles of intermodality and interoperability.

The costs of protecting the environment, noise, traffic congestion and protecting human health are integrally tied in with the modification of Europe's rapidly developing infrastructure network. It would seem appropriate to make the 'polluter pays' principle, proposed in this document, binding. We should remember that the principle has been operational in the field of business in the EC for several years now.

Question Time (Commission) 

The next item is Question Time (B6-0009/2009) which, exceptionally, will last until 8 p.m.

I begin by informing you that Mr Kovács will not be present, so Questions Nos 1 and 3 from the first part of this period, addressed to the Commissioner, will be taken up by Mrs Reding.

The following questions have been submitted to the Commission.

Part One



Subject: Measures for the promotion of products and services that help increase energy efficiency and promote renewable energies

At the Spring European Council in 2008, the Heads of State and Government agreed on a future review of the Energy Taxation Directive aimed at promoting an increase in the percentage of renewable energy as a proportion of the total energy used.

Increasing energy efficiency is one of the quickest, safest and cheapest ways of reducing EU dependence on third country energy resources, lowering energy consumption and cutting CO2 emissions and the European public's expenditure on energy bills.

In the light of the need to increase energy efficiency, could the Commission indicate what measures and financial and fiscal instruments it has in mind to promote products and services that help increase energy efficiency and promote renewable energies?

Member of the Commission. - It is in its European Economic Recovery Plan - which has, by the way, been endorsed by Parliament and the Council - that the Commission supports the promotion of the rapid take-up of green products. It has, among other things, proposed reduced VAT rates for green products and services aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings in particular. Furthermore, the Commission encourages Member States to provide further incentives to consumers to stimulate demand for environmentally-friendly products.

The Commission is currently carrying out a review of the existing Community tax legislation. The objective is to eliminate as much as possible existing incentives that run counter to the objectives of energy efficiency and the reduction of carbon emissions, as well as to create incentives where appropriate to serve these objectives.

In addition to the above fiscal initiatives, the Commission seeks to enhance the use of other financial instruments to promote energy efficiency, in particular, in buildings. A sustainable energy financing initiative is being developed jointly by the Commission and the European Investment Bank. The initiative aims at mobilising funding from capital markets to be used via the participation of the Covenant of Mayors. For 2009, a budget of EUR 15 million can be expected to be made available.

The Commission has also proposed the modification of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund, which would allow use of this fund by all Member States for increased expenditure on energy efficiency improvements and the use of renewable energy in existing housing.

(RO) I would like to start by saying that the current directive was implemented badly or inadequately, which is why I would like to ask the Commission whether it is considering cutting VAT on products too in the future. In addition, I think that it would be important to increase the European Regional Development Fund allocation supporting energy efficiency for buildings and social housing from 3% to 15%.

I also think that a fund for energy efficiency and renewable energy would be important.

Member of the Commission. - We know that it is very important to have measures to help citizens and governments go for energy efficiency. We now have some studies on the potential of tax incentives for energy and environmental purposes, and the Commission is preparing a proposal to amend the VAT directive to allow reduced rates of VAT to apply to certain environmentally-friendly goods and services.

As set out in the Economic Recovery Plan, the Commission may propose reduced VAT rates for green products and services aimed at improving the energy efficiency of buildings in particular. It should be pointed out, however, that the Commission proposal of July 2008 already provides an option for Member States to apply these reduced VAT rates on services involving the renovation, repair, alteration and maintenance of housing, places of worship and of cultural heritage, and historical monuments. This includes work aimed at increasing the energy savings and efficiency of the buildings concerned.

The Ecofin today came to a compromise. It is too early to say exactly what we are going to do in detail with the Ecofin proposals, but the Commission is going to study the proposals that were made today.

(DE) Mr President, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Commissioner and the Commission for ensuring, in particular, that the subject of the thermal insulation of buildings was discussed here. It is one of the most efficient ways of saving energy and, from that point of view, it seems to me to be an important and a correct route to go down. In this context, my question is this: does the Commission see an opportunity here to make the corresponding VAT cuts available for low-energy houses and energy-neutral houses in the prefabricated construction sector? Is this something that can be considered, and where are we heading?

Mr President, what Mr Rack has just proposed is an interesting idea. His idea will, of course, be analysed by the Commission along with the other ideas on the table in relation to energy efficiency in house building or housing renovation. I can also say that the Commission is going to restructure the structural funds with the effect that it will also be possible to invest in such energy-efficient houses through the structural funds.



Subject: More flexible interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact

Will the Commission say whether, during this period of very great economic crisis, it is insisting on its view that all countries with deficits must reduce them within a period of two rather than three years, although the latter period would appear more reasonable according to the available data? If so, why? How is this insistence compatible with the views of the Eurogroup chairman regarding a more flexible interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact (see statements of 21 January 2009, Agence Europe)?

Member of the Commission. - Under normal circumstances, the Stability and Growth Pact presumes there will be rapid correction of the excessive deficit and this correction should be carried out the year after such an excessive deficit has been identified. However, the reformed Stability and Growth Pact also allows for longer deadlines in the case of special circumstances - in accordance with Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97.

The Pact does not provide an explicit definition of these special circumstances. However, when preparing a report under Article 143 of the Treaty triggered by the existence or the planned excessive deficit, the Commission is required by the Treaty to take into account what are known as 'relevant factors'. In this report, the Commission shall reflect developments in the medium-term economic position, in particular, potential growth, prevailing cyclical conditions, the implementation of policies in the context of the Lisbon Agenda and policies to foster research and development and innovation. It shall also reflect developments in the medium-term budgetary position, in particular, fiscal consolidation efforts in good times, the level of public debt and sustainability issues, external financing needs, public investment, and the overall quality of public finances. It shall also take into consideration any other factors which, in the opinion of the Member State concerned, are relevant in order to comprehensively assess in qualitative terms the excess over the reference value and which the Member State has, of course, put forward to the Commission and to the Council.

The provisions of the relevant factors to be considered indicate that determining the incidence of special circumstances should be based on an overall assessment of such factors. On 18 February, the Commission adopted its recommendations for Council opinions on the latest updates of the stability and convergence programmes for 17 Member States. At the same time, and taking into account its assessment of these programmes, the Commission adopted reports for Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Latvia and Malta. The Ecofin adopted its opinion on these reports this morning. The Commission will propose recommendations to the Council to put an end to situations where an excessive deficit exists. These recommendations will include deadlines which will have been decided according to the Stability and Growth Pact, i.e. taking into consideration the existence of special circumstances, where appropriate.

(EL) Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for her very detailed reply, although I must say that I was somewhat surprised that, with all the important things you said, you did not mention the concept of timetables, in other words if the Commission will recommend specific timetables for each case and, secondly, if, in its recommendation, the Commission will link the timetable phases with the reduction in the percentage above 3%.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I have two brief questions. My first question is this: what happens in respect of those Member States that have really provocatively low business tax rates or indeed none at all? Is it fair for the relaxation of the Pact by these countries to be overlooked when they get into difficulties due to the low tax takes resulting from their policies?

My second question is as follows. Should this question not be linked to a certain level of success? In other words, where a Member State suffers a greater deficit in order to combat unemployment and unemployment then falls dramatically, would it not make sense to promote such an approach?

Has there been a change in the Rules of Procedure? I thought it was the questioner who had a supplementary, plus two other Members.

Secondly, what time does Question Time continue until tonight as we started late?

Mrs Doyle, we will actually finish at 8 p.m. as intended. We began late and we will finish late. Does the honourable Member not have a supplementary question?

Do you wish to pose your supplementary question Mrs Doyle?

Mr President, I do. My apologies. I understood you were only giving it to the Questioner and one other. I misunderstood the point you made.

I would like to follow through by asking the Commissioner to name any Member State that will not have an excessive deficit, as understood to date.

Secondly, could she develop exactly what the Commission is going to propose to the Council as decided this morning in relation to Ireland?

Member of the Commission. - In answer to the question by Mr Dimitrakopoulos, the Commission, when proposing the deadlines for a Member State to return to a sustainable position of public finances, will take into account the room for manoeuvre available to the Member State concerned. A call for rapid fiscal consolidation can be expected only in cases of danger of a public finance crisis, taking into account the financing needs of the whole economy.

As for the second question, which was a double question, the answer to the first part is 'no'. The answer to the second part - on countries with low corporate tax - the Stability and Growth Pact assesses the global fiscal position of a Member State, not the specific tax structure of each Member State.

In reply to the third question, on whether there are any Member States without excessive deficits, there are, of course, certain Member States without excessive deficits, as can be seen in the charts which the Commission regularly publishes.



Subject: Abolition of tax havens

Has the Commission proposed or does it intend to propose the abolition of tax havens, especially within the EU?

Has the EU adopted any decision proposing that Member States abolish the tax havens existing within their territory?

What measures will the Commission take to put an end to tax havens, combat financial speculation and curb the free movement of capital, especially within the Union?

Mr President, since the end of the 1990s, the Commission has been pursuing a determined policy against fraud, tax evasion and detrimental fiscal competition.

A key element in this policy has been to promote transparency in tax systems and the exchange of information between tax administrations. Finally, this policy has been confirmed by the clear declarations by the G20 attacking non-transparent practices in certain jurisdictions, often referred to as tax havens.

The Commission strengthened its policy in this field at the end of 2008 and the start of 2009, by presenting two proposals.

The first aims to boost the exchange of information as laid down in the savings directive. The second effectively proposes that all the Member States should align their information exchange standards to the most open level, particularly by ensuring that Member States cannot use financial confidentiality as an excuse to refuse to provide information that other Member States need in order to calculate their residents' taxes.

In May 2008, the Council decided to promote this policy of good fiscal governance to third countries, including the principles of transparency, exchange of information and fair fiscal competition, and it asked the Commission to negotiate clauses to this effect in agreements with third countries.

The Commission intends to present a political initiative soon with the aim of highlighting the consistency of this policy and the key factors in ensuring that it is successful. It feels, in particular, that the implementation of measures coordinated at European level would respond to the concerns expressed by Mr Guerreiro.

(PT) On the strength of what was said, there seems to be less action than words. In other words, tax havens and their abolition are not on the menu, but I would pose the following question: how does the Commission intend to dissuade banks from operating from 'offshore' centres, as it has stated that intention? Also, what actual measures does it intend to propose to combat the financial speculation that is central to the causes of the current financial and economic crisis?

The Commissioner must know a little bit about tax havens, because Luxembourg rather falls into that category. Does she not feel that this undermines the whole principle of a common market, with lorries driving out of their way to get the cheap fuel there?

Then there is Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man - which are in the UK but outside the EU - Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, etc. They are all little tax havens, with offshore banking, which we have just heard about, pandering to the rich. They only exist because the EU allows them to do so.

These are her words: 'a resolute policy against tax evasion'. If that were true, would not the Commission include some suggestions for abolishing these tax havens?

Member of the Commission. - In answer to the first question, the Commission has proposed two new directives in order to solve these problems because the financial crisis has highlighted the problems more clearly than before.

We made a proposal at the end of 2008 and another one at the beginning of 2009, the former reinforcing the information exchange and the latter enshrining the right of a Member State to obtain information without the other Member State invoking banking secrecy.

As for the second question I just want to underline that lorries have nothing to do with tax havens.



Subject: The Internet and hate crimes

Incitement to racial hatred is a crime in all EU Member States. However, according to the 2008 Hate Crime Survey published by the NGO Human Rights First, hate crimes are on the rise in Europe, and it is important to see the central role that the Internet plays in this.

As part of its aim to fight cybercrime and create a safer Internet for all, is the Commission taking any specific action to help combat websites which incite racial hatred and violence?

Member of the Commission. - The question which was asked is very important, and I would like to underline that the Commission strongly rejects the racism, xenophobia and any type of hate speech the honourable Member refers to. The Commission also shares the concerns raised, and is aware that certain content available on the Internet can have a very negative impact.

The Commission fights racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in all media platforms, and not just the Internet, as far as possible, under the powers conferred by the Treaties. On this basis, the Commission has taken a number of initiatives - legislative and non-legislative - which seek to prevent discrimination as well as racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic speeches. Firstly, there is the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which extends minimum standards for content to all audiovisual and media services, and that includes on-demand offers on the Internet. This includes: 'prohibition of incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality'. Furthermore, the Commission had adopted policies that aim at reducing racist content online. I would just underline here the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply, which calls for action against discrimination in all media.

The recently adopted Council framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law sets out a common EU approach to racism and xenophobia. The framework decision aims at criminalising international conduct, such as incitement to violence or hate towards a group of people or against a person belonging to a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion, belief, or national or ethnic origin.

Incitement to violence or hatred would also be punishable if committed by public dissemination and distribution of tracts, pictures and other materials. The Member States have an obligation to comply with those provisions by 28 November 2010.

Apart from this legal approach, the Commission is promoting a set of measures for the safer use of the Internet. I think Parliament well knows the Safer Internet Plus Programme, with a budget of EUR 55 million for the period 2009-2013, which co-funds projects with the following objectives: increased public awareness, provision of a network of contact points for reporting illegal and harmful content and conduct, in particular, on child sexual abuse material, grooming and cyber-bullying, fostering of self-regulatory initiatives in this field and involving children in creating a safer online environment, establishing a knowledge base of the new trends in the use of online technologies and their consequences for children's lives.

The Commission furthermore strives to promote a responsible use of media and the Internet. In its communication on media literacy of December 2007, the Commission calls on Member States to commit to more effectively promoting media literacy and research in this field. This year, it will present a recommendation on media literacy.

It is also worth noting that our neighbour, the Council of Europe, has developed a series of international legally binding and non-binding instruments on these issues, which all show that cyberspace is not a lawless area and that Member States are bound to protect individual rights and freedoms through their national laws, inter alia, the Cybercrime Convention and its additional Protocol 3.

Commissioner, I do not doubt for one minute your commitment to this area. I know you have looked into it in great detail. However, concerning this issue which you mentioned of the 'lawless area' of cybercrime, are you convinced, specifically in connection with inciting hatred - which is a criminal offence in all Member States, I think - that the implementation of the Framework Decision, the Audiovisual Directive and many of the other instruments that you have mentioned is actually stopping the proliferation of these sites? The evidence so far is that they are increasing as we speak. Do you feel that we should take further action?

Commissioner, there is no greater hate crime than murder, and this week in my constituency of Northern Ireland, we had three hate murders of members of the security forces by Irish Republican terrorists.

And yet, within hours, there were a number of sites, across the Internet, glorifying those hideous murders and praising those who had carried them out. So, as well as looking at racism and xenophobia, is the Commission focused on how it deals with the abuse of the Internet by terrorist parasites?

Member of the Commission. - There is no excuse for crime, wherever that crime has taken place - be it in the real world or in the digital world - but of course, it is much easier to fight crime in the real world because you have the instruments which allow you directly to intervene. It is much more complicated on the worldwide web, and that is why we have developed a whole series of instruments in order to fight such crime.

I know from discussions with my colleague, Jacques Barrot, that police forces are building up a network of analyses in order to fight crime on line, and that they are having more and more success in catching the criminals. However, there are also more and more sites being constructed. I myself have tried, with the Safer Internet Programme, to do something else in this respect. This is to empower people - and most of all young people - who utilise the Internet to know what to do when they come across negative content. For instance - and we are not necessarily speaking about crime, but about cyber-bullying, which can become terrible for young people - that there is a special report button for them to ask for help.

So we are trying by different means to fight criminals by means of the police forces, by empowering educators, parents and children so that they can take a decision by themselves or report, and, of course, by media literacy programmes, which I personally would wish to be much more numerous in the Member States. You have to give tools to the next generation to find a solution and to fight, because, if not, then we might have a problem with the Internet, and that parents will not allow, for instance, their kids to be on the Internet, and that would not be the right way to proceed. We want the positive site of the Internet to flourish and the negative side of the Internet to be blocked.

Now to the murder question which the honourable Member underlined. This is a terrible thing to happen, and I believe that it is within the field of activity of the police and security forces to block all this. Those tools should, of course, not be regarded as something which can be utilised for solving all society's problems, but when it comes to crime there can be no discussion. Crime has to be fought and it has to be fought very strongly.



Subject: Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Information Society

The Commission has put the development of ICT and of the Information Society, which has huge potential benefits for European economy and society, at the heart of its programmes. However, what is the Commission doing to ensure that certain sectors of European society - such as older people and people on low incomes - are not left behind or forgotten in this process?

Member of the Commission. - Information and communication technologies have a huge potential for helping older people. Well, that is easily said and not so easily done because we do have a real digital divide here. It is those people who badly need ICT tools who, because they have never used those tools in their lives before, are not used to utilising them. For instance, only 15% of older people use the Internet. That is why we have to develop a whole policy in order to bring this barrier down, because we will need ICT to enable older people to stay active and productive for longer, to continue to engage in society with more accessible online services, and to enjoy a healthier and higher quality of life for longer.

That was exactly why the Commission presented in 2007 an action plan for ageing well in the information society with very concrete measures.

The first measure is on research and innovation in order to develop and test technologies for social care and independent living for older persons. I must pay tribute to our industries because, through these research programmes, the industries have developed a whole series of mechanisms, services and products which help older people to stay longer in their own homes.

The second measure is to raise awareness of the benefits among users and public authorities through the establishment of a best practice Internet portal and European award schemes for smart homes - independent living applications for instance.

The third is to reduce the fragmentation of approaches in deploying these technologies in Europe.

In 2008, the Commission adopted two other initiatives.

The first was a new joint programme to support joint research with Member States in the area of ambient-assisted living: those are the technologies for home applications and for mobility, assisting older users in their daily lives and providing social care applications.

The second was the new communication on e-accessibility, fostering the use of ICT goods and services by older people and by people with disabilities, and inviting Member States to take all necessary steps to improve the accessibility of public websites.

In line with those measures, between now and 2013, the EU, together with Member States and the private sector, will invest more than EUR 1 billion in research and innovation for the ageing society.

So you see we really take that very seriously and we believe that we have possibilities here to improve life in an ageing society.

On the problem of low income users, I would refer first of all to the second package of the roaming regulation which Parliament adopted in the ITRA committee yesterday night. One element of this package is to bring down the prices of using mobile phones, landlines, the Internet, etc.

The Commission has also set up a consumer market scoreboard that permits monitoring of market outcomes for consumers. The evidence on the scoreboard helps us to better take account of consumer interests.

The new proposals which are before Parliament in the review of the telecom market also aim to strengthen consumers' and users' rights with a view to improving accessibility and promoting an inclusive society.

It has been proposed, for instance, to amend some provisions in order to take better account of the needs of the elderly and those with special needs, and those should be general objectives guiding the activity of the national regulatory authorities.

I would like to thank the Commissioner. I do not for one minute doubt that the Commission is doing an awful lot on IT information. You can see a lot of the work they do. I am a recent participant in the 'Twitter' site and I have to say that I am more than surprised and impressed at how much information is on that site from the European Union. It gives a huge amount of information and I would like to congratulate them on that.

However, we still have a problem with people from disadvantaged backgrounds and elderly people using and accessing the Internet and new technologies. This is changing all the time, but we have an opportunity, or a challenge, between now and the June elections, and I would just like to ask you whether you have any plans to try to get more people to participate on the Internet to promote the June elections in the European Union.

(RO) I would like to congratulate you on what you are doing for children and the Internet, as well as for the decision to have 100% broadband coverage by 2010.

I want to say that in Romania, elderly people and parents communicate cheaply and efficiently via the Internet with children who have gone abroad; they can see and hear them. However, I want to ask you what you are doing to develop online services. I am referring in this case to the public key infrastructure.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, industry does actually produce equipment that is very suitable for the varied purposes of the information society for elderly and disabled users, too. That said, nearly all the mobile phones, emergency call buttons and similar gadgets are offered at fundamentally very expensive prices.

Is the Commission able to do anything about this? You see, selling particularly simple technology at especially expensive prices is not very user-friendly.

Member of the Commission. - First of all, the Internet and the elections. This is a question which those who are standing for election, the MEPs and the candidates, should take on board and on which they should develop better communication with their citizens. In recent years, so many positive actions have been taken with the help of the European Parliament that it should not be very difficult to present all these positive actions to citizens.

Looking only at the examples of e-inclusion in Ireland, for instance, I can give the list of those which have been put into practice on the territory of Ireland with Irish companies, research centres and NGOs. It will be very interesting, even for the MEPs themselves, to explain what is being done via the European budget to improve the life of citizens.

The second question was about the young and the old, and how they can communicate better. Well, I can tell you that my mother, who had never used a mobile phone, bought one in order to communicate with her grandchildren because she understood that this was the only way they could call her. Now she is very much upset if they do not call her often enough. However, I have also met a lot older persons who have come to use the Internet because of Skype, because their children or grandchildren are abroad and they would like to speak with them.

That is why we are trying to develop measures towards a real internal market for communications in Europe, so that this communication will be swift and not very expensive.

That brings me to the third question: what about the price of the communications? There are a lot of services in operation which bring down the price of communications. Now it is true that those services or those items specially adapted to the older generation are being kept on the home market, because the market is not yet developed very strongly and they are still too expensive.

There is only one solution to this, namely to develop the market, because if thousands and thousands of older people take up those services, take up those instruments, the price will become affordable. So we have to raise awareness to promote the take-up of these ICT goods and services which I believe will be one of the solutions to the problems of the ageing society.



Subject: Internet monitoring

It has come to my attention that the Internet has become a safe haven for racists and other bigots to air their views.

Has the Commission raised this and, if so, what action is it taking?

Questions Nos 37 and 40 will receive answers in writing.

Member of the Commission. - The question the honourable Member has asked is not new, which shows that it is something that is very dear to the heart of MEPs.

I would recall the answer I gave to the questions by Mr Moraes on the Internet and hate crimes, by Luca Romagnoli on content and the use of blogs, and by Robert Kilroy-Silk on racism and violence on social websites. I can tell you not only that those questions have been asked but also that the Commission has taken action in this area.

Speaking only about the social websites, some weeks ago, all the social networking site providers sat around a table and signed a code of conduct to help young children and adolescents to fight against negative content on these websites.

As you know, the Commission strongly rejects all racist and xenophobic views conveyed on the Internet, together with the types of hate speech cited by the honourable Member in his question. As is often the case with the web, the picture is one of stark contrasts. On the web, the best rubs shoulders with the worst: on the one hand, there are tremendous opportunities to diffuse and receive valuable, targeted information, for better social cohesion; on the other, it is an ideal forum for stereotypes, prejudices, derogatory views and even dangerous content, as was mentioned in the question.

Here lies the danger: should the State go and block access to websites or filter search-engine results? This is already being done by authoritarian states. In democratic countries, such as the EU Member States, restrictions on the freedom of speech are exceptional and governed by the rule of law.

It is worth noting that the Council of Europe has developed a series of international, legally binding instruments, directly and indirectly concerning the Internet. These uphold the belief that cyberspace is not a lawless area, but is subject to the rule of law. I would recall the Convention on Cybercrime and its additional protocol.

The Commission has also adopted policies aimed at reducing racist content online, notably the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity and the right of reply, which calls for action against discrimination in all media.

I would also like to draw attention to the Framework Decision on combating certain forms of expression of racism and xenophobia, which aims at criminalising intentional conduct, such as incitement to violence or hatred towards a group of people or against a person belonging to that group. This is a criminal offence if committed by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, and here, Member States have the obligation to comply with the provisions of the Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.

I could also underline that the European law already prohibits incitement to hatred on grounds of sex, race, religion or nationality in TV broadcasts and in TV online.

So we already have a whole series of mechanisms, a whole series of laws and a whole series of measures implementing these laws. But as always with negative content - be it in the traditional media or on the Internet - it pops up more quickly than you can fight it.

I would like to thank the Commissioner for her reply. In recent days, we have seen in Northern Ireland two soldiers and a policeman killed, as has been referred to by another Member, by people who secretly arrogate to themselves the right to do things like this based on bigotry and evil and - yes - racism and xenophobia. They, and their like, use such things as the Internet to recruit and to spread their evil words and deeds.

It seems to me very clear, for example, that if the rules for entering chat rooms were to be tightened up, by not allowing the use of, for example, Hotmail - I confess I do not know very much about it but it is very easily used - and insisting instead on some sort of traceable e-mail, then the people who do these sorts of things, which they could not do in the open, would be more easily traced. I ask the Commissioner to use all her powers to continue to pursue this issue, because it is not acceptable that the Internet should be used for racism and xenophobia.

Member of the Commission. - Crime is crime wherever it happens, and that is why we also have instruments to go after crime when it is committed on the Internet. Together with my colleague, Jacques Barrot, we will develop those instruments so that they become stronger and are used more efficiently. The problem of the Internet, of course, is that it goes beyond national territory, which is why collaboration between police forces and those forces which combat terrorism and international crime has to be reinforced. In recent years, we have seen those forces working together with very good results. I hope and I think these efforts will continue.

Subject: Serbia's candidate status

The debate about granting Serbia the status of an EU candidate country continues. Is there not a risk involved in making Serbia a candidate country or even a Member State before the Republic of Kosovo, given that Belgrade might use this advantage to block future accession negotiations or, indeed, the establishment of any kind of relations between the Republic of Kosovo and the EU?

Member of the Commission. - (RO) The prospects of Serbia joining the European Union depend on this country meeting the Copenhagen accession criteria, as well as the conditions set out as part of the Stabilisation and Association Process, including the condition to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

However, Serbia is not a candidate country and has not, as yet, requested to join the European Union. As a result, I am not in a position to pass an opinion on what might happen in the future and on the actions which Serbia might or might not take in relation to Kosovo.

If Serbia were to apply for accession, the European Commission would draw up, following a request made by the Council, a draft opinion based on the established objective criteria applied to all states which request to join the EU. Subsequently, it will be the European Council which will decide whether to grant candidate country status or not.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I have a high personal regard for you, and that is why I regret the fact that Commissioner Rehn is not here, as I am far from satisfied with that answer. I could have printed that off from the Internet myself.

I will state very plainly what I was getting at with my question. Negotiations are taking place with Serbia about a stabilisation agreement currently being drawn up. I want to draw the Commission's attention to the danger that Serbia could block Kosovo here, as in the UN and the Council of Europe. My question was, what do we do to prevent the occurrence of something like the current block on Croatia by Slovenia.

Member of the Commission. - (RO) As I said in my reply, we do not wish in any way to pre-empt possible actions in the future. At the present time, Serbia is at a certain point where no application has been submitted yet to join the European Union. Let us see what happens in the future.

Therefore, as I have said, let us not speculate on hypothetical situations in the future.



Subject: Serbian accession

Will the European Commission explicitly and firmly recommend that no further progress be made regarding Serbia's accession to the EU unless Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić, the two remaining fugitives from the ICTY, are delivered to The Hague?

Member of the Commission. - (RO) Serbia's accession to the European Union depends on Serbia meeting the political condition to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, along with complying with all the other obligations which are a condition of integration into the EU.

In this respect, the Commission shares the conclusions of the Council reached in April 2008 that full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including making every possible effort to arrest and hand over people who have been indicted, is an essential element of the Stabilisation and Association Process.

In this regard, the assessment carried out by the ICT's chief prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, is particularly important. We have established permanent, close contact with him. Furthermore, Commissioner Rehn has taken every opportunity to call on the Serbian authorities to implement fully the recommendations made by the chief prosecutor in his report published in December 2008 and sent to the UN Security Council.

This is the surest way of allowing Serbia to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal and make progress in terms of fulfilling its aspirations to become a Member State of the European Union.

I am very supportive of Serbia making progress towards EU accession, as I am all of the Western Balkans, as a former member of the relevant European Parliament delegation.

The problem is that when we say Serbia's accession will depend on full cooperation with the ICTY, this begs the question of when exactly we will make this criterion bite.

I really want to try and get from the Commissioner the fact that no further progress will be made now, in the next few weeks, unless these fugitives are delivered.

Can he also tell me that no further progress can be made regarding Croatia's accession unless the ICTY is satisfied that there is full cooperation over evidence and witnesses regarding the Croatian invitees?

(DE) Mr President, I would like to support Mrs Ludford's question. The Commissioner has rightly said that this is a criterion for Serbia. What he has not said, is whether or not Serbia fulfils this criterion. I would be interested to hear the answer. Does Serbia fulfil the criterion of full cooperation? We know that that is the case for Croatia.

Member of the Commission. - You are aware that in the Council, there are different opinions concerning this issue and you know that there is no unanimity concerning the position of the Council on this issue. So, as I said in my answer we, the Commission, fully share the opinions of the Council - and I refer to the conclusions of the Council from April 2008 - that full cooperation with the Tribunal is essential for following the process.

Questions Nos 43 and 44 will receive answers in writing.



Subject: Turkish-funded usurpation of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied territory of Cyprus

According to public allegations by the former Cypriot Foreign Minister, Erato Markoulli, large-scale usurpation of Greek Cypriot properties situated on the Karpas peninsula in the occupied territory of Cyprus is taking place with funding from Turkey.

This matter clearly came to the attention of Mrs Markoulli in the course of negotiations to resolve the Cyprus question, in which she is involved, and on the basis of other information. Turkey, which has applied for accession to the EU while, at the same time, occupying territory in the Republic of Cyprus, an EU Member State, is organising the usurpation of properties belonging to European citizens, thereby infringing international law and human rights, together with EU principles and values.

What view does the Commission take of this policy being followed by Turkey? Is it acceptable on the part of a country seeking EU membership? Does the Commission intend to take measures against Turkey and, if so, what measures, in response to the usurpation of Greek Cypriot properties in occupied Cyprus?

Member of the Commission. - (RO) The Commission has noted the use of properties belonging to Greek Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus. The Commission is aware of this problem, which intensified when Cyprus joined the European Union on 1 May 2004, and shares the concern of the European Parliament's honourable Member.

With regard to the specific cases which the Parliament's honourable Member is referring to, the Commission does not have any information on this and is therefore unable to comment.

The European Commission reaffirms its full commitment to support the efforts of the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities in identifying a comprehensive solution to the Cypriot problem under the auspices of the United Nations. Such a settlement would help resolve the problems over property on the island, which the European Parliament's honourable Member is referring to.

(EL) Mr President, I am a Cypriot member of parliament, I have supported the integration of Turkey into Europe since the days of President Ozal and I still support it today.

In the fourth interstate application, the Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey is responsible for usurping Greek-Cypriot property. What, at long last, is to be done? How are we supposed to put up with this situation year after year? Are there first- and second-class human rights or does their application depend on the size of the country?

Member of the Commission. - The Commission has always encouraged Turkey to implement all the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. A debate will be held tomorrow in plenary, and this subject will also be discussed.



Subject: Opening of the 'energy' chapter in the accession negotiations with Turkey

The recent gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine demonstrated once again the importance of diversifying the EU's energy sources and energy supply routes. Turkey is a strategic transit country and, in this respect as well, of vital importance to the EU's energy security. It is all the more vital, therefore, that the EU's negotiations with Turkey on the 'energy' chapter should continue unhampered and not be blocked by certain Member States on political grounds.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that this negotiating chapter is opened? Can it indicate a timeframe? What is the most serious obstacle to the full opening of the 'energy' negotiating chapter?

Questions Nos 47 and 48 will receive answers in writing.

Member of the Commission. - (RO) The European Commission considers that Turkey is sufficiently prepared to initiate negotiations on the Energy chapter and therefore recommended for this chapter to be opened in spring 2007. Our point of view has not changed on this matter.

However, the unanimous approval of all Member States is required to open a chapter, which has not happened so far. In the context of the recent energy crisis, we completely concur with you that both the interests of the EU and Turkey would be better served through close cooperation and aligning Turkey's legislation with Community legislation in the energy sector.

Initiating negotiations in the energy sector would make a decisive contribution to attaining this objective.

(DE) So, will the Commission take steps to ensure that the chapter is opened, or will we simply have to wait until all the Member States agree? Does the Commission not influence the Member States?

Member of the Commission. - These are the rules. The Commission made a proposal, and now it is up to the Council to decide unanimously whether the chapter is open or not.

So these are the procedures. We have to follow the procedures.



Subject: Market support

In early January, the Commission pledged to introduce new measures to support the dairy sector and producers' incomes across Europe in an effort to combat some of the negative effects the current economic crisis is having on the dairy sector. Has the Commission any plans to make similar pledges to support other agricultural sectors and producers who have also been negatively affected by the current economic crisis?

Subject: Dairy sector in the EU

The Commission has introduced measures to assist the dairy sector. The Commission will reintroduce export refunds for butter, skimmed milk powder (SMP), whole milk powder and cheese. In addition, the Commission will purchase more than the fixed quantities of butter and SMP should the market situation warrant it. Does the Commission think that these measures will be sufficient to end the spiral of downward prices in the EU and particularly the Irish dairy sector?

Member of the Commission. - The two questions by Mrs Harkin and Mr Ó Neachtain mainly concern the same subject. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer them together.

I am happy to say that the Commission has recently taken a number of measures within the dairy sector in an attempt to try to end the downward spiral of prices.

We have already introduced private storage earlier than we normally do. We have also started the intervention system whereby we hope to be able to stabilise the prices for butter and for skimmed milk powder, as this intervention system will certainly remove a lot of quantities from the market.

Originally, we entered a level of 30 000 t of butter and 109 000 t of powder, but I have indicated recently that we will be able or willing to go higher than these figures by opening a tender.

Export refunds for the dairy sector were further alleviated recently. We can see that we are faced with a significant drop in the world market prices although Europe has not increased its production, despite the 2% increase in the milk quota which was agreed for last April.

So I think I can say to those people who argue that the drop in prices is due to the increase in the quota that this is not the case, because we can see that in spite of the 2% increase in the quota, production is staying at a lower level than we used to see before.

With the introduction of the export refunds, however, we should see a situation where we can increase the chances for the European Union's dairy producers to be present in the world market. At the same time, this may also alleviate the imbalance within the dairy market.

In response to the specific question that Mr Ó Neachtain put forward, the Irish dairy sector with a relatively high share of milk processed into butter and into skimmed milk powder, and a relatively high share of export outside the European Union, will, in particular, benefit from the measures taken by the Commission.

I can promise you that we are closely following the situation in the dairy market. This can be seen from the fact that two weeks ago, we actually increased the export refunds in the dairy sector, and we will be willing to take all the necessary steps.

Of course, the sector itself also has a responsibility to adapt production to demand, in order to try to restore profitability, and Mrs Harkin wants to know if the Commission has similar plans for other sectors.

I gather that the question might be aimed at refunds for the pig meat sector. But I must say that at present, I do not see any justification for introducing export refunds in the pig meat sector because we see that the number of pregnant sows and the number of piglets are decreasing. Consequently, the input on the European market will decrease, and therefore we hope that the result will be increasing prices.

We also have to take into account that for pork production, the situation is totally different to the end of 2007 because today, the feed input prices, and the energy prices, are considerably lower than when we introduced the export refunds for the pig meat sector.

So please trust me that we will continue to keep an eye on the situation. I do not underestimate the difficulties in the dairy sector. I think it is decades since we experienced a situation like the one we are seeing today.

Thank you for your very detailed reply, Commissioner. You talked about the measures you have taken to stop the downward spiral of prices. As you are well aware, milk prices at the moment are below production prices. Many dairy farmers are hanging on by their fingernails.

I am very pleased to hear you say that you will be willing to take all the necessary steps. By that, are you saying that you would be prepared to make greater use of some of the dairy management tools that are at your disposal, such as export refunds, aid to private storage and intervention?

I would like you to clarify that for me, please.

(GA) Mr President, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for her comprehensive answer. However, as she understands, milk producers are having major difficulties. The cost of producing the milk is higher than the price for which it is sold.

I accept your point about Ireland, but can any further policy - an intervention policy - be provided to raise the price at this point? Farmers cannot continue to produce milk under the current conditions.

Commissioner, what urgency and commitment does the Commission have towards ensuring that the dairy market bottoms out? Is there not a danger that, by piecemeal incremental measures, it will take even more time to turn the market? And yet time is the one thing we do not have. Is it not time to be bold with the export refunds? Because, Commissioner, our industry is dying on its feet.

I should like to thank you, Commissioner, and I particularly welcome your decision in relation to reintroducing intervention as a short-term measure only because we have a crisis situation.

Would the Commissioner not agree that we have four problems: firstly, the rate of exchange between the euro and the pound sterling; secondly, the reduction in production as a result of the melamine scandal in Asia and in China; thirdly, the 3% increase in production in the United States and, last but by no means least, our old enemy, Brazil? Would we not need to be constantly monitoring world trends in order to have our answer ready for these kinds of situations?

Member of the Commission. - First of all, I have clearly signalled that I am ready to use the management tools that we have available. However, we have certain limits and it is very important that the decisions we might take do not mean that, at the end of the day, we shoot ourselves in the foot. We have to take into account the fact that intervention is a fine and - I was happy to hear - short-term measure. This is because we have to, I would not say get rid of it, but it has to apply to the market at a later stage, which rather prolongs the pain, but we cannot just dump it.

As I said previously, we did show our commitment by increasing export refunds, both on butter and on powdered milk, ten days ago, and we are monitoring the market.

Concerning compensation, it seems that quite a lot of dairy farmers have forgotten that, under the 2003 reform, they were actually compensated via the direct payment, and so an amount not linked to the dairy cow per se, but calculated on the basis of historic production between 2000 and 2002, is now incorporated into the direct payment.

I also sometimes have to remind some farmers that this compensation has already taken place. I know this is not a fully satisfactory answer in this difficult situation, but it has been taken into account.

I sent a very clear signal during the Green Week in Berlin at the beginning of January, saying that I was ready to spend some of the unspent money under the 2009 budget, and the Commission has made a proposal to spend EUR 1.5 billion in 2009 to cover the gap arising from the consequences of the health check not entering into force until 1 January 2010, when the package for trying to meet the new challenges comes into effect.

The question of whether Member States want to spend EUR 1.5 billion is not in my hands, but in those of the Heads of State and Finance Ministers, and I hope it will also be possible, via a sort of lobbying by Members of the European Parliament on their national governments, to push for a solution.

I completely agree on the three reasons for the situation. For Ireland, exporting into the UK with an exchange rate that makes life even more difficult is, of course, a huge disadvantage, specifically for Irish farmers. I do not under estimate the spin-off consequences of the scandal in China, where some people might be much more cautious over the dairy products they eat and drink.

The increase on the world market does not come exclusively from the United States. We have seen a significant increase taking place in New Zealand, and this has been dropped on the world market with the consequences we have mentioned. I hope that in general, on the world market, production will go down, because this is a general problem and not one only affecting European dairy producers. It is very difficult to make money in the dairy sector at the moment. We will therefore not hesitate to use the tools available in an appropriate and balanced manner.



Subject: Labelling for sheep meat products

There is currently no specific EU legislation dealing with the issue of origin labelling for the sheep meat sector. As a result, there are many different labelling techniques in operation within the EU for sheep products.

Would the Commission consider introducing an EU regulation for the labelling of sheep meat products which would allow consumers to distinguish between EU products and those from third countries?

Member of the Commission. - I definitely think that European farmers can be proud of their standards and the Commission favours any initiative that helps farmers, not least in the livestock sector, to communicate with consumers about the origin of products.

As the honourable Member states, there is currently no specific EU legislation dealing with the issue of origin labelling for the sheep meat sector.

Of course, the general internal market rules about labelling and advertising of foodstuffs also apply to sheep meat. These rules require mandatory origin labelling in cases where consumers might be misled regarding the true origin or provenance of the foodstuffs.

It is not the Commission's view that there is a general problem of consumers being misled about the origin of sheep meat. Therefore, the recent Commission proposal for a regulation on food information to consumers does not extend the list to which compulsory origin labelling applies.

I would like to underline that the origin labelling for beef and beef products is a special case, and I think we all keep in mind from where it came, because it was a spin-off of the BSE crisis. Therefore, in order to rebuild consumer confidence in beef, it was necessary to make more information available to consumers by clear labelling of the product, including its origin.

It is also important to recall that already, the existing legislation makes it possible to put in place voluntary labelling of sheep meat. If the whole supply chain could agree on such a labelling system, it could add value to their products to provide consumers with extra information.

For the internal market to function smoothly, the Commission's proposal for a regulation on food information to consumers introduced a framework for voluntary origin indications.

In particular, as regards sheep meat, when origin is mentioned, information on the different locations of birth, rearing and slaughter of the animal shall be provided. If these production steps took place in different Member States, all origins should be indicated.

Looking further ahead, the Commission is considering whether all different agricultural products should be labelled to show the place of farming and specifically whether EU farming requirements have been followed.

I am aware that, during the public consultation on the Green Paper on the quality of agricultural products, stakeholders in the sheep meat sector have advocated compulsory origin labelling. In May 2009, the Commission will issue a communication where we will seek to strike the right balance between simplification, transparency and product specification. A conference organised by the Czech Presidency will take place on this issue on Thursday and Friday this week, and I am sure we will have a lively and interesting discussion on labelling. It is important. It is not always easy, because nobody wants to read a novel on the back of food in supermarkets, so I think we should try to find a balance and the right solution. I am happy with all the comments that we have already had on the Green Paper.

Thank you Commissioner. I particularly welcome the Conference that is going to take place and indeed we can be very proud of the standard of our food products in Europe - I certainly agree with you on that.

I want to refer, however, to the proposed compulsory electronic identification of sheep, which commences in January 2010, and which the Commission is determined to press ahead with despite the opposition of the Agricultural Committee members and the farming organisations. We have, as Members, challenged the operational and cost implications of the compulsory electronic identification, and the disastrous consequences for an industry already in serious decline. Would the Commission consider granting a further deferral or removing the compulsory nature of this proposal? Failing that, would the Commission consider meeting the additional costs of compulsory electronic identification?

Member of the Commission. - First of all, I should say that if you want an in-depth discussion on electronic earmarking on sheep then, as you probably know, you have to invite another Commissioner - the Commissioner responsible for consumer protection - but I will be happy to give my remarks on this issue.

There seems to be unanimity now in the Council on this issue. I have the opportunity to travel quite a lot and I meet many people who consider that the electronic identification system will kill many smaller producers because of the cost. I think you have to look into the possibility of using rural development funding to try and alleviate the cost of electronic earmarking. There is a line called 'approximation of standards' that can be used to call on rural development funding for these extra costs that will certainly be felt by many of the smaller sheep producers.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 8.05 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.)

Childcare facilities - Barcelona objectives (debate) 

The next item is the Commission statement on childcare facilities - Barcelona objectives.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission welcomes the opportunity, a few days after International Women's Day on 8 March, to make a declaration before the European Parliament on childcare facilities for pre-school age children. These facilities are essential for promoting gender equality and for helping to achieve a work-life balance, but also for ensuring quality of life for children. At a meeting of the European Council in Barcelona in 2002, the Member States adopted ambitious aims which were to be fulfilled by 2010. In line with the undertaking which the Commission accepted before the European Parliament in 2007, a report on the implementation of the Barcelona objectives was presented in October 2008. In the report, the Commission spoke about why it is important to invest more in childcare facilities.

The Commission noted mainly that the Barcelona objectives are aimed at eliminating obstacles to accessing the labour market, especially for women. More than 6 million women in the EU (aged from 25 to 49) say that they are unable to work or can work only part-time because of family obligations. The European economy is thereby deprived of significant productive potential, and this at a time when it must confront serious economic and demographic challenges, and when the social position of families is thereby weakened. The development of childcare facilities for pre-school age children will enable families to decide freely how to organise their time and how to achieve a better work-life balance. The aim is not to 'force' parents to send their children to these facilities. The aim is to offer this option to parents who want it. The development of childcare services will also contribute to the prevention of poverty, especially for single-parent families, more than a third of whom face the threat of poverty.

In connection with the demographic slowdown which Europe is going through, access to childcare facilities will also assist in the implementation of family planning. It turns out that the Member States with the highest birth rates are precisely those which have introduced the most highly-developed policies on the work-life balance and which record the highest levels of employment of women. Childcare facilities also contribute to children's development, of course. Numerous studies, especially those carried out by the OECD and UNICEF, have shown that these services play a significant role in the personal development of children, provided that they are of a high quality and children are entrusted to them for adequate periods of time. Childcare services can also have a positive influence on educational results and future professional life.

The Commission states in its report that despite all of the aforementioned good reasons, most Member States are far from achieving the objectives set out in 2002. A lot of work remains to be done, especially concerning children under three years old. Furthermore, there are some facilities operating only for part of the working day, which restricts parents' access to the labour market. The Commission recognises, however, that significant progress has been achieved in many Member States. The undertakings adopted by Member States at a European level and the appeals expressed by the European Parliament in a series of resolutions have played an important role in this regard. It is therefore necessary for all of the participants, especially the national and regional bodies, to come together and create progressive, financially accessible and high-quality childcare facilities for pre-school age children.

In the Plan for Achieving Gender Equality, the European Commission undertook to support the efforts being made by Member States in this area. It encourages the Member States to make full use of the possibilities offered by the structural funds. With the aim of assisting local organisations to introduce measures in this area, the Commission has adopted an information brochure in addition to last year's one on the possibilities for financing family support measures. The Commission will continue to support the exchange of proven approaches and will regularly monitor the Barcelona objectives within the framework of the strategy for growth and employment. It will also evaluate family policies, especially policies on the work-life balance, in which it will rely mainly on cooperation with the OECD. Last but not least, the Commission will support adherence to European childcare objectives within the framework of the strategy for growth and employment after 2010.

Some people may be questioning the wisdom of investing in childcare facilities at a time of crisis. Nevertheless, numerous studies have shown that where such services are not available, everyone pays the price. It is therefore important to act today in order to ensure access to childcare facilities and in order to support employment and to promote equality, social inclusion and the interests of children.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Commissioner, thank you for your statement. I was very encouraged by your words, but was very discouraged to notice that only 12 colleagues were here to hear it. That has now risen to the dizzy heights of 18 MEPs, to hear what is an important statement on an important subject.

I was curious though that there was no reference - unless I missed it - to the Council Presidency comments of a month or so ago, because I thought those remarks were also very helpful to the debate and they made the point very clearly that, whilst the Barcelona objectives had not yet been reached - in some cases, by a very long way - it was very clear that a number of countries did not have any immediate plans to reach them and did not see that as a particular problem. The reason for that is, and I quote from what the Czech Council Presidency said: 'No one should criticise the decision of those countries that fail to fulfil the Barcelona objectives and do not intend to increase efforts for their fulfilment. There are countries whose citizens, based on their historical experience, are not interested in placing their children in day care'.

I think that is true. That does not mean, of course, that we should not try as hard as we can to encourage the provision of day care and make quality day care available for those who want to use it.

I hope that you will agree, Commissioner, that in the context of helping more women into the labour market, and in the context of helping people with the important role of childcare, that there are indeed many roads to Paradise - and there is not just the one road that we should exclusively concentrate upon. Let us please explore all routes, but let us keep Paradise in mind so that the objectives we all share can indeed be fulfilled.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, the financial crisis has become an economic crisis and we are now facing a recession in Europe, which is also affecting ordinary citizens: prices have been going up, unemployment is growing, investment is slowing down, credit is less available and thus, the economy is slowing down.

It is a trompe l'oeil figure, which shows that, actually, men are hit first - and most - by unemployment due to the male domination in industry, such as the car industry. However, women will be hit in the second wave of the redundancies and we will suffer in the long term. Women with temporary and outsourcing contracts often fill posts in sectors where the need is great during good economic times but where the position is often very fragile during an economic downturn. This flexibility works in favour of the labour market but not for women who want and need social security, employment guarantees and reconciliation of private and professional life. It is even more worrying when conservative governments, such as the current Czech Presidency, talk about revising the Barcelona targets and going back to home childcare. The Barcelona targets, as PSE women demonstrated by our campaign in 2007, are beneficial for the whole of society and all children. It helps to give them an equal start in life and to eradicate poverty.

As Jacques Delors says: 'in every child there is a treasure, and we have to give them the chance to explore and develop this treasure'. If I might add: every child needs an equal chance to develop their treasures. In this way, we can also ensure well-prepared and competent labour forces. The Barcelona objectives also help towards achieving the Lisbon objectives of having 60% of women in the labour market by making the reconciliation of public and professional life possible for women workers.

It is clear that governments may not cut back on public services, not even during the current crisis.

(The President asked the speaker to speak more slowly)

Home childcare is important. Every woman should have the choice between home and public childcare, but it is the responsibility of every government to ensure this freedom of choice by providing good quality, accessible and affordable childcare for everyone. I am glad that we have such a dedicated ally in keeping the Barcelona objectives.

Madam President, children and politics - rarely are the interests of the citizens and of the politicians so far apart. For citizens throughout Europe, the subject of children is right at the top of their priorities. For politicians, children's issues are also-ran issues, as we can see again here, too.

I do not know of a single country with a dedicated ministry for children, nor is there a dedicated representative for the interests of our youngest citizens in the Commission. In Parliament, the subject of children is spread across all the committees. That is why I would like to give special mention to the Commission today, as it is dealing here with childcare facilities and the Barcelona objective. Thank you ever so much.

In the parliamentary working group on Quality of childhood, we observed that our children live in a very complicated world. The future for those who are children right here, right now - today - is completely uncertain. A child of today can climb right to the top of the social ladder or fall right down to the bottom. Such children can remain in their own cultural circle or they can search out another one. They can follow a similar life path to their parents or do the exact opposite. They can marry someone from the opposite sex or someone of their own sex. More than 50 years ago, when we launched the project of uniting Europe, all that was completely different.

The diversity that characterises us as Europeans has become a decisive factor in the lives of children. The concept of diversity must, therefore, find its way into what teachers and others engaged in educating our children teach. Far too little attention is paid to this at present. Europe's childcare facilities and schools are, after all, cracking under the strain of the challenge of integration. We need to press the reset button when it comes to matters of integration and start again from scratch.

Let us approach this subject completely free of prejudice again, according to the slogan 'stop it through diversity'. In addition, I would ask all the MEPs after me not only to come out and advocate gender mainstreaming, but to fight for child mainstreaming, too - especially in this time of global financial crisis - because, otherwise, we will saddle our children with immeasurable debts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we should remember that we cannot uphold women's rights in any document that deals with employment or equal opportunities unless we can count on satisfactory childcare facilities, without which mediation is impossible and rights count for nothing.

These matters are more pertinent than ever now that we are faced with problems raised by the economic crisis. In the European Union, more than six million women aged 25 to 49 state that they are forced to be unemployed or work part time due to their family responsibilities. The situation of more than one quarter of these women stems from the lack of childcare facilities or their excessive cost. Six years after the adoption of the Barcelona objectives, as the 2010 deadline approaches, we find that most Member States will not achieve these objectives, which were not even particularly ambitious: guaranteeing access to childcare facilities for 30% of children under the age of three. We must therefore work hard to achieve satisfactory levels of availability of children's services, beginning with services for children aged under three.

For this reason, I am very happy that today's ECOFIN Council has approved the possibility for all Member States to cut VAT on children's services. I believe that this is a considerable incentive and a common sense gesture that could help to relaunch the childcare plan and a plan for services for children and families throughout the European Union.

Madam President, we find the Czech Presidency's attempts to water down the EU's childcare objectives to be truly shameful and we naturally, therefore, roundly reject them. It is also a great success that the Union's Ministers for the Family, as a result of the pressure that has been exerted by this House, did not endorse this watering down of the childcare objectives.

I also find it very regrettable that the Czech Presidency is conspicuous by its absence today and is unable to discuss its attempt to water down the Barcelona objectives with us here in Parliament, as this Czech move is a very clear roll-back in EU equality policy and we very clearly reject the antiquated picture of women and the family expressed by the Czech Presidency's proposal.

Yet, Commissioner Špidla, you have said that there are funding opportunities. You have observed that most Member States of the EU do not meet the objectives, particularly when it comes to childcare for the under-threes. What initiative will the Commission take in order to make the Member States more active, however? I have, I am afraid to say, heard no answer from you today on that question.

What else will the Commission do to encourage the Member States? You have also hinted that there are possibilities of co-financing. Are these possibilities being used by the Member States? I would ask that you answer this question. If not, why are they not used and will the Commission also increase the funding for the expansion of childcare?

Madam President, I very much appreciated the Member States adopting targets within the Barcelona objectives relating to children's access to childcare. I felt - and still do today - that the objectives were set rather low, but we have at least made a start. Access to good childcare is a basic prerequisite if women are to have the opportunity to work and it is also a basic prerequisite for equality.

However, I am now concerned that these targets will not be achieved and, of course, I am concerned about the indications from the Czech Presidency about replacing the childcare objective with care in the home as a fully viable alternative, and that it therefore wishes to remove this objective. However, I would also like to thank Commissioner Špidla, who has, in fact, made it clear that the Commission still regards it as important for us to achieve the Barcelona objectives with regard to childcare. I would also like to thank Mrs Resetarits for her proposal on child mainstreaming. I think that, together, we should bear this in mind.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Commissioner, many of my constituents are babies and very young children, and tonight I would like to speak on their behalf, especially as there are many very good speakers tonight who can speak effectively for women in the workplace.

The care a child receives in the earliest years will have an impact on him or her throughout life. Many students of child development, like Maria Montessori, have noted the need a young child has for the presence of his or her mother, or mother substitute. Many of them have also noted a watershed in a child's development at two years and nine months, after which it becomes safe for a child to spend periods of time away from his or her primary care-giver.

In the last decade, brain-imaging technology has backed up those observations, demonstrating that there is a definite shift in the child's brain that allows him or her to internalise the primary care-giver, usually the mother, so that she is available to the child in active memory even when she is not present. At that time, the child can understand that the mother, or the substitute primary care-giver, will come back and is not gone forever.

Of course, life is not like that and mothers often work outside the home. They may want to work, or choose to, and even if they do not, they may need to earn because mortgages must be paid and food must be put on the table. Women have been a wonderful addition to the workforce. Their inclusion and equal treatment is a matter of fundamental rights. However, babies do not know, nor are they able to consider what their mothers must, or want to, do. They are hardwired to need what they need. Nature is a very powerful force.

There are always consequences when we go against nature. Having a loving invested mother is the ideal for a child, which we should make every effort to accommodate where a woman wants to be available to her child in those early years. This is because, if that young child needs the constant reassuring presence of its mother, not having her will have an impact, despite all the very worthy reasons for her absence. However, as I said, women work, and we must do our best to at least ensure that if someone other than the primary care-giver is taking care of the child below the age of two years nine months, that it is someone who can give the child as nurturing a care as possible.

Some children are fortunate enough to receive this care from secondary care-givers like fathers, grandparents, other relatives, close neighbours - people who are committed to them and part of their life on an ongoing basis. However, this is simply not the lot of most babies and toddlers who would be cared for in childcare facilities. It behoves us to ensure that those facilities are clean, safe, stimulating and, above all, nurturing, and are not just holding centres.

Children are our future. The foundation they receive is of utmost importance, but the time, space and nurturing children need to grow and develop fully is becoming a luxury afforded to fewer and fewer. For better or for worse, we are shaping Europe's future by how we raise our children. I would ask the Commission to view this issue for a moment from a child's point of view. If you could ask a baby whether it wanted its mum or a day-care centre, it would always choose mum. We need to listen to that child as mothers do, and to help them find a way to reconcile home and work to the benefit of both.

(SK) We probably all know how important it is to implement all of the Barcelona objectives into everyday life. Achieving a balance between family life and work life is essential to applying the principle of equality in employment. It also brings advantages for children in terms of their healthy development.

Support for the expansion of services in the area of pre-school and out-of-school facilities, for parents' centres and also for the operation of broad-spectrum, multi-functional, daily community centres increases accessibility, flexibility and equality in the system of public social services for families by making them competitive and improving their quality.

The situation with childcare in Slovakia is rather complicated. Public childcare facilities for the youngest children up to the age of two or three have virtually disappeared, operating only on an exceptional basis, while private facilities are not affordable for most families. Competence in this area has been transferred to local authorities who can choose whether or not to participate in running such facilities.

The situation with the hidden population of older children from three to six years old, in other words the so-called little schools, is not much better. According to EU statistical estimates, only Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia record lower attendance levels of children aged from three upwards.

The countries with social and family policies based on the spirit and letter of gender equality, such as Finland, Sweden and France, have, in recent years, recorded high levels of fertility, while the countries supporting the traditional separation of parental roles are facing low fertility and increasing levels of childlessness, for example Germany, Spain and Italy.

Many of the countries with a high proportion of women on the labour market, such as the northern countries, have, at the same time, higher birth rates and fertility levels. It is necessary for the state to provide support so that women can work and, at the same time, fulfil their longing to be mothers. The demographic situation is simply an outcome of the interest or lack of interest shown by the state in the next generation. By supporting family policies, the state will provide the essential preconditions for families. The blindness to these values which we have seen to date, together with support for the consumer lifestyle, is probably the cause of the current demographic gloom.

It is also true that pre-school facilities are extremely important for problem groups as well, such as children from socially disadvantaged groups and Roma children. It is precisely these children who pick up basic habits of hygiene in pre-school facilities and also gradually learn rules of behaviour. Let us agree that the Barcelona objectives should form part of the national policy of the state on citizens' welfare.

(PT) Almost seven years after the Barcelona European Council, the majority of Member States are a long way off achieving the objectives that were set out. Yet childcare facilities are an essential requirement for reconciling professional, family and private life, as much for men as for women. They are also a requirement for the promotion of equality.

I would remind you that family responsibilities prevent more than six million European women from taking part in the labour market. Yet there are 15 Member States that have a coverage ratio lower than the European average, which falls far short of the Barcelona objectives. For example, the Czech Republic, which currently holds the presidency of the European Council, has a coverage ratio lower than 10% for the under three age group. It is not surprising, then, that there should be a debate on the revision of the Barcelona objectives included in the programme of the Czech Presidency. More seriously, the Czech Presidency will, and I quote: 'focus on the issue of parental childcare and its relation to employment policy and stress the importance of home childcare as a fully fledged alternative to a professional career'. End quote.

It is hard to believe when reading it. Nonetheless, it is true: the Czech Presidency wants to send women back into the home. It wants Europe to regress years and years and European women to give up the results of years of fighting for equality. This is definitely the case, because the authors of this proposal are not intending to send men into the home so that it can be they who look after the children. Yet women have the same right as men to professional fulfilment.

I would like to give the example of Portugal, which has launched an ambitious programme of construction of childcare facilities. These will help to stimulate the economy and create employment, and also achieve the Barcelona objectives.

(PL) Madam President, I sometimes get the impression that the wealthier a country, the less money it spends on caring for, bringing up and educating its children. However, we must remember that Europe is being threatened by a demographic crisis. We must do everything to encourage women and men to have families and as many children as possible.

In many countries of the EU, guaranteeing a place in a nursery means applying even before the child is born. How, then, can we talk about making it easy for women to return to work? Furthermore, many women look for their first job only after they have had their children.

Let the attitude of European citizens to the family and to children define our level of culture and civilisation.

(EL) Madam President, the European Commission's effort to help mothers actively participate in the labour market by promoting the application of everything decided in Barcelona in 2002 is noteworthy.

However, I should like to remind the Commissioner that freedom of choice, especially where there is economic pressure, is not a question of historic tradition, it is a question of democracy. Forcing mothers down this road will not bring about good results; on the contrary, the result must come about once parents have been convinced that this is the ideal solution for their child and, as the previous speaker said, this is achieved with support and advisory services from the beginning, when life is created.

Thus, parents will also find the best solution and will adapt care facilities over time, immediately after the birth and three years later. However, we must look at the services being supplied, because quality costs money. Today, in most countries, quality costs a great deal of money and implies private facilities. By contrast, public facilities, which are cheaper or - on rare occasions - free, have lower costs but are of a poor standard. We therefore have to look at the education of the staff working in such facilities and we need to increase parents' confidence so that they can participate. When I had the first of my nine children in Paris, I was confident of the standard of services offered by these facilities, which I as a mother could not give.

We must therefore respect the experience of mothers and consider it as prior service, if it is provided solely to children. While mothers are offering their services, they can be supported by lifelong learning and training measures so that they can practice their profession afterwards.

We must also remember Parliament's report on childcare facilities for students, because we are talking about work, but work starts with professional qualifications. If, therefore, we have no childcare facilities during study for professional qualifications, how will women subsequently participate in the labour market?

(RO) The Czech Presidency was right: the Barcelona objectives were established before the EU's last expansion. However, it was fundamentally wrong when it stated that the specific situation in the new Member States and their previous experience would be arguments against these objectives.

If anything, the benefits are important: for parents and gender equality, for the economy and level of employment, and for children and the future. The relatively low salaries in our countries mean that both parents are obliged to work; it is not an option but a necessity. In addition, the number of single-parent families is on the rise. In some countries, almost a third of children are not born in the traditional family set-up.

The policies which encourage labour mobility, considered to be an efficiency factor, cannot continue to ignore the fact that people have children. Many of them live in poor families without any proper provision for food, healthcare and education. Sometimes, the family environment is violent. When parents emigrate for work, these children are also left alone. These services can break the poverty chain and offer a positive alternative way of socialisation under the guidance of specialist staff. However, to be able to fulfil this role, crèches and nurseries need to be:

1. available, but above all, accessible, whether free or at an affordable cost, and

2. of good quality. This is where it is vital for staff to have professional training.

In order to combat the current crisis, we give up nearly new cars to buy other brand new ones, wasting considerable material resources in the process. We would be better instead investing in building crèches and nurseries and creating stable jobs for those working in this sector. The quality of the human resources deployed has been, for a long time, one factor which differentiates countries.

We suggest that the Commission should seriously factor in the public cost of a child when evaluating employment programmes in each country. It is true that Jacques Delors once said that there is a treasure in every child and it is society's task to discover it. However, I would add to this: otherwise, society is undermining its entire future.

(SK) Achieving a balance between the family responsibilities of mothers and fathers, on the one hand, and their professional ambitions, on the other, can have a very positive and direct impact on the whole of society. I would like to propose that the definition of work be revised in order to highlight the advantages of achieving a balance between family responsibilities and professional ambitions.

Family responsibilities must not be automatically regarded as harmful to the future prospects of mothers merely because they involve a temporary withdrawal from the labour market. Up until now, European policies and politics have viewed citizens only on the basis of the requirements of the labour market. Responding to the demographic crisis, however, also involves viewing citizens on the basis of their role as parents, in other words, as mothers and fathers who have a responsibility to their families.

At this point, a fundamental question arises which will determine the direction of further deliberations. It is the question of which social model we wish to promote. Do we want to have families that are adapted to the market and the needs of companies or a market and companies that are adapted to families? This is absolutely not a meaningless question. European and national policies in this area are both determined by the tension between market logic and the logic of human nature. The task of society is therefore to act in such a way that women and men can decide freely between the two logical options, each of which has a reason for existing when viewed from a broader perspective than that of work.

The logic of EU policies relating to the cycle of life assumes a special significance insofar as it takes specific account of the active categories of men and women aged between 15 and 49 in order for them to be able to fulfil their particular role in resolving the demographic crisis. In contrast to the proposals of the European Commission, the decision to give life to a child cannot be considered simply as an individual goal involving fulfilment of the longing to have children.

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, childcare should be the focus of EU policy. Not because we sometimes say for the sake of it that children are the future of the nation, but because current reality demands us to think about and work at building the future of Europe. We are witnessing a serious demographic crisis, a low birth rate, an ageing population, as well as economic and social problems in society. Our efforts must be aimed at creating suitable conditions for giving birth to, bringing up, educating, providing materially for and fostering the social development of children. We need to appropriately allocate the rights, obligations and responsibilities involving childcare between the state, local authorities and the family. We also need to support childcare institutions in both the public and private sector, look to establish public-private partnerships in the area of childcare and obtain the funds for their development. To enable us to attain the Barcelona objectives, we must adopt concrete measures, increase the provision for children in crèches and nurseries, which must be built as a priority. We must also set up networks offering comprehensive services, consultancy and social support for children and parents.

My country, Bulgaria, offers a high level of childcare. The National Strategy for Children and National Child Protection Programme which have been adopted not only specified the objectives, but also concrete measures to be implemented by the executive with regard to childcare. Children's institutions changed their image, for instance, solutions have been sought aimed at returning children to their family environment, the principles of foster families were accepted, safe houses were created and nurseries and crèches were built. However, we are talking about all this in the context of a financial and economic crisis, when it is possible that we will lose what we have achieved and fail to achieve what we have planned. Will we then invest in the children of Europe?

(CS) Commissioner, ladies, you will perhaps not like what I have to say. The Barcelona objectives have the aim of increasing employment among mothers but they say nothing at all about improving the lives of their children nor do they have the aim of helping these children to manage and overcome life's problems in the future. Someone raised the point that, for example, infants and toddlers up to two years old need the presence of their mother, father or grandmother or simply a nanny every day, but the one thing these children definitely do not need for their healthy development is a childcare facility. The situation is quite different for children of pre-school age, of course, and here the Barcelona objectives are quite appropriate. Even the Czech Republic manages to provide childcare facilities for 90% of pre-school age children because these children are learning to play together and need to be in a group. However, ladies and gentlemen, the Barcelona objectives are a policy of the last century. A modern family policy for the 21st century should also promote the healthy development of children. Those of us from the communist countries have a wealth of experience with childcare facilities because mothers had to go back to work four or five months after their child was born. I would like to ask you to read a bit of European history as well.

(ET) My political party has the custom of visiting kindergartens at roughly the time of International Women's Day and acknowledging the people who work there. This year, I have visited ten kindergartens, and at every one of them I heard about long waiting lists. It is clear that Estonia cannot achieve the Barcelona objectives, at least not as regards children up to the age of three, but the Commission's appeal is very welcome, and will help towards solving the problem.

I would also, however, like to emphasise one more thing: child day care is generally spoken of in the context of gender equality and women's employment, but I would like to emphasise that this is not merely a care service, but also an educational service, and this base education creates a basis for success at school and later in life. In this context, we also consider it particularly important, and definitely not an attitude from the past century, as we have just heard. It is an approach for this century.

(RO) According to the European Commission's report in October 2008 on implementing the Barcelona objectives and the care framework for pre-school children, Member States have not met the objectives set by European Union leaders.

In this case, I recommend the following actions:

1. increase the involvement of national governments in this problem,

2. create at national government level a team of specialists which deals exclusively with this problem,

3. develop EU control over Member State governments through a set of specific instruments.

All these measures would help ensure equal opportunities between women and men, improve the quality of life, and also compensate for an ageing population as they would boost the birth rate.

Madam President, it is deeply disappointing that so many countries are not meeting the Barcelona targets - and perhaps if this debate had been at 9 a.m. rather than 9 p.m. we might have seen more colleagues in this Chamber.

Many have spoken about the economic crisis. This is not a time to dismiss childcare but to increase quality, affordable childcare for all. We need, like never before, to invest in our children. An investment in quality childcare will help families and children alike in providing families - mostly mothers - with an opportunity to work, by giving children the chance to a high-quality, nurturing environment akin to the home.

This weekend, I heard a talk from a leading Scottish psychiatrist and also someone from Barnardo's. Their views concerned vulnerable children and it was shocking to find out that, if there is no intervention to help vulnerable children, a vulnerable child could be damaged irrevocably by the age of three. Childcare helps families and society as a whole, and it can help the most vulnerable children too. I urge the Commissioner to keep the pressure on.

(RO) The country which I represent featured for a long time on a list of countries which did not have a childcare social policy up to European standards. Things have gradually improved, with the adoption of qualitative methodologies resulting from care staff receiving specialist training. The Barcelona objectives have motivated the institutions whose objective is to protect children and the care standards have resulted in responsibilities and skills. Children actually receive humane treatment.

With the birth rate currently in decline, we must offer equal opportunities to those who have special social circumstances. Both Member States and the European Commission must make efforts to support their education and their subsequent integration into society. They have inferiority complexes in relation to those children who have grown up in a normal family. This is why programmes which allow these children being supported by social services to spend time in a family environment and socialise could give them another chance.

(RO) The involvement of women in professional life and politics and encouraging them to take on more responsibilities depend on the availability of childcare facilities.

Women must be encouraged to plan their career, but this cannot be done without an efficient childcare system. Every euro invested in childcare facilities means a profit of six to nine euros for society through the creation of jobs and better conditions for bringing up children.

The fact that in many EU Member States, you need, for example, to register for a place in a crèche even before your child is born or that there are waiting lists of several months to register for a place at nursery highlights that there are not enough childcare facilities in Europe. Childcare facilities not only help women develop their careers, but, in particular, they develop children's skills as members of society.

I would also like to say that during the current crisis, it is important for us to invest in education and health, which are practical investments in our future.

(PL) Madam President, nurseries are an evil. They may be a necessary evil, but they are an evil. I shall never forget how I had to take my three month old little brother to the nursery because my mother had to go to work early. He kept on holding on to me because he didn't want to be picked up. I believe that if we ask ourselves whether the good of the child or the parents' careers are more important, the good of the child should always come first.

Kindergartens and nurseries are necessary, but only where there is a real need for them. But what is needed above all is to be sensitive to, to give a chance to, to help, those parents, particularly mothers, who want to stay at home with their little children so that they can care for them. They need both financial support and advice. That is something we must remember. When we speak of childcare, we are talking about children and what they need, and not about what we want for our own personal convenience.

(PL) Madam President, I would like to say two things, as a psychologist and a politician. Life is changing before our very eyes, career women are a new phenomenon, fathers are increasingly busy, and women are fighting for their rights. It all sounds so logical and modern, socialist, even.

There is, however, one unchanging constant in all this, and that is the individual psychological needs of children. In this area, there is no progress or revolutionary change. Ensuring that these children grow into mature citizens requires the efforts of ordinary women and ordinary men, without ideology, without pretensions, without quasi-modern methods, but just with natural care, time and dedication, even if it does involve occasionally putting oneself and one's own ambitions on hold for a while. This is for the good of the children, and therefore also for the happiness of the parents, and effectively for the development of the normal European society in which I would like to live.

(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, I asked for the floor in order to disagree with Mrs Estrela. It was in fact her caricaturing of the Czech Presidency's intentions that motivated me to speak. Nobody wants to send women into the home. The problem is that there are women who want or would like to stay at home. There are even organisations that seek to defend them! These are women who are ignored, disregarded and discriminated against because they want to dedicate themselves to their families, and we are not listening to them. Moreover, this is a question of freedom: it is a question of the freedom of choice that the Left likes to evoke so much, but is forgetting here. It is about whether or not to respect couples' choices about how to organise themselves. It is about being able to provide a better quality of life and more quality care from fathers and from mothers to those who want to do it that way. It is that which our society also needs to do. We will not move forward or solve the problems with the birth rate and people's happiness through prejudice. They will be solved through policies that are adjusted to reality and to the spontaneous desires of people. We will not move forward through an obsession with the state and with the market. Let us move forward with a fair view of the family!

Member of Commission. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for what was, in my opinion, an exceptionally important and profound debate. It is, of course, clear that both the family and childhood are going through a series of changes in the current historical period. For example, in the middle ages, childhood was not recognised as a phase and children were seen as small adults and it can be said that the concept of childhood essentially developed in the Enlightenment, the period of Jean Jacques Rousseau and his novel Emil. From this perspective, it is always necessary to take account of the fact that families depend on society and society of course depends on the family. The Barcelona criteria are definitely not a policy of the last century, they are a policy which attracts lively discussion and which will surely continue to attract discussion. Despite all this, both the current debate and the informal negotiations of labour and social affairs ministers have echoed the view that the Barcelona criteria are relevant for the current period and that it is right to continue with them. I would also like to stress that the Barcelona criteria do not involve forcing a single solution on anyone but providing a real choice, a real choice for parents because, ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental point has been made in the debate and in my opinion very clearly in the last contribution, that genuinely attentive and loving parents naturally have a great ability to distinguish how to decide at a given moment, in a given phase of family life, or in a given situation, what will be best for their children. And therefore I believe it is also good to provide choice through the Barcelona criteria.

Concerning the question of how the Commission will support the Barcelona criteria, it can be done through the structural funds. In the new perspective, it is explicitly possible for the first time. Previously, it was technically possible but the way was rather unclear and complicated, since this is an open possibility. Of course, the Commission is also following the development of the Barcelona criteria, in the same way that it can assist in imparting good practice and good approaches to facilitate solutions for individual Member States. Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that the Barcelona criteria do not, in any way, conflict with children's interests and I would like to emphasise what was been said by many people, that the Barcelona criteria represent a specific approach to the matter from a quantitative standpoint but that we must not, under any circumstances, neglect the qualitative aspect. In the same way it is clear that the main decisions must always rest with the parents of course and I have to say that personally, at the end of the day and on the basis of my own simple family experience, I have faith in parents.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

The European Union Lisbon Summit in March 2000 set the strategic objectives for the following ten years as the achievement of sustainable economic development, the creation of more and better jobs and the improvement of social cohesion.

Based on the so-called Barcelona objectives, which the Member States accepted in 2002 concerning childcare facilities, by 2010, Member States should guarantee child care for at least 90% of children between the age of 3 and compulsory school attendance age and at least 33% of children under the age of 3.

In order to achieve the Barcelona objectives, an open co-ordination method was applied, but measures for reaching the objective were left to the discretion of each Member State. Thus one must now recognise that several Member States are still quite far from reaching this objective and, as a result, the objectives approved in 2002 need to be reviewed now.

The present recession proves that disturbances in the financial market have noticeable negative side-effects on the real economy. The negative influences on economic growth and employment are sufficiently serious, and are now influencing the achievement of the Lisbon objectives in Member States.

Since most EU States have now directed their attention and also their financial resources towards the struggle with the economic crisis, it is important that in the framework of that activity the Barcelona objectives should not be forgotten, since achieving them also supports the achievement of the Lisbon objectives.

The present situation also bears witness to the fact that we will not fully achieve this objective in the Member States by merely setting new dates for the Barcelona objectives. In this area, another important issue for Member States is the EU's supporting back-up measures, which will help towards achieving objectives for childcare facilities in all Member States.

Children of immigrants (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the children of immigrants, by Jan Andersson, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs - B6-0014/2009).

deputising for the author. - (RO) I would first of all like to thank my colleagues in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the PES Secretariat from the Commission for promoting this topic on the children of migrants, which we are debating today in this plenary session because, when we talk about children, we are talking about our future, about the future of the European Union.

The migration of labour is continuing to grow, not only at global level, but within the EU as well. Migration offers great potential for development, but it also poses serious challenges in both the developed and the least developed Member States of the European Union. We can talk about the positive impact of migration at the level of the economy in the migrant workers' countries of origin because this can reduce poverty and boost investment in human resources. On the other hand, the situation of migrants' children who are left behind on their own in the country of origin when parents emigrate in search of a job in another country is an issue which has caused concern in some Member States during the last two years.

Although there are comprehensive policies for improving the living conditions and education of migrants' children who have moved abroad with their parents, less attention has been focused on the children who have been left behind at home. The migration of parents abroad for work is a social phenomenon with a complex impact on the dynamics and functionality of the family, as well as on the whole of society. Children whose parents have gone abroad for work belong to a vulnerable group which is at risk.

The complexity of this issue, of its causes and consequences, of its dynamics and the way in which legal provisions are implemented effectively in the field, as well as the complexity of the professionals' practices, have provided challenges, not only to the authorities but to civil society as well. On this point, civil society and the mass media in Romania have presented studies which state that in Romania, there are more than 350 000 children whose parents are working abroad, including 126 000 where both parents have emigrated.

The adverse consequences of the parents' departure are primarily felt by children at a psychological level. The feeling of depression and a lack of interest in school and out-of-school activities may be direct consequences of their parents' absence. One direct consequence of the parents' migration is the fact that the child is deprived of parental affection and the necessary supervision of his or her normal development.

In cases where parents have emigrated and the children have stayed behind in the care of people who cannot provide them with emotional and educational support, both these consequences may have, in turn, an adverse impact on the children's health and psychological development, as well as push them into behaviour that is uncharacteristic or inappropriate for the children's age and expose them to other kinds of exploitation and abuse.

As a mother and a European social democrat, I urge respect for the rights of every child, for their entitlement to equal opportunities and for the role of the state, as well as the investment required to mould future generations. Identifying the most vulnerable, excluded or marginalised children must be the key focus of any research effort, thereby ensuring there is sufficient leverage generated to support the authorities' efforts to safeguard the rights of every child.

Commissioner Špidla, I would like to thank you sincerely for the contribution you have made in broadcasting the video message as part of the European conference which I organised in Bucharest last November on this issue of children left alone at home.

Taking into account the complexity of this issue, especially during the current economic and social crisis that is primarily affecting vulnerable groups, which children also belong to, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I would like to ask you whether the Commission is in favour of carrying out a study to assess the extent of the situation and whether the Commission considers that the topic of migrant workers' children is only a problem for the government in the country of origin or for the governments of the host countries which benefit from the presence of migrants on the labour market.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there are disturbing signs indicating the appearance of a relatively new trend in a number of Member States. Parents are leaving their home country to work in another Member State - so-called 'mobile workers' - and are leaving their children at home in the care of relatives. These arrangements are supposed to be temporary but it seems that they often become more long-lasting. The question of whether arrangements for children left at home operate on a formal or informal basis depends on the length of time for which the parents intend to work abroad. However, after some time, a number of these children often end up in institutional care because the relatives are no longer able to cope with the situation due to financial, personal or other practical reasons.

In Member States with high levels of emigration, this phenomenon is by no means unusual. It is starting to be documented and it has also attracted media attention. The Commission has organised a number of studies which will help to gather evidence and to find solutions, although such solutions can only be implemented at a domestic level. At present, there is still not enough hard data for us to understand the nature, structure and main forms of this phenomenon, even though the evidence is already disturbing enough, as I have already said. Within the framework of the open method of coordination in the social area, the fight against poverty and social exclusion is a priority. Member States must reinforce preventative measures and focus on the most vulnerable families. In concrete terms, this means supporting projects for strengthening families and supporting parental assistance for families in difficult circumstances in order to overcome the risk of children becoming separated from their parents at an early age.

A further aspect which must be addressed is the fact that this phenomenon is often perceived as a negative consequence of worker mobility. The Commission, in cooperation with the EURES network, is focusing on how best to help those affected with the specific problem of children left at home by parents who are mobile workers and providing job-seekers and their families with information on living and employment conditions in EU countries. Such an approach can contribute to relieving the negative consequences of this phenomenon which we are quite rightly debating today.

Madam President, my political group participated actively in the drafting of this motion and improved the text, so that it no longer conceals the hypocrisy which exists when it comes to the exploitation of workers from third countries.

We know that the parents of children from Member States working in any other country receive child benefit. We know that countries which have bilateral relations can have the family connection. So why does this phenomenon arise, which the Commissioner says cannot be measured? We have films, we have documentaries which have been shown on television all over the world, including from Romania and Ukraine and other countries. One such film was shown here in Parliament and we saw the situation.

It is therefore hypocritical of us to say that we have no evidence. It is hypocritical of us to say that there is no family and that is why there are abandoned children. There is a family, but there are no proper bilateral relations and agreements to cover parents so that they do not abandon their children and there is no help from the European Union for these countries in building the infrastructures which will help to ensure that children that find themselves in this situation can be rehabilitated, without carrying the trauma with them their entire life.

I think that raising awareness among the parents who come to our countries to work is also our affair. If one part of the body hurts, the whole body hurts. If some of our fellow human beings, especially children, are suffering in our neighbouring countries, later we shall see them arrive here with other more threatening methods and then we shall lock them up in our prisons.

Madam President, Commissioner Špidla, I would like to start by thanking the Commissioner for his response and the committee for its initiative. It is about time this issue was discussed in Parliament. With the Treaty of Lisbon, issues relating to children will become objectives within the EU and will gain a legal basis. A year ago, in anticipation of the Treaty, Parliament also adopted a children's strategy.

It is scandalous that children are left to live on their own at all. Of course, a mother and father may be forced to move to find work or to find refuge, but we MEPs must take responsibility when we adopt such rules, for example, to the effect that only the applicant receives asylum and not his family, as it is most often the men who flee and the women and children who are left at home. Or when employers import labour and do not ask or care whether there are children back home or they ignore the fact that this is the case. I therefore fully support the demands made by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament in its question. An impact assessment is an urgent and necessary requirement. The Commission must act on the basis of the studies that the Commissioner himself has ordered, and quickly.

Better information must be produced on children's rights and schooling. We must also provide information and ensure that children who are currently in this situation receive help. We must include the parties concerned and NGOs and we must come up with proposals. I also believe that the relatively new group of lone child refugees could also be included in the work described by the Commissioner. Children should grow up with warmth and care and they are not something that the market should control. We politicians have a duty and we must accept it, so give us child mainstreaming and give us child impact assessments in respect of this huge problem. Otherwise, we will be forced to feel ashamed when we face the next generation.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his willingness to embark upon studies and to expand the information on the EURES network, to provide greater information for individuals about family rights and the right of family reunion. Colleagues have raised the issues of why people feel the need to move to look for work. Certainly, the need to increase progress on combating poverty within the European Union is an extremely important issue. We look forward to rapid progress on that, including the question of minimum income, so that people can live in dignity.

But we should also be aware that many of the parents who are moving are doing this in what they believe is in the best interests of their children, to provide greater opportunities for them. Indeed, they often sacrifice their own careers, their own chosen path, as it were, in order to try and do this. While we are trying to sort out the children's problems, we need to beware of demonising parents who are moving.

Madam President, the European Commission should focus on this issue. As UNICEF and other organisations have underlined several times, it affects a huge amount of children in the world and in Europe.

The situation in which social and economic risks are made worse by the absence of parents who cannot meet their children's needs for care protection and education may lead to an increase in vulnerability. The primary responsibility for the development of the child rests with the parents; and parents, in fulfilling their responsibilities, are entitled to receive the necessary support from the community and the local authorities, whose efforts to meet their obligations unfortunately often fail. So we expect concrete action from the Commission in such an important field.

(RO) According to the study carried out by UNICEF and the 'Social Alternatives' association, in Romania, roughly 350 000 children have one parent working abroad, while 126 000 have both parents abroad. These findings are worrying. I believe that this situation could be improved through adopting the following measures:

1. The national governments of the migrants' countries of origin and the governments of the countries absorbing this labour force, alongside the European Commission, should create a joint programme offering migrant workers the opportunity to access specific childcare services, the school and education system, as well as language courses. These services should be accessible to every migrant worker segment.

2. The European Commission, along with the governments of the states where the migrants are employed, should devise a strategy for offering certain facilities to employment bodies so that they can also offer employees a package of specific services providing migrant workers with the opportunity to take their children with them to the countries where they are working.

I feel that these measures would be conducive to the harmonious development and growth of these children as they, too, represent the future of Europe.

(RO) I would like to highlight one thing. The labour force flow we are talking about is from the less developed countries to the more developed countries in the EU.

The opportunity to access the labour markets in developed countries is usually considered to be a significant advantage and the large sums which go back to the countries of origin are always brought up in discussion as an argument for this. However, the facts presented here show a different aspect: in addition to the advantages derived from lower labour costs, the developed countries externalise some of the associated costs. These costs are considerable and it is down to the communities and states where the workers come from to pay for them.

In this respect, the cohesion and solidarity policies between Member States must not be regarded as some act of altruism performed by the rich for the benefit of the poor. These policies are an absolute must, being acts of justice ensuring that the European Union consistently sticks to its values and maintains its citizens' affection for these values.

Madam President, in the context of this debate, I wish to take the opportunity to emphasise another aspect connected with the issues already mentioned. I was recently the shadow for the PPE-DE Group on the report on educating the children of migrants. That report was based on the communication from the Commission on 'Migration and mobility: challenges and opportunities for EU education systems'.

That document was very well structured and summarised very well the problems connected with migration and education. However, one aspect was left out: the situation of thousands of European children left behind by parents who go to work in another European country, generally called the 'migration orphans', of which there are almost 350 000 in my country.

I have already tabled a written question to the Commission on this topic, but would like to take this opportunity to put that question again. So, Commissioner, could you please tell us whether the Commission thinks this is only a matter for national governments, or do we need European action in this field? If we do, what action has, or will be, taken by the Commission in order to help those children in their school years?

(RO) We have a saying in Romania: a well-bred man is said to have had his 'first seven years at home'. Young children must be together with their family to benefit from the direct supervision and care of their parents. Parents who decide to go and work temporarily in other countries must be supported in their efforts to reunite their family as soon as possible.

In many Member States, schools offer facilities for teaching the language of the country of residence. Indeed, in some Member States, families who were living illegally have been able to make their situation legal if they had children registered at school, and have even received social housing.

Children are the most precious thing that society has and it is our duty to provide them with conditions conducive to their harmonious development. Formal education, affection, children's integration in society are essential conditions allowing social Europe to offer equal chances to all its citizens.

I congratulate Mrs Plumb for the initiative. It is a topical subject which is hugely important for the future. Congratulations.

(SK) When workers emigrate, children often become the victims of their families' improved financial circumstances. The former Czechoslovak Republic experienced a great wave of emigration in the inter-war period, chiefly to the United States. However, these were migrants living in conditions of extreme poverty at home. And even if the children remained temporarily in the care of one parent, this would usually only be for a limited period of time.

In today's consumer society and with family relationships under threat, there are considerably more tragic cases. It is often not extreme poverty that motivates parents to work abroad. One or both parents often never return and they can be indifferent to the fate of their children, whose best hope is to be cared for by close relatives.

We should keep this aspect in mind in relation to regional development policy and we should strive to eliminate regional variations, particularly in the new Member States.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think that the debate has clearly shown that this is an important topic which we must work on, regardless of whether or not, at a given moment, there may be sufficiently detailed information available for us to reach a final opinion. After all, the facts that are known are sufficiently compelling for it to be clear that we must address the question and take an active approach. I have stated that the Commission has already prepared some studies, one of which will be completed by the end of this year. I think it is also clear that the main part of the response and the main part of the reaction must come from the Member States, as family policy is generally a matter for Member States. Undoubtedly, of course, there are possibilities for the EU itself because questions which relate to migrant workers also relate to their social security, the transfer of social contributions and a range of other issues. So my answer to your question would be that it is, above all, a matter for the Member States, but the EU does have a role to play and one which, in my opinion, is by no means insignificant.

I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 12 March 2009.

Risk to close down the company QIMONDA in Germany and Portugal and the loss of thousands of jobs in Europe (debate) 

The next item is the Commission statement on the risk to close down the company QIMONDA in Germany and Portugal and the loss of thousands of jobs in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, companies and workers are both beginning to feel the effects of the financial and economic crisis. Although circumstances vary between individual Member States, the employment situation in Europe is generally deteriorating. In 2009, overall employment may go down by 1.6%, which represents the loss of 3.5 million jobs. The level of unemployment in the EU could be around 10% in 2010. Day after day, companies are announcing restructuring measures or are relocating, often with the loss of many jobs. The situation in the company Qimonda, which has announced the closure of plants in Germany and Portugal, is, unfortunately, not unique.

The Commission is aware of the negative effects which restructuring can have on workers, their families and the economic and social structure of a given region. However, I would like to emphasise that the Commission does not have the power to overturn or postpone the decisions of individual companies and that companies are not obliged to inform the Commission of their decisions. I have to say that neither Qimonda management nor employee representatives have approached the Commission.

The Commission would like to raise several points in connection with this situation. It is essential, above all, to anticipate and manage restructuring better through intensive dialogue with representatives of employees and the other parties involved. I think that the recently passed directive or amended directive on company councils constitutes one of the EU's major contributions in this matter. It is all the more important in this context that the companies affected are careful to abide by their obligations arising from EU directives relating to informing employees and consulting with them. The Commission also invites companies to introduce measures aimed at maintaining maximum levels of workers in employment through flexible work arrangements and the use of temporary layoffs for economic reasons.

Most Member States have introduced targeted measures in an effort to support employment and limit the effects of the crisis on ordinary citizens. These measures apply to four major areas: maintaining workers in employment, rapidly integrating workers back into employment, assisting the most vulnerable groups through income support, extending the period for paying unemployment benefits or increasing the family contributions and strengthening social protection and investments in social and health infrastructure.

The Commission has strengthened financial instruments at a European level with the aim of helping the Member States to overcome the crisis and its social consequences. The European Social Fund, which provides assistance to 9 million workers every year, has been simplified so that advance payments can be released for projects amounting to EUR 1.8 billion. I hope that the European Parliament and the Council will come to a rapid agreement over this matter. The Commission also supports those Member States which would like to reprogram the European Social Fund. Member States can also request intervention from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist workers who have been laid off. In the European Economic Recovery Plan, the Commission has proposed extending the eligibility criteria in order to respond better to the current economic crisis. I hope that here, too, Parliament will reach an early compromise with the Council. The Commission is prepared to work together with the German or Portuguese authorities to assess all requests for support from European funds. The Commission also supports social dialogue at a European level, as the social partners have a decisive role to play in managing the crisis. The European social partners are also due to submit a joint contribution on how to overcome the crisis at the tripartite meeting on 19 March.

It is important for the Commission that action is taken on a unified basis, because in that way it will be possible to combat the short-term effects of the crisis and to work towards future economic renewal. The Commission had this aim in mind when it introduced the European initiative to support employment within the framework of the European Economic Recovery Plan. On 4 March, the Commission also received a contribution designated for the meeting of the European Council on 19 and 20 March, which concentrates, among other things, on the requirement and the methods for supporting workers affected by the crisis and vulnerable persons on the labour market.

The Commission also welcomes the initiative of the Czech Presidency to organise a summit devoted to employment and social affairs in May 2009. The aim of this meeting will be to assess the situation and set out concrete measures. It should lead to the adoption of a common approach for reducing the social impact of the crisis, reaching a new consensus with the social partners and other participants over the question of modernising social policies and setting out concrete measures for speeding up economic recovery and overcoming the crisis through resolving structural shortcomings on the labour market.

The possible closure of Qimonda puts nearly 2 000 jobs at risk in the north of Portugal, which has, in a few years, gone from being one of the most industrialised regions of Europe to being one of the continent's poorest regions.

It must be understood that the industrial fabric of the north of Portugal was based on traditional sectors, in which textiles were of great importance. This case has arisen precisely at a time when this industrial fabric was at a decisive stage in its conversion, undergoing restructuring processes that are always arduous and costly. If this closure becomes a reality, it will have an enormous impact not just on the region, but on the country as well.

I know that whether or not Qimonda continues to operate depends, above all, on market forces and the will of the shareholders. Nonetheless, it will also not be difficult to recognise that, as Qimonda is considered one of Portugal's main exporters and as it is also an essential part of the conversion of the economic fabric of the region, we cannot accept that only market forces should decide its future on their own. This circumstance explains why the authorities in Portugal and Germany have been tackling the issue at the highest level, specifically and very recently through the President of the Portuguese Republic and Chancellor Merkel. It is also because of this, Mr Špidla, that if the Portuguese Government has not yet invited you to visit the region, which is facing a real social emergency, I myself am inviting you, Commissioner, as I want you to see for yourself the seriousness of the situation, support the efforts that are being made and mobilise all the instruments that the Commission has at its disposal to prevent the lack of confidence throughout the region from spreading even further.

Qimonda is a paradigm case in the current context of global financial and economic crisis. It is a company that uses cutting-edge technology, employs highly qualified workers and promotes research. Qimonda meets the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. The Portuguese Government has been doing everything to find a solution that makes this company viable, but the solution is also dependent on the involvement of the German Federal Government and the state governments of Bavaria and Saxony. The Portuguese Government has already decided to make EUR 100 million available for this purpose. As I said, it has been doing and will continue to do everything it can, as was, in fact, recognised by Qimonda's German workers during the recent official visit by the President of the Portuguese Republic.

The European Commission and the Member States have been taking steps - and rightly so - to save many banks and to support certain industries such as, for example, the automotive industry. Why not also support Qimonda? Leaving Qimonda to its fate will have extremely serious consequences. Not only will thousands of workers in Germany and Portugal lose their jobs, but invaluable European intellectual property and a lot of Community funds that were invested in Qimonda will also be lost. Keeping Qimonda going in Germany and in Portugal is of such strategic importance for Europe that European Union support is well justified.

Commissioner, we must be consistent and, if we are to be consistent, we will do everything to save Qimonda. Qimonda is not just any company!

Mr President, the German Qimonda corporation, one of the largest memory chip manufacturers, has declared bankruptcy. During the last year, it received EUR 325 million in subsidies, which proved to be inadequate.

In 2007, Qimonda employed 13 500 people. In December last year, they took a 10 to 15% cut in their salaries, based on reassurances that the underpayment would be made up to them by April this year. Instead, 500 workers lost their jobs overnight. They have not received salaries or compensation for leave not taken or the severance pay owed them. Another 500 will lose their jobs in the coming month, with a further 1 500 workers threatened further down the line.

There are many more such enterprises in our countries, including those in Krośno or Stalowa Wola in Poland. What we expect from the Commission is a coherent programme for the protection of jobs during the crisis.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the bankruptcy of the company Qimonda is due to the massive fall in prices for outmoded DRAM chips. In actual fact, Qimonda is months ahead of the competition when it comes to research into energy-saving chips, and it is specifically in this regard - in this potential for innovation - that investment should be made. We hope that the Commission will focus on that.

Nonetheless, that could mean that not all the jobs are retained. The Commissioner was right. This is where the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund comes in. In Qimonda, however, what we have is highly qualified workers who, through really well-chosen and specifically tailored re-training, could find new jobs in new sunrise industries. Those workers who have made the switch to the solar power industry have shown that. The Qimonda case shows that it is also up to the Commission to ensure that re-training takes place for jobs with a future rather than just taking a scatter-gun approach. Only targeted investment, environmental restructuring of the economy and then a corresponding re-training of the workforce give people hope and real prospects for the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, you will surely not be surprised to hear that I am not happy with the answer you have given us, especially as we made great efforts several weeks ago to make contact with a very wide range of representatives of the Commission, in particular, Commissioner Verheugen, and demanded clear answers. There was very much an opportunity today to provide a much more precise answer and to say how the Commission itself intends to assume its responsibility.

For me, there are two aspects that I would like to introduce to this debate. First of all, Qimonda is capable of ensuring a crucial technological advance for the European Union in terms of semiconductor technology and nanotechnology. Secondly, Qimonda has no competitors in Europe but does have some in Asia, where they are assisted by 70% subsidies - that makes the crucial difference. Thirdly, the closing down of production at Qimonda will mean the loss of the cooperative core of a network of around 40 000 jobs in a region like Saxony alone.

What do workers, their families and the people of the affected regions expect from the Union? First and foremost, they expect a clear and immediate undertaking that the Commission wants to retain the current sites of the European semiconductor technology and nanotechnology industry, that this head start for the future is not to be allowed to be thrown away and that the statements made about future research spending, in particular, in relation to the Eighth Research Framework Programme, are true.

We also expect that the Commission, the Federal German Government and the Regional Government of Saxony will support the necessary solution to prevent the closing down of production. There is not much time left, just a few days. Top management figures are already drifting away. The alternatives to a solution would be that highly advanced research technology moves to Asia or is sold for peanuts. That cannot, I would contend, be in the interests of the European Union.

(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Qimonda's difficult situation has been made worse by the emergence of the financial and economic crisis. The Portuguese Government has been doing everything that it considers appropriate and useful to help resolve the situation. We wish that the Bavarian Government also knew how to respond to this situation with a great sense of responsibility. Saving the plants in Munich will have a decisive impact on those in Vila do Conde and Dresden.

The Portuguese Minister for the Economy and Innovation, Manuel Pinho, has himself confirmed how very important it is to ensure the viability of this company. Qimonda is extremely important to Portugal and, because it could be competitive on a global level, it is just as important to Europe.

Mr President, Portugal will continue to work towards a solution that guarantees the company's viability. We hope that the German Government - both at Federal and State level - will really strive to find a solution to this problem.

As for me, I would like to underline once again the strategic importance of keeping this type of industry in European territory. I hope that no national or state government will make the mistake of allowing this company to close plants and destroy jobs in the Union's territory.

Ladies and gentlemen, we understand the need to aid the large groups of the automotive industry with their restructuring, but the Union's funds and the energies of the European Commission cannot be used up on this aid.

Commissioner, to avoid any possible failures in communication, we are appealing to Mr Špidla, to whom we are linked by ties of work and political solidarity, and to the President of the Commission, who will never forget that he is our fellow countryman as well as that of a significant proportion of Qimonda's workers, for the Commission to pledge to support Qimonda.

Before finishing, we must stress that President Cavaco Silva of Portugal recently stated in Germany that there was new hope with regard to Qimonda. Reference must also be made, as my fellow Members have already done, to the importance of the specific economic sector in which Qimonda operates. Let us keep in mind, therefore, that the Portuguese Government is showing its readiness to support Qimonda by whatever means necessary, taking into account the economic size of the country.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us help save Qimonda. Time is short!

(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this important debate that we are having it is essential that it be understood what is at stake, namely: the future of the strategic nanotechnology industry, together with research and development in a sector that is fundamental to the future of the information society, the central core and research centre of which is in Qimonda's complex in Germany, with its semiconductor factory in Portugal. The European Union cannot continue to allow its industries to be destroyed, particularly in a strategic area, and become dependent on the United States and the countries of Asia, which support their industries. It is regrettable that Mr Špidla has demonstrated in this House serious insensitivity to the issue of Qimonda as a productive company.

There are many jobs involved in this process: almost 2 000 at Vila do Conde, 5 000 in Germany, more than 5 000 worldwide, as well as thousands of jobs that would be indirectly affected in supplier companies and in the research and development centres of Qimonda's other partners. There is an enormous amount of research threatened by the risk of closure of Qimonda in Germany and the knock-on effects that such a situation would have in Portugal. It is out of the question that the European Union should not commit itself to this issue, at least on the same terms as it did with the banking sector. It must be kept in mind that Vila do Conde is in the north of Portugal where unemployment has grown most, whether because companies in the textiles and clothing industry have closed down or because multinationals which manufactured footwear and cabling, amongst other things, have relocated. It is now an area at high social risk if steps are not taken to slow the growth of unemployment and to guarantee production.

It is therefore essential for every necessary effort to be made in every possible way. In the short term, this includes state aid, Community financial support and credit guarantees to maintain an industry of strategic importance to the European Union's economy. In the medium term, it includes developing this industrial area and creating more jobs with rights. It would be good if the European Commission and the governments of our countries understood this. As for us, we will continue this fight.

Mr President, I commend the priority given to this debate. Losses of companies like Qimonda, due to their large size and importance as an economic anchor to regional and even national economies, have to be treated seriously by policy makers.

The demise or offshoring of these companies is often a function of globalising forces. Globalisation - normally a positive force that increases global welfare - can, unfortunately, wreak huge havoc on regional economies when large companies move location. This has happened in my own area in Ireland South, where Dell has announced layoffs of 1 900 of its staff at its factory in Limerick. Likewise, in Waterford, where Waterford Wedgwood may be closing in the not too distant future, and again, between that and downstream jobs, another thousand jobs may be lost.

This has to be treated seriously by policy makers. Therefore, I welcome Commissioner Špidla's resolution to do his utmost to deploy monies available in the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Social Fund. The EUR 500 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund could provide huge benefits by giving a second chance to laid-off workers to upskill, retrain and become the entrepreneurs to drive us out of this recession.

The ball is firmly in national governments' courts to apply for this funding. It might be worthwhile in this context to push for 75% co-financing to make their applications easier and, therefore, deliver recovery on the ground to the affected workers rapidly and effectively.

(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, we have been talking about the Lisbon Strategy for years and these are perhaps not the most appropriate times to be discussing it. Nonetheless, without doubt we need a strategy: a strategy that responds to the difficulties and challenges posed by the present crisis. That is also what we expect from the Commission. It is essential that the Commission not shy away from this subject but instead find the capacity to develop joint actions with the government of Portugal and the governments of Germany and the German Länder. It is essential to keep in mind that this is an industry, as has already been said, that is important to Europe because of its quality and value, because of the research that it undertakes and because of the environmental quality that is associated with it. It is essential that the Commission not shy away. I second the invite issued by my colleague, Mr Peneda, for Mr Špidla and the Commission to visit Portugal.

It is essential that the Commission keep in mind that at the moment, Europeans are looking to Europe and expect responses from the European authorities: they need to feel like the European authorities are close by. The European public does not understand a Europe that washes its hands of problems. Instead, the people want a Europe that is bold enough to roll up its sleeves and get its hands dirty helping them to overcome their difficulties.

Ladies and gentlemen, the case we are debating is significant and forms part of the overall economic situation. You will also be well aware that the strategy which the Commission is developing is a definite policy for industry because the Commission firmly believes that industry must always make up a substantial part of our economy and that it is the torch-bearer of high technology. It is clear that the crisis in which we find ourselves has structural elements and therefore the Commission, in its strategies and basic documents, is formulating, on the one hand, the future green economy or 'green jobs', while also pressing very hard for innovation and modernisation. It is also clear, as I stated at the beginning, that it is up to companies to take business decisions and that the Commission will not interfere in such affairs.

The other thing of course is that if a certain amount of restructuring takes place, certain decisions with social and community-wide consequences, there are instruments and European policies, which we, of course, always have a duty to mobilise and we are mobilising them. As for the call made twice for me to familiarise myself with the situation on the ground, I am, of course, ready to do that because, at the end of the day, it is one of our normal and fundamental duties to make decisions on the basis of what is possible. There has been mention of possibilities within the framework of European funds and mention of approaches discussed between the Portuguese Government and the German Government. In any event, I can state loud and clear that the Commission always makes active use of all available options, that it is doing so in this case, and that it will undoubtedly do so in future cases.

That concludes this item.

Multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the proposal for a Council regulation concerning a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean - C6-0081/2009 -.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament's decision to accept the Council's request for application of the urgent procedure for this matter was a unanimous one, both in the Committee on Fisheries last week and here in plenary this morning.

We are, of course, all aware of the need for the European Union to honour the commitments made in Marrakesh last November by the competent international commission, the ICCAT. We need, specifically, to put into practice the recommendations that this organisation adopted in order to curb the persistent problem of overfishing of bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean and to confront the resultant serious risk to the future of the species and thus to the fishing industry itself.

Two of my colleagues in the Committee on Fisheries, Mrs Fraga Estévez and Mr Romeva i Rueda, were in Marrakesh and will be talking about this during the debate. For my part, I would like to remind you that our committee attaches great importance to this matter, which brings into play the main aspects of the common fisheries policy: resource management, fleet management, respect for international, regional and bilateral agreements, technical measures and, above all, monitoring, to which I will return shortly. This defining issue is thus, in our view, a test of the credibility of the common fisheries policy.

For this reason, there was obviously no question of the new recovery plan being implemented without consulting the European Parliament.

I am therefore delighted that the Commission ultimately chose the only legally and politically acceptable route for implementing the ICCAT's recommendations, namely, submitting a proposal for a regulation in due form on the basis of Article 37 of the Treaty.

The transposition into Community law of commitments made by the Commission on behalf of the European Union in regional fisheries organisations is, after all, hardly an uncontroversial operation, and we must insist that it should always be carried out under the democratic eye of this institution.

I am, essentially, very pleased with the various measures put forward as, although they are rather restrictive for our operators, they are in line with the challenges, and I would emphasise that the most important of these measures are, without doubt, those relating to monitoring, as it is certainly true that no recovery plan can be effective without monitoring.

I am therefore grateful to you, Commissioner, for this proposal, and I hope that you will show just as much determination in actually implementing the plan, once it has been ratified by the Council, as you showed in reaching a satisfactory agreement within the ICCAT.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, firstly I would like to stress the importance that the Commission attaches to the sustainability of the bluefin tuna stocks and fisheries, and also the importance of the European Parliament in this process.

Within the framework of the 2006 recovery plan for eastern bluefin tuna, and on the basis of an evaluation of its implementation during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 fishing seasons, and in the light of new scientific advice, ICCAT decided to adopt a new recovery plan. The ICCAT Scientific Committee clearly indicated its view that the 2006 recovery plan was insufficient to recover the stock and reiterated its concerns with respect to the level of TAC and excess of fishing effort.

Furthermore, ICCAT contracting parties identified certain failures in the implementation of the 2006 plan and so decided to adopt a new plan. This plan addresses the concerns of the Scientific Committee, notably by reducing the TAC level and by introducing new measures to address fishing and farming capacity.

It should also be noted that, at the initiative of the European Community, the new recovery plan introduced the obligation for annual fishing plans at ICCAT level. This is an effective instrument to avoid overfishing by identifying the vessels that are over 24 metres which are fishing for bluefin tuna and setting their individual quotas. I am convinced that the establishment of the annual fishing plan is a key tool in ensuring the full respect of the quota.

The new recovery plan also improves the existing one and introduces new control measures to address those failures identified by the contracting parties, to which Philippe Morillon referred.

The main measures introduced in the new recovery plan are a substantial reduction in the TAC from 27 500 to 22 000 tonnes in 2009 and further reductions to 19 950 tonnes for 2010 and 18 500 tonnes in 2011. The EC quota for 2009 is thus reduced to 12 406 tonnes from the 15 641 tonnes foreseen in the 2006 plan. The fishing seasons for all years are reduced, in particular, for purse seiners, which account for the bulk of this fishery. The measures to freeze and reduce fishing and farming capacity are a brand new and decisive component of the new plan. Overcapacity has been identified for some time as a key driver of overfishing. Now is the time to address this issue in a real manner and the Community, like other ICCAT members, has to share in the effort to do so.

The introduction of the fishing plans I have already mentioned is another measure. Furthermore, the derogations to minimum size are adjusted. On the Atlantic, pelagic trawlers no longer benefit from derogations, while the derogations applicable to the artisanal coastal fishery have been removed, except for one case. Indeed, only bait boats still benefit from previous derogations. In the Mediterranean, the artisanal coastal fishery now benefits from a derogation. The control measures are reinforced, in particular as regards joint fishing operations, the adoption of a general prohibition of transhipment at sea and the introduction of a regional ICCAT observer programme.

In conclusion, the situation of the eastern bluefin tuna is considered to be extremely serious. The overshooting of quotas, the lack of compliance, notably as regards data collection and transmission, undermine the recovery process. However, I am confident that our agreement to urgently adopt measures to eliminate overfishing and to ensure strict compliance with ICCAT measures can turn around the situation and bring the bluefin tuna stock to sustainable levels.

We need to ensure that situations similar to those that occurred last year do not happen again in the future. The best means to achieve this is the speedy adoption by the Council of the new recovery plan for bluefin tuna. Any delay in the adoption of this regulation should, therefore, be avoided, especially if we want to ensure the credibility of the Community at international level and to promote the process of the recovery of this stock. I am convinced that, if this plan is fully respected, it represents a realistic chance for the gradual recovery of bluefin tuna. Consequently, decisive and effective action is immediately needed at the European Community level.

After its adoption, the Commission is resolved to work closely with the Member States and with other ICCAT contracting parties to ensure and closely monitor the full implementation of the recovery plan.

Finally, I wish to express my appreciation for the constructive approach and the cooperation adopted by the European Parliament in dealing with this sensitive subject, reflecting our shared interest and commitment to ensuring that the Community fisheries policy and our international obligations are fully respected.

Mr President, my political group voted in favour of the urgent procedure for the recovery plan for bluefin tuna because it is essential that the new measures should be in force before the season begins in April.

I would also like to remind everyone, however, that no recovery plan will save the bluefin tuna until fishing capacity is reduced, starting with that of certain Community fleets, which are well-known and have been pointed out in this respect for many years. For all these years, the Member States in question have allowed their vessels to multiply to scandalous levels, while the European Commission has stood by passively. That has brought us to this situation, in which there is hardly any way out.

When the current recovery plan was adopted in 2007, I tabled an amendment, which was adopted by the House and incorporated by the Commission in its final text, obliging the Member States to submit fishing plans showing that their fleet capacity was adapted to the quota allocated to it.

Despite that, the fishery again had to be closed early in 2008, earlier in fact than in the previous year, when it was found that practically the whole Community quota had been used up in just a few weeks; that is to say, we were doing even worse.

Article 5 of the new recovery plan now obliges Member States with overcapacity to eliminate at least 25% of it by 2010. Not only does that reduction seem to me to be incredibly mild compared with the excesses that have been committed, but, given the precedents, I am exceedingly concerned at the ability of the Commission and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) to enforce this obligation, in view of the clear lack of political will that the Member States involved have more than demonstrated.

I therefore beg the Commissioner to give us guarantees here and now that this lack of political will will not rub off on the Commission and that this time, the Commission will show some firm action that goes beyond closing the fishery early again this spring.

Mr President, the proposal for a Council regulation concerning a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean puts into practice the binding decision adopted by consensus by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) at its annual meeting held in November 2008.

As has been stated, this regulation should enter into force before the start of the fishing season in April, which means that this mandatory consultation of the European Parliament must be carried out during this plenary session. We would like to help achieve an effective political agreement within the Council on this subject which, in our view, is extremely important and deserves our closest attention. That is why Parliament's Committee on Fisheries came out unanimously in favour of the urgent procedure.

The aim of the annual fishing plans, the reduction in the fishing season, the strengthening of the monitoring system, the spawning grounds in the Mediterranean and the presence of ICCAT observers in the purse seine fishery and on tuna farms, all measures included in the regulation, is to ensure compliance with the management measures adopted and to ensure traceability at all stages. I think they will be successful.

Each contracting party - I think it is important to point this out - will have to submit a fishing plan for the fishing boats and pound nets that catch bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean which identifies, inter alia, the authorised fishing vessels over 24 metres and the measures introduced to ensure that individual quotas are not exceeded.

Another of the important measures to be adopted is the reduction in the fishing season and the extension of the closed seasons for purse seiners, long-liners, live bait and trolling boats, pelagic trawlers and recreational fishing. The adjustment plans for countries with excess fleet capacity and bluefin tuna fattening farms are also important.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have read a considerable amount about tuna in recent days, and I would like to raise a few issues here in the short time I have left.

Adding to the almost non-existent governance to counter the concurrent interests of fishing nations and high market demand, numerous factors of various kinds combine to leave the bluefin, a highly exploited species nowadays, in such a precarious situation.

The fact is that the European Union, or rather three Member States (France, Spain and Italy), together account for half of the world's landings of bluefin tuna. It is therefore crucial that the European Union should be able to supply ICCAT with statistics that are of the same quality as the fishing or the fishing effort expended, not least because statistics are essential if we want to carry out research to answer the needs or questions being raised today by bluefin biology and ecology, which present scientific research with a real challenge.

If we want to save this species, we have to learn more about it. In my view, therefore, anything connected with data collection and statistics is especially important.

Mr President, the time has come to speak clearly. I do not think that what we have here is a recovery plan; instead, it is clearly what one might call a death certificate.

The lack of a sense of political responsibility on the part of certain governments and the Commission, added to a kind of blindness in part of the sector itself, has brought us to a scenario in which we have to ask ourselves not whether we will be able to help stocks recover, but when we will stop seeing and finding tuna in our seas and oceans. I am not talking about a decade here, but five years at most.

In this context, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas should really be called the International Commission for the Capture of All Tunas.

Governments and the Commission have turned a deaf ear to the scientific recommendations that have, time and again, alerted them to the collapse in the hope that there would be a political reaction, which has never come. The consequence of this attitude - we must not deceive ourselves - is one more step towards the abyss.

Now that we have reached this point, I fear that we have few solutions left to save the tuna, although there is one that we can still use: we must work to have the tuna included on the CITES list as an endangered species and thereby, by banning its commercial use, guarantee its future.

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentleman, I welcome the opportunity to tackle with all necessary urgency the discussion on measures to be adopted to safeguard stocks of bluefin tuna and the gradual reduction of quotas established by the ICCAT.

The European Union must stand by its commitment to support the recovery plan established in Marrakesh, to be complemented by monitoring by Member States to prevent illegal tuna fishing. This is particularly common in the Mediterranean as recent journalistic investigations have revealed in the TV and press. The European Union must also raise the topic of unfair competition by countries of the southern shores of the Mediterranean in the appropriate quarters.

I particularly welcome the following aspects of the proposed regulation: the decision to bring fishing capacity into line with the allocated quota; the undertaking to produce information on the implementation of the respective annual fishing plans within the required deadlines; the reciprocal international inspection programme to guarantee the efficacy of the recovery plan; and regulations for sport and recreational fishing. In other words, a tougher and more demanding plan than in the past, to govern these very considerable fishing activities.

(EL) Mr President, the draft regulation on the conservation of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, which we are debating as a matter of urgency this evening, makes provision for reduced quota levels up to 2011, fishing restrictions in certain areas and over certain periods, a new minimum size, restrictive measures for sport and recreational fishery, a reduction in fishing capacity and in the capacity of fattening units, reinforced control measures and the application of the ICCAT international joint inspection programme, in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the plan.

I agree with the spirit of the regulation, given that overfishing of tuna has brought stocks to very dangerous levels. We must not forget that in the last two years, the Commission has imposed a fast-track ban on tuna fishing before the end of the fishing season, because it emerged that certain Member States had overfished by up to 200%, thereby palpably damaging those which had not broken the law but which were also forced to stop fishing tuna.

However, there are two points in the new regulation which bother me:

The first is the tight time scale allowed for Member States to adjust their fishing effort. The ICCAT recommendation made provision for 2010 as the year of application, while the regulation makes provision for 2009, this year, now. This time scale is very tight and I fear that there will be problems.

The second is the increased cost involved in the reinforced inspection programme which has to be borne by the Member States. Perhaps the possibility of Community assistance in this direction could be examined.

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we can see from what has been said so far, the ICCAT plan has not yet been fully implemented. This means that the plan regulating tuna fishing methods, which vary greatly from one another, ranging from purse seining to traditional fishing using a system of fixed nets, requires additional fine tuning before it can be applied in full. We must differentiate between the indiscriminate capture of specimens that takes place in the case of purse seining - which is even worse when fleets go over the limits, exceed their quotas, which are not sufficiently monitored, as some people pointed out - and traditional fishing with fixed nets. Fixed nets, by their very definition, make it impossible to go in search of prey: using this system, the fishing season effectively lasts from 50 to 60 days.

When issuing the new regulations, ICCAT must take into account this diversity of fishing systems. It must also consider that the system of fishing for tuna with fixed nets is also a cultural and historical activity that does not damage the environment and provides employment for thousands of people. I also believe that UNESCO should think about protecting this system of fishing because it has cultural significance as well as having an impact on the economy and jobs. It is my view that ICCAT should build additional control systems into its programmes: it should not be possible for tuna to be indiscriminately intercepted before they enter the Mediterranean; it should not be possible for indiscriminate fishing to take place within the Mediterranean, driven by the commercial value of bluefin tuna. I would like to conclude by saying, Commissioner, that it is worth making diplomatic efforts to seek to restrict fishing within the Mediterranean to the countries that line the shores of the Mediterranean Sea - prohibiting others from fishing there - because those countries have an interest in safeguarding the stocks of the Mediterranean fish population and because they share a interest in guaranteeing the future of their fishing.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Members for their comments and the points that have been raised in this debate, and also for accepting the request for urgency. As I stated at the start, the measures agreed in Marrakesh need to be transposed as soon as possible in order to apply from the start of this fishing season.

This year will clearly be a test of our ability to demonstrate our commitment to the sustainability of this endemic stock. I cannot emphasise enough the crucial importance for all contracting parties, not least our own fishers, to respect the newly-agreed measures. This is the only way to provide a chance for the survival of the stock. Not respecting the new recovery plan will have serious consequences and will lead to a collapse of the stock.

On the point that was raised by Mrs Fraga Estévez, I cannot agree more that, for the recovery plan to succeed, we need to bring about a reduction of capacity, in particular, of the purse seine fleet, which is the one which causes most pressures on the bluefin tuna stock. In this regard, I would like to refer to the fact that last year, we had agreed on a restructuring package which was triggered because of the fuel crisis and we are encouraging Member States to make use of this restructuring package in order to bring about a reduction of the fleet, in particular, of the purse seine fleet. We are hearing some encouraging news with regard to one particular Member State, France, which is undertaking to encourage certain fishers to decommission their vessels in order to bring about a reduction in capacity.

We need to see this happening also in the other Member States such as Italy, in particular, which suffers from a significant overcapacity. We are therefore, at this present moment, engaging in discussions with the Italian authorities in order to see whether they can effect something in this regard in the very short term.

I need to underline the fact that last year, we closed the fishery early so as not to come under any pressure from any Member State or any group of Member States. We closed the fishery early: immediately when, according to our own calculations, the overall Community quota was exhausted. This year, also as a result of the annual fishing plans that have been agreed on the Community's insistence in Marrakesh, we are prepared to close the fishery early with regard to particular Member States. If the fleet of a particular Member State overshoots its quota, we will not hesitate to close the fishery for that particular Member State. In that way, only the fleet of that Member State will suffer the consequences of its overshooting, and not the fleet of the whole Community. I hope that will be enough to fine-tune our action even further during the course of the fishing season.

If we do not deliver on this new recovery plan, then in the years to come, we will have to face the serious consequence that the whole fishery should not open at all in the coming years. I hope that we will be able to deliver on this plan.

Therefore, I do not agree, regrettably, with what Mr Romeva i Rueda said that the recovery plan is a death certificate. I think that the recovery plan, if properly implemented, gives us a realistic and reasonable chance to see to it that the stock does recover. The fact that we have reduced quotas from 15 641 tonnes to 12 406 tonnes in 2009, the fact that by virtue of what we are discussing today and by virtue of the Council Decision which, hopefully, will be taken later in the month, the fact that we are going to implement the Marrakesh Recovery Plan adopted in November, from this very fishing season, is indicative of the fact that we mean business. We are not prepared to accept any abuse of the fishing possibilities that are based on what was agreed in Marrakesh.

We have not waited for the natural implementation of the Marrakesh agreement, which would have come too late in the fishing season for bluefin tuna. We have decided to have all the parameters of the Marrakesh plan introduced from the very start.

I hope that these will be properly adhered to because, in that way, we will be able together to recover this endemic stock. If not, however, then next year we will have to speak another language.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 12 March 2009 at 12 noon.

Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.20 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

Statements by the President

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make a statement on the occasion of the fifth European Day for the Victims of Terrorism. It is a day which must remain in our memory and a day on which we commemorate all the innocent victims of terrorism. This weekend, two soldiers in the county of Antrim in Northern Ireland were murdered by the Real IRA and on Monday, a policeman was shot in the county of Armagh. The policeman who was killed was married and had children. This barbaric act of terrorism has once again torn a family apart and brought with it unimaginable suffering. Yesterday, at least ten people died in a suicide bomb attack in southern Sri Lanka and more than twenty were seriously injured.

On behalf of the European Parliament, I would like to express my outrage at these abhorrent attacks on innocent people and send my deepest condolences to the families of the victims. They will forever remain in our memories.

Today, we in the European Parliament would like to speak out loudly and clearly against the indiscriminate violence of terrorism. We condemn utterly the senseless destruction of human life, the deaths of entire families as a result of blind fanaticism, which causes people to kill their fellow human beings and to trample human dignity underfoot. Terrorism is a direct attack on freedom, human rights and democracy. Terrorism is an attempt to destroy by means of indiscriminate violence the values which unite us in the European Union and within our Member States.

These acts of terrorism shock us all. They cause us deep and heartrending pain, but they cannot and will not destroy the foundations of the democratic society which is based on our shared values.

Terrorism is a crime which deserves no leniency. Terrorism represents one of the greatest dangers to the security, stability and democratic values of the international community. It is a direct attack on our citizens, on all of us. The European Parliament plays an active role in combating terrorism and in supporting the victims of terrorist attacks. We cannot repeat often enough that there is no justification for terrorism. For this reason, we must continue to work together to fight terrorism by applying the principles of the rule of law and using all the force of the law. Today in the European Parliament, all our thoughts are with the victims of terrorism, wherever in the world they died. We would like to express our solidarity with them. I would like to ask you to remember in silence the victims of the Real IRA and of the suicide bomb attack in Sri Lanka.

(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)

Ladies and gentlemen, the great European, Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of European integration, died thirty years ago on 16 March 1979. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of his death, I would like briefly to honour and recognise his legacy and his life's work in the cause of European integration at the start of this plenary sitting of the European Parliament.

Today we remember the priceless legacy of a man, who, together with Robert Schuman, one of the architects of the reconciliation between Germany and France, took the first step towards establishing a community with a common destiny based on peace, understanding, democracy and cooperation among the people of Europe. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, the principles highlighted by Jean Monnet and the methods he used to implement them have lost none of their relevance. On the contrary, their importance is obvious to us all. The major challenges presented by globalisation, the economic and financial crisis and global warming will cause Europeans to work even more closely together to provide an effective defence for our shared values and our interests in the world. Jean Monnet would, of course, welcome the progress made in the Treaty of Lisbon towards a democratic European Union which is capable of action and of facing the challenges of the 21st century.

And finally, it is important to mention that it was the Action Committee for a United States of Europe established by Jean Monnet which, among other things, proposed direct elections to the European Parliament. In the last thirty years since the death of Jean Monnet, this dream has become an impressive reality with the creation of the parliamentary dimension of the European Union. We are all the heirs of this great European, Jean Monnet, and his work continues to have a lasting impact. It has resulted in fundamental changes to the relationships between the European states and still influences the lives of all of our citizens today.

On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Jean Monnet's death, I would like us to think about the task ahead of us and our obligations for the future, which are to commit to continuing the great work started by Jean Monnet of unifying our continent.

Mr President, honourable Members, 'Between different countries, each one's advantage is limited to the results of its own efforts, to the gains obtained in relation to its neighbour, and to the difficulties it manages to transfer to it. In our Community, the advantage of each of the member countries is the effect of the prosperity of the whole.' This is what Jean Monnet said in 1954. The words have lost none of their relevance, rather the contrary.

This March, as Mr Pöttering has just said, marks the thirtieth anniversary of his death, in 1979. This is why I wish to pay tribute to this founding father of the Europe that we all love, this great European whose heritage can only inspire us in these times of crisis.

Recently, and also to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the European Commission, we decided to dedicate the College room - the main room at the Commission - to the memory of Jean Monnet in a very simple, but very meaningful ceremony, at which I had the pleasure and the honour to have at my side not only the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, but also the President-in-Office of the European Council, Nicolas Sarkozy.

This tells you that we at the Commission are proud of Jean Monnet's immense heritage. As the first president of the European Coal and Steel Community, he was, in fact, the first president of the institution at the origin of our institution, the European Commission, which is doing its best to keep alive his ideals, which are the ideals of all Europeans who love peace, democracy and solidarity.

(Applause)

(PT) I, too, wish to pay tribute to Jean Monnet, but I asked for the floor in order to congratulate the President on his statement on the European Day in Memory of the Victims of Terrorism. It was at my suggestion five years ago that we adopted this position, which the Council approved in a meeting on 25 March, following the tragic attacks in Madrid. However, my speech is an appeal. Parliament has always faithfully celebrated this date, but unfortunately this date has not yet achieved the scope that it should have within the European institutions and Member States. I believe that the celebration of this date is one of our most important ways of paying tribute to the victims, as the President has done, but also of raising the level of public awareness. I know that there are some celebrations in Madrid today, but little else.

I therefore call on the Commission and the Czech Presidency to ensure that all Member States appropriately celebrate this date in future.

Preparation of the European Council (19-20 March 2008) - European Economic Recovery Plan - Guidelines for the Member States' employment policies - Cohesion Policy: investing in the real economy (debate) 

The next item is the Joint Debate on the Council and Commission statements: Preparation for the European Council (19 and 20 March 2009),

the report by Mrs E. Ferreira, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on a European Economic Recovery Plan,

the report by Mr J. Andersson, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States - C6-0050/2009 -,

the report by Mr E. Kirilov, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on Cohesion Policy: Investing in the real economy.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, let me first join you in paying tribute to Jean Monnet. We are in a time of crisis, and I think this is exactly the time when we need a strong institution, and it is a great opportunity to raise the importance of Jean Monnet as one of the founding fathers of European integration.

However, the purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the upcoming European Council. This Council, as we all know, comes at a critical time for the Union. We face very significant challenges as a result of unprecedented stresses on our financial systems and our economies as well.

This issue, together with energy security, climate change and the financing of the mitigation and adaptation to climate change, will be the focus of next week's meeting.

As this Parliament certainly knows, a wide range of measures have been taken by the Union and the Member States in the face of the financial crisis. We have avoided a meltdown of the financial system.

Our top priority now is the restoration of credit flows to the economy. We have to deal, in particular, with the 'impaired assets' held by banks, since these discourage them from resuming lending. At their meeting on 1 March, the Heads of State and Government agreed that we should do this in a coordinated manner, in line with the guidelines provided by the Commission.

We also need to do more to improve the regulation and supervision of financial institutions. This is a clear lesson from the crisis, and prevention is no less important. Cross-border banks hold up to 80% of Europe's banking assets. Two thirds of European banks' assets are held in only 44 multinational groups. Strengthening supervision is, therefore, important in itself. It will help prevent future crises, but it will also send a message of confidence to consumers and markets.

Important work is under way in that respect. The Presidency is fully committed to working closely with the European Parliament with a view to the rapid adoption of the Solvency II Directive (on insurance), the revised Credit Requirements Directive (on banks) and the UCITS Directive (on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities). We are also working to get rapid adoption of the regulations on the protection of bank deposits and on credit-rating agencies.

However, we probably need to go further. The High Level Group, chaired by Mr de Larosière, has produced, as you know, very interesting recommendations, and the Commission's communication of 4 March also paves the way for significant reform in this area. So the European Council must send a clear message that this is a priority and that decisions need to be taken as early as June.

As you are well aware, Member States' budget deficits are growing fast right now. Of course, deficits inevitably swell in times of economic recession. Automatic stabilisers can, to some extent, play a positive role. The Stability and Growth Pact was revised in 2005 precisely for that reason, to allow for sufficient flexibility in difficult times. But this flexibility needs to be used judiciously, taking into account different starting points. Restoring confidence also requires governments to give a clear commitment to sound public finances, fully respecting the Stability and Growth Pact. Some Member States have already made efforts towards consolidation. Most will do so from 2010. This will also be an important message from next week's meeting.

The financial crisis is now affecting the real economy. Member States have launched significant recovery programmes, which are now well under way. The overall stimulus this offers represents, as was agreed, 1.5% of GDP, but, if you include its automatic stabilisers, it comes to 3.3% of the EU's GDP. Of course, Member States' responses are different. They face different situations and have different margins for manoeuvre, but they are coordinated and are based on common principles defined in the European Recovery Programme, which was agreed last December. This is important if we are to ensure synergies and avoid negative spill-over effects.

Specific and targeted action has been elaborated on in a synergic way between the Commission and the Member States and the Presidency. That enabled us to both keep the level playing field and, at the same time, face in a concerted and efficient manner the aggravations in some of Europe's key industrial sectors, such as the automotive industry.

The European Council will assess the state of implementation of this programme. Here, too, the Commission's communication of 4 March sets out a number of important principles which should guide the action of Member States. They include the need to maintain openness within the internal market, ensuring non-discrimination and working towards long-term policy goals, such as facilitating structural change, enhancing competitiveness and building a low-carbon economy.

As far as the Community part of the Recovery Programme is concerned, the Presidency is working very hard to reach an agreement in the European Council on the Commission proposal to finance energy and rural development projects. As you know, there have been discussions within the Council over the precise list of projects to be supported by the Community and how they should be funded.

Given the important role of Parliament, as one of the branches of the budgetary authority and as co-legislator in this matter, the Presidency is committed to close cooperation with you over the coming weeks, with a view to reaching an agreement as soon as possible.

In addition to the short-term measures, long-term efforts are needed if we are to ensure the competitiveness of our economies. Structural reforms are more urgent than ever if we are to promote growth and jobs. Therefore, the renewed Lisbon Strategy remains the right framework within which to promote sustainable economic growth, which will, in turn, lead to the creation of new jobs.

At the moment, our citizens are particularly worried about the effect of the economic situation on levels of unemployment. Next week's European Council should agree on concrete orientations on how the EU can contribute to mitigating the social impact of the crisis. This issue will also be the focus of the special summit which will take place in early May.

Let me be clear on one point: we will not protect jobs by creating barriers to foreign competition. At their meeting 10 days ago, the Heads of State and Government were clear that we have to make the maximum possible use of the single market as the engine for recovery. Protectionism is clearly not the right answer to face this crisis - quite the opposite. More than ever, our companies need open markets, both internally within the Union, but also at the global level.

Which leads me to the G20 Summit meeting in London. The European Council will establish the Union's position in advance of the G20 Summit. We want this summit to be ambitious. We cannot afford it to fail.

Leaders will be looking at prospects for growth and employment and at reform of the global financial system and of the international financial institutions. They will also be looking at the particular challenges facing developing countries. The EU is active in all these areas and should be in a strong position to ensure that the international community takes the right decisions.

The other major item on the agenda of next week's European Council will be energy security. The recent energy crisis demonstrated all too clearly the extent to which we need to increase our ability to resist future supply problems, as we could see earlier this year.

The Commission has provided some very useful elements in its Second Strategic Energy Review. On the basis of this review, the Presidency intends that the European Council agree on a set of concrete orientations aimed at enhancing the Union's energy security in the short, medium and long term.

In the short term, this means having available concrete measures which can be called on if we are suddenly faced with a new disruption of gas supplies. It also means taking urgent steps to launch infrastructure projects to enhance energy interconnections - this is certainly essential.

In the medium term, it means adapting our legislation on oil and gas stocks to ensure that Member States act with responsibility and solidarity. It means taking adequate measures to improve energy efficiency.

In the long term, it means diversifying our sources, suppliers and routes of supply. We have to work with our international partners to promote the Union's energy interests. We must create a fully fledged internal market for electricity and gas. As you know, this is legislation which the Presidency very much hopes can be completed before the European elections.

Next week's meeting will also discuss the preparations for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. We remain committed to a global, comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen next December. The Commission's January communication is a very helpful basis. It is very clear that climate change is a challenge which can only be tackled through a concerted global effort.

Finally, the European Council will also launch the Eastern Partnership. This important initiative will help to promote stability and prosperity on the whole continent. It will also contribute to accelerating reforms and to deepening our commitment to work together with those countries.

The partnership includes a bilateral dimension which is adapted to each partner country. It foresees the negotiation of association agreements, which might include deep and comprehensive free trade areas.

The multilateral track will provide a framework in which common challenges can be addressed. There will be four policy platforms: democracy, good governance and stability; economic integration; energy security; and, last but not least, contacts between people.

You will appreciate from this presentation that next week's European Council has many substantial issues to address. We are facing many serious challenges, not least the current economic crisis. The Czech Presidency, through the leadership of Prime Minister Topolánek, intends to ensure that the meeting next week demonstrates through practical action that the European Union remains committed to its ideals and that it faces these challenges together in a coordinated manner and in a spirit of responsibility and of solidarity.

(Applause)

Mr President, Mr Vondra, honourable Members, we are living through testing times.

An economic crisis of this magnitude makes its effects felt on families, on workers, on all categories of the population and on companies, in the four corners of Europe. It destroys jobs and tests the resistance of our social models. It also puts strong political pressure on all the leaders.

The European Union is not immune from such tensions. This is why it has decided to bring into play all the levers at its disposal to get to grips with the crisis and its consequences, by using what gives it its force: European institutions and Member States working together in a community based on the rule of law to provide collective solutions to common problems.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have already done much in these last six months to fight the crisis that we are experiencing. We avoided a collapse of the financial system in the autumn; we contributed to the launch of an international process with the G20; we were among the first to focus on the real economy by agreeing a recovery plan in December, a plan whose number one recommendation - a budgetary stimulus never seen before at European level - is beginning to be implemented. This support for the real economy amounts to a total of 3.3% of GDP and includes a real contribution from the European budget.

The recovery plan includes, for example, accelerated advances from the structural funds for an envelope of EUR 6.3 billion in 2009, in addition to the EUR 5 billion already committed.

The actions carried out in the last six months are fully in line with the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment. Structural reforms, which have been of great help in strengthening our economies, must be pursued because they also help to maintain short-term demand, but we must now move on to the next stage and deploy the measures for combating the crisis more thoroughly.

We need greater coordination and wider-ranging effects. Now is the time to move up a gear in our response to the crisis. We must understand that this is a new type of crisis and that we never envisaged a crisis of such dimensions, of such magnitude, of such depth.

This will be the mission for the European Council next week. With the very strong support of the Czech Presidency, whose commitment and complete cooperation with the Commission I welcome, I am convinced there will be progress in four areas that the Commission defined a few days ago in its communication, namely, the financial markets, the real economy, employment and the social dimension, and the global dimension via the G20.

The informal summit of 1 March - thanks to a very large extent to the effective chairmanship of Prime Minister Topolánek - has already laid the foundations for a fruitful European Council. I am proud to note that the Commission's preparatory work has met with such a favourable reception. Our guidelines on impaired assets, our communication on the automotive sector and the report that I have entrusted to Jacques de Larosière and his high-level group have enabled the Member States to build a consensus so that they can rally round common positions.

I welcome the broad support that is coalescing around these courses of action in the European Parliament. I would mention, by way of example, the reports we will debate this morning, the Ferreira report on the economic recovery plan, the Andersson report on the guidelines for employment, and the Kirilov report on cohesion policy.

These reports and the resolutions on which your Assembly will vote this week, in particular, those from the Lisbon Strategy coordination group, will make what I consider to be an essential contribution to the European Council. On the eve of the London Summit, they can only strengthen Europe's position on the international stage, and I welcome that.

Mr President, I would like briefly to pick out three themes which I believe must guide this European Council's work: stabilising financial markets, revitalising the real economy and helping people make it through the crisis.

Look at the financial system. Yes, we need immediate action to address immediate problems. After our initiatives on recapitalisation and guarantees, our guidance on impaired assets targets the major obstacle now identified as blocking the flow of credit. I believe, and it is in our communication, that without cleaning the banking system, we will not see the restoration of credit flow to the real economy.

But, as has often been argued in this Chamber, we also need to rebuild confidence through a major overhaul of our regulatory regime. That is why we have set out a detailed calendar of new regulatory proposals. Next month, the Commission will come forward with new proposals on hedge funds, on private equity and on executive pay.

However, we must also revamp supervision. As you will have seen from the communication the Commission adopted last Wednesday, and which I had an opportunity to discuss with your Conference of Presidents the following day, the Commission is keen to accelerate implementation of the de Larosière report. We will present the overall architecture at the end of May for endorsement by the European Council in June, and we will come with legislative proposals in the autumn.

In more general terms, beyond financial systems, using short-term action to target our long-term goals will pay double dividends. It will make us stronger when the upturn comes, ready to face the challenge of competitiveness and a low-carbon economy.

Just look at energy security. The fact that we are in an economic crisis does not make our problems of dependency disappear. On the contrary, and I welcome the decision of Prime Minister Topolánek to have a discussion on this issue. This is central to what we are doing. Investing in infrastructure brings a stimulus today, and it is badly needed for the European economy, but it also makes us stronger and more competitive tomorrow. That is why your support, the European Parliament's support for the EUR 5 billion stimulus to energy and broadband projects is so valuable - the more so as I am rather concerned, to be honest with you, about the state of play in Council, where we are not making the progress I would wish to see.

Of course, we all know that the Community budget, at less than 1% of GDP, can only make a limited contribution to a European-wide stimulus. The money has to come, essentially, from national budgets. However, we need to deploy all national levers in the European perspective in order to be effective. The single market is the best possible platform for recovery. In 2006 alone, Europe was richer by EUR 240 billion, or the equivalent of EUR 518 for every European citizen because of the single market.

The European Council should cement its place at the heart of our recovery strategy by agreeing principles that should shape the European recovery, including a shared commitment to openness and a level playing field internally and externally, thereby clearly rejecting protectionism but, of course, protecting the single market, the bedrock of European prosperity.

Most importantly, though, we must acknowledge that this is not a question of economic theory or dry statistics. This crisis is having a major impact on people, namely the most vulnerable across Europe - now, today. That is why my number one concern - by far the most important test we face - is the social impact of this crisis, namely the problem of rising unemployment.

We have to focus our energy on employment and on helping people make it through the crisis. This requires determination and imagination. We need to help companies to keep workers on their books, to use training imaginatively to serve long- and short-term needs, and we need to bring help to those already unemployed. We need to be sure that we make the most of national actions to help the most vulnerable but we also need to make the most of the European instruments we have, from the Social Fund to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

Launching a process now which takes us up to the Employment Summit in May gives us two months of intensive efforts to put plans in place and, if possible, to develop new and more ambitious strategies to tackle the unemployment problem. We need to use this time well.

Though time is short, I believe we should try to organise a much more inclusive process in the run-up, involving social partners, civil society and parliamentarians. It is particularly important that we take advantage of your privileged insight into what is really happening on the ground. If we follow this approach of pooling our resources and coordinating action at all levels - at European level, at national level, at regional level, at social partners' level - we will emerge from the crisis quicker and, I believe, stronger.

We will also carry more weight on the global stage. It is no coincidence that the proposals we have made for the European Union's G20 position have a strong echo of our approach within Europe. They are based around the same principles. With a unified European Union voice in the G20, they will carry a lot of weight and the European Union will be - if the Member States are ready to really work together - in a very good position to shape the global response to this crisis.

Europe today has to find its strength in cohesion, in coordination, in real practical solidarity. For that, we must all work closely together and stay in close touch as the task of recovery unfolds, including, of course, with this Parliament.

I look forward to making this a reality as we all work for recovery in the coming weeks and months.

Mr President, Commission President, ladies and gentlemen, the current crisis is the worst that the European Union has ever known. Unfortunately, it is far from over. Bankruptcies are still occurring and unemployment is continuing to rise. Never before has the European project been subject to such a tough test. Not only will the robustness of the recovery be dependent on our joint response, but also, in all likelihood, the very continuation of the European project, at least in terms of the speed of our development and expansion.

We did not create the European Union to be limited, in times of prosperity, to a huge market nor to return, in times of crisis, to the national selfishness of 'every man for himself'. The European project is a political project, and a guarantor of peace, freedom and democracy. However, in economic terms, it is based both on competition and on solidarity and cohesion. In fact, it thrives on the ability to offer quality and opportunities for progression to all citizens, whatever their origin.

Today, in this crisis, people are looking to Europe for protection and action to help them quickly get through the current critical phase, without any serious social breakdowns. They are looking to Europe to help them rediscover their future and to boost employment and business, based around new and more sustainable approaches to development.

The Lisbon Agenda and the environmental commitments are inspirational intentions, but we need to urgently give them substance and force. In this respect, Parliament's call to the Council and the Commission is clear, firm and loud. The consensus achieved in the vote in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs shows this common intention. I hope that the vote in this House today will be further proof of that.

The various rapporteurs and the various political groups have worked together, and I hope that this message will be conveyed to and perceived by the Commission in this sense.

In this context, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, particularly Mr Hökmark and Mrs in 't Veld. I hope that, with this same determination, today's vote will allow us to confirm and convey this message.

As for the causes of this crisis, the most important point today is to learn the lessons. The Larosière report is, in fact, a very important guide that we must follow. It forms an excellent working basis and encompasses much of what we have already proposed in this House. Its conclusions must, however, lead to immediate and planned action by the Commission. It is also vital that the European Union adopts a determined stance in this respect at the next G20 meeting.

In this context, I believe that there are elements which are symbolic, and I hope that Parliament will today unequivocally vote to fight the offshore system and tax havens. It is not enough, however, just to correct the errors of the past, particularly with regard to financial regulation and supervision. The damage has now been done and we need a recovery plan that is in line with the EU's responsibilities. We welcome the Commission's rapid initiative, but we are aware, and must be clear, that the means and tools for action are clearly inadequate.

Parliament is giving the Commission a vote of support as regards the flexibility, forward-thinking and swiftness of the available instruments, but we cannot forget that 85% of the funds currently available are in the hands of the various countries making up the European Union. Yet the EU countries have never been so different from one another as they are today. Some countries have the power and instruments to act, while others are completely vulnerable and their toolbox is totally empty. There are countries without any national room for manoeuvre, which are unable to resist the simultaneous and violent forces of the internal market, single currency and globalisation. Among these are the new countries which have just joined the European project and which are among those suffering the most.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that at this point in time, the message from Parliament can be broken down into a series of very clear and very precise messages, but with one common idea, which is: that we need people, jobs and national resources, but also European resources, in order to restore, as the people expect, dynamism, growth and solidarity in the European space.

rapporteur. - (SV) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, there has been some discussion as to whether or not the Employment Guidelines need to be amended. It is not a particularly important discussion, as the Employment Guidelines contain every opportunity for action. The problem at the moment is the lack of ability to act. We have been, and are currently, in a financial crisis that has turned into an economic crisis. Now the employment crisis is coming crashing in, with the prospect of social problems further down the road.

It is good that an employment summit has been organised in May, but we must not isolate employment issues from the economic issues. They must, therefore, be integrated into the discussion. I think that we have done too little, too late. One and a half percent of Member States' GDP - that was right when we said it, but now the crisis is even worse than we thought at that time. We need to do more, to make more coordinated efforts - certainly more than two percent - in order to deal with it. The risk of not doing enough or of doing it too late is much, much greater than the risk of doing too much, as it will result in increased unemployment and in reduced tax revenue, which will affect the social problems experienced in the Member States.

What should we do, then? We know very well what. We should tie together what is good in the short term with regard to combating unemployment with what is needed in the long term. It is about environmental investments, new infrastructure projects, energy efficiency in homes, and it is about education, education, education.

We have talked about lifelong learning. We have never done enough, but now we have the chance to invest seriously in education. We also need to stimulate demand, and for this we need to turn to those groups that will use the funds for consumption: the unemployed, families with children, pensioners and others who will use an increased amount as consumers.

We must do what we can at EU level and try to deal with the Social Fund and the Globalisation Fund quickly so that the resources get out to the Member States. However, if we are to be totally honest, we know that the major economic resources are in the Member States and if the Member States do not do enough, and in a sufficiently coordinated way, we will not succeed. If we look around and summarise what the Member States have done, there is only one Member State that has achieved 1.5%, and that is Germany, which was not initially the country on the front line when it came to taking action. Other countries, the Nordic countries, for example, where I come from, are doing very little, despite the fact that their economic situation is good.

Now we come to the social consequences. You have mentioned them and they are particularly important. They affect not only the social security systems, but also the public sector. The public sector is doubly important. It is about providing people with childcare, care for the elderly and social security, but it is also important for employment. There are huge numbers of people in the public sector and we must ensure that it has sufficient economic resources.

I would also like to say something about young people. Young people are currently becoming unemployed straight from education. We must create opportunities for young people to find employment or further education or whatever it may be. Otherwise, we are storing up problems for the future. In conclusion, we must act. We must act in a coordinated way with solidarity, we must act now and not wait, and our action must be sufficient.

(Applause)

Thank you, Mr President, Mr Vondra and Mr Barroso. It took very little time to draft this report entitled 'Cohesion Policy: Investing in the real economy'. Regardless of this fact, we produced a document which was agreed on and unanimously supported. This fine result would not have been possible without the involvement and assistance of my colleagues on the Committee, the shadow rapporteurs and the cooperation between the political groups, for which I would like to thank everyone.

I would like to dwell on the basic messages conveyed in this report. First of all, this report supports in every case the measures proposed by the European Commission for accelerating and simplifying the implementation of the Structural Funds, which include increasing the advance payments, introducing more flexible schemes for settling expenses etc. We actually require these measures now just when we need to have an adequate response to the economic crisis: investment in the real economy, the preservation and creation of jobs and the encouragement of entrepreneurship. However, these measures are not the only indication of the need for us to act more effectively and efficiently. The proposals on simplifying the rules have been long sought after and expected by users of EU funds and come in response to the recommendations from us and from the European Court of Auditors.

Secondly, the Cohesion Policy and solidarity policy. We not only require in this case a declaration of solidarity but also to see solidarity in action. In a context where European economies are mutually dependent, the adverse effects of the crisis affect every economy. To counter these effects, we must achieve positive results which will generate extensive benefits and be used to meet the goals that have been set for growth and development in the Lisbon Strategy. It is also important for EU citizens' social standards to be preserved, for us to protect the socially deprived, as well as for competition not to be distorted and the environment to continue to be protected. In this respect, solidarity and cohesion are required to the maximum extent so that we succeed in finding together a way out of the crisis more quickly.

Thirdly, it is important for us to learn the lessons from the current crisis and that the measures which will be adopted are not treated as isolated cases. The analysis of the mistakes made and experience gained must continue. In addition, the process of simplifying the procedures must continue. The rules must be made clearer, information more accessible, the administrative burden lighter and procedures more transparent. This is the only way in which mistakes will be reduced and the opportunities for any infringement and corruption limited.

Finally, I would like to call on the Council to adopt as soon as possible the measures proposed for accelerating and simplifying the use of the Structural Funds. I also appeal to the members of the European Commission whom we expect to monitor the impact of the new measures and make new suggestions, as well as the process as a whole. Last but not least, I want to emphasise the fundamental role played by Member States on which depends the action to be taken and the achievement of real results from the implementation of the Cohesion Policy. I will end by mentioning again that we need to see solidarity in action.

Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets I would like to state, first and foremost, that this economic recovery plan is much more intergovernmental than Community in nature, and that it demonstrates the real financial limitations of the European Union.

From the Community viewpoint, we are going to use EUR 30 000 million which will be, in practice, mobilised by the European Investment Bank, and in respect of the EUR 5 000 million which belongs, strictly speaking, to the Community budget, we are encountering major problems.

There are no new resources; what is happening is a redistribution of existing resources. With regard to the European Investment Bank, we are fully in agreement with having recourse to it, but we should say that we are worried we are entrusting it with many commitments without having a guarantee that they can be taken forward.

Finally, we regret the Council's inability to reach an agreement on the EUR 5 000 million for energy interconnections and rural broadband.

We believe that the unused margins should not be used. What the European Commission and the Council must do is to turn to the resources given to them by the interinstitutional agreement itself.

Mr President, Mr Barroso, it is the unanimous opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that I should like to share with you this morning, for we are looking to see a real promotion of social cohesion in this recovery plan. Social cohesion means being integrated into the labour market. To begin with, then, we want to keep all employees in their jobs and get the unemployed back to work by, among other things, directing the Globalisation Adjustment Fund towards new training courses, so that the workforce is prepared for when we emerge from the crisis.

Therefore, in the short term, we need to keep people in work. In the medium term, we need to provide better training for employees for when the crisis ends and, in the long term, we need to innovate, including in social organisations via employer groups.

Europe is obliged to innovate if it is to survive globalisation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, next week's European Council must not be a summit like any other. It must not be a routine summit. Europeans are expecting concrete signals from it, as is my parliamentary group.

This summit must be the one that affirms Europe's strength and determination in the face of the crisis. This strength has been shown in the past when Europe adopted the rules of the social market economy, which limits the damage done by an unprecedented crisis that is hitting every region in the world at the same time. This strength was also proven 10 years ago when Europe armed itself with a currency, the euro, which is undergoing its first major test but is holding its own.

However, a strong Europe must not be a protectionist Europe. A Europe which protects by dint of its rules must not be a fortress Europe, as turning in on ourselves will not bring us out of the crisis. Rather, we must rely on openness and on the affirmation of our identity. Europe's strength in a storm, even more than in calm times, lies in its taking action on behalf of our fellow citizens, including the most underprivileged, and, above all, in doing so as one.

Together with the Commission, and with Mr Barroso, whose series of measures inspired by the de Larosière report I welcome, Europe is fighting to save the banking system.

It is fighting and we are fighting with it not, as some would have us believe, to save the jobs of the traders, but to avoid a general collapse of our entire economy and because there can be no lasting recovery without a healthy banking system.

Europe is fighting to good effect, and I welcome the agreement reached yesterday on reduced VAT rates for the catering and construction sectors, on the introduction of real supervision of the financial markets, on saving jobs, on maintaining or restoring confidence and on ensuring a future for Europeans.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have spoken of strength, I have spoken of unity, I have spoken of effectiveness, but the raison d'être, the motivation for all this is solidarity. This is the Europe of Jean Monnet and of all the founding fathers. What use would it have been to have created Europe in the aftermath of the last war if it were only to be renounced in favour of the 'every man for himself' approach 60 years later, with the arrival of the most severe economic crisis since 1929?

Our fellow citizens sometimes ask what the purpose of Europe is. It is up to us to prove that Europe is standing by its 500 million fellow citizens, many of whom are suffering in this crisis, and is also showing solidarity towards the countries of the Union - I am thinking of Ireland, Hungary and others that are experiencing particular difficulties.

I ask, on behalf of my group, that each Head of State or Government in the Twenty Seven reject the lure of isolation which - I choose my words with care - would be suicidal for all our countries.

I ask Mr Vondra, Mr Barroso, and you too, Mr Pöttering, to intervene in the European Council on behalf of our Parliament, to opt for solidarity and innovation. Yes, I do say innovation because I am convinced that we will emerge from the crisis only if we use new resources and make massive investment in the knowledge-based economy, and in research and development.

We must exploit the immense potential the European Union has in the area of new green technologies as soon as possible, since these green innovations must be included in all European policies. This would give a real industrial boost to the economic recovery.

In the same way, the regulatory obstacles to the internal market that still hinder the development of these technologies must be removed as quickly as possible. A real internal market for renewable energies with clear rules must be introduced since, in a crisis, nothing will remain the same, and we must prepare for the new situation. This is the meaning of the Lisbon and, now, post-Lisbon Strategy.

My parliamentary group, like the centre-right in Europe, is a responsible political organisation. We are for an economy which has rules, we are for a social market economy. This prevents us from engaging in demagogy and populism. This obliges us to speak honestly to the people of Europe. I hope that the next European Council will take inspiration from this approach.

(Applause)

Mr President, with all respect to you, Mr Vondra, it is unacceptable that, in a situation like the current one, the President-in-Office of the Council is not present. This also indicates the nature of his attitude to the current situation.

(Applause)

We have heard many of the old familiar phrases being repeated. We have been listening to this sort of thing for months and we could use the phrases to produce templates. Mr Daul, I would like to congratulate you on your wonderful speech! If you go on making speeches like this, the people in Lipsheim and Pfettisheim will begin to think that you have joined the French Communist Party. It is really wonderful and it all sounds excellent. However, now we actually need to deliver something. We must make the necessary decisions. More must be done in the European Council. The crisis is deepening and jobs are being lost. We have seen EUR 40 billion wiped off the value of shares in the last six months. This means that people's livelihoods are being destroyed. This means that jobs are being lost. This means that companies are being threatened with closure. This means that national economies are being threatened with collapse. Then the Council comes up with nice little resolutions, such as the fiscal stimulus of 1.5% of GDP this year or next year. Three Member States have implemented the resolution so far, which means that 24 states have not. Great Britain, Germany and Spain have done this, and incidentally, all three were pressured by social democrats and socialists, and the other Member States have not. You must do more! You must tell the absent President-in-Office of the Council this.

Mr Barroso, you have made a wonderful speech. It was excellent and we support it fully. Solidarity between the Member States is urgently needed. For us as social democrats and socialists, solidarity is the central concept in this situation. Solidarity between people in society, but also solidarity between states. Solidarity within the eurozone and solidarity between the eurozone and the states outside it. It is important for the Commission to urge the Member States to show solidarity.

It is also important for the Commission to provide us with the draft directives we need to control private equity and hedge funds, to ensure the transparency of credit rating agencies, to keep managers' salaries within reasonable limits and to close tax havens. These initiatives are urgently needed. We hope that you will implement them and we are relying on you to do so. If it is no longer possible to achieve this within this parliamentary term, we will be making all these demands again on the first day of the new Parliament. When I hear the head of Citigroup, which has once again made a profit, and when I hear Mr Ackermann from Deutsche Bank, which has once again made a profit in the first quarter, I wonder whether these people believe that they can just go on as before, now that they have been bailed out by the state. No, we must put in place controls and transparency to ensure that these people cannot repeat what they have done in the past.

My third point is that I am fascinated when I hear the members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats speaking. It is wonderful. You are saying all the things which we have been saying for years and which you have always voted against. You seem suddenly to have woken up. However, when it comes to Amendment 92, to a resolution to do more, in other words a fiscal stimulus of 1.5% of GDP, the PPE-DE does not vote in favour. Amendment 92 will be the litmus test for you when we vote on it at midday. On the question of solidarity, you have just said on behalf of your absent group, Mr Daul, that this is a good thing. Let us see if you vote in favour of Amendment 102, in which we are demanding solidarity.

One final remark which is of crucial importance for our group relates to Amendment 113 concerning tax havens. The people who serve us in restaurants, the drivers who drive our cars, the ground staff at the airports who unload our suitcases, are all taxpayers whose taxes are being used to prevent the big banks from failing, because governments and parliaments require these people to make a contribution. These are the people who must pay for the safety nets that have been put in place for the banks and the large companies. Now the managers of these large banks, who are still paying themselves bonuses of millions of euros, for example, at ING which has deficits of several billion, are to be given the opportunity to put their money into tax havens and to avoid paying tax. This is a class war from above, which we at least do not want to be part of. Therefore, the question of whether we decide today that the European Parliament is against tax havens is a decisive question for the credibility of the PPE-DE and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. You are talking like the socialists, but we want to see whether you vote like the socialists at midday.

We have put our three demands on the table and I would like to state quite clearly that if you do not vote in favour of them, then we will not have a joint resolution. Then it will be clear that we stand for social justice and that the PPE-DE can only produce empty words.

(Applause)

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, over recent months, our Union has had more summits than our former colleague Reinhold Messner, and our Parliament has had a string of reports on improving the economy, but what those summits and those reports have done is provide Member States with stepping stones across the river of recession. Now we need the Council to cross without fear or flight, and I congratulate the authors of the Andersson, Ferreira and Kirilov reports. They offer a consistent and pragmatic perspective written in the light of the unemployment avalanche on our horizon. And their underlying message is this: jobs, jobs, jobs.

The Lisbon Strategy, employment guidelines, cohesion policy - these have always argued for flexicurity in our economies, for public investment in research and development, for the rapid transition to the knowledge economy. They are the foundations on which a healthy, dynamic and secure job market is built.

And from today's vantage point, one thing is clear to everyone - except, perhaps, some on the benches to the left. It was not the Lisbon Strategy that brought hardship to our kitchen tables, rather it is the Member States which ignored it that are suffering the deepest and will suffer the longest. So now is the time to put our foot on the floor and drive forward a 'Lisbon plus programme' and employment guidelines that reflect the realities of our Union.

National parliaments, regional governments, city halls: each must be empowered to rise to that challenge, and named and shamed when they do not. Nor should we accept heel-dragging over the need to protect the planet. The Council will consider the EU's negotiating stance for the Copenhagen climate conference. Just how much money, Mr Vondra, will the 27 allot to adaptation and mitigation in the developing world? Climate change will not stop as the economy slows, and the poorest countries will suffer - still - from our carbon consumption.

So recession must not mean inaction. Member States must commit the cash to counter climate change and to create green-collar jobs in the process, perhaps by using the money we have, as Claude Turmes suggests, to leverage more through the EIB or the EIF. However, the Council knows that the ravages of recession will return without root and branch reform of the financial system.

Next month's G20 is tasked with recasting the mould, and I welcome the tone taken by European leaders when they met in Berlin. The IMF should be financed effectively, tax havens should be subject to scrutiny, and financial institutions should be regulated robustly, with an effective European financial services authority overseeing the system: not to drag our economies back into the past, but to create an open, honest and transparent system of trade that is free and fair.

London, Paris, Berlin: each is keen to stress that Europe stands united, but the President of the Council tells us that differences persist. I hope the President of the Council will be here to report back to us from this summit, because he should be here today. If differences persist, it will not do. We need Europe to be strong in mind, fleet of foot and united in purpose over the weeks and months ahead, ready to strip out the toxic assets that are crippling bank balances, ready to reform bank practice to restore creditworthiness, and ready to accept that the current stimulus package may not be enough, because it is no good topping up the IMF if there is no global financial system to support, and while it is rough justice that responsible Member States must mitigate against default by those who lived it up, that may be the price to pay to avoid the contagion of economic meltdown.

Put simply, we need Council, Commission and Parliament to work together: coolly, calmly, collectively, preventing procedure from getting the better of purpose. Europe can fight fire no longer. The time has come for the fundamental reform that will provide jobs now and security in the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vondra talked of 'strengthening supervision', but we want some information on how many OTC derivatives are still in the possession of European banks; how much the bill comes to at world level. It may be that the Commission and the Council will decide to freeze derivatives, at least to propose it at world level, and to suspend trading in these commodities. Is it possible that in banks that have been nationalised, these derivatives are still a toxic asset but obviously also worrying for development? Strengthening supervision also means that we must not only, as the Commission says, have the capacity to make a clean sweep of the banking system and review the system of regulation, but we must also make new proposals.

So, if we are worried about the crisis in the motor industry, we ought also to concern ourselves with small and medium-sized enterprises and the unfair competition coming from outside our borders. The Council has not yet decided to ratify and promote origin labelling, the only system that is not protectionist but protects consumers and products, as President Barroso himself just said. In order to help businesses we must, in addition to promoting new lines of credit, give small and medium-sized enterprises faster and cheaper access to mobility, if we want these businesses to adapt rather than go under. Many of them are now suffering a 50% drop in orders, forcing them to turn to the banks for help. The banks are not lending, however, and the bank shares have collapsed because of derivatives. It is a vicious circle. You must come out from this muddle and look for real solutions, not just useless proposals.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the occasion of the fifth debate in this parliamentary term on the successes and failures of the Lisbon Strategy, I would like to ask how it can be that we have stated every year that the strategy is a successful one and that its success has been assessed and that we now suddenly wake up in the middle of the most serious crisis of recent times, as if it were a natural disaster. This should not be the case and a dishonest assessment of the Lisbon Strategy is, I believe, one of the problems which we must resolve.

A year ago in the same debate, the European Parliament urged the Commission to ensure the stability of financial markets because we had identified signs of an impending crisis. Mr Barroso, nothing was done in response to this request. We have now been discussing the collapse of the system for months, as Mr Schulz has said, without ensuring that the new regulations are mandatory. My view of this is slightly different to that of my fellow members. I believe that many members of the Commission and of the national governments are still convinced that a deregulated market made up of strong players can regulate itself. If we limit ourselves to injecting funds quickly into the banking system and to giving public guarantees, without establishing a completely new structure for the financial markets, we are sure to fail. We will not emerge from this crisis and there will be no real recovery.

The discussion on the links between climate policy, sustainability strategies and crisis management is just as inconsistent. Every year, we hear many comforting assurances on this subject. However, if you look at the current economic recovery plans at European and national level, you will see that they consist of a lot of words, but that the objectives of sustainability, climate protection and the efficient use of resources are still not being taken seriously. These economic recovery plans will not equip the European economy to face the future. They are simply more of the same.

Ladies and gentlemen, the joint programme for growth and jobs, also known as the Lisbon strategy, came into being in 2005. It is now 2009 and, despite everything, we are faced with increasing poverty and an economic and financial crisis without parallel in history. Furthermore, the latest forecasts predict that the number of people unemployed in the EU will rise by almost 3.5 million in 2009. Despite all of the measures adopted to date, unemployment is rising. I am not the only one who thinks that something is wrong. The current situation shows the failure of the policies to date which have mainly supported the accumulation of large profits by large commercial and financial groupings, the creation of huge monopolies and a deterioration in the living standards of workers and ordinary people. Europe must take a different route. At its spring meeting, the Council should adopt a European strategy for solidarity and sustainable development and a new set of economic, social and environmental policies for supporting investment especially in the quality of work, improving qualifications, infrastructure support programmes, policies of cohesion, environmental protection and improved health and safety protection at work. A major problem confronting Member States, including the Czech Republic, is company relocations. The EU should set up a regulatory framework which would penalise firms for relocating, for example, by making EU financial support conditional on the fulfilment of obligations involving job protection and local development. Especially now, at a time of financial and economic crisis, we need not only solidarity but also strict and fast-operating rules and instruments as a common defence against the crisis. In this way, we would also be making a dignified link to the inheritance of Jean Monet, whom we are commemorating today.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, the term 'European solidarity' has been bandied around this morning as if it were a given. I want to call that into question.

We cannot sign a blank cheque to bail out the countries of eastern Europe. We do not have the money. Economically, the plan is quite unsound and, most important of all, it is politically unacceptable to the taxpayers in France, Britain and Germany that we should do so. Yet the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, seems now to be an advocate of this plan. He has lost his marbles! He says that this is the time for Europe to build on shared values of cooperation, as if we are one big, happy family.

Well, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Mr Ferenc Gyurcsany, rather blows that idea of European solidarity apart. He demands that the European Union bail out countries such as his to the tune of EUR 180 billion, and he says that, if we do not do that, he promises us that five million unemployed migrants will head west into our countries. That is nothing other than blackmail, and it shows the folly of having allowed countries like Hungary into this political Union and highlights even more deeply the folly of having open borders.

The only response I really hear in this House today is that somehow we have to have more European Union - that more power will work! Well, look: you were sent a message by the voters in France, by the voters in the Netherlands and by the voters in Ireland. You do not have the legitimacy to take more power for the European Union. The economic crisis will, I believe, be what voters will vote on in the European elections this year, and I hope this time they send you people a message that is so big and so loud that, for once, you simply will not be able to ignore it.

Nigel Farage, we might not always be happy in our European family, but you belong to the family as well.

(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in contrast to the previous speaker, I firmly believe that the forthcoming European Council should fully live up to the motto of the current Czech Presidency, which is 'Europe without barriers'. I hope that the absent President of the Council, Mirek Topolánek, will not give way under pressure from the Obama administration to the temptation for new regulations and for more taxpayer's money to be poured into the economy.

The forthcoming Council should also reject the green-lobby plan of the Barroso Commission involving massive multi-billion support for renewable energy. Economic theory and historically proven practice both clearly show that this will not do anything to reduce the economic collapse or to halt the rise in unemployment. On the contrary, it will only deepen the crisis and add another risk for the future, namely inflation, ladies and gentlemen. I do not believe that any sensible politician would want to contribute to a massive growth in prices and a devaluing of the savings of ordinary citizens. I hope that the Presidency will continue its stout defence of liberalisation together with the elimination of trade barriers and protectionism.

As we know, ladies and gentlemen, government regulation of economic policy in the US has played a key role in causing the current crisis. Instead of learning from this fact, EU bodies have approved an incredible 519 regulations and 68 directives since 1 July last year, in other words over the space of 9 months. If the Czech Presidency wants to be credible and useful in its motto of 'Europe without barriers', rather than organising more summits, it should immediately check through all EU legislation and throw out as many environmental, gender, social and employment restrictions as possible. The Council should also give some thought to how to rein in the bloated social state and to reducing high taxes and insurance. Only in this way can we achieve a rapid resumption of rational human and market activities, without which it will simply not be possible to overcome the current crisis.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes I do not believe what I hear. Mr Schulz, the initiative on regulation and on transparency rules for hedge funds and private equity comes from the Committee on Legal Affairs.

In 2006, the members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats on the Committee on Legal Affairs began actively asking for rules to be put in place. The legislative own-initiative report which we commissioned did not come about because the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who we all know is a member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, began a completely unnecessary dispute over authority. The result of this was that we spent months, if not years, in reaching an agreement and were then finally able to adopt the legislative own-initiative reports on this issue in September of last year, in the form of the Rasmussen and Lehne reports.

The person who spoke out against regulation in this area in the Council was Gordon Brown. He is obviously not a member of the PPE-DE, but belongs to your group. In recent years, Mrs Merkel and Mr Rasmussen have always spoken in favour of regulation in these areas in all the debates, both in the European Council and the G8.

The problem lies in the fact that the socialists in the European Union have always been a major obstacle to the inclusion of these non-regulated areas. Opinions have recently changed and that has resulted in us being in the position in which we now find ourselves. This is one of the historical facts in this area. I simply want to say that there is a big difference between the rhetoric which we are hearing now and the reality of recent months and years. Unfortunately, that is the case.

Finally, I would like to mention a number of areas of common interest. Today, the atmosphere between the parliamentary groups during the preparation for the resolution on the Lisbon process in the steering group was exceptionally good. For this reason, we have come to an agreement in almost every area and produced a good resolution.

We should not discuss this until we are blue in the face. Instead, we should make it clear that this is an area of common interest. The citizens of Europe expect us to act jointly in this crisis and not to oppose one another.

(Applause)

Mr President, this is the worst crisis since 1929 and it is getting worse: unemployment is in free fall now.

What I said to the President of the Commission a couple of months ago was: 'Please do not oversell what the European Council decided in December 2008. Please do not paint too rosy a picture of Europe.' However, that is exactly what you are doing. You have not made a financial stimulus of 3.3% in Europe - you have not! When you talk about automatic stabilisers, it is already in the prognosis. According to the Commission in January, the prognosis is -2%; now the European Central Bank tells us it is -3%. When you talk about a financial stimulus of 1.5%, it is not 1.5%, because, according to the Bruegel Institute, it will be 0.9%, which is documented.

Now we have the following situation: we are not taking care of employment, unemployment is in free fall, and your stimulus in Europe is not 3.3% but 0.9%. If you are now telling us to wait for better times and if you agree with Jean-Claude Juncker, who said yesterday that we have done enough, then I say: you have not done enough - people expect more from Europe than you are saying today.

My point is the following: in a few weeks, you will meet Mr Obama, the new President of the United States. He is coming with an investment package of 1.8% to his gross national product. We are coming with less than half. How could you imagine that Europe would put itself in a position where we are the ones who are doing less than our American friends, and where we are the ones who are demanding more of our American friends? How could you imagine respect for the European Union?

What I am saying is that we need to do more and we need to devise a comprehensive plan, which will cover the summit on 19 March - which is nine days from now - the summit in London, on 2 April, the summit on employment in May in Prague and the June summit. I appeal to you, President of the Commission, to make a comprehensive, new recovery effort. If we do not do that, we will lose. It is not about getting better times next year: this is a fundamental world crisis that we need to take seriously.

My final point concerns solidarity. The time has come not to accept new demarcation lines between those who have been members of the European Union for many years and those who came to the European Union with a promise that this would be a better time for ordinary people. Let us now avoid new economic demarcation lines between the new ones and the old ones. Let us show solidarity in real terms. That is why I ask you, President of the Commission, to consider new financial possibilities to help our new friends - Eurobonds is one possibility, the European Investment Bank is another. Please, take it seriously and let us not do too little too late, like they did in Japan, but let us show that Europe is about people, Europe is about showing solidarity with the weakest countries in this Union.

(NL) Mr President, now that the original period of the Lisbon Strategy is coming to an end, we can see that the objectives which the Heads of Government prescribed in 2000 have not been adequately met. Particularly in the current economic crisis, though, it is of paramount importance for the Lisbon Strategy to be taken seriously. Had this been the case, Europe would probably have been better able to stand up to the economic setbacks.

One of the key agreements in the Lisbon Strategy is the intention to spend 3% of Gross Domestic Product on research and development: two thirds financed by the private sector and one third by government. The fact, however, that hardly any country in the European Union has met this objective acts as a brake on innovation in the European Union. In a worldwide crisis, Europe will need to find the strength within itself to bring the economy up to the required standard once more.

At the same time, it is, of course, surprising, that a considerable share of the EU's budget should still be used to over-subsidise the old economy that includes agriculture and regional funds, while the targets for investments in research are not being met. There are plenty of options. Just think of clean environment or medical technologies or the growing sector of European computer games, for example, where specific support is proving effective.

Mr President, a dynamic and highly innovation-oriented economy can help new industries, technology and products get off the ground. This is precisely what is needed to recover from a recession. The crisis is allowing us, and indeed forcing us, to carry out desperately needed reforms.

I would urge the Member States to take their own agreements seriously, because when major goals are set, we need to have the determination to achieve these. If not, the EU will lose its credibility. Common policy requires an all-out effort from everyone and does not allow any slacking from any of the Member States.

(PL) Mr President, everything points to the fact that the ten-year goals of the Lisbon Strategy will end in a fiasco. Neither that strategy nor the constantly referred to Treaty of Lisbon is a real answer to the global economic crisis. During the forthcoming Council, the Prime Minister of Ireland will inform us of the steps taken to incorporate the Treaty of Lisbon. Following the example of the French and the Dutch, Ireland rejected the amended version of the European Constitution in a referendum. The citizens of that country could not be persuaded to relinquish part of their sovereignty in favour of a bureaucratic structure named the European Union. Presently, instead of waiting for a ruling from the German Constitutional Court which might finally bury the Treaty, attempts are being made to persuade the Irish with promises of privileges which are not to be found in the document which has been submitted.

In the face of a huge economic crisis, I appeal for an end to pointless internal EU disputes and for specific measures to be taken based on the existing treaties and in a spirit of solidarity.

(FR) Mr President, in this time of crisis, we need a strong impetus at European level.

Nation states acting alone will be unable to give a sufficiently strong and coordinated response. We therefore urgently need a boost from Europe. What are we seeing again today, though? A Commission which, like its President, is tired, lacking in vision and bereft of political courage. A recovery plan of EUR 5 billion is not a recovery plan since 50% of the projects on the list will see no investment in 2009 or 2010 because the licences for carbon sequestration, for example, will not be in place!

Mr Daul is quite correct. Now is the time for us to show solidarity and innovation. If the Commission heeds Margaret - 'I want my money back' - Merkel and draws up a list that gives more money to the strong economies than to our colleagues in the countries of the East that need our support right now, we will be unable to make progress.

We therefore need innovation in two areas. First, we should not squander these EUR 5 billion on State aid. Instead, we should concentrate the money on the European Investment Bank. The Bank is currently increasing its capital by EUR 76 billion and is negotiating with the European Central Bank to make improvements in relation to liquidity. Therefore, we should use most of the EUR 5 billion as guarantee funds to leverage EUR 20, 25 or 30 billion of public and private investment. Secondly, we must widen this recovery plan to include green technologies, renewable energies and investments in buildings in Europe's towns and cities.

At present, President Obama is allocating 10 times more venture capital to green technologies than Europe is. We are therefore losing the battle when it comes to the next big thing in the economy.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the decisive question in relation to all the economic recovery plans which are being put in place throughout Europe is, of course: who will receive the money? Will more blank cheques be drawn up for the banks, although in the long run, it would be significantly cheaper for the taxpayer if they were nationalised straight away? Should we relieve the burden on large companies and high wage earners although they have benefited from tax concessions across the whole of Europe for years? The more money is wasted on things like this, the more likely it is that the programmes will fail and that the European economy will find itself in a very dangerous downward spiral.

The long-term policy of privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation has resulted in an increasing concentration of wealth among the top ten thousand. In addition, it was this policy which was responsible for the crisis that we find ourselves in today. Anyone who believes that the crisis can be overcome by continuing this policy with just a few modifications has completely failed to understand the situation. What we need is exactly the opposite. Instead of buying up banks' toxic assets, we should be spending taxes on renovating schools and hospitals and on greening the European economy. If public funds are given to private companies, the rule of no taxes without guaranteed jobs and, in particular, no taxes without public ownership rights must apply, so that the state and, above all, citizens can benefit from any future earnings. The best economic recovery plan of all would be a radical redistribution of wealth and assets from top to bottom. The low pay sector in Europe must be reduced in size rather than continually being fostered. We need higher minimum wages and better social services in Europe. We need tax rates which ensure that the millionaires and profiteers from the old finance market party take responsibility for the huge losses which have been incurred, not the majority of citizens who have not benefited at all from the financial boom. I believe that social justice is now the only sensible economic policy. It is the only way of bringing this disastrous crisis to an end.

(SV) Mr President, the Lisbon Strategy is among the EU's best projects. Member States are to voluntarily reform their economies to create prosperity and an ability to adapt, both to foreseen changes such as an ageing population, and to unforeseen changes such as collapsing financial markets. The idea behind the strategy is to promote efficient markets, entrepreneurship, education, research and stable state finances, and now we are being tested.

If, when the financial crisis occurred, we had all had a flexible economy, the right monetary policy and sound state finances, Europe would have coped a lot better. We did not have these things, however. The Lisbon Strategy has not been implemented while, at the same time, the euro has resulted in much too easy a monetary policy for Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece. In addition, several countries have been able to mismanage their public finances under the protective umbrella of the euro. The imbalances are therefore huge. The Lisbon Strategy is a good idea that has been botched. The euro is a bad idea that has exacerbated the problems.

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is in this time of crisis that the value and usefulness of structures will be shown, and this crisis is showing us that the Europe of Brussels is no use at all. The recovery plan, pompously termed 'European', is, in fact, the sum of the finances decided on by the Member States. The contribution from the European budget accounts for only a very small part of it.

Whilst EUR 200 billion is being given to support the real economy and jobs, EUR 2 billion of it is going to the banks, with no guarantee that they will use the money to finance companies and private individuals. Privatised profits, public ownership of losses: this is the latest word from these economic policies, be they liberal or socialist.

Is it a case of European solidarity or support for the States? The participants of the informal summit of 1 March collectively rejected conditionality for aid given to the automotive sector, for the sake of the market and of competition. There has been no change in policy, no change in logic, and no break with the system that led us to catastrophe! We are on the edge of the precipice and, in a few days' time, the Heads of State and Government are going to ask us to take a great leap forward.

(NL) Mr President, as coordinator of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats for regional policy, I should like to say that the desired move towards a more flexible approach and a more emphatic focus on investment and employment are becoming a reality. Precisely in this time of crisis, cohesion policy has its uses when it comes to Community investments. At the moment, we deploy an annual sum of some EUR 50 billion, and 65% of it goes to the priority areas in the Lisbon agreements. In doing so, we make an active contribution, qualify workers and take all kinds of regional initiatives for the years following the crisis.

The PPE-DE would like to maintain this integrated financial approach, rather than bring about any more fragmentation. The idea behind adopting a more flexible approach is to accelerate expenditure schedules, simplify approval and deal with the preparation costs effectively, extend the EIB's scope considerably by means of specific programmes, including sustainable reconstruction in the urban environment and more scope for energy efficiency, not least in the old Member States. I welcome these moves towards a more intensive approach and flexibility.

In March II, we will hold a priority debate in this plenary meeting about the adjustments to the cohesion policy. We will also adjust the regulations for the funds accordingly, and lay the basis for a new cohesion formula: territorial cohesion, the framework for the period after 2013.

As was confirmed a moment ago, we are committed to high-quality activities, including clusters, R&D, innovation and rural development, and we will ensure that the knowledge economy and competitiveness in Europe are given a shot in the arm. This applies to all the regions across all the Member States. In this way, Europe will remain visible, and we will contribute to greater solidarity in Europe, even after the period of crisis.

Mr President, I would like to start by responding to Mr Farage. If so far it was not certain that Parliament would be united, I think Mr Farage convinced all of us that we must remain united as a European Union.

The systematic crisis has hit the EU and we have to ask ourselves why our Lisbon Strategy of 10 years could not save us. Could we have a better target? Could we have a better delivery? Could we do it in a more cognate manner, or were we waiting for somebody to do it instead of us?

The Socialist Group answer is that it is right to have a single, comprehensive strategy for the future, to drive competitiveness and social and environmental sustainability in one single strategy. The Socialist answer is that we need delivery on Lisbon targets for all of Europe and we need it for all Europeans, including the most vulnerable, the poor ones.

We need to stabilise the financial markets and reduce the risk of similar crises for the future. But we will not support policies which drive our resources to tax havens and to the bank accounts of the few. We need to stabilise real economies throughout Europe for all sectors, and especially the small and medium-sized enterprises, but we have to take the responsibility of supporting employment and not just allow those companies to generate profits.

We need to go for R&D innovation and the digital switch-over, as well as building up skills to enable all citizens of Europe to use those technologies. We will commit funds to save knowledge throughout IPR policies. We need to stabilise Europe as a whole but we have to look beyond Europe to even more vulnerable parts of the world and we will not build new demarcation lines within the European Union.

We need to mobilise actors to act. Action, action, action, and delivery. Words alone will not drive us to succeed. It is not enough to do a lot but it is necessary to do enough. We ask the Commission, we ask the Council to go beyond the Spring Summit and deliver our messages to the G20. This is what people in the street are waiting for from us. Let us act together.

(LT) I would like to draw attention to some circumstances which seem important to me in resolving the matter of retaining and creating new jobs. Firstly, this is a global economic crisis which is forcing us to rethink and re-evaluate the Employment Strategy. Secondly, we must make a critical evaluation of what we have already created, and of the effectiveness of implementing the strategies we have adopted. Therefore, I urge the Commission to assess very critically how Community Members are using funds intended to stimulate employment. The practice in force until now of mostly allocating funds towards qualification, requalification and various kinds of training is, to my mind, ineffective. Investing in small and medium-sized businesses and micro-credits are the most effective measure to create new jobs. Funds from both the Social Fund and Globalisation Fund could be used more effectively to this purpose. Member States must submit reports on the use of Social Fund and Globalisation Fund money, indicating, in particular, how many new jobs have been created. There must be penalties for inefficient use. The number of employees taking so-called voluntary redundancy is increasing. They are left without a job, without social or financial support. Therefore, we ought to involve unions here to protect the interests of our people. I urge the Commission and Member States to unite on this important matter.

(LV) Thank you, Mr President. In the current crisis situation, it is better to do more, rather than to wait. Therefore, the proposed economic stimulus instruments should certainly receive our support. For the new Member States in eastern Europe, however, with few exceptions, the international lending markets have closed their doors, there is an outflow of capital, and western European banks, which account for the majority of the market in the region, have changed the expansive lending policies they were pursuing not long ago for a more cautious approach. The opportunities for these Member States to use financial and fiscal instruments are limited, or completely non-existent. In addition, in the majority of those countries preparing to join the eurozone, the convergence criteria will, in the medium term, also limit what economic stimulus measures can be taken. The only real instrument for stimulating the economy and for the implementation of the Lisbon strategy in those countries is finance from the European Union's funds. In obtaining funds, however, finding co-financing may be a problem, and that may lengthen the time taken to obtain funds. In order to stimulate the economy in eastern Europe we need urgent agreement on changes to the rules for obtaining European Union funds. The procedures for receiving funds need to be significantly simplified, the volume of state and private sector co-financing needs to be reduced and the deadlines for obtaining resources need to be extended. We need to find real opportunities to use financing from the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the acquisition of funds. These decisions will send an important signal for the recovery and stabilisation of the market in eastern Europe. Thank you.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, thank you. We must take the opportunity offered by the financial crisis to undertake radical greening of the European economy and to put a stop to climate change.

However, the Commission is not making use of this opportunity and is relying on a rescue package involving outdated concepts such as road building and the car industry. Even investment in ailing economic structures seems to be a possibility. This is not a forward-looking concept which would stop people from worrying about the loss of their livelihoods. The relaxation in the rules for the use of the Structural Funds must be aimed solely at sustainable, environmentally-friendly investment. Without a climate check of this kind, the co-financing must not be increased.

Commissioners, I believe that your approach of using the financial crisis to erode the rights of workers is also a cynical one. The posting directive should reinforce workers' rights and not help to weaken them. Reform of this kind is long overdue. What you are offering in the new document is unacceptable.

(PT) The neoliberal Lisbon Strategy has been one of the European Union's basic instruments for promoting financial deregulation, privatising public services, liberalising markets and world trade, deregulating labour relations and damaging workers' rights. The proposals on the Working Time Directive and flexicurity are clear examples of this.

There is no sense in continuing to insist on developing the Lisbon Strategy when the economic and social crisis which the application of this Strategy has helped to create is getting worse. We therefore need to break with these policies of neoliberal capitalism, which is responsible for worsening unemployment, precarious work and poverty and which has increased social, regional and territorial inequalities. We need an integrated European strategy for solidarity and sustainable development which is based on defending productive sectors and public investment, by effectively boosting Community funds to support countries with weaker economies, which respects nature and creates jobs with rights, and which promotes public services, increases purchasing power and ensures a fair distribution of income to reduce poverty. This is exactly the opposite to what the Commission and the Council are proposing.

(NL) Mr President, during the debates on the Spring Summit in recent years, we urged the Member States to work on the Lisbon process. After all, economic growth and low inflation provided scope for reform. Reform was necessary in the competition with up-and-coming economies and is, indeed, still needed.

The current crisis shows that Member States that responded to this request now perform better than others. The other Member States show major budget deficits, and the fact that the Member States that were deaf to our request are now transferring these deficits is threatening the stability of our currency.

I should like to ask the Commission to monitor Member States to ensure they observe the Stability Pact. Only in this way can we avoid the costs of this crisis getting out of hand. Temporary support measures that meet the sustainability test can therefore be applied on a limited scale. In addition to all new plans, it is obvious that old agreements should be observed.

(SK) Western Europe likes to talk about the need to assist the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to overcome the crisis. However, the very same people, or Mr Sarkozy to be precise, speak of these countries as a black hole which represents a risk for the European Union. I reject such a trivial generalisation of a problem which is affecting western countries in exactly same way. The result of such pronouncements is a loss of faith in the institutions of the Central and Eastern European countries and they look more like a stab in the back than a form of assistance.

European leaders last week rejected protectionism, which would have meant erecting a new iron curtain across a united Europe. At the same time, however, the European Commission has approved enormous state aid for French car makers. However, this unequal and discriminatory approach is also apparent in other areas and particularly in agriculture. Europe is becoming two-faced and the Euro sceptics will reap the rewards of this.

Mr President, this debate is about jobs, and jobs and new prosperity. That is why I am a little surprised to hear, from the Socialist Group, criticisms of those who have been responsible for realistic policies in Europe, because the Socialists, more than anyone else, called for lower interest rates at the peak of the economy, just as they implemented monetary policy in the US. It is lax monetary policy, more than anything else, that has eroded the US economy. Mr Schulz should feel thankful that Europe and the European Central Bank did not listen to him, because, if it had, the European economy would have been much worse off. I appreciate we can agree on that point.

That also goes for the policy that you are recommending today, because now you are talking about Eurobonds which, among other things, would lead to higher interest rates for the countries of Central Europe. That is not solidarity in a time of financial crisis, and we would do well not to listen to Mr Schultz this time either.

We need to take action, but we need to take the right actions in order not to deepen the crisis and to secure stability.

(Interjection from the floor)

No, you have not been in power, but you are guilty of a lot of things too, and if we had listened to you we would have been worse off. That was an agreement between you and me, was it not? I appreciate the consensus in Parliament that your policy was wrong.

Mr President, what we need now is stability. We need to abide by competition rules and state aid rules in order to secure open barriers and trade, because exports need more imports and imports need exports. That is the way we can achieve more jobs.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one minute is only enough for a telegram. The title of mine, which I shall send to the European Council, has already been conveyed by Mr Schulz and Mr Rasmussen, who said that more must be done, above all with regard to the social emergency, through new tough financial and fiscal policies. Let me add an additional message: it is, of course, vitally important as we go through this crisis to minimise the social impact, but it is also important to hold a firm course so that we will know whether we are to emerge from it as winners or losers in terms of global competition, which will become increasingly fierce in the search for a new green, smart, low-carbon economy.

Therefore, all measures at all levels, from local to European, must be consistent with this objective. The Council needs to give a strong mandate for the negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen so that we do not miss this opportunity, which is also an economic one. The mandate must be supported with the necessary funding of developing countries that will enable them to join with us.

(NL) Mr President, this crisis is a test for Europe. Citizens now expect Europe to act, and this is why it is mystifying that many national leaders, even now, remain caught in the 'each to his own' policy. Europe is not the sum total of 27 times the national interest. In this respect, it would be a capital error to divide Europe into east and west once again.

Mr President, the Liberals would like to invest in the future, not in the mistakes of the past. The objectives of the Lisbon Strategy should not be put on ice. If anything, we should be more committed to education and research, innovation, sustainability and a strong European market.

Mr President, bankers who squander our money are despicable, but Mr Schulz, politicians who now run up deficits and debts on the back of younger generations are just as irresponsible. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe subscribes to the gist of the Ferreira report. Only with actual European and future-oriented solutions can we meet this crisis head-on. It is now or never for Europe.

(PL) Mr President, a true strategy for economic recovery is essential for the European Union. For that strategy to be effective, it must fulfil the following conditions. Firstly, the EU needs a larger budget, and not one reduced from 1% to 0.8% of GDP, as some countries are advocating. Secondly, freedom of budgetary and tax policy should be restored, and attempts to impose and standardise these policies abandoned. Thirdly, the pressure being put on new Member States to enter the eurozone should be ended. Fourthly, precise control of the flow of finance capital should be introduced and transfer of capital from new Member States to rich ones stopped. Today, that predatory procedure runs to tens of millions of euros and is ruining new Member States. Fifthly, we should direct support and aid first and foremost to countries and regions which have been worst affected, and not, as is being done today, close down shipyards in Poland, while in France and Germany, jobs are being protected. Sixthly, the program of infrastructure investment should be directed at eliminating differences and underdevelopment, especially in the new Member States.

(HU) Mr President, we are all aware that under the circumstances of the current economic crisis, the importance of the employment policy and the Lisbon Strategy has increased, and therefore we, the European legislators and decision makers, must strive to make the implementation of the employment policy guidelines as effective and successful as possible. As the result of the vote in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has also demonstrated, there is complete agreement among the political groups that the employment policy guidelines for the period between 2008 and 2010 constitute a suitable - and yet sufficiently flexible - framework for the objectives to be attained. Within these frameworks, the task of the Member States is to determine the key aspects that are suited to their distinctive situations, and to flesh out the various guidelines with actual content. The framework system is thus a good tool, the creation of which is a joint European success. The task of the Member States, on the other hand, is to truly put into practice this outstanding tool.

Thus, there are two prerequisites for success: setting the right goals and the practical implementation of a policy that fits these objectives. The first prerequisite - let us say - has already been met, and therefore, in my view, we must focus our attention in the next period on following up on the fleshing out and application of the content of the employment policy guidelines by the Member States. We cannot ignore the fact that the divergent economic situations and debt levels among the various Member States mean differences in their freedom of movement when it comes to the size of the investment they can make in the area of employment and human resources. In another respect, however, we need to be united: that each Member State must increase the level of investment related directly to employment in proportion to its own capacity. We must recognise that the success of the economic stimulus packages launched by the Member States is closely related to the attainment of EU goals. This is why we must harmonise our approaches in the area of economic policy more closely than in the past and, in light of this, trusting that there is agreement among the political groups, I ask that we support the Andersson report and vote to adopt it.

(FR) Madam President, Mr Vondra, Commissioner, Europe can do a great deal if it wants to but, to do so, it has to make the correct diagnosis: currently, however, it is under-estimating the crisis. It needs to provide the appropriate resources: currently, however, the recovery plan is not enough. It has to release the financial resources required: currently, however, the debate on the Eurobonds is at a standstill; it must be relaunched. If Europe wishes to act intelligently on the international stage, then it must also set an example in relation to the regulation and supervision of the financial markets.

Mr Barroso, your initiation of the work carried out by Jacques de Larosière's group has been useful, intelligent and exceptional. This work is now on the table. Do a Delors and use this work as a basis for implementation!

This report has been adopted unanimously, even though the group was composed of cultures and people of very different origins. The European consensus that we have sought for years has therefore been found.

If you allow the nations to tear themselves apart following this result, there will be no European supervision of the financial markets.

(BG) The contribution of the Cohesion Policy is becoming even more significant in the context of an economic crisis. The banking sector, closure of production capacity, lack of fresh money and the contraction of the labour market are basic problems for Member States. Until now, the Cohesion Policy had its own financial instruments, but the crisis is forcing the streamlining of appropriate, innovative solutions.

Support based on EU funds should now be aimed at the targeted areas. The Structural Funds should be used more actively and more in keeping with the situation. Member States should focus their attention on enabling the beneficiaries to control the funds. I rather hope that the Commission will simplify the procedures for the Structural Funds, which must not be done at the expense of controlling the distribution and spending of the funds. I believe that the report on the Cohesion Policy and investment in the real economy will provide ideas for dealing with the crisis and will be useful for subsequent measures aimed at stimulating economy activity which we are expecting from the European Union summit. Thank you.

(DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Kirilov's report primarily concerns changes to the three Structural Funds Regulations 2007-2013 with the aim of improving cash flow and liquidity in the Member States. This is one measure for combating the economic crisis which we can support unconditionally.

Member States are now required to make full use, for example, of the opportunities for supporting investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy in housing and the new investment opportunities in housing in general. These planned measures will contribute to accelerating, simplifying and increasing the flexibility of the use of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds. I must emphasise that these measures do not conflict with free competition, social standards and the implementation of environmental and climate protection regulations within the Community.

It is now the responsibility of the Member States to guarantee the co-financing of the money provided by the European Structural Funds in order to be able to make full use of it. The demand in the report for increased simplicity in the administration and implementation of the funds is to be welcomed and supported.

Commissioners, we are looking forward to further proposals on this subject from the Commission in 2009. It is important to emphasise the significance for a successful economic recovery of measures to support employment and business. However, Member States should be urged to make extensive use of the Structural Funds for promoting or creating jobs in small and medium-sized businesses.

The committee has taken full account of our amendments. We must support this report unreservedly. Congratulations, Mr Kirilov.

(ES) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the best homage we can pay to Jean Monnet is to act with unity, decisiveness and perseverance, as he did in organising the logistical effort during both world wars - the effort by the Allies which enabled them to win the war. This means that we, the 27 Member States, must act together.

We, as socialists, would urge that this involves three priority actions: firstly, strengthening our stimulus and recovery plan in the budgetary sphere and also with regard to the scrutiny and organisation of Europe.

Secondly, we need to develop genuine solidarity between the 27 Member States. I do not know if the Czech Government and its parliament, who are sitting on the Treaty of Lisbon, know that in the second article of the Lisbon Treaty the word 'solidarity' appears for the first time.

Thirdly, we need to combat tax havens, the black holes of globalisation.

Madam President, I want to refer to our strategy and preparations for the Copenhagen Conference on climate change later this year, where we have taken a leadership role, but one which is threatened by the economic recession and demands that we relax our standards. Let me give you one example.

More than three years ago, we agreed that new requirements would be placed on car manufacturers to change the air conditioning refrigerants they use, which currently have a global warming potential 1 400 times greater than carbon dioxide. We said that should take place in all new car models from 2011.

But now we hear that some manufacturers - led, I understand, by Ford and General Motors - are trying to exploit loopholes to get out of that obligation. Later this month, there is a meeting of the national type approval authorities. It is very important that Commissioner Verheugen takes a lead and makes it clear that we are not going to relax our standards, and that these refrigerants must be replaced by 2011.

If we weaken now, we open the floodgates to lobbying from industry across the board, and our leadership role on climate change will be seriously undermined.

Madam President, these three very extremely important reports have been drafted by Socialist rapporteurs. This, of course, is not by chance. The thrust of these reports, the amendments that will be presented by the Socialist Members to improve them, and also I think today's debate, show very clearly that there are distinctive policies: distinctive right-wing and Socialist policies towards the crisis. The right-wing policy is pretty simple: the crisis is a bad thing but we need to be patient, it will pass; we need to take some technical measures and things will calm down by themselves and we must express our sympathy to the people who will be hit.

The Socialist position is much more complex. We say that we must attack the roots of the problem, the roots of the crisis, that we must radically change the economic paradigm, that we must change and that we must curb all the speculation that has led us to this financial crisis. This has not been a neutral crisis but a crisis inflicted by specific policies, mostly by right-wing governments.

(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in these times of crisis, our fellow citizens are expecting much of Europe. Europe must not let them down.

Of course, if we are being realistic, we have to acknowledge that European financial resources are limited, and we need to look at how they can be improved. However, Europe will come more to the fore and will have more success if it shows greater political will.

This involves firstly, of course, acting as a catalyst for the actions and efforts of the Member States, but also taking a coordinated approach at European level. The recovery plan is essentially a toolbox to promote restructuring. The role of the EIB must be strengthened.

Europe must act to define a clear, innovative economic strategy. Economic operators need prospects and legal stability. It is important, first, to put financial services in order so that the banking institutions can play their main role, which is to finance economic development.

The texts currently being prepared for directives on the capital requirements of banks and insurance companies, and the regulations on rating agencies, must contribute to this task. The text on rating agencies must implement the lessons learned from the proven shortcomings.

There is an equally urgent need to provide for European supervision of regulated financial activities. The report by the de Larosière group makes some useful and timely proposals that should be implemented quickly.

Europe also needs to be given a proper, effective, modern industrial policy. In this respect, we need to reconcile the needs for sustainable development and the requirement for a high-quality industrial base to produce wealth and create employment.

In these times of crisis, it is preferable not to hamper those sectors that are operating normally by producing rules or regulations whose effectiveness has not been properly shown. For example, in the automotive sector, which is today experiencing severe difficulties, it is important to extend the regulation exempting vehicle distribution, which expires in 2010.

We must also be vigilant, for example, when negotiating the bilateral agreement with Korea, as it could be very conducive to our industry.

Madam President, my contribution today will be one that highlights the need for investment: investment in jobs; investment in our environment; and investment in all our economies. In that regard, investment in our transport infrastructure and, in particular, in our railway infrastructure, is crucial, not only in providing us with a world-class rail network but also in protecting and creating jobs and social cohesion.

Let us prioritise the electrification of our rail network, giving us both transport and environmental gains. Let us invest in our TENS transport network. Let us have a recovery plan with substance and with action, and not just words.

Doing nothing and letting the markets decide has failed. The time for concerted European action is now based on putting people first and vested interests last. We on this side of the House are not prepared to play Pontius Pilate, washing our hands of the problem. We want to act and we want to act decisively.

(HU) I am convinced that the current economic crisis has its roots in over consumption and in the environmental crisis, and that it is in this area that we must seek the solution as well. We are coming to an important period with regard to climate policy since, at the end of this year, we must reach an agreement in Copenhagen on new common goals for combating global warming. The task is therefore great, and we must not err or procrastinate. The legal texts before us not only define the framework and set out the main guidelines, but the real, concrete steps to be taken are yet to come. In order to reach a 25-40% decrease in greenhouse gases, as the scientists recommend, and in order to halt the decline in biodiversity, we need significant financial resources.

In recent years, I had the pleasure of visiting, with Parliamentary delegations, Bangladesh, China, India and, most recently, Guyana, and my conviction in this regard has become even stronger as a result. On the one hand, we must support developing countries, but this can be done only through transparent, closely monitored investments and, on the other, the revenues from the European Union's emission trade auctions should also be used to support developing country's measures to promote adaptation. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety recommends a total of EUR 30 billion for this purpose up to 2020. This is an enormous sum, and to use it properly is a great challenge.

Moreover, the struggle against climate change offers Europe an excellent opportunity to increase new technologies and create new jobs in order to promote energy security. The UN and the new US administration as well as several European governments have also recognised that in order to emerge from the global crisis, we need not only a fresh, effective energy source but also an engine that runs according to new organisational principles, for the current economic recession is concealing the true problem facing humanity and Europe, namely the environmental crisis. The green 'New Deal' is an historic opportunity to solve both crises at once.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it was a mistake, above all on the part of the Commission, to underestimate the extent of the crisis initially, and that it is a mistake today to repeat ourselves at summits that produce declarations of principle but are not followed by coherent and practical decisions. The responses given by our reports to the very serious problems of the European public are convincing and up to the task.

The House is called on, however, to bridge a gap by introducing the Eurobonds instrument, repeatedly advocated by Mr Mauro, myself and almost 200 Members, an instrument - perhaps the only one - able to generate the financial resources that our lifeless budget does not have, to fund crisis measures, trans-European networks, clean energies, research and broadband, the fight against poverty and the Erasmus scheme for young people. The great Jacques Delors - I shall finish here - has shown us the way. Let us follow it with courage.

Madam President, with the backdrop of the global economic and financial crisis and the multi-billion stimulus packages, there is a huge opportunity to increase energy efficiency, to increase energy security from reliable renewable sources and to drive green technology in a green 'new deal'. In other words, to turn this crisis into an opportunity, and to the benefit of us all in the long term.

I welcome the two alternatives for innovative funding for combating global climate change in the recent Commission communication. As the original author of the resolution on today's paper, I urge Member States to act on these proposals and also, at next week's summit of Heads of State and Government, to honour the declaration of the summit of 12 December last, which should be put officially on the record, preferably along with the final text of the EU-ETS report, as otherwise it will not appear in the Official Journal.

For this - and I urge the President-in-Office, the Commissioner and Madam President to remember this - we need a tripartite declaration from all three institutions. This December declaration states: 'The European Council recalls that Member States will determine, in accordance with their respective constitutional and budgetary requirements, the use of revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances in the EU emissions trading system. It takes note of their willingness to use at least half of this amount for actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate and adapt to climate change, for measures to avoid deforestation, to develop renewable energies, energy efficiency, as well as other technologies contributing to the transition to a safe and sustainable low-carbon economy, including through capacity-building, technology transfers, research and development.'

It continues. 'In the context of an international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen in 2009, and for those who wish so, part of this amount will be used to enable and finance actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change in developing countries that will have ratified this agreement, in particular in least-developed countries. Further steps are to be taken at the spring 2009 European Council in this regard'.

I await eagerly an honourable outcome of the declaration from next week's meeting of Heads of State and Government.

(FR) Madam President, too little, too late, inadequately coordinated, lacking in solidarity, undersized: these are the real reactions provoked by the European Union recovery plan and the Commission proposals at this stage.

The reason is really simple: looking at the initial forecasts, we are all obliged to acknowledge that the depth of the crisis was under-estimated, be it in terms of the truly spectacular fall in industrial production in the United Kingdom and France, for example, the fall in international trade and German exports, or the forecasts of increased unemployment. I therefore truly believe that, today, we are very far from a response that matches what is being implemented, for example, by the Obama administration in the United States.

There is, once again, a perceived lack of solidarity and a high degree of timidity. In March, we saw Ecofin refuse to increase the recovery plans, and we are seeing the countries of Eastern Europe be reduced to calling on the IMF. This is a lamentable failure where European solidarity is concerned; we are allowing more and more national rescue plans for the industrial sector and we are reduced merely to calling for a rejection of protectionism. The fact is, the only true response would be a European rescue and recovery plan for the automotive sector.

I believe that, today, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament's demand is extremely clear: we want massive investment. As we often refer to the crisis of 1929, let us look by way of comparison at the example of Roosevelt's New Deal, which spent 3.5% of GDP over seven years. For Europe, today, that would be the equivalent of EUR 400 billion per year over several years. We therefore believe that borrowing facilities and Eurobonds should be made available, that there should be huge investment in green innovation, in the insulation of buildings, in modern transport and in the energy sector, and that there should be a support plan for the victims of restructuring and unemployment, and an indication of how all those faced with unemployment can be helped, by means, for example, of extending the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

(NL) Madam President, in this time of economic crisis, the European Parliament should play a guard dog role, particularly when it comes to preventing protectionism.

We have established the internal market, which has brought us much prosperity, together. Not only in western Europe, but also in central Europe, have countries enjoyed the full benefits of this. We should not let these achievements slip out of our hands in the face of any old headwind. We in the European Parliament should oppose proposals such as those surrounding the support of the French automotive industry, which could adversely affect other European countries.

Parliament should also play a guard dog role when it comes to the strength of the euro. We cannot accept that countries should run up national debts without limitation. In Europe, we agreed to the so-called Stability and Growth Pact. We know that as a result of the financial crisis, we should temporarily offer more scope for supporting the banks. This should be an exception, though.

There is no need to provide any structural support to other sectors in the economy. Member States do not have the funds to do this, and if they were to borrow with Eurobonds, future generations would be saddled with the burden of debt and the euro would become weak. I am opposed to this.

In short, we should be a guard dog when it comes to fighting protectionism and protecting the value of the euro.

(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in my short contribution today, I would like to focus on an important area which I hope will be successfully discussed and resolved at the European Council meeting, and that is the area of energy policy. We all know that the European Union needs to strengthen its energy security and independence and to strengthen its energy infrastructure which means linking up and extending oil pipelines, gas pipelines and power lines between individual states and regions. We also need to increase our reserves of oil and natural gas. We want to increase the share of renewables, to increase the energy efficiency of buildings and products, and to increase investment in research and in measures for mitigating the effects of climate change. I firmly believe that the measures and investments that must be introduced in the area of energy policy cannot only solve our energy and climate problems but can also have a very positive and powerful effect at a time of economic crisis by kick-starting economic growth and increasing employment.

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the efforts made by the European institutions in outlining the measures for coordinated actions by Member States and the Commission in dealing with the economic crisis. As is already well known, the European Union's Cohesion Policy is making an important contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan and is the Community's largest source of investments in the real economy. As a gesture in recognition of these efforts, the European Parliament supports the amendments to the regulation on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund, in order to simplify and speed up financial management of EU funds. I hope that the beneficiaries will gain from this simplification, those whom the funds are actually targeted at. This is particularly important for the European Union's poorer Member States.

One important task which still faces Member States is to guarantee the necessary funding so that EU resources are spent as intended. Without breaching the rules on free competition and the standards of good management, Member States should use the simplified procedures for funding projects. Thank you for your attention.

Madam President, it is clear that the European aspect of the economic recovery plan and its financial backing is very negligible compared to the efforts of the Member States. I hope, however, that the Council will adopt a plan to support energy interconnections between countries so that a future gas crisis will be mitigated in its effects.

However, solidarity could be expressed by making more flexible the criteria for ERM2, the eurozone and the adoption of the euro for those countries wanting to join. It is clear that Member States that now have to make great efforts to maintain a stable currency exchange rate need more support to be able to pass all the necessary steps to become members of the eurozone and thus prevent the effects of the economic crisis. I hope that will be one of the decisions taken in the near future, bearing in mind that there is already flexibility for the existing Members.

(LT) While I basically agree with the European Economic Recovery Plan, I would like to draw attention to two matters: the issuing of Eurobonds and expansion of the eurozone. The issuing of Eurobonds is neither an appropriate instrument to strengthen the eurozone, nor is the timing right in a Europe which is affected by the financial, economic and social crisis. We have 16 eurozone members, whose economies will receive support, but what about the other 11 countries? It is proposed that we should only allow the purchase of Eurobonds with Swedish and Danish Crowns. Where would this leave the new Member States which, for many objective reasons, are not in the eurozone? What is the cost of borrowing they would have to pay? Lithuania was not allowed to introduce the Euro because inflation was 0.07% above the indicator's maximum limit, although in 10 years, not a single eurozone member has met all the indicators. The Lithuanian Litas has already been pegged to the euro for 4 years. Is it not time to look more creatively at changes in the world and expand the eurozone, thus making it easier for the EU to exit the crisis?

(PL) Madam President, the title of Mr Kirilov's report, on which I congratulate him, suggests that we may also speak of an unreal economy. A virtual economy and virtual money have arisen, but the signatures of the bankers and auditors are real, indicating that everything is in order. It turns out, however, that this is not true, and that it is a bluff.

Today, we have to face up to the challenges of an economic and moral crisis. In this context, investment in regional development and cohesion is sensible and necessary. This will mean real kilometres of roads, modernised railway lines and airports. We should invest in knowledge and education and in innovative solutions, especially in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. We should really restrict bureaucracy. This will produce jobs for thousands of people, thus providing them with a livelihood. It will also amount to genuine implementation of a policy of solidarity, and not protectionism. It will make Lisbon a reality.

(EL) Madam President, specific measures need to be taken to mobilise sectors of the economy so that they can be helped in dealing with the crisis.

More importantly, where they relate to regional policy and cohesion policy, it is certain that they concern the majority of citizens and enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises.

Initiatives to simplify the regulations of the European Regional Development Fund and the other structural funds and measures such as strengthening investment in the use of renewable sources of energy in homes, simplifying regulations and paying advances and eligible expenditure and lump sums are certain to help towards maintaining jobs and the survival of small and medium-sized enterprises in this uncertain economic climate.

Efforts must be stepped up with other initiatives which the European Parliament awaits and will take an active part in formulating. The need to take measures which impact directly on financial support for citizens still remains.

(HU) The European Union has never been in as critical a situation as now. Two fundamental principles are being called into question: solidarity and the unity of the internal market, due to protectionism. Martin Schulz is perfectly right. The European Commission has taken no concrete steps towards putting markets in order or regulating financial matters. If we do not safeguard our solidarity, the unity of the European Union may be shattered by selfishness and protectionism, for there are problems not only outside the eurozone but also within it. Greece, Hungary and others have similar problems. I would like to remind Mr Farage that western European banks, western European companies bought out the banks and businesses of the new Member States and now, shirking solidarity, they fail to do anything to make possible a secure financial basis.

(DE) Madam President, thank you for allowing me to make a personal observation at the end of this debate. I would like to respond to the comments made by Mr Lehne.

I understood from what you said, Mr Lehne, that the crisis was caused by the socialists in Europe. Of course, we already knew that. It is a well-known principle in Germany that when the sun shines in the morning, the Christian democrats are responsible, but if there is ice and snow, that is the fault of the social democrats. We are all aware of this. However, you, the members of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, could now demonstrate whether you will put into practice what you, Mr Lehne, have said when you attacked me for saying something wrong - I may have been mistaken.

Therefore, I would ask you now to tell us about the Ferreira report, Amendment 113, which concerns solidarity between the Member States and the closure of tax havens. This is about our decision to ensure that the EU urges the G20 summit to close tax havens. Will you vote for or against the Ferreira report? Community solidarity between the eurozone and the states outside it and solidarity within the eurozone. Will you vote in favour? And finally the fiscal stimulus of 1% or 1.5% of GDP as the Community's attempt to bring the crisis to an end. Will you vote in favour? These are Amendments 92, 102 and 113 from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. If you vote in favour, then you will receive an apology from me, Mr Lehne. If you do not vote in favour, then I would have to say that you are a person who makes big speeches and then does not vote accordingly.

(DE) Madam President, thank you very much. I will be really brief. Firstly, of course, the socialists are not responsible for the crisis. No one in the Chamber has said that. We all know whose fault it is and this has been investigated in great detail. However, I have rightly pointed out that over many years, the socialists have been responsible for blocking the implementation of clear transparency rules relating to hedge funds and private equity and I have given examples of this. This is quite simply a fact.

As far as the amendments which have been referred to are concerned, I would like to mention just one point, the subject of tax havens. We are in complete agreement on this. The question is simply at which point we vote in favour of it. Today we will be debating Amendment 25 on the resolution concerning the Lisbon Strategy, which covers precisely this subject. The group will vote in favour of this. Therefore, I have no problems with the questions that have been mentioned.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, we have had a very long and useful debate, and the Presidency is grateful to all the Members of this House for their comments.

They have rightly identified the very significant challenges that we currently face and, in particular, the consequences of the financial and economic crisis. As I pointed out in my introductory remarks, this issue will be at the centre of the debate at next week's European Council meeting. Despite the scale of the crisis, the Presidency considers that the European Union can agree on the various components of an approach which will take us forward.

There is no other option than to work together in the face of this deep crisis. I therefore support the many calls this morning for greater responsibility and more intensive cooperation. I also consider that we not only can and must act together to solve Europe's problems, but also that the European Union is well placed to be part of the global solution. This crisis may be deep, but if we work together, Europe has the necessary intellectual, financial, human and regulatory resources to continue to define and implement the appropriate responses.

Joseph Daul said that the next European Council is not just another summit, and he is certainly right. Delivering on a global solution starts with playing a leading role in the G20 conference in London at the beginning of next month. At yesterday's Council meeting, Ecofin ministers endorsed the terms of reference for the EU's participation in that important meeting. They agreed, in particular, on the need for closer international coordination of macroeconomic policies and global financial regulations based on increased transparency and accountability - and that brings us back to our debate on hedge funds and other sensitive issues. They all agreed on strengthened cooperation between the financial authorities at international level, on strengthening the IMF, and on the need to address the role of multilateral development banks in countering the effects of the crisis on the world's poorest populations.

While we are talking about the need for solidarity, we have to be aware that this European solidarity must be accompanied by nationally responsible policies on sustainable financial development in Europe. It is true that the Americans are spending, but they are not asking for assistance from the IMF, and they do not have a Stability Pact ensuring the integrity of their currency zone. We have to invest in our future, but it must be done in a way that will not undermine the long-term sustainability of our public finances or the rules of the game on the internal market.

Many of you referred this morning to the very real concerns of citizens in the face of rising unemployment. Martin Schulz said that the issue is 'jobs, jobs and jobs' - and he is right. We do indeed need to maintain employment, and while many measures remain the competence of the Member States, there are certain things we can do. Let me give one example. Yesterday, Ecofin reached an agreement on reducing VAT in labour-intensive services sectors, such as restaurants, etc. If you remember, this had been on the agenda for many years without a solution being found, and it was only yesterday, under the presidency of my country, that we were able to reach agreement on that sensitive issue.

Employment should be, and is, the key theme of the three reports before us this morning. We intend to address that issue at next week's meeting. It is a key part of the Lisbon Strategy. I agree with those who say that the current crisis is not a reason for jettisoning the Lisbon Strategy. It is, in fact, all the more reason to ensure that we deliver on the Strategy's key aims.

The Presidency is devoting particular attention to this issue, which is why we have called an additional meeting in early May on the problem of growing unemployment. Next week, we intend to agree some concrete orientations which will create a basis for our discussions and possibly for the decisions to be taken in May.

Some of you also mentioned the need for reaching an agreement on mitigating and adapting to climate change, in preparation for the meeting in Copenhagen. Graham Watson asked how much we will have to pay. I think that is premature. There are some estimates - such as in the Commission communication on this particular matter, which contains estimates from the various NGOs and institutions - and these are pretty high. However, it would be premature to give an estimate now. We have to wait for the US and other stakeholders in the process to inform us of their plans, and that is what we intend to find out about at the meeting with Mr Obama's Administration in Prague in early April. To open the account now would not be the correct tactical move.

We shall, of course, keep you fully informed of all aspects of the next European Council meeting, and I will ensure that Prime Minister Topolánek is fully aware of the views expressed here this morning. He will report to Parliament, at the next plenary session, on the outcome of the European Council, and I look forward to a constructive exchange of views on that occasion.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with those who said that for a long time, the crisis has been underestimated and not properly understood. Therefore, it is probably a good thing if we can at least agree at the start that we do not know how serious this crisis will become. In addition, we do not know how long the crisis will last and therefore we also do not know whether we have already done enough. I am sorry for once to have to contradict Mr Juncker.

We do not even know whether what we have done will have an impact or not. At the moment, we do not even know that. The only thing that we really know is that we will not emerge from this crisis unless we are very quickly able to make the financial sector function again.

This was the start of the problem and, in the meantime, it has become relatively clear how all of this came about. We also know why the measures already taken to stabilise the financial sector have not had any impact, or at least not a satisfactory impact. This is because the banks are aware that they are still faced with a series of problems. The banks are currently making provision for risks because they know that some of the risks on their books have not yet been disclosed. We must take the appropriate political measures in this respect.

However, one thing is clear. The financial sector does not have the option of returning to the time before the crisis. Anyone who imagines that the state and the European Union is now responsible for regulating this, and that afterwards everything will go on just as before, is very much mistaken. It is clear that we need a robust, long-term supervisory system for the financial sector and the financial institutions which does not only cover Europe. It is very important that, together with our partners, we put in place a system of global governance. We will only be able to do this in cooperation with our partners if we Europeans take a clear, joint approach. The more we can agree on this question, the better our chances are of achieving the results we want. If the capitals of Europe send out conflicting signals to Washington, Beijing and Tokyo, the prospects of establishing a useful system of global governance are small.

However, we are agreed that the current situation is potentially highly explosive in social terms, simply because whatever we can do to stabilise the financial sector will not be sufficient to support companies in the real economy which are in difficulties as a result of the financial crisis. We all know that.

The European response to the crisis in the real economy, the crisis amongst businesses and industry, is a response which focuses on jobs. This really is not about dividends for shareholders or bonuses for managers. It is about ensuring that the people who have very little or, indeed, no responsibility for the crisis, in other words, the workers, can keep their jobs. It is essential for them to keep their jobs because otherwise, they cannot live an independent life in freedom and dignity.

We want to protect jobs in the European economy, which is why the spending programmes were necessary. We can argue about whether or not they could or should have been larger. However, the problem is that there is no flexibility in this respect in the Community budget. It is easy for us in the European Parliament or in the European Commission to say that we need a large economic recovery package, we must pump large amounts of money into the economy, because it will not be our money, we do not have any money. It will always be money from the Member States and please do not forget that the national parliaments, of course, also play a role here.

We have tried to ensure that the spending programmes are organised in such a way that the short-term necessities do not put the long-term objectives at risk. This is precisely what several speakers from all the parliamentary groups have said, in other words, that we are undergoing an economic transformation, a transformation to a low-carbon economy, to a resource-efficient economy and to a knowledge-based economy. This transformation must continue during the crisis. This is why we are telling companies not to cut back on research and development or on innovation and to keep their core workforce in place. The financial measures that we take must support these objectives. I agree with everyone who says that things could perhaps have been done better. However, we must always remember that the money which is being spent here is not European Union money. It is money from the Member States and in the Member States, there are other factors to be considered as well as what we believe to be right in this case. The economic model of the Lisbon Strategy, which was also discussed today, does not involve an independent market. The Lisbon Strategy is not based on the assumption that the best market economy is one which is left to develop on its own in radical free market terms. Instead, the strategy states that the market needs rules if it is to meet its social and environmental responsibilities. Politicians are responsible for establishing these rules and we must not be diverted from this task. This is why I believe that the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy remain unchanged and that 'How is it that we have got into this crisis despite the Lisbon Strategy?' is actually the wrong question to ask. A different economic strategy in Europe would not have been able to prevent the macroeconomic imbalances and the mistakes made on the international financial markets which led to this crisis.

Let me conclude by saying that we want to ensure that as many European companies as possible come through the crisis intact. This means that we must help them to obtain funding. At the moment, this seems to me to be the main problem, because the credit crunch is affecting both large and small organisations.

The European Investment Bank is doing whatever it can. We should thank the European Investment Bank for its highly flexible approach. However, it has now reached the limits of what it can do. It is already clear that it will not be possible to meet the lending requirements of large and small European companies in the second half of this year, because the European Investment Bank is already at its limits. Everyone should be aware that the situation will become very serious and therefore it is worthwhile considering whether we in this Parliament can improve the situation of European companies, for example, by quickly considering and adopting proposals from the Commission which aim to prevent European companies from having to pay unnecessary costs.

We have presented proposals which could result in European companies' costs being reduced by up to EUR 30 billion per year. The rapid adoption of these proposals would make an important contribution to overcoming the crisis.

The Commission is convinced that in the run-up to this summit, the opportunities and risks of European integration will become clearer than they have seldom been before. The opportunities obviously involve gathering our forces together, acting in a coordinated and focused way, and using all our creativity with the aim of emerging stronger from this crisis. This will allow us to compensate for the fact that, unlike the United States of America, we cannot make central decisions which are implemented everywhere, but instead we must ensure that 27 Member States agree.

However, at the same time, the risks are more obvious than they have ever been - the risks which we will all be exposed to if one or more Member States in this situation opt for protectionism or economic nationalism instead of solidarity and a joint approach. Without a shared compass which will guide us through this crisis, we will unfortunately all get lost together in the fog that caused the crisis.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis is worse than we expected and unemployment will rise more than we predicted. There are good reasons to think that the planned European stimulus will not be sufficient, but it is already clear that it is taking too long to reach the people.

Parliament's position is, and has been, firm and clear, and I hope it will continue to be so. Our objective is to maintain employment and create new jobs with both territorial and social cohesion and solidarity. At this time of crisis, the people cannot resign themselves to a Europe which has no answer, to a Europe which is powerless to tackle the problems that they are facing. What will Parliament therefore ask of the Commission? Through these reports, it is, of course, asking for national actions to be coordinated and for the Commission to use every means currently available to it in order to act. It is also giving the Commission every opportunity, as a budgetary authority, so that this can happen. It is asking the Commission to launch a clear European initiative for employment and saying that it is essential to have a scheduled agenda for implementing financial market regulation measures and also for offering credit to the real economy. However, what is Parliament asking of the Council? It is asking the Council, in particular, to rediscover the political will that is at the heart of the construction of the European project. The European Union is about competition, but it is also about cohesion and solidarity. We cannot have a single market without this guarantee of solidarity and cohesion. That was why we all delegated to Europe the national independence that we had prior to joining this project.

Madam President, the crisis is now beginning to become a reality for people, unemployment is starting to rise, and it is rising rapidly, and we are starting to see the social consequences of the crisis. The downturn is becoming larger than we thought at the start. There will be higher unemployment and greater social consequences.

I would like to say something to the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats here in Parliament. Mr Hökmark is not here, but he blamed this crisis on the proposal by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. This is like shooting the pianist if you do not like the song. We do, of course, have governments of the centre and of the right in Europe. It is these governments that are failing to act, these governments that are demonstrating a lack of coordination and a lack of solidarity.

Now it is a matter of jobs, of the social security systems and of the public sector. I say to the Commission and the Council prior to the summit: we need to act now, we need to act in a coordinated way, we need to make sufficient efforts and we need to do so with solidarity. It is now that we need to do this. We cannot wait until the summit in May. The employment issues must be top of the agenda right now.

(Applause)

Thank you, Madam President. The Cohesion Policy has demonstrated its contribution to overcoming social and economic problems and implementing structural reforms in Member States and their regions. The experience acquired so far and the significant resources earmarked, we are talking about more than EUR 340 billion over a 7-year period, are a vital necessity during the current economic crisis, and it is of paramount importance that this money is actually used, in the best way possible at that, for the benefit of European citizens and business. At a time when every single euro matters to the European economy's recovery, we cannot allow these funds to be spent in the wrong way. This is why we also welcome the simplification of the rules and we call for them to be properly implemented.

Mr Verheugen, when you spoke today, you said something which is true: we do not know how long the crisis will last. However, there is one thing we should say today: the decisions which we make and, obviously, the decisions which the European Council takes next week, must produce results this year. I would even say that these results must be achieved by this summer. This is what European citizens are expecting from us so that they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hope of a way out of this crisis, and quickly at that.

I would like to make a comment aimed at the few fellow Members who tried today to impose an economic dividing line between old and new Member States. I believe that this very Cohesion Policy, which we will make a decision on today, runs counter to these ideas they are proposing. This all seems to me to be extremely damaging and we must join efforts to overcome it. Thank you.

I have received five motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, Wednesday 11 March.

Written statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - Guidelines were adopted as part of the renewed Lisbon Strategy in 2008 and shall remain valid until 2010. All Member States, including Malta, had to set out their strategies to deliver growth in jobs. Employment guidelines were set out. Financing the same is essential and the European Social Fund can finance immediate actions to be taken by Member States with regard to both flexicurity and skills.

Flexicurity is an integrated policy approach that seeks to facilitate adaptability of workers and enterprises. Secondly, we have to make a massive effort in improving the level of skills. This improvement has to take place at all levels of qualifications.

Firstly, the improvement in skill levels will be useless unless it matches the needs of a labour market.

Secondly, priority has to be given to three strategies:

improving the adaptability of workers and enterprises;

attracting more people into employment and retaining more people in employment so as to increase the labour supply and to make social protection systems workable;

increasing investments in human capital through enhanced skills and better education.

Mr President, while listening to this debate, I could not help feeling that there is an atmosphere of competition in the Chamber, a kind of tug of war - the old Member States against the new. It seems to me that blaming and pointing the finger at each other about who deserves to be in the EU is not a panacea for our problems.

Above all, let us remember that the citizens are listening to us, and they expect protection from us. It is precisely now that they want to see what the united Europe is for. We should use this debate as an opportunity to think about how to limit the social effects of the present crisis.

We say 'yes' to the Lisbon Strategy because it brings results - it is thanks to the Lisbon Strategy that almost 7 million new jobs have been created in the EU. What kind of jobs are they, however? Very often, they involve temporary or part-time work and, in fact, the employment rate remains unchanged in terms of full-time jobs.

This simply proves that Europe has to learn to use its potential. We should invest in high-technology products which need highly qualified workers - this is our added value, a sector in which we are unrivalled. In this regard, extending the periods for benefiting from financial resources and simplifying the application procedures, especially for the new Member States, are extremely important.

The global economic crisis has taken us all by surprise, whether we are talking about banks, multinational companies or even transnational institutional structures. The global economy is badly affected, and the survival of the global financial system is actually at stake. I do not think anyone will contradict me when I say that the magnitude of the current problems requires a concentrated effort at European level. Indeed, solidarity is an absolute must to get through this crisis.

I represent Romania in the European Parliament, a country in south-eastern Europe. All I can say is that the impact of economic growth of more than 7% in 2008 seems about to vanish in the face of the turbulent economic conditions which are starting to hit hard. The economic recovery plan drawn up by the European Commission must have an impact in every corner of the old continent. Certain parts of Europe must not feel abandoned and helpless against a hostile situation which they have not provoked.

I think that this is the most important test for the European Union, the boldest political project over the last few hundred years. The countries on this entire continent must show that they are a single force. According to José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission, Europe will be judged primarily by its results. I totally concur with this statement.

I believe that the initiative proposing an economic recovery plan during the current crisis is welcome. The EU needs to adopt a common, clear and effective approach so as to minimise the effects of the crisis as much as possible in terms of its intensity and duration.

We need clearer regulations for the financial sector, especially with regard to investments involving a high degree of risk, such as hedge funds.

At present, solidarity between Member States is of paramount importance. It goes without saying that Member States will adopt measures specific to their national context, but they must not run contrary to the internal market and EMU. The priority must be to facilitate credit, especially for SMEs, which are a driving force for economic growth and have the ability to create jobs. Intervention measures by the state must, however, be temporary, after which competition regulations must be strictly complied with.

In addition, measures to combat the crisis must be integrated as part of a responsible budgetary policy. Although we are going through a crisis, I feel that it is particularly important to adhere, as far as possible, to the Stability and Growth Pact, since increasing the budget deficit may be a disastrous solution in the long term, especially for future generations.

in writing. - Commissioner Joaquín Almunia has said recently that member countries of the eurozone which are confronted with substantial difficulties could benefit from assistance from other EU members. Why has this indication of collective response not been firmly signalled to non-eurozone new Member States? Arguably, there is something wrong with the assistance packages extended to Latvia and Hungary. Reducing very large imbalances is, fundamentally, sound. But how this is done does matter to the utmost. Are budget deficits to be compressed drastically while the private sector is cutting its activity dramatically? Pro-cyclicality has to be averted both during an upswing and a downswing. If public budgets are not the main explanation behind large external deficits, why should they bear the brunt of downsizing them? Just remember the lessons from the Asian crisis a decade ago. Policy also has to think about how to discourage speculative attacks against the currencies of new Member States. Just cutting budget deficits drastically would not help much in this regard either. Hopefully, future Ecofin meetings would enhance better approaches regarding financial assistance. And, whenever the IMF is brought on board in assistance packages, it should consider the suitability of its traditional approach in dealing with macroeconomic imbalances in view of the extraordinary current circumstances.

in writing. - (RO) Romania must make use of the new opportunities provided by the Structural Funds.

Central and local public authorities in Romania must capitalise as quickly and effectively as possible on the opportunity offered by the European Commission in terms of facilitating access to the Community's Structural Funds. They must access these funds in order to create new jobs, offer professional training through life-long learning programmes with a view to professional retraining, as well as provide support for SMEs.

Speeding up and simplifying the distribution of Community finances may help the economic recovery, thanks to an injection of cash into the targeted areas. These payments will be quicker and more flexible and there will only be a single payment, which will enable the required projects to be implemented in a short time in areas such as infrastructure, energy or the environment.

On the other hand, the Romanian authorities must provide, in keeping with EU procedures, the cofinancing portion for implementing the projects so that they can be implemented as quickly as possible once the EU money has been received.

The European executive's proposals are aimed at a series of measures for accelerating priority investments at national and regional level in Member States, while also simplifying access to grants and increasing the financial resources available to small and medium-sized enterprises.

The main features common to European Union Member States are democracy, stability, accountability and cohesion. Evgeni Kirilov's report on the Cohesion Policy and investments in the real economy underlines the importance of these features common to Member States as a first requirement in the common strategy for pursuing social and economic policies. The European economy is suffering nowadays as a result of the consequences of the global financial crisis and of the most far-reaching and serious recession in the last 60 years. We must encourage Member States to look at opportunities for synergy between funding from the Cohesion Policy and other Community sources of funding, such as TEN-T, TEN-E, the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, as well as the funding granted by the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. At the same time, Member States must simplify and facilitate access to finances offered through the financial instruments JESSICA, JASMINE and JEREMIE to encourage SMEs and relevant beneficiaries to use them more frequently. I would like to conclude by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Kirilov, for his contribution in compiling this report.

We are living in a period of economic uncertainty. The European Union has a responsibility to see if it is possible to allow national and regional authorities flexibility so that better ownership can be taken of EU funds to deal with the unprecedented situation.

The measures in Commissioner Huebner's plan Cohesion Policy: Investing in the real economy are practical and they are measures which should be adopted by domestic authorities without delay.

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) can now be used to provide partial funding for ecological investment in low-income housing, something that should be used to create and maintain jobs in the building industry - which is very hard hit - and that would help us to get closer to fulfilling our climate commitments at the same time.

Acknowledgment payments from the European Social Fund could really stimulate the struggling public sectors and small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) should benefit from the recommended changes to make cash flow more easily available.

This is a step in the right direction. I find some of the language in Kirilov's report in relation to the Lisbon strategy regrettable.

How can we combat the financial crisis? (European Economic Recovery Plan) The financial crisis can be tackled in the short-term or the long-term. The short-term method is based on the elimination of diseases which have developed in recent decades and which lead to loss of liquidity by banks, the circulation of 'infected' bonds and a lack of coherence of financial policy with actual overall policy.

Countries which help banks financially are not eliminating the causes of the crisis. The fundamental cause of the crisis is, in my opinion, the neoliberal mechanism at work in the economy, that is to say, its orientation to short-term profit while ignoring long-term interest, to name but one feature.

The long-term method should, therefore, correct the mechanism governing the operation of the economy by breaking with the dogmas of the so-called free market. Member States and the European Commission should not take the place of competitively sound market mechanisms, but they do have an obligation to prevent diseases. This means that, firstly, short-term profit should not obscure the long-term interests which result from the development of infrastructure, construction of public buildings, protection of the natural environment or the search for new, and sometimes less profitable, sources of energy, for example.

Secondly, all forms of ownership should be treated equally, and choice of one or another should be based on the effectiveness of management of each form.

Thirdly, Member States and the European Commission should assume the function of coordinator of the areas of both financial policy and overall policy.

Fourthly, Member States and the European Commission should develop methods for coordinating the international currency and financial market, which is vulnerable to speculation because it acts spontaneously.

The economic crisis has now reached Europe. First, it affected developed economies, then it spread to developing and emerging economies. The latest forecasts for 2009 predict economic growth at a level of -1% or lower. We find ourselves, therefore, in one of the most serious recessions ever to affect the European Community.

I agree with the rapporteur that individual measures taken by countries are now not enough, even if they are supported by transfers of capital to the sectors most endangered by the crisis. Our economies are integrated with each other, and the crisis is a global one, and this is why the recovery measures proposed must also constitute a response which is global in character and extent. In addition, they must enshrine the fundamental principle of the EU, namely the principle of solidarity. Only this will allow us to retain territorial and social cohesion within the EU. I think that at such a time of crisis, the principle of solidarity is also gaining a new political dimension.

Furthermore, I endorse the concern expressed in the report for ordinary people caught up in the crisis. We must make loans available once again to families and firms and, most of all, to SMEs, which are the cornerstone of the European economy. Only such an objective, together with protection of citizens' savings, justifies the use of public funds for a rescue plan. If, as part of the European rescue plan, we could also manage to put an end to tax havens, the fight against the crisis would surely be easier and more effective.

in writing. - As the financial crisis is deepening with no end in sight, I think that more funds will be necessary in order to stabilise the European economy and stop the downward spiral. Other bottlenecks include the spiralling rate of unemployment and enormous insecurity in the labour market. Non availability of credit, together with the increase in the public deficit, is still a major problem and is a key factor if we really want to successfully and effectively tackle economic recession. It is very important that adequate credit supply is re-established and that money should be used as an economic stimulus i.e. to flow to families and companies. It is necessary to create incentives to attract capital investment. Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no European mechanism or institution capable of coordinating an integrated continental recovery and therefore we are reapplying patchwork solutions that may fail as a whole, since Member States' economies are highly interdependent. The European recovery efforts must go hand in hand with regulatory changes to avoid repeating the mistakes that brought us into the crisis. Lack of regulation and poor supervision have been at the root of the problem and we need to re-establish effective regulations.

We will only be able to understand the serious socio-economic situation affecting the countries of the EU, including Portugal, if we bear in mind the objectives of this 'integration process' and how its policies are at the root of the current capitalist crisis, of which the EU is one of the epicentres.

In the last 23 years, the EEC/EU has promoted the circulation of capital and the financialisation of the economy; it has liberalised markets and encouraged privatisation; it has merged companies and encouraged over-production; it has relocated and destroyed productive capacity; it has promoted the economic mastery of some, at the cost of the dependence of others; it has encouraged worker exploitation and the increasing transfer of labour productivity gains to capital; it has centralised the wealth created; and it has increased social inequalities and regional asymmetries, all under the control of the major powers and the large economic and financial groups. These are the root causes of the irreparable capitalist crisis.

It is not the 'crisis', but the policies inherent in capitalism which are at the root of unemployment, insecurity, low wages, worsening living conditions, poverty, disease, hunger and the growing difficulties faced by workers and the general population.

We therefore welcome the huge demonstration planned by the CGTP-IN, the general confederation of Portuguese workers, for 13 March, in order to change course towards more jobs, more wages and more rights.

in writing. - The Union needs to maximise its efforts to implement a consistent framework to tackle the global financial crisis. If we want to restore public confidence and a sound financial system, we ought to act rapidly to sustain employment and economic activity. To alleviate the negative effects of recession, maintaining social standards and employment levels, some adjustments should be made to simplify access to available resources while ensuring more transparency and better management. The last EIT Council conclusions called for 'rapid additional action by the ESF to support employment, especially for the most vulnerable groups in the population, paying particular attention to the smallest undertakings by reducing non-wage labour costs'. I would therefore like to ask the next Council Summit to seriously consider the creation and retention of jobs through co-financing measures related to reducing non-wage labour costs, on a temporary basis, in countries seriously affected by financial or economic downturn. The utmost attention should indeed be given to the most vulnerable groups in the population, those who suffer the most from the consequences of the economic and social downturn, to avoid further asymmetric impact of the crisis which jeopardises the balanced development of all territories within the Union.

in writing. - Solidarity is one of the most precious values for Europe today. Yet in the current economic crisis, there are signs that European solidarity is being undermined.

More than ever we have to avoid divisions between Member States - to avoid categorisation of old and new, big and small. The division which exists between euro and non-eurozone Member States must not give the eurozone states a privileged position from which to dictate the common future. All Member States need to be involved equally in decision making. All Member States have to be guaranteed the right to communicate their problems and concerns in order to find possible European solutions.

Europe needs a driving force to overcome the economic crisis with the least amount of damage. Protectionism cannot be the answer to the economic crisis. On the contrary, openness and the spirit of competition need to remain the basis of our activities. Therefore, to take advantage of the current depression, more money should be invested in innovation, research and development.

In other words, the crisis should be seen as an incentive to implement the Lisbon strategy. Only by using fully this strategy based on solidarity can we ensure jobs and the sustainability of the European economy.

It is not worth trying to rank grievances. However, the mutually felt pain mobilises resources and intentions. Many evoke the crisis of 1929, although the Second World War that followed in its wake divided Europe between two different paths. The countries of the former Eastern bloc, moreover, experienced the change of regime as a trauma as well, but in this case, we are all equally threatened by the global financial and economic crisis which, in spite of certain early signs, was nonetheless unexpected.

From the moment of the crisis, Europe's path can no longer diverge, even into several parallel paths - there cannot be two speeds. In the devaluation of speculative capital, everyone stands to lose; only the degree of the loss differs. The paradigm of the common market can only survive and remain competitive in such a situation if we provide joint, coordinated solutions. The ghost of protectionism does not offer good advice!

The task of the Member States is to work out their financial plans in collaboration with each other. The European Union can supplement this task by assessing how each can give support according to its means, to ensure that the Member States and citizens who are further back in the queue also end up with a positive balance. The Central and Eastern European region is further back in this queue, partly for historical reasons, partly because the lack of the euro has caused a lack of confidence and turned speculative capital against us. And although it is impossible to treat certain Member States on an equal footing, I firmly state that we need to work out a system of support at European level that makes it possible, in the name of solidarity, to offer assistance that is appropriate to each Member State.

All the principles in the European Economic Recovery Plan must feature in national economic recovery plans.

The EU funds made available must be used for top priority projects and be distributed fairly among Member States, taking into account, however, any special cases.

We must make effective use of every opportunity available to us. This is why bringing forward the opportunities to use EU funds is of paramount importance because it will speed up and ensure flexibility in implementing this plan.

The projects must be implemented quickly and efficiently in order to pick up the section of the labour force going through difficult times. This is why the administrative procedures, especially the timeframes for applying the procedures, must be radically reduced to guarantee the immediate effectiveness of this process.

In addition, among the measures which need to be adopted, those concerning the adoption of a legislative framework to effectively combat tax havens are an absolute must.

It is obvious that state aid must be used prudently to avoid creating problems with competition. At the same time, however, we must closely analyse the beneficial effects which aid like this can have with regard to using labour, bearing in mind the situations where this aid is more than necessary.

The European Commission allocates significant sums for investments in energy efficiency, in producing renewable energy, as well as in the construction of Trans-European transport and energy networks. We can only ensure that the gas and energy crisis situations which occurred in certain regions of the EU will not happen again in future by implementing a sound policy in this area.

Connecting up all the gas and energy networks in Europe ensures that the principle of solidarity is applied: a Member State will be able to import, or even export, natural resources in normal conditions, even during a crisis.

In this context, Member States must use the funding opportunities offered by the Structural Funds to develop projects in areas such as infrastructure, energy and the environment.

To improve the quality of these projects and the effective impact of their implementation, EU Member States must avail themselves of the maximum technical assistance which the European Commission can offer.

I welcome the speed which the EU institutions have shown in identifying some solutions to the current economic crisis. However, I would like to highlight a few aspects which require closer attention.

Firstly, the funding for energy infrastructure projects. I believe that it is fundamentally the wrong approach to distribute money to as many projects as possible as there is the risk of not being able to cover the budget required to complete them. Recently, following the discussions about Nabucco, I get the impression that we are playing with fire. We cannot announce EUR 250 million for Nabucco, then say that we are cutting funding by EUR 50 million, and finally conclude that this should actually be a purely private investment. The benefit of the Nabucco project is indisputable and we cannot afford to procrastinate on this for political and economic reasons.

Secondly, I believe that we must avoid falling prey to protectionist tendencies, which would affect the operation of the internal market. Even though this crisis is having an uneven impact throughout the EU, we must provide a single response to it, in accordance with the objectives of the Cohesion Policy and the principles of the internal market. I think that it is absolutely necessary to evaluate the impact of these amendments in order to improve the efficiency of the measures in the new 2014-2020 financial framework.

Accounting for a third of the EU budget without being a crisis management instrument, the Cohesion Policy is, however, the largest source of investment in the real economy, offering a huge opportunity, especially for permanently disadvantaged regions. Consequently, I would like to draw attention to the need to find solutions ensuring a better vertical involvement of regions at European level.

In the conditions created by the current extraordinary economic situation, I would like to emphasise the importance of improving flexibility in terms of accessing the Structural Funds. I also welcome extending the opportunity of support to investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies in the housing and clean technology sectors.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, last week, the Commission submitted its communication on the economic crisis to the Council for its meeting at the end of this month. The Commission also gave its first assessment of the results of the European economic stimulus package. The Commission considers the initial results to be good and estimates that recovery action at national and European levels together will have an overall value equivalent to around 3.3% of GDP in the period 2009-2010.

I congratulate the rapporteur on a very creditable report. In my opinion, the need to coordinate action by the Member States, which it emphasises, is particularly important. The emergence of tendencies is very worrying. Member States might make assurances in speeches that they are ready to pull together, but something quite different is evident where the action taken is concerned. It is extremely important that EU leaders take decisions with reference to what they say and do not give in to protectionist pressures which, in several countries, are unquestionably drastic.

The EU needs to take a new, ambitious step that constitutes a continuation of the Lisbon Strategy. The EU needs a stimulus package that gives support to new industries as a basis for competitiveness and growth. With investment in such areas as eco-modernisation, renewable energy sources and information technology, it is possible to establish healthy sectoral change.

A crisis is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity to reorganise the whole pan-European and global financial architecture. The crisis is also an opportunity to steer economic growth along an entirely new avenue, based on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. The 'New Green Deal', as it is known, must be a basis for recovery and new growth. Thus, as we create jobs and introduce innovation, we will also be addressing the challenges of climate change.

The European economy is suffering the effects of the global financial crisis, seeing the greatest and most serious decline in the last 60 years. The crisis is an enormous test for Europe. It affects companies and, at the same time, ordinary people and their families. Many are living in fear, particularly of losing their jobs, and are looking to the EU to save them.

Europe cannot just be the sum of 27 national interests. It must be based on solidarity and the willingness of Member States and regions to implement their programme objectives as quickly as possible.

At a time of economic crisis, it should be clear to us that we must concentrate on the Lisbon objectives, particularly in the area of employment. It is cohesion policy that has the financial instruments which must be applied intensively and flexibly during the crisis. The financial resources of EU Cohesion Policy for the period 2007-2013 can significantly help to fulfil the objectives of the EU's renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment, which brings together ordinary people, companies, infrastructure, the energy sector and research and innovation. We need to improve coordination and to abandon protectionism and all forms of demagoguery. We must restart capital flows and capital transfers.

I firmly believe that investments in innovation, new technologies and eco-innovations will bring the new opportunities which are essential for securing an effective response to the current financial crisis. We must eliminate all barriers and create a genuine internal market in renewable energy.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ferreira, for a relevant and timely report. In the present crisis conditions, it is crucial that existing funds be fully utilised. It is regrettable that the majority of Member States that are entitled to receive support from the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the new financial perspective have been unable to utilise those funds. The same applies in my homeland, Estonia. There are several reasons for this: the first major problem is Member States' own administrative capacity; in this area, Member States could do a great deal themselves and they could improve administrative functioning. A second reason originates from the European Union. It is important that the EU should make conditions more flexible. There is a problem, for instance, with those programmes where expenditure must be made in advance, and which are then financed afterwards. It is now difficult to get loans to make those expenditures. The question of what action the European Commission plans to take regarding advance payments is very important. The next important matter is the rate of self-financing under present conditions; in this area, greater flexibility should be considered. The third important matter is the supervisory mechanism - the present bureaucracy is clearly unwieldy.

Thank you for the report.

In the case of some Member States, including the Baltic States, Romania or Hungary, the financial crisis and global recession have highlighted structural imbalances which have accumulated during the periods of economic growth, based on inflows of direct foreign investments and external debt at rapid rates.

Any EU economic recovery plan must take into account that these countries need considerable external financing to be able to cover the deficit in the trade in goods and services. Failing this external financing, the countries in question are destined for huge, abrupt adjustments which will wipe out the welfare benefits acquired during previous years, will weaken cohesion within the EU, and may even jeopardise stability in the area.

The Council and European Commission have a definite responsibility to find solutions to produce the external financing that is required. The Member States in question have the responsibility, by gaining time through the external financing obtained, to carry out the structural reforms which will correct the accumulated imbalances.

Regional policy is the primary source of European investment in the real economy. Speeding up and simplifying its financing can help the economic recovery by releasing liquidity into targeted sectors.

The faster, more flexible payments, at flat rates and in lump sums, proposed by the Commission, will allow the immediate implementation of projects in the areas of infrastructure, energy and the environment.

National and regional authorities must take advantage of these opportunities and make intensive use of the Structural Funds in order to boost employment, SMEs, the spirit of enterprise and work-related training, whilst making their contribution under the cofinancing rules, so that the allocated funds can be utilised in full.

I call on the regional councils and the prefectures in the French overseas departments, as Structural Fund management authorities, to anticipate these changes so that their regional programmes can be focused immediately on projects showing the best potential for growth and jobs.

In the face of the current unrest in the French overseas departments, and with the protest movement now affecting Réunion, we must explore new indigenous development initiatives and activate all the levers at our disposal, including those provided by the European Union.

The EU Communication on the European Economic Recovery Plan in December 2008 lists the areas in which the EU will be investing over the next few years in order to ensure economic growth and preserve jobs. These are: support for small and medium-sized enterprises, with a financial estimate of EUR 30 billion via the EIB; accelerating investments in infrastructure projects for Trans-European energy and broadband interconnections, with a financial estimate of EUR 5 billion for improving energy efficiency in buildings; research and innovation.

These measures must be supported by legislative proposals which also guarantee the financial allocations. The proposal for a regulation from January 2009 for financing energy projects as part of the European Economic Recovery Plan does not contain financial allocations for energy efficiency in buildings. I believe that the EU is wrong if, during this economic crisis, it fails to back priority projects financially. Energy efficiency in buildings is an area which can generate roughly 500 000 jobs in the EU, improve citizens' quality of life, and contribute to sustainable economic development by promoting renewable energy sources. I personally feel that it would be a failure on the part of the current European Commission if it is not going to support making buildings more energy efficient through the use of financial measures and instruments, suitable fiscal measures and through giving a strong political signal at European level.

Madam President, today we are debating a plan to revive the economy in relation to the priorities of the Lisbon Strategy. Although several years have passed since the Strategy was announced, we can see that it is not being put into effect. In other words we produce documents which we do not then implement. This is confirmed by a certain custom, which has become the norm in this Parliament, namely snowing citizens under with regulations which, in many cases, make their lives difficult and which do not have a significant effect on their standard of living.

In addition, the growing financial crisis shows that the European Commission and the Council are completely detached from the everyday problems of society. Essentially, the Commission has no genuine plan of action in response to the growing crisis. Everyone can see that individual countries are undertaking rescue measures on their own, and that the centrally managed market worth five hundred million is not capable of having a real effect on the scale of the crisis.

In recent years, the countries of Eastern Europe have been told that they should privatise their banks, in other words, that they should subordinate them to Western European banks. This they naively did, and today it is those very banks which are speculating and killing off the economies of the new Member States of the EU.

Agenda

As regards the draft resolution by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, I have received a written objection to the inclusion of the said draft resolution from Robert Evans and 40 other signatories.

In accordance with the provisions of Rule 90(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the draft resolution is included for debate and vote on the agenda of the current session.

I therefore propose to you that the debate this evening be included as the last item, and the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. The deadline for tabling amendments is 3 p.m. this afternoon.

Madam President, on Monday evening, the Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted a motion regarding the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, pursuant to Rule 91.

The situation in Sri Lanka is clearly very serious, but exactly what is happening regarding the humanitarian situation is far from clear. I am conscious that there are many differing views across this House. So I suggest that the most sensible course of action would be to timetable a proper debate, which cannot seriously be fitted in in this part-session but could be in our next part-session, which is just 10 days away. I am grateful to Mr Daul of the PPE-DE Group for indicating his group's support for this course of action. As we are a serious Chamber, I suggest and ask colleagues to support a debate with resolution and full participation at the next part-session, to do justice to the gravity of the situation in Sri Lanka.

(FR) Madam President, when someone proposes something, someone may always speak against it prior to the vote.

I therefore wish merely to say that the situation in Sri Lanka is extremely tragic. There are 150 000 people trapped with no way out. This is exactly the same as in Burma. This is why Sri Lanka should be left on the agenda today, to show our determination to support those who are trapped.

1. VAT exemption on the final importation of certain goods (

2. Europol staff: adjustment of basic salaries and allowances (

3. Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (

4. Amending budget 1/2009: floods in Romania (

5. Common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (recast) (

6. Common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (recast) (

7. Port State control (recast) (

8. Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (

9. Investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector (

10. The liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (

11. Civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners (

12. Compliance with flag State requirements (

13. The charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (

14. Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (

Before the final vote:

rapporteur. - Madam President, under Rule 53, I would like to ask the Commission to respond and tell us whether it intends to adopt all of Parliament's amendments as adopted today.

Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I have the honour of giving the following declaration on behalf of the Commission.

The Commission takes note of the amendments voted by Parliament that it will study in detail. The Commission confirms its willingness to seek a compromise with Parliament and Council. The Commission will only consider its proposal after the two branches of the budgetary authority have adopted their positions. The Commission intends to continue to pursue a constructive dialogue, in the meantime, with both institutions.

rapporteur. - Madam President, I do not know where the Commissioner has been, but we adopted a position this morning.

I would therefore like to request that the plenary vote to refer the report back to committee, which would give the committee the flexibility to enter into negotiations with both the Council and the Commission.

I therefore ask for the House's support for a referral back to committee.

rapporteur. - Madam President, my thanks to the House for its patience on this, my final intervention. Can I now ask you, Madam President, to write a formal invitation to the Czech Presidency, as well as the incoming Swedish Presidency, to open a formal dialogue with the European Parliament as soon as possible?

Equally, as announced in the voting list and for the sake of clarity and coherence of the text that we have now adopted, I kindly ask that you request the plenary services to proceed, without any substantive change, to do the following: to group the articles according to their content under specific thematic titles, to re-order recitals and definitions accordingly and to produce and publish Parliament's position as a consolidated text as soon as possible.

Finally, may I pay due thanks to the enormous and supportive work which I have been given not only by the secretariats, but by the tabling services.

(Applause)

I will pass on this request, then, Mr Cashman, and the results will be made known.

15. Guidelines for the Member States' employment policies (

16. Extending the applicability of Rule 139 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure until the end of the seventh parliamentary term (

17. The social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU (

18. Facing oil challenges (

19. Greening of transport and internalisation of external costs (

20. Lisbon Strategy (vote) 

Before the vote on Amendment 28 (concerns the vote on Amendment 27):

(FR) Madam President, I may be mistaken but I think that you have held a vote on Amendment 27 which, in reality, was a technical amendment that simply asked for paragraph 47 to be moved. On the other hand, there is a request for a separate roll-call vote on the original text.

I therefore believe that we have agreed to move paragraph 47, and we now need a two-part roll-call vote on paragraph 47 itself.

Let us clarify matters: there was no objection to paragraph 47 being inserted after paragraph 49. We then voted on Amendment 27, which has been adopted. We could not therefore vote on paragraph 47, as we have voted on Amendment 27. There is therefore no problem.

21. Combating climate change (vote) 

Before the vote on paragraph 20:

Madam President, a very brief amendment to the original text. Paragraph 20, line 3 should read: 'reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation'. At the moment, it reads 'reducing emissions for deforestation and degradation'. I want to change the word 'for' to 'from'. In the English version it is wrong. This is not contentious.

22. Employment policy guidelines (vote) 

Before the vote on paragraph 13:

Madam President, this is a very simple amendment, just to change 'the disabled' to either 'people with disabilities' or 'disabled people'. We never use the words 'the disabled' in English.

Madam President, this, again, is a fairly standard amendment with reference to the role of these consultations of the social partners. It just adds, at the end, the phrase: 'in accordance with national custom and practice'. This is normally built into an amendment, but for some reason it got left out. The Socialists are supportive of this amendment, and hopefully the other groups will be too; they usually are.

23. European Economic Recovery Plan (

Before the vote:

Madam President, I would like to inform our group that there is a mistake in our voting lists regarding Amendment 113: there should be a plus in the voting list, and not a minus.

rapporteur. - Madam President, it is just to change the wording in Paragraph 93 concerning sound state finance to 'as soon as possible', instead of 'when economic conditions allow', as agreed with the shadow rapporteurs.

(FR) Madam President, this is a purely technical amendment. There is a misprint in our amendment. There is an indent that was worded as follows: 'intensify the elimination of barriers'. We have replaced this with 'remove unjustified barriers', but, unfortunately, the old paragraph, the old indent has remained in the wording of the amendment. It is therefore the third indent that we have amended slightly, and there is no need to keep the old version.

(DE) Madam President, you can tell by the enthusiastic response from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats to my intervention how well things went during our vote.

I would like to thank my colleague Mrs Ferreira who has done a huge amount of work in order to bring about this result. I would also like to thank specifically Mr Hökmark, Mrs Herczog, Mr Bullmann and Mr Lehne, who have, in my opinion, worked very hard on the similar Lisbon resolution.

However, you can see from the reaction of the PPE-DE group that there was a mood of excitement. We would like to thank you for voting with us on the closure of tax havens and on solidarity with the Member States. Until a few minutes ago, things looked quite different. It is to your credit that you have encouraged the spread of social democracy. This is good for the European Parliament, which has moved to the left.

(Applause from the left and protests from the right)

(FR) Madam President, I would just like to remind the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that there are groups in this Parliament other than the two large ones.

(DE) Madam President, one item relating to the agenda. Perhaps you could explain to the House under which rule in the Rules of Procedure Mr Schulz was permitted to take the floor.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am, of course, going to tell Mr Nassauer that he is quite correct. Sometimes, however, for democracy's sake, one has to be able to cross the lines a little.

I mean by this, ladies and gentlemen, that I gave the floor to Mr Schulz in accordance with Rule 141 of the Rules of Procedure. He was perfectly entitled to speak.

(FR) Madam President, did he speak on behalf of the Commission? Because he wants to become a Commissioner? Or did he speak as the Chairman of the group?

(IT) Madam President, I would like some clarification. As far as I know, the final vote has not been taken on the Reul report. Can you confirm if this correct?

Mr Prodi, we have adopted Amendment 3, which therefore replaces the whole resolution.

24. Cohesion Policy: investing in the real economy (

Voting time

The next item is voting time.

(For details of the outcome of the vote: see Minutes)

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Madam President, I welcome the fact that this report looks at what can be done at European level to stimulate the economies, whilst I recognise that most of the instruments to do so remain at national level: 99% of public expenditure is national, not European; most regulation is national, not European. But if we look at what we can do at European level, the plan proposed by the Commission for a EUR 30 billion contribution, including advance payments from Structural Funds and new loans from the European Investment Bank, can and will make a real contribution to coming out of this crisis.

We must also make sure that we avoid protectionism in Europe. A beggar-your-neighbour approach by different countries would weaken our common market and seriously damage the prospects of job creation and economic growth in the long term. On the contrary, freedom of movement for workers and initiatives to help businesses' exports to the single market will help provide the stimulus needed for our economic recovery.

(IT) Madam President, I voted in favour of the joint text on improving safety for those who choose to travel by sea. I think it is very important to add that more should be spent on the professionalism of all seamen responsible for navigation - from the captain, to the chief engineer, to the boatswain, to the master-at-arms, to the helmsman and to all seamen - because the lives and safety of men at sea depends on them. I therefore call for more professionalism and better salaries for those who hold the lives of maritime passengers in their hands.

(MT) On this report I would like to say that despite its initiative in favour of the environment, there was still a lack of consideration regarding the negative and disproportionate effects that it would have on the regions and countries that are situated on the periphery of the European Union, as Malta is. This initiative could potentially bring about a substantial price hike in the transportation of cargo for transport operating to and from these peripheral regions. This rise in costs, in turn, could lead to higher prices on the products that enter and leave these regions or countries. Therefore, I voted against this report.

(PL) Madam President, imposing additional charges on heavy goods vehicles represents an increase in taxation. Lorry transport provides a service to the whole economy, including the citizens. Its costs have an effect on the price of all the products we consume. Burdening road transport, alongside the taxes which already have to be paid, with the additional costs of excise duty on fuel and vignettes, when we are faced with the problem of a crisis to which no end is in sight is socially irresponsible.

Air pollution, the greenhouse effect and accidents are, to a large degree, dependent on the construction of vehicles and on the road system. In the last ten years, significant progress has been made in this area and we have all felt the benefits. I do not endorse the directive in its present form because it requires radical revision.

(FI) Madam President, firstly I would like to say that I support this report by Mr Cashman, and I thank him for it. It improved greatly at Parliament's reading, when we consider what the Commission's original proposal was.

The basic assumption we have to make is that decision making is transparent. People must have the opportunity to have access to documents, because that is the only way to inspire confidence, and, with this in mind, it is very important that we should be able to get to a position where people can see how the legislative process progresses. Transparency must apply at each administrative level with regard to documents.

Everyone obviously understands that there are some areas, such as matters to do with a private individual's health and so on, which need to be kept private, but in the legislative process, everything should basically be transparent, and in this respect, I am happy with this result and believe that honest and open decision making are the way we will be able to gain the trust of the people.

Madam President, a recent report by the UK-based NGO, the Taxpayers' Alliance, said that EU membership costs every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom GBP 2 000 each year.

I have to say that many of my constituents in the North East of England think they get very bad value for such a large sum of money. Therefore, ensuring public access to the documents of the European institutions is the very least that those constituents could expect in return for handing over such large sums to the EU every year. In the eyes of many people, the EU remains a very obscure and monolithic entity. Anything that we can do to improve access, to give more information to the public on some of the things that perhaps some of our Commissioners and others would rather keep confidential, is very welcome.

Already we see whistleblowers and others that have been vilified and hounded out of their jobs for exposing confidential information. If all that information had been available in the first place, then perhaps many of those over-the-top reactions would have been unnecessary.

Madam President, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain how I voted on this very important report. We all know that, when different parties are involved in sensitive political negotiations, sometimes there is a need for secrecy in order to avoid a deal being scuppered. However, this is not really what we are talking about in this case.

Recently, there have been negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and some of the issues that have been debated include a massive erosion of individual civil liberties. There have been proposals, for example, to search people's iPods and laptops when entering countries to check for copyright and non-copyright material. Were we able to debate these in an open and transparent manner? No, because these documents have been kept secret - perhaps for justifiable reasons, but reasons that we do not really understand. Therefore, what we really need is more openness and more transparency in order for us to really get to the heart of the issue.

I completely agree with my colleague, Mr Callanan, when he says that the fact that they were not transparent does not bode well for the EU.

(IT) I would like to thank those fans who have been tirelessly listening for so long. Madam President, I am one of the 74 MEPs who today voted against the Andersson report, not because I am against employment, but because these guidelines for European Union, for EU Member States policy, do not specifically state that one of the options for encouraging employment is to allow those workers to retire who want and request to do so. This policy of mandatorily raising the pension age everywhere therefore merely deprives young people of jobs when they would willingly replace those older workers who want to leave their positions to the young.

Madam President, this report starts from a false assumption: the assumption that the EU knows best when it comes to employment policy. Many of my constituents would profoundly disagree; they would rather that the EU were kept well away from anything to do with employment policy. I believe that my country should withdraw from the EU's Social Chapter.

It is more than a little ironic that the EU seeks to pass on its wisdom on employment policy to the Member States whilst, at the same time, it is responsible for huge amounts of red tape and regulation that have constricted so many businesses in my region and across Europe and caused an awful lot of the unemployment that it now seeks to cure.

The European social model is outdated, it is destructive, it prevents job creation and it acts against entrepreneurship. The best thing would be for the EU to keep its nose out of the Member States' employment policy and produce less red tape and less regulation. That is the best thing that we could do to create more jobs in the economy.

Madam President, I voted for this proposal because it postpones the folly of an utterly unnecessary waste of even more money on translation services in this House in respect of Irish.

I would have preferred the entire folly of that waste to have been overturned. However, at least this saves our taxpayers some of the unnecessary waste.

The minimal use of Irish in this Chamber is self-evident, although Miss de Brún, as part of her aggressive Republican agenda, may regale us in that dead tongue, with the only relief being that hardly anyone who tunes into Parliament on line can understand a word she says. I can assure them they are missing very little.

Her Sinn Féin colleague, Miss McDonald, has not got past uttering a little stammering, stuttering, pidgin Irish, but even then we are wasting money on translation.

Madam President, I thank Ms Kovács for the informative and helpful report on the situation of the Roma.

As you all know, the population of the Roma is ever-expanding and consistently becoming a huge and influential force throughout Europe. This group of 10-12 million people is amongst the poorest on the continent, yet has immeasurable potential.

As Europeans and Members of the European Parliament, which was founded on the pillar of equality, we must react to this problem as quickly as possible. The continual oppression of one of Europe's largest minorities is shameful and inefficient. With better regulation and a higher degree of cooperation, nations may be able to provide work for this huge block of potential labourers. With the looming economic crisis, the Roma may be able to help solve some of Europe's deepest problems. In addition, the prejudice against and degradation of these people has gone on long enough. Equal rights and opportunities must be provided to all citizens of Europe, including the Roma.

Just at the beginning of this month in Hungary, two Roma people were shot like animals when they were trying to escape from their burning house. How is it possible that in a united Europe, there are cases like this?

(NL) Madam President, I have voted against the Kovács report, because this whole report is permeated with victim thinking and because I take the view that a minority group such as the Roma gypsies would actually be much better served by a strategy that would encourage them to take more responsibility for their fate.

I too, of course, share everyone's view that the Roma should be treated correctly, but most of the problems mentioned in this report are attributable to a lifestyle, a way of living, that these people have actively chosen. We can adopt as many reports and resolutions and give as much money as we like, but this will not change the situation on the ground one bit.

(NL) Madam President, in this Parliament I have heard a great deal of politically correct nonsense in my time, which was invariably approved by very large majorities, but this report takes the biscuit in my view. If this Parliament is intent on interfering in the social situation of the Roma and their access to the labour market, would it be asking too much to observe a minimum of objectivity?

The truth is that the problems of the gypsy people are largely the simple result of their own refusal to adapt to the society in which they live, certainly as far as education and vocational training are concerned. For decades, we have been pumping millions of euros into all kinds of programmes full of idyllic, but mainly unrealistic, nonsense in the vein of this report. Without any success. Is it then not time we stopped mollycoddling them and looked at the real causes of the problems before we come up with solutions?

Madam President, while the amended version was an improvement, it was still with a heavy heart that I supported this own-initiative report, since it was not consistent with the climate and energy package carried by a huge majority in this House on 17 December 2008.

Just to remind us, my own EU-ETS report, which was the cornerstone of this package, was carried by 610 votes for, 60 abstentions, and 29 against. Needless to say, Mr Reul was not among the 610 Members out of 699 who supported my report.

I have reservations about any reference to drilling in the Arctic or exploration for alternative sources of oil, such as tar sands. Past months have shown that the importance of energy security has never been as acute. The cooperation that is necessary across the EU, and the need to take advantage of the stimulus packages currently launched by almost all Member States and the Commission, underscore the need for investment in renewables to increase our energy security, to decrease our carbon emissions and to wean us off our high dependence on fossil fuel, albeit over an agreed timeline.

Madam President, I was the shadow rapporteur on the Sacconi report into CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles, and I can see from the work that I did on that that we do need to reduce our dependence on oil.

We need to reduce that dependence because most oil supplies are, of course, in very unstable and unsavoury parts of the world. For far too long, our thirst for oil has sustained regimes that are deeply inimical to everything that we stand for, to our own interests and to our own values, especially with regard to human rights and good governance.

Particularly, of course, we need to reduce our dependence on Russian oil supplies. Russia has shown in the past that it will not hesitate to use its control of much of our energy supply to achieve political and economic goals, and we need to do all we can to reduce their ability to do so, and to do that we of course need to reduce our dependence on oil.

Madam President, I abstained on this report because I believe it simply does not go far enough. We have previously made commitments in this House to reduce emissions. Transport has a key role to play in the fight against climate change and should be assisted in meeting its responsibility, but this report will do little to help.

This is unfortunate because there are some good proposals. The noise charges for trains take into account the broader environmental impact of transport and fit well with the proposals currently going through the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on reducing noise in car tyres.

Much more could have been done for the aviation sector, however. It is odd that the report mentions rail, sea and inland waterway transport yet neglects this sector, one of the principal contributors of carbon emissions. It is because it lacks teeth in this area and so many others that I abstained on this report.

(FI) Madam President, the Lisbon Strategy is worth supporting, but it has to be said in this regard that the idea that Europe might be the world's leading knowledge-based economy by 2010 is not going to be realised. We are now in 2009, and so if we want to achieve something, we should find the right sort of Europe-wide commitment very soon. Then we might achieve this objective perhaps by 2020 or 2030.

This mainly means that there has to be Europe-wide commitment to training and research very soon. At present, we have an economic recession on our hands and, amid this downturn, we have to remember that if we are to have adequate levels of good human resources - a workforce for our employment markets - we will need to invest in particular in training and teacher training. This is the priority if we really want to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy.

(NL) Madam President, I have abstained from the vote on the resolution on the Lisbon Strategy, even though the resolution is, in fact, on the whole, a very even-handed resolution which gives an accurate diagnosis of the situation and also contains many proposals which I fully endorse. I abstained, though, because the subject of these notorious blue cards for economic immigration has once again been brought up and is receiving emphatic support precisely at a time when more than 20 million people in the European Union face unemployment, which is set to increase even further due to the economic crisis.

Precisely at times like these, we should stop resorting to easier short-term solutions, such as enticing hordes of economic immigrants to the European Union once again Instead, we need to invest in training and retraining people who are currently unemployed, rather than just leaving them to their own devices in favour of an influx of new immigrants.

Madam President, I cannot remember how I voted on the Lisbon Strategy. I think it is a completely worthless thing, because Europe was meant to be the leading knowledge-based society by 2010. Over the 10 years I have sat in this Chamber, I did wonder how we were going to get there when we were passing regulation after regulation that was stifling business and opportunity and, indeed, encouraging business to move away from the continent of Europe.

I am always reticent when it comes to these sorts of reports. Having sat in the Chamber for a couple of hours today voting about imposing more and more regulation on businesses and on people, I feel we are going in exactly the wrong direction from this Chamber and we need a huge about-face immediately.

Madam President, I agree with many of the comments made by my colleague, Mr Heaton-Harris. As he correctly said, the Lisbon Strategy commits the EU to becoming, slightly ironically, the most competitive economy in the world by 2010. With just one year to go before that self-imposed deadline, I cannot be the only person in this House who wonders, and becomes more than a little sceptical, about whether we will ever get there.

We constantly pass resolutions and the Commission constantly produces strategy documents telling us how we are going to get there. It is just that we never seem to arrive.

The content of the Lisbon Strategy was always far in excess of the EU's capacity to deliver it, and was, in many ways, contrary to the whole ethos of the EU over the past 50 years because, as Mr Heaton-Harris reminded us, much of the EU's employment and economic regulation actually causes more difficulty in achieving the goals of the Lisbon Strategy than anything else. We are constantly piling on more and more burdens and regulations that force industry out of Europe, and we have no chance whatsoever of meeting any of the goals of the Lisbon Strategy. It is about time we were honest with ourselves and admitted that.

Madam President, the initial goals of the Lisbon Strategy committed the EU to creating a knowledge economy, an innovative economy, a digital economy, by the year 2010. Well, I have news for us all here in this packed Chamber: we are running out of time. You may not have noticed, but we have made very little progress so far.

Before I became a politician, I used to work with a lot of innovators and help lots of start-up companies. It was a real contrast, coming to the world of European politics, to see how we dealt with innovation. When we deal with innovation here, we have committees, we have strategy documents, we have votes, we have everything but innovation, unless you consider more paper creation to be innovation.

When you talk to the innovators out there, the people who are going to create wealth in the European Union and across the globe, what they want is for governments to keep out of the way. It is time the looters of government stopped draining the life-blood of companies.

Madam President, it is with heavy heart that I stand up to speak once again on Lisbon. I do not normally speak here just for the sake of being negative. I believe that the European Union talks the talk when it comes to the Lisbon Strategy. However, today, almost 10 years since the summit, it is a long way from walking the walk.

We hear many warm words about the need for the skilled workforce that will be able to adapt to economic upheavals, such as the one we face today. However, across Europe we still face a chronic skills crisis. In my region, the West Midlands, the skilling of the workforce has had a particularly painful and protracted birth. Regrettably, we have the highest proportion of skill-shortage vacancies of any British region. I would, therefore, call on the Commission not to lose sight of the structural reforms needed to reinvigorate the Lisbon Strategy during a period which is beset with economic disorder, higher oil and commodity prices and ongoing turbulence on the financial markets.

Madam President, the reason I want to give an explanation of vote on this particular report is because I cannot believe the hypocrisy of this House in talking as it always does about climate change.

Why is this House hypocritical? Well, look around you. We are in our second Chamber. We have a perfectly good Chamber back in Brussels. We are here for only three or four days per month. I admit that we are going to get an extra part-session this particular month, but only to average out for the one in 12 sessions that we need to do.

We have hundreds of people displaced from their normal places of work to come here. They travel and cause carbon emission while they are getting here. We are possibly the least green parliament that there is. When I entered this place, it was meant to be a paperless parliament yet, if you look around, all our desks are covered in paper. We are the worst hypocrites when it comes to this than any Chamber I know.

Madam President, I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker. We should consider the fact that the European Parliament has two Chambers - in Strasbourg and Brussels - and we also have three sites, including the one in Luxembourg, which people do not talk about very often. Not only are we building a new block in Luxembourg, leading to more carbon emissions that could well contribute to climate change - or not, depending on what one believes on the issue - but also it is simply hypocritical for us to carry on debating climate change while we continue to operate out of three places of work.

Even if we were eventually to operate only out of one - Brussels - when you walk around the streets of Brussels at night and look up from Place du Luxembourg towards the European Parliament building, you see this great lit-up beacon to hypocrisy. If we are going to tackle climate change, it is about time we put our own house in order.

(NL) Madam President, this resolution is full of good intentions, but we should ask ourselves if resolutions of this kind actually make any difference at all.

For example, it is beyond me that a resolution on employment policies, insofar as this is a European competence, which I do not believe it is, should choose to ignore very basic questions such as: how many people are currently unemployed in the European Union? 20 million still, or is it - more likely - nearer 25 million?

The question is: does the Commission still hold firm to its outrageous notion of importing more than 20 million new immigrants to the European Union? The question is: will the Commission finally abandon its recruitment centres in countries such as Mali and Senegal to import even more unemployment? These are the kinds of questions we had expected in the resolution, rather than the meaningless catalogue of good intentions which it has unfortunately become.

Madam President, once again we are talking about something that we are doing very little about, and that is employment policy. Once, a colleague said to me that when the European Parliament talks about employment, it is actually creating far more unemployment than one would expect. We have got to recognise that, if we are going to create jobs, we have to set the wealth creators free. We have to enable them to continue their spirit of free enterprise, to create wealth, to create jobs.

But what do we do here? By regulation and debate, what we seek to do is to choke off the very spirit of innovation, the very spirit of entrepreneurship, and we have continued to do that today. Only today Mr Schulz - who is a man I often disagree with, but not today - talked about the social democratisation of the EPP. Now that that day has come, we know that we are doomed when it comes to creating jobs in Europe.

Madam President, have you noticed that the harmonisation of policy always happens in the same direction? More integration invariably means more intervention.

Or let us put that the other way around: pluralism guarantees competitiveness. If you have competing states with different tax levels, then you can only raise your tax to a certain level before your money starts going abroad. If you have competing states with different employment policies and different social policies, you can regulate your employment market only to a certain degree before the jobs start crossing your borders.

Now, during the good years, the European Union was able to disregard these verities and was able to construct behind its walls a highly regulated and centralised market. But those good years have come to an end. We now risk cutting ourselves off from more dynamic economies and becoming more penurious and more irrelevant and ultimately, like Tolkien's Eldar, going into the west and fading.

Madam President, I notice that at least some of those who have been denigrating all European legislation, whatever it is, nonetheless voted in favour of the third Maritime Package, a package that I welcome because it increases the health and safety of people on ships; it will ultimately cut costs because it will save lives downstream and it makes safety systems of different Member States compatible with each other, thus making them more efficient, more effective and less costly while, at the same time, improving health and safety. I welcome the adoption of this package, which will make a difference to the safety of hundreds of constituents of mine in Yorkshire and Humber.

Madam President, I voted in favour of this report as I was pleasantly surprised that our proposals against tax havens were adopted by the House. I was also in support of the wide-ranging remit given in this report to address the current crisis.

The one aspect that I really want to focus on is the recovery plan so far. We need to make certain that we still have secure jobs and sustainable careers for people when the economy begins to perform better and support key sectors such as the car industry. The automotive sector is a model of how traditional industries should adapt in the years to come. I recently visited the Jaguar Land Rover plant in my constituency, where I saw how the company has turned itself into a world leader in green automobile technology, and where the new type-approval guidelines we have been adopting in this House have been welcomed wholeheartedly.

Madam President, once again we are indulging the fantasy that you can spend your way out of debt and legislate against recessions. At best, we are engaging in self-deceit; at worst, we are deliberately perpetrating a deceit against our electorate.

The truth is that nothing can stop this correction: interest rates were held too low for too long and now that the air has been pumped into the balloon, it is going to come out again. We could try to rescue some of the victims but, instead, we engage in this pretence that we can stop the thing happening. The debt will be paid by our children yet unborn and unbegot, and nowhere more than in my country, where every child is now born with a debt of GBP 30 000 because of the incompetence and incontinence of its government.

As our national poet says: 'This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land, ... is now leased out - I die pronouncing it - like to a tenement or pelting farm.'

And now, on top of that national debt, we are expected to contribute to these European recovery programmes. I close again with the words of our national poet: 'Prevent it, resist it, let it not be so, Lest child, child's children, cry against you, 'Woe!''

(FR) Madam President, one can cite as examples of major international financial crime the Madoff affair, obviously, but also the speculation in agricultural raw materials that took place in 2007.

This is why a whole host of legal experts, including Carlos Sotelo's practice in Spain, and networks of large practices, have proposed the creation of an international financial court.

We could, moreover, just extend the International Criminal Court's remit to cover major financial crime because, in 2007, millions of children died as a result of the speculation in agricultural products. There was a financial Darfur.

This international financial court would have the power to investigate speculation and speculators, to inspect tax havens, to regulate and to punish offenders.

This is the test of sincerity for Barack Obama, for President Sarkozy and for the other leaders. This is the political message to send out to the general public, and this would be the first stage of a global organisation, a global phenomenon and a global cure for a global economic crisis.

Madam President, it is very nice to speak after Mr Corbett in such debates because Mr Corbett is never wrong in this place; often confused, as he was today, giving the wrong explanation of vote at the wrong time, but obviously never wrong! I do wonder though whether, in this House, we know what the real economy is. Is the real economy a bunch of paper-pushers and bureaucrats, with us writing laws that other people have to implement, such as the Civil Service in the UK, where we have been growing the public sector way faster than the private sector has been growing over the last 10 years? Or is the real economy actually people doing jobs of work and innovating and starting their own businesses? I just wonder if this report is actually heading in the right direction. Having read it, I am pretty sure that it is not.

Madam President, we in this House know, perhaps better than some outside, the extent to which the European Union has now become a mechanism for the massive redistribution of wealth.

For a long time, that system worked very well because there were only a very small number of people paying into the pot. The only two net contributors to the budget for most of the European Union's history were the United Kingdom and, outstandingly, Germany.

However, things have changed now, and the money is running out. We saw that vividly illustrated at the summit two weeks ago when the Hungarian prime minister demanded a EUR 190 billion bail-out for Central and Eastern Europe, and was told in no uncertain terms by the German Chancellor that the money was not there and would not be forthcoming.

German taxpayers (and this is rarely acknowledged) have always propped up the whole system. Integration rests on their sufferance, and they have now seen through this. They are not responding any more to the unspoken appeal to historical responsibility. They are a sensible, level-headed people and can recognise a self-serving argument and spot a racket when they see one. If you think I am wrong about this, then let them have a referendum; let everyone have a referendum: put the Treaty of Lisbon to a vote. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!

Written explanations of vote

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Geringer de Oedenberg's report on the exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (codified version). As it is merely a codification of a previously existing legislative text and does not involve any substantial change to the text itself, I believe that we should endorse the Commission's proposal and the recommendations of the legal services of Parliament, the Council and the Commission itself.

in writing. - (IT) I abstained from the vote on Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra's report on adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff. I only partly agree with the rapporteur's view on this matter, so I do not think it is appropriate for me to take a position on it.

Madam President, I voted in favour.

I believe that the environmental disaster that struck Romania cannot go unheeded. Romania has emerged from the flooding exhausted, not only economically and environmentally, but also in social terms.

The reports of people's personal stories have been heart-rending - families have lost their property and possessions, many of which were the fruit of a lifetime of hard work.

Many organisations are already working on the ground, but the time has come for the institutions too, and the Members of this House personally, to make a real contribution to this cause.

I therefore welcome the opinion of the Committee on Budgets and hope that the EUR 11 785 377 from the Solidarity Fund will be made available to Romania as soon as possible, in order to lift the population economically, environmentally and socially.

The principle of solidarity is one which is fundamental and unquestionable in the European Union. It is precisely this principle, which exists, indeed, not only on paper, that distinguishes the EU from other international organisations. One practical expression of this principle is undoubtedly the Solidarity Fund, established in 2006 in accordance with an interinstitutional agreement and in order to eliminate the negative consequences of major natural disasters. It is good that the Fund is in operation, and that last year, five countries benefited from it. This is proof that, when faced by a tragedy, no Member State will be left alone. The flood which hit five areas of north-east Romania in July 2008 caused serious material losses (0.6% of GNI) and disrupted the lives of over two million people in 214 districts.

In this situation, I consider Romania's application for assistance to be justified, even if it does not meet the quantitative criteria laid down in Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund. I also have no doubt that in this case, it is necessary to apply the criterion of extraordinary disaster, which is also provided for in the aforementioned Regulation and which allows mobilisation of the Fund for Romania. As a Polish MEP, I represent a region that was also affected by a natural disaster, namely a tornado in the Silesia Province. Fortunately, that disaster did not have the same destructive power or scale. Nonetheless, I fully endorse this tangible evidence of European solidarity.

I voted in favour of this report as it will help mobilise the Solidarity Fund much more quickly. In 2006, the payment made by the European Union via the Solidarity Fund in aid to Romania after the floods in April and August was delayed by a year. I am pleased to note that the procedures have been improved and facilitate the EU's prompt intervention in countries which have been affected by a major natural or extraordinary disaster.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Böge's report on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund. I agree that the eligibility criteria governing mobilisation of the Fund were met in the case of the application submitted by Romania following the floods that hit the country in July. The floods in fact caused serious damage to the landscape and to the people living in the five regions affected. I therefore feel that it is only right that the Fund should be mobilised, not least because the amount in question falls within the annual limit laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of May 2006.

I voted in favour of the report drafted by Jutta Haug (Germany) as it requests the mobilisation of EUR 11.8 million from the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to help the victims of the floods which hit Romania in July 2008.

This gesture is the EU's response to the request for assistance made by Romania. The application relates to five counties (Maramureş, Suceava, Botoşani, Iaşi and Neamţ). 241 locations in Romania, with a total population of 1.6 million inhabitants, suffered directly as a result of the disaster, which partially or totally destroyed houses and crops.

I voted thinking about the people who lost their homes, belongings, animals and even family members in the floods. Gheorghe Flutur, Chairman of Suceava County Council, pleaded their case in Brussels at the European Parliament.

I believe that Romania needs a larger sum to repair the damage caused by flooding, but the EU's assistance is necessary and welcome.

The first amending budget for 2009 relates to the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for Romania, following the floods that hit that country in July 2008.

Faced with direct damage calculated at around EUR 471.4 million, it is (only now) planned to mobilise just EUR 11.8 million under this Fund, which once again clearly shows the urgent need for its revision.

The objective of this Fund is to enable the Community to respond in a rapid, efficient and flexible manner to 'emergency situations' in the various Member States. That is why, despite all the inadequacies, we support its mobilisation for Romania.

However, the EUR 11.8 million allocated will be deducted from the budget line for the European Regional Development Fund (Convergence objective). In other words, the 'solidarity' offered to Romania is being financed from funds intended for the least economically developed countries and regions, including Romania itself! This is what can be termed as solidarity between the 'poor' or, in other words, between the so-called 'cohesion countries'/convergence regions ...

We disagree with 'cohesion' funds being used - all the more so at a time of worsening socio-economic crisis - when other funds are available, such as those intended for the militarisation of the EU.

I voted in favour of the report on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund for Romania as I feel that the financial aid given to our country provides important, necessary support for the locations hit by flash floods in July last year. The north-eastern part of Romania was severely affected. 214 locations and more than 1.6 million people suffered directly as a result of the disaster. The European Commission made a financial contribution of EUR 11.8 million to support the investments made in repairing the transport and drainage infrastructure, reinforcing river beds and building dams to prevent natural disasters of this kind in the future.

I think that early detection of the causes which result in natural disasters of this magnitude or even more serious ones is the most important step towards protecting Europe's citizens.

Bearing in mind the climate change we are facing, I support the introduction of instruments for monitoring the environmental factors in each region separately, along with the allocation of an adequate budget for this. The zones of convergence are most exposed to the risk of being hit by natural disasters. This means that particular attention must be focused on these aspects in order to implement a policy of economic, social and territorial cohesion.

The areas susceptible to the effects of climate change are mainly the following: water resources, agriculture, energy, forestry and biodiversity, and last but not least, the population's health.

The extreme weather phenomena witnessed in Romania in recent years have caused floods and drought and have resulted in the need to tackle the issue of climate change with the utmost seriousness, expertise and responsibility.

As a social democrat, I voted for this report because the EUR 11.8 million allocated through the budget adjustment supports Romania in its effort to adapt to climate change in order to eliminate the effects of the floods by carrying out local protection work (protecting populated settlements, river basin planning through works for improving streams and increasing forested areas) and, last but not least, by involving the population and educating them about appropriate behaviour before, during and after the floods.

I voted in favour of the report on draft amending budget No 1/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009. The aim of the report is to mobilise EUR 11.8 million in commitment and payment appropriations from the EU Solidarity Fund relating to the effects of the floods which hit Romania in July 2008.

I support the European Commission's initiative whereby the EU is showing solidarity with Suceava, Iaşi, Neamţ, Botoşani and Maramureş counties which suffered as a result of the floods in July 2008.

By means of today's vote, the European Parliament plenary session is endorsing the decision of the Committee on Budgets taken on 24 February 2009. During the relevant session, Gheorghe Flutur, Chairman of Suceava County Council, presented the situation in his region affected by floods, supporting the request for funds with pictures and the statistics for the damage resulting from the natural disasters which hit the area.

He indicated that warnings were sent and mentioned that, together with the authorities in the Ukrainian region of Chernivtsi, it was agreed to set up a rapid alert system in the event of disasters, along with other cross-border cooperation programmes for dealing with emergency situations due to be implemented as a continuation of this project.

I voted in favour of Mrs Haug's report on the amending budget for the financial year 2009, which takes account of the serious damage caused by the floods that hit Romania in July 2008. I have already expressed my support for Mr Böge's report on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund in this particular case, and I wish to confirm here my support for the measure - provided that it focuses - as stipulated in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2006, on the swift and effective restoration of decent living conditions in the regions affected by the natural disaster, and not on the payment of compensation for damages suffered by private individuals.

I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on draft amending budget No 1/2009 of the European Union for the financial year 2009 (6952/2009 - C6 0075/2009 - 2009/2008 (BUD)) because its purpose is to mobilise EUR 11.8 million in commitment and payment appropriations from the EU Solidarity Fund relating to the effects of the floods which hit Romania in July 2008.

in writing. - Malta is one of the main EU states with a substantial tonnage on its register books. On the other hand, it discharges its obligations as a flag state, in accordance with international conventions.

The thee main obligations are to: (a) apply the provisions of the Flag State Code; (b) take the necessary measures for an independent auditing of their administration at least once every five years, in accordance with the rules of the IMO; (c) take the necessary measures with regard to the inspection and survey of ships and the issue of statutory certificates and exemption certificates as provided for by the international conventions.

A new requirement is that, prior to allowing the operation of a ship which has been granted the right to fly its flag, the Member State concerned shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that the ship in question complies with the applicable international rules and regulations and, in particular, the safety records of the ship.

in writing. - This legislation will reinforce existing EU safety legislation and transpose major international instruments into Community law. I support this legislation because it recognises the need to closely supervise classification societies, which perform vital tasks in maintaining safety at sea, because of the major concentration of power they hold.

Eight legislative texts making up a maritime package have just been adopted in the European Parliament. We welcome this because the package covers not only passenger compensation, but also inspections, State inspection of ports, investigations into transport accidents and the choice of the authority able to decide on the place of refuge for vessels in distress.

The ball is now in the Member States' court because it is not enough to legislate: this legislation needs to be transposed into their national laws.

The first test will be to monitor the flags of convenience belonging to European countries. These flags are used to bypass the union, tax, recruitment, safety and environmental regulations of the countries to which the vessels really belong.

Cyprus and Malta are still today among the top five flags of convenience in terms of the number of vessels lost.

It is unfortunately notable that, despite the efforts made since the oil tankers Prestige and Erika sank, the situation has hardly improved. Substandard vessels sailing under flags of convenience are slashing transport prices. The so-called rich countries are responding by creating their own (mark II) flag to combat the loss of freight.

In reality, if we are truly to get rid of these floating wrecks, the European Union must set about fighting ultra-liberalism.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mr de Grandes Pascual's report on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations. I have already explained the reasons prompting me to support the work carried out by the rapporteur in relation to the third maritime package, and the advantages that the planned measures could bring in terms of maritime transport safety and improvements to the existing regulations. As such, I confirm my vote in favour.

I voted for adoption of the Report on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on port State control (recast). I agree with the objectives of the 3rd Maritime Package.

The seven proposals of the package aim to prevent accidents by improving the quality of European flags, reviewing the legislation on port state control and vessel traffic monitoring and by improving the rules relating to classification societies. They also aim to ensure an effective response in case of an accident by developing a harmonised framework for accident investigation, introducing rules on compensation for passengers in case of an accident and by introducing rules on shipowners' liability coupled with a mandatory insurance scheme.

I should like to express my support for the agreement which has been reached, and in particular for these points: extension of scope to include also vessels calling at anchorages, increased frequency of inspection of vessels, and permanent banning of vessels under certain conditions.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mrs Vlasto's report on port State control, which forms part of the third maritime package. I agree with the part of the agreement reached about extending the scope of the directive to include vessels that call at anchorages and with that part about increasing the inspection rate of vessels in the highest risk category. On this point, I refer to the need for assessments of such risk to be as accurate and independent as possible. I also agree that, under certain conditions, vessels should be refused access permanently, in order to guarantee adequate safety levels for operators and passengers.

in writing. - We welcome the shift in emphasis in this resolution, and some of the positive proposals in relation to regulation of the financial sector, innovation, energy efficiency and investment, as well as acknowledgement of the need to protect employment, create jobs, combat poverty and focus on the most vulnerable groups in society.

However, the logic of the Lisbon Strategy is flawed and needs to be fundamentally revised, particularly in light of the new economic situation.

In addition, three are a number of specific proposals contained in the resolution which are short-sighted and counter-productive, such as the insistence on deregulation and on flexible employment practices leading to a weakening of workers rights.

For these reasons, we abstained in the final vote on this report.

I voted in favour of adoption of the Report on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system.

I agree with the objectives of the 3rd Maritime Package.

The seven proposals of the package aim to prevent accidents by improving the quality of European flags, reviewing the legislation on port state control and vessel traffic monitoring and by improving the rules relating to classification societies. They also aim to ensure an effective response in case of an accident by developing a harmonised framework for accident investigation, introducing rules on compensation for passengers in case of an accident and by introducing rules on shipowners' liability coupled with a mandatory insurance scheme.

As shadow rapporteur for Mr Sterckx's report, I would like to express my full support for the document put to the vote.

in writing. - (IT) I believe that the maritime package should be considered globally and as a whole, in line with the approach Parliament has always taken when dealing with its individual parts. I therefore voted in favour of Mr Sterckx's report on establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system, since this system fits into a wider context aimed at improving the safety of maritime traffic and making it easier to manage, something which I have already endorsed on many occasions. In the case in point, applying technology for the monitoring of ships would help make it easier to decide who is liable in the event of accidents and to improve the procedures for accommodating ships in 'places of refuge'. For this reason, I feel able to endorse the report by voting in favour.

I voted in favour of this report by the Czech Member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, Jaromír Kohlíček, on the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector.

This text emphasises the need to draw up, at European level, clear and binding guidelines to ensure that accidents at sea are monitored properly. It addresses the concerns that followed the sinking of the Erika oil tanker off the French coast. It is in order to prevent a repeat of such cases of mismanagement that the European Union has decided to impose a strict framework that deals with all the technical aspects and all the processes to be followed in the event of an accident: methodology of the investigations, a European database for marine casualties, safety recommendations, and so on.

I share the view that it is crucial to make the European maritime area one of the safest and most exemplary maritime areas in the world. This is what the 'Erika III' maritime package, of which the report forms part, is working towards. This is a real breakthrough for the maritime sector, and also for the environment, which is often a secondary victim of disrespectful conduct at sea.

I voted in favour of adoption of the Report on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC. I agree with the objectives of the 3rd Maritime Package.

The seven proposals of the package aim at preventing accidents by improving the quality of European flags, reviewing the legislation on port state control and vessel traffic monitoring and by improving the rules relating to classification societies. They also aim to ensure an effective response in case of an accident by developing a harmonised framework for accident investigation, introducing rules on compensation for passengers in case of an accident and by introducing rules on shipowners' liability coupled with a mandatory insurance scheme.

I should like to express my support for the agreement which has been reached and, in particular, for these points: the methodology for investigating accidents, a decision on the investigation, fair treatment of seafarers, and protection of witnesses/confidentiality of records.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Kohlíček's report on the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector. All too often, it is difficult to decide who is liable in the event of minor or serious accidents at sea. I am thinking of the case of the investigations that followed the real natural disaster caused by the accident involving the Prestige oil tanker and of many others that unfortunately continue to occur. Maritime transport deserves special attention because, aside from being the most economical in relative terms, it is one of the most dangerous in terms of the environmental consequences of an accident. I believe it is therefore necessary to establish clear and binding guidelines on how to carry out technical investigations into shipping accidents and to provide feedback to prevent accidents in the future. This is why I voted in favour of the report.

in writing. - (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Costa's report on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents. I agree with him that it is highly appropriate for the provisions of the Athens Convention of 1974 relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea to be incorporated into European law, since the national differences that still exist do not make it possible to guarantee an adequate level of liability and mandatory insurance in the event of accidents involving passengers. Although this does not happen for other means of transport, I believe that the legislation should be fit for purpose in the case of maritime transport as well.

in writing. - (IT) I intend to vote in favour of Mr Savary's report on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims since I agree with the recommendations made by the rapporteur concerning the need to ensure that the obligation to provide insurance is fulfilled by shipowners entering waters under the jurisdiction of any Member State, including by imposing penalties where a ship is found not to be carrying a certificate on board, should such a finding be made. I agree that the amount of insurance should be set at the ceilings laid down by the LLMC Convention of 1996, which guarantees that the victims of accidents at sea are properly compensated. I therefore support the rapporteur's recommendation to approve the draft recommendation agreed with the Council.

in writing. - (IT) I am favour of Mr Fernandes's report on compliance with flag State requirements. It demonstrates Parliament's determination to maintain the integrity of the third maritime package when faced with interruptions in the Council's work on certain aspects, such as the subject of this recommendation. For this reason, I support the work done by Mr Fernandes and the members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. I believe that the added value of the political agreement reached should be seen as important, above all since it calls on the Member States to introduce a quality management system for their maritime authorities and to comply with international rules in this area, the most important of which being those resulting from the International Maritime Organisation conventions. Aside from bringing advantages in terms of European flag quality and safety, the proposal will make it possible to improve competition conditions within the Community, and I therefore believe that it should be supported.

The countries of Europe must work together to achieve the environmental aims of the Union. However, to ensure that the EU's environmental policy is sustainable, the principles of the EU and the different characteristics and needs of each Member State must be included.

The Eurovignette report contradicts these aims in the case of the peripheral Member States of the European Union.

The Eurovignette recommendations would penalise peripheral countries and the countries at the centre of Europe would benefit greatly. In my opinion, the Eurovignette recommendations contradict the principles of the Single Market and I think that it is discrimination against certain countries on the basis of geography. Ireland is an island that is situated at the edge of Europe. Lorries from other countries will not be coming through Ireland, but our heavy goods vehicles will have to pay a fee in many countries throughout Europe. There is no way around this: we must carry on business, we must export and import our goods. Under the Eurovignette proposal, countries that are situated at the centre of Europe will have competitive advantages as they will not have to pay the same fees. It is not right or fair to carry out discrimination of this kind based on the geographical location of any country.

in writing. - The Eurovignette Directive was created to harmonise levy systems on European roads - including vehicle taxes, tolls and charges relating to the use of road infrastructure and establish fair mechanisms for charging infrastructure costs to hauliers. The recent revision of the directive from the Commission proposes additional amendments to the Directive; such as cost assessment for the environmental impact of HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicles) in terms of noise pollution, congestion and air pollution.

Countries with large amounts of transit traffic hold considerably different opinions to more peripheral countries, like my own, which depend on large volumes of traffic for importation and exportation of goods. While, in principle, these are fair, it should be implemented in a gradual and equitable manner. These are issues that we cannot afford to ignore. HGVs are frequently subject to time constraints and external timetables, like those of ferry operators. The construction of a port tunnel in Dublin city has done much to reduce the need for HGVs to be in the city centre, and has increased the quality of air and reduced noise pollution. This was a worthwhile investment.

I am not convinced of the need to create a European independent authority to fix toll levels, and would argue that this falls under the domain of subsidiarity.

I voted in favour of the El Khadraoui report on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures.

It is important to give the Member States the opportunity to apply 'smarter' payments for the road haulage sector to cover the external costs and thus encourage more sustainable behaviour.

Whilst air and noise pollution must be taken into account, the same is not true of congestion, which is caused not only by road haulage. Such a charge would be discriminatory, since private cars are also responsible for congestion.

Furthermore, this sector is paying the consequences of the economic crisis through the price of oil and the costs of delivering goods. SMEs in the road transport sector will not be able to bear these additional costs in the midst of this economic crisis.

More should be done to adapt road infrastructure to the increase in traffic but, above all, a commitment should be made to sustainable transport, with priority given to low carbon-emitting modes of transport.

As an elected representative of the Rhône-Alpes region, I can testify to the failure of many road sectors in the Rhône Valley to adapt.

During today's vote, the European Parliament adopted a draft directive concerning Eurovignettes, which makes it possible for Member States to impose charges for the use of road infrastructure by heavy good vehicles.

In the final vote, I voted against adoption of the directive. I think that introduction of the provisions of this directive will increase costs incurred by enterprises which provide transport services. These costs might be particularly detrimental to small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have sufficient financial means available to allow them to replace their fleets. Furthermore, such provisions may also cause difficulties for firms during the present financial crisis, when many firms are facing increased difficulty in obtaining credit.

We should certainly seek ways to enable the use of more environmentally-friendly vehicles on our roads. We should not, however, use methods which are, in fact, another way of taxing enterprises.

in writing. - On behalf of my Fine Gael colleagues in the Parliament I would like to clarify that we did not vote in support of the El Khadraoui report on the charging of HGVs, due to concerns over the legal basis for the proposal, concerns regarding the compulsory use of electronic tolling and the provision for earmarking of revenue. We fully support the principles behind the proposal, but believe the report's application of the principle is flawed.

in writing. - Not only did I vote against this report, but I also consider it dangerous to the European common market. This is mainly because of its unfair character and the fact it acts like a concealed tax. Moreover, it will not contribute to environmental protection. During this time of financial crisis, it is kind of absurd. This type of regulation shows that the EU is turning its back on its citizens.

I am voting in favour of the reasonable compromise on the new Eurovignette. Together with the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I have been fighting for years - in the face of huge opposition from parts of the conservative Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats - to have the external costs (noise, congestion, pollution) included in the calculation of tolls, in order to transfer the financial burden from the taxpayer to the polluter, in other words, the heavy goods traffic.

I am opposed to the probable result of the compromise on the congestion costs because, as a result of the majority situation, it was only possible to ensure that they were recognised as external costs on condition that this applied not only to heavy goods traffic but to all causes of congestion, including cars.

It is likely that CO2 will also not be included in the calculation because of the incomprehensible opposition of the PPE-DE. The amendment which I submitted to the committee, in which I asked for minimum tolls on all parts of the Trans-European Transport Network, did not receive a majority of the votes. I will introduce this proposal again during further discussions on this subject.

One particularly positive feature for Austria is the fact that the external costs and the so-called Alpine surcharge (a higher toll in Alpine regions) will probably not be offset. This means that Austria can charge a higher toll in sensitive Alpine regions and can still charge for the external costs as well. As a result, a higher Brenner toll will be possible.

in writing. - I support this report which should encourage the shift of freight from the road onto rail. The report is part of a package of initiatives aimed at making transport more sustainable, and ensuring that users will only have to pay the transport costs directly related to their use of that particular mode of transport. Tolls will be charged for local noise pollution, local air pollution as well as infrastructure damage/costs. This will create a fairer system of the 'polluter pays' principle, with safeguards built in to ensure market transparency and avoid discrimination.

in writing. - (DE) Heavy goods traffic in Europe has increased since the EU expansion to the East and this is particularly noticeable in many Member States, including Austria. Now we have the problem that some factors cause high external costs which the public has to pay. Heavy goods transport throughout Europe is one of these factors and another is nuclear power stations.

If a toll is imposed on heavy goods vehicles without, at the same time, developing the railways and removing cross-border obstacles to rail transport, then we will have simply voted for more expensive goods and there will be no improvement in people's health and no reduction in pollution.

I believe it is counterproductive to penalise someone who is stuck in congestion. This will probably result in traffic moving back to the small villages and towns, which is something that we do not want. In the long term, the only option is to develop the infrastructure and this means that we need to make local public transport more attractive. The Eurovignette under consideration today seems to represent a reasonable compromise which is why I have voted in favour of it.

Madam President, environmental protection and road safety, the aims behind the draft directive in question, represent two goals that the European Union should pursue with determination to achieve a transport policy more mindful of the expectations and rights of its citizens. A number of amendments to the 1999 EC directive providing for taxation of the heavy goods vehicles that use certain roads are therefore welcome. These kinds of steps forward must be reasonable and gradual in order to prevent the collapse of an important sector of the economy in the current serious economic crisis, a sector almost exclusively based on small and medium-sized enterprises.

Moreover, Europe has not yet created a complete and effective intermodal system that would ensure a significant transition of freight transport towards less polluting sectors. Under these circumstances and because of its characteristics and efficiency, road transport is the most widely used system in the world of manufacturing.

With my vote today, I therefore wished to emphasise the importance of taking gradual but significant, not merely symbolic, steps towards safer and greener road transport, without illogical and counterproductive penalties for the industry.

I support the work done by Mr El Khadraoui on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, and I have therefore voted in favour of his report. While I do not agree on some points such as including or not including certain external costs in the charge, I do agree with the 'polluter pays' principle. Mr El Khadraoui's excellent work highlights the need to allocate the revenue generated from the charge to the transport sector in its entirety. Lastly, I believe that the revenue generated by charging external costs must not end up being another form of taxation.

The proposal on which we are voting today is a revision and extension of the previous Eurovignette Directive and stipulates the tolling rules for roads. According to the proposals adopted, Member States can, from now on, pass on the cost of air pollution, noise and traffic jams to lorries. This is good news for the taxpayer. At the moment, we are all still paying for the damage caused by air pollution. Soon, it will be the polluter who pays. Moreover, in this way, we encourage transport companies to invest in cleaner lorries.

I have therefore voted in favour of this proposal, not least because the congestion charge was included as an additional external cost for mountainous regions. Traffic jams are a major contributor to air pollution, noise pollution and fuel waste. If we could use the proceeds from this levy to invest in transport by rail or water, we would address both the traffic jam problem and climate change. In addition, delays as a result of traffic jams cause major economic damage in the transport sector.

Unfortunately, climate costs as a result of the high volume of freight traffic were not included, even though the transport sector is a major culprit in emissions.

Madam President, I voted for the report. Transparency is not just a symbol but a principle on which all institutional procedures should be based. Citizens and elective bodies must be assured the greatest possible access to documents held by the European institutions in order to enable them to participate effectively in the political process and to hold the public authorities to account for their actions. For this reason I argued strongly in the past for the publication of parliamentary attendance.

Despite the progress made by the European institutions on openness and transparency, the situation cannot exactly be described as perfect and this recasting of Regulation (EEC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents held by the European institutions should be seen as another step towards achieving an administrative environment where the availability of, and ease of access to, information are the rule rather than the exception. To conclude I would like to point out the great achievement recently accomplished: the European Parliament now uses no fewer than 23 official languages and European Community documents are available in all of these. This represents a guarantee of democracy.

in writing. - (SV) We Swedish Conservatives have today voted in favour of Mr Cashman's report on the revision of the Public Access Regulation No 1049/2001 so as to work towards increased transparency within the European institutions. As regards Amendments 61 and 103 relating to Article 5, we believe that conciliation documents from the third reading should be made accessible immediately after the final conciliation meeting has ended, in contrast to the documents that are examined in the negotiations themselves. Documents from trilogues in the first and second readings should be fully accessible throughout the whole processes.

in writing. - I very much regret that into procedures intended to develop the principle that the public has a right to see EU documents, the Parliament has inserted emphasis that such rules shall not apply to MEPs. It is argued that this just restates rules already enshrined in the Members' Statute, but to many people this will just look like another case of 'one rule for them and another for us', and I am glad that the Liberal Democrat group did not support the amendments tabled by Mr Nassauer.

It is particularly important that details of all payments of expenses made to MEPs by Parliament be made publicly available. Our own auditors have revealed that some of the Parliament's Members are very definitely not 'honourable', in fact, some of them are cheats and rogues. The principle of full transparency is one that needs to be established at the earliest possible date if Europe's citizens are to have confidence in this institution.

I voted in favour of Mr Cashman's report regarding access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. I support his commendable initiative, which is designed to bridge the gap between the common rules on 'classified information' (the so-called sensitive documents cited in the current Regulation No 1049/2001), by maintaining at regulation level some good principles taken from the internal security rules of the Council and Commission as far as these principles can also be applicable to a parliamentary body. Lastly, I support Mr Cashman's general aim, which is to amend this regulation in order to increase transparency without making this instrument too specific and difficult to implement.

There is no doubt that the 2001 regulation brought about greater transparency for citizens by granting the public access to documents of the European institutions. It is good to revisit this regulation after seven years of practical experience. What can we see? Back in 2006, the European Parliament made many proposals to change the regulation with a view to improving transparency even more, but the Commission failed to give this any serious consideration.

What is more, the Commission proposal to review the 2001 regulation that is now before us contains stricter rules, which means less transparency. Accordingly, documents on trade negotiations are deemed confidential. Ultimately, this is a choice between the devil and the deep-blue sea. I therefore support the Cashman report, because, even though it is incomplete, it is, all in all, an improvement on the present Commission proposal. A more radical approach, however, with a total rejection of the Commission proposals would have been preferable because then, the Commission would have been forced to come up with a new and better proposal, which would only benefit transparency of the European institutions and really would bridge the notorious chasm between the EU institutions and the citizen.

Madam President, as we know, the current economic and financial crisis is affecting Europe. I am very concerned for my country, Italy. The crisis means redundancies, and families, who have less and less money, are spending less and less. Therefore we need strong intervention. This crisis appears to be particularly serious, but how deep it goes and how long it lasts will depend on what we do. We must join forces: a coordinated European approach is crucial. Now, more than ever, we can see the pressing need to implement reforms rigorously in order to create quality jobs and welfare for European citizens. We must reverse the trend towards radical restructuring, prevent job losses and stave off further pressure to cut salaries and social security payments.

We must rise to the challenges associated with the rise in unemployment and social exclusion. Furthermore, we need to improve the coordination of efforts, both on the part of the EU and the Member States, but it is equally important that the measures adopted within the framework of the economic recovery plan to address the crisis in the short term are consistent with the Community's long-term goals set out in the Lisbon Strategy. That is why I voted in favour of the report.

It is remarkable that this report should admit several failures by the European Union on social issues. There is firstly the admission that the Lisbon Strategy objectives will not be achieved in 2010. Then, there are some interesting figures on the growing rate of unemployment, which rose from 7% in 2008 to 8.7% in 2009 and, more specifically, from 7.5% to 9.2% in the eurozone. In other words, there is a forecast loss of 3.5 million jobs.

This painful observation should make the pro-Europeans think about the radical reforms needed at Member State level to limit as much as possible the disastrous consequences of the economic and financial crisis, a crisis which originated in the ultra-liberalism and globalisation that are so dear to Brussels.

To this end, it is not credible to pursue a policy such as this aimed at maintaining guidelines for the Member States' employment policies. On the contrary, we need to call into question this authoritarian logic and give the States back control of their economic and financial resources, whilst introducing national and Community preference and protection, which would enable the recovery of the internal market and a return to growth.

The full impact of the financial crisis which started in the US is now being felt in the real economy. The experts do not agree on the best response to this crisis and the best way of stimulating the economy in order to keep the unemployment figures in check.

However, even before the financial crisis, the situation on the labour market did not look at all bright. More and more people were being forced into part-time and short-time work and state-supported jobs were being constantly cut back. For some time, increasing numbers of people have been living below the poverty line, despite being in work. In light of the gloomy forecasts about the economy, it is likely that the number of people in full-time employment will continue to fall and, at some point, that part-time workers will also lose their jobs. We must do everything we can to avoid mass unemployment. It is by no means certain that the measures presented in this report are suitable or satisfactory in this respect. For this reason, I have voted against the report.

I voted against Mr Andersson's report. Although, in fact, on the one hand, I believe that we must join forces to reverse the trend towards radical restructuring, to prevent job losses and to stop further cuts in wages and social security benefits, on the other hand, I feel that the measures laid down by the Commission are, for the most part, not enough to guarantee sufficient cover and protection for the European Union's social and employment structure.

The current economic crisis has, and will have in the near future too, repercussions on the employment market.

I voted in favour of the draft European Parliament legislative resolution on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States because I join the rapporteur in supporting the Commission's position, which proposed (as set out in the Annex to Council Decision 2008/618/EC of 15 July 2008) that employment policies are maintained for 2009. According to the Commission, this approach will create a sound framework capable of tackling the economic and financial crisis as well as continuing structural reform.

The current crisis is more than just an economic and financial crisis. It is, above all, a crisis of confidence. Its most dramatic sign is the high level of unemployment. However, unemployment does not only mean a loss of income, but also a loss of confidence in ourselves and in others.

To restore this confidence, we need to set out a very clear medium-term strategy.

In this respect, the role of political leaders is decisive, due to the signals and messages that they convey. Prudence, security, speaking the truth, and resisting easy propaganda on impracticable targets and self-praise are some of the good practices that could help restore confidence.

On the other hand, we need to create jobs and, to do this, the conditions must exist for investment by companies.

We must act quickly because, if nothing is done in this respect, the financing problems being faced by those countries with the largest deficits in the eurozone will lead to the deepening of the recession, a continual rise in unemployment and the loss of income for companies and families.

That is why I supported Mr Andersson's report, which proposes maintaining guidelines for employment policies in 2009.

A further extension or, to put it another way, a further postponement of the enshrined right of all Members to speak in Parliament in their own language and for all documents to be drawn up in the official languages is neither comprehensible nor acceptable. A number of years have already passed since the accession of certain countries for which the limitation on the use of their language remains, in particular, Ireland and the Czech Republic, without the required linguists having been found. The justification put forward is vague and inconsistent, but financial priority has not been given to their training, which leads us to distrust the intentions. We cannot accept any threat to the inalienable right to cultural and linguistic diversity in the EU, which would also affect Portuguese. We cannot accept this discrimination.

Once again, we state our determination to protect the cultural identity of each Member State and of all national languages as working languages. In this respect, our vote can only be against this decision. Ultimately, this marks the transposition to the cultural and linguistic level of the EU's budgetary policies, which give priority to investment in arms instead of valuing culture and protecting employment.

I voted in favour of the Bureau's proposal for a decision extending the applicability of Rule 139 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure until the end of the seventh parliamentary term.

Madam President, I voted for the report. I am very concerned about the recent events in Italy. There is a 'witch hunt' atmosphere developing with regard to Romanian citizens and the Roma, with many punitive expeditions. The Italian Government is engaged in an obsessive security campaign. Adopting extreme measures with regard to Roma communities could however exacerbate the already terrible situation for these minorities and undermine opportunities for integration and social inclusion. We must not forget that, under the rule of law, criminal liability is individual and cannot be attributed to collective groups. To deviate from this principle would set a dangerous precedent that would lead to the criminalisation of entire ethnic groups or particular nationalities of migrants.

Certainly, immigration is a matter requiring European coordination in order to strengthen the judicial and police tools able to tackle organised crime. This is not enough, however. It is important to adopt clear employment policies for disadvantaged groups, including the Roma labour force, establishing support measures aimed at facilitating their progressive integration into the labour market and paying greater attention to education policies for young people.

in writing. - (SV) The EU is a union of values and therefore responsible for maintaining respect for human rights within its borders. It also therefore has a part to play, via its Member States, in recognising the vulnerable situation of the Roma and in facilitating their integration into society. We have therefore voted in favour of this report.

in writing. - (SV) We have today voted in favour of the own-initiative report by Mrs Kósáné Kovács on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU. The report addresses a very serious problem and clearly indicates the need for action to get to grips with the widespread exclusion that affects many Roma today. We welcome cooperation between Member States in dealing with these huge problems.

However, we would like to point out that we do not see various different separate solutions as the way forward in reducing this exclusion. Special tax levels for employers who employ Roma women and other similar measures are more likely to have the effect of reinforcing the exclusion and counteracting integration into the rest of society.

The report from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is welcome as it highlights a new aspect to the Roma inclusion strategy, devised, starting in 2005, over a series of European Parliament resolutions. The Roma's current situation shows that sufficient progress has not been made in integrating the Roma since the Commission launched its first appeal to this effect in 2005.

The report proposes important directives for action regarding the policy for promoting education among the Roma and encouraging positive discrimination on the labour market. Support for Roma integration into the labour market through funding measures for training and retraining, measures to promote independent activities among Roma, offering concessionary credits and public grants, as well as devising innovative forms of agricultural work, are all objectives which the EU has a duty to coordinate. Creating an EU-level expert group, including representatives of the Roma, could also help coordinate Member States' Roma strategy and the use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds.

I expect these suggestions to motivate the European Commission sufficiently to come up with legislative proposals aimed at achieving tangible results in this area.

in writing. - Roma people represent the biggest minority in the European Union and their integration into European society is one of the biggest challenges the EU will face in the coming decade. The Roma, comprising approximately 10-12 million people, have no chance of escaping from poverty and exclusion. Such a degree of social disadvantage hampers the attainment of a basic level of human dignity and equal opportunities for the Roma. I welcome this report which highlights the need to improve conditions for all Europeans, regardless of race.

Guaranteeing equal opportunities to the Roma minority in the EU is the right approach in order to avoid social exclusion and respect this community's rights. This is why I voted in favour of Mrs Kovács's report which I regard as being very helpful.

However, I would like to make a couple of clarifications about my position on this matter.

Given that this minority is inherently transnational, an effective approach on Roma's rights can only be handled at European level. For this reason, I have suggested the creation of a European agency for Roma, with the role of coordinating at European level policies targeted at this minority.

Secondly, support for the Roma minority's integration cannot be given through redistributive fiscal measures as they cannot resolve the structural problems affecting Roma communities. The ideal way of supporting this minority must be geared towards education programmes, whose role is to help these communities acquire the skills required to access the labour market.

On the other hand, a European policy for the Roma minority must be aimed at promoting tolerance and acceptance of cultural differences, with the focus on peaceful coexistence within the limits stipulated by the laws of the relevant state and EU regulations.

I voted against Mrs Kósáné Kovács's report on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU. I firmly believe that this approach creates another form of fundamental discrimination in relation to the Roma. The Roma must, in fact, be treated like all other citizens, without their enjoying excessive benefits and concessions that are to the detriment of other European citizens, who have the same rights (and, above all, duties) as that population.

The Roma community is Europe's largest and most disadvantaged minority group. Anyone who follows the situation closely knows that a coordinated approach is needed to improve their working and living conditions. I am delighted that the present report calls for appropriate training courses that can enhance the chances of the Roma within the labour market. In addition, the human and social capital must be reinforced by focusing from the outset on their integration in European society.

It is to be welcomed that a European group of experts, with representatives from the Roma community, is being set up. Equally, the proposals to set up partnerships, deploy sufficient financial means and follow all this via a database are excellent. I support this report because it suggests ways in which we can improve the situation of the Roma community. Since the alternative resolution proposed by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is, unfortunately, too weak, I shall not be endorsing it.

Oil demand management must not be limited to the EU alone. In percentage terms, the amount of global oil consumed by the EU will gradually decrease in the coming years. The huge growth in demand beyond the EU's borders alone will determine this. Therefore, from the point of view of the security of energy supply in the EU, it will be very important to reduce the growth in demand at global level as well, but without endangering the development goals of third countries or the EU itself. The promotion of market economy price setting mechanisms in third countries is also very important - for example, after eliminating state fuel subsidies.

All of these measures require investment. Investment is only possible when there is sufficient capital and there is a hope of some profit. Therefore, it is essential to overcome the current financial crisis, which may turn into an economic crisis, as quickly as possible. In the last decade, there has been an increase in the number of difficulties surrounding the future security of oil supply in the EU. However, if we succeed in encouraging political will and international coordination, cooperation and the creation of innovations, they may be overcome, purposefully having an impact on both supply and demand.

in writing. - On balance, I can support this own initiative report from my colleague, MEP Reul. As the past months have shown, the importance of energy security has never been as acute. The cooperation that is necessary from all Member States and the need to take advantage of the stimulus packages currently launched by almost all Member States and the Commission underscore the need for investment in renewable technology to increase our energy security and decrease our CO2 emissions. Our years of dependence on fossil fuels have left us with two stark conclusions:

1. We need to be independent from global geopolitical forces, as the Russian/Ukraine impasse this winter showed and the ravages of OPEC's pricing policy.

2. Our need to meet ever pressing CO2 reduction deadlines continues and should be maintained as a matter of utmost priority.

We cannot shy away from the challenges, both economic and environmental, with which we are currently faced.

I voted against Mr Reul's report on challenges in relation to the oil supply. I disagree with the rapporteur, in fact, when he states that, according to various estimates, it will be possible to extract sufficient quantities of oil to meet future demand also, but only by charging consumers more and by improving investment conditions. Although I support the Commission's initiatives to prevent oil prices from soaring over the next few years, I do not believe that the situation as a whole has been analysed correctly.

in writing. - The report that MEP Jarzembowski has presented makes the 'greening' of transport a priority and is an important first step towards a more comprehensive approach making transport more environmentally friendly. An essential part of the response to climate change is an alteration in our means and methods of transportation, be it in the adoption of advanced hybrid vehicles, in increased green public transportation, or the increased efficiency of other methods of transportation.

The rapporteur has advanced the options of charging Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) for the pollution they cause and including noise pollution caused by rail transport under the provisions of the report. It is important that we consider the needs of peripheral European countries who encounter several geographic barriers that depend on a strong transport network to supply their countries, and for their economic growth. We must ensure that these measures are applied in an equitable manner. With these reservations, I am pleased to support the report.

I voted in favour of Mr Jarzembowski's report on the greening of transport and the internalisation of external costs. My opinion, which coincides with that of the rapporteur - who has written an excellent report - emphasises the great benefits mobility brings with regard to Europeans' quality of life, growth and employment within the European Union, socio-economic and territorial cohesion, and trade with non-EU countries, as well as its benefits for the firms and employees involved directly or indirectly in the transport and logistics sector. From this perspective, I welcome the fact that the Commission, in its communication, has compiled an 'inventory' of EU measures to date to promote a sustainable transport policy. This is a small step towards a major objective.

The Commission has published a package of communications about 'making transport greener', a 'strategy for internalising external costs' and 'noise-reducing measures for goods and equipment'. It is very positive, to my mind - and is also something that I encourage - that green measures are being worked out in the area of transport.

The Jarzembowski report, however, would weaken the Commission proposals. This is why the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance have tabled positive amendments, including the request for more co-financing between the EU and the Member States, a kerosene tax for air transport and the uncoupling of an increase in transport from economic growth. Our amendments were not accepted, however, as a result of which this report has no added value for the Commission proposals. As such, I have voted against this report.

in writing. - I support measures towards a greening of transport. This will help us in our fight against climate change. However, specific measures need to be strengthened and I had to abstain.

in writing. - I fully concur that among the impacts of the economic crisis, the rise of poverty in the EU is the greatest concern. It is essential to halt the current rise in unemployment in the EU. I believe that the most efficient way of reducing and preventing poverty is through a strategy based on the goals of full employment, high quality jobs, social inclusion, measures to encourage entrepreneurship and activities to boost the role of SMEs and investments. In a nutshell, this is the most important part of the preamble to the resolution.

If we fail to stem the rise of poverty in the EU as a result of the existing exceptional circumstances, then the EU will have failed to address the most important issue stemming from this economic and financial calamity.

In the European Union, we have been seeing an increase in levels of poverty, precarious work and inequalities, a situation which may become worse in the current economic and financial crisis, given that the predictions point to a recessionary trend and to an increase in the number of unemployed.

The policies enshrined in the Lisbon Strategy and in the European Employment Strategy have contributed to this situation as they promote financial deregulation, market liberalisation and insecurity in labour relations. As a result, what was needed was a break with these policies. However, faced with worsening social and economic conditions, the response (or lack of response) from the EU reflects its class choices, insisting on continuing with policies which promote the accumulation of huge profits by the large economic and financial groups, to the detriment of the living conditions of workers and the general population.

What is needed is a reversal in the current macroeconomic policies and the defence of jobs and workers' rights. We need an alternative policy that guarantees a fair distribution of income, stimulates economic activity, creates jobs, reinforces the state's role in the economy, boosts demand, encourages the growth of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and revives investment, bearing in mind the needs and specific aspects of each Member State.

in writing. - I voted for this report despite my disappointment at Amendment 10 by the Greens calling for the introduction of an EU-wide financial transaction tax. As President of the Globalisation Intergroup in this Parliament, I strongly support the introduction of a Tobin-type tax to both control financial speculation and raise billions of euros to help alleviate deep poverty in the world amongst the billion plus living on less than a euro a day. Who can be against such a simple and effective measure?

The Lisbon Strategy was thought up in a context and for an economic context which is clearly different from the one in which we currently find ourselves. However, this fact does not mean that all its underlying concepts need to be revised. A distinction must be made between the exceptional nature of the current circumstances and the policies that should be pursued in order to promote European development and competitiveness in the long term. However, it is important not to conclude from this distinction that the crisis situation requires measures contrary to good policies. Quite the contrary. The response to the current situation, although demanding exceptional measures, must be guided by the ideas of good policies and by opting for investment in innovation and in the competitive capacity of Europe, otherwise we will fail both to respond to the crisis and to prepare the Member States of the European Union for the next phase of the global economy.

After carefully studying the motion for a resolution on the Lisbon Strategy, I decided in the end to abstain and thus not to vote either in favour or against the motion.

in writing. - The financial and resultant economic crisis have dwelt a huge blow to European growth and the stability of the job market. In these difficult times, our primary aim must be, as this joint resolution says, to protect EU citizens, whether workers, entrepreneurs, householders, from the effects of the crisis. While the current crisis is undoubtedly devastating, it also offers opportunity: opportunity to change our way of thinking; opportunity to build a strengthening framework for sustainable growth that can withstand potential shocks; and opportunity to build a sound economic and social base for the future.

Among the elements of this resolution that particularly appeal are the recognition of the crucial role of small and medium-sized enterprises and the support that needs to be given to them. Not only do SMEs provide valuable employment, accounting for 80% of new jobs in the EU in recent years, but they also play a key social role in stimulating local economies, diversifying employment and encouraging entrepreneurship. Similarly, the emphasis on innovation - especially in the environmental sector - is very welcome and an illustration that the twin goals of energy efficiency and economic stability need by no means be mutually exclusive.

in writing. - The EPLP believes that the Lisbon Strategy remains an important platform for growth and job creation across the EU. This is still an objective which is achievable, even if the current economic climate damages the true potential. However, the EPLP does not agree that an EU-wide transaction tax is a necessary vehicle to achieve some of the Lisbon Strategy objectives and did not support this measure.

However, the EPLP could support the main thrust of the approved text and therefore voted in favour of the report.

in writing. - According to the Allianz Group report which was published on Monday, the recession is slowing the EU this year in reaching its goal of becoming the world's leading knowledge-based economic area. In order for us to reach the Lisbon targets, we must do all we can, even in these tough times, to meet these goals. By meeting these goals, we will be able to see our way through the recession, making the EU stronger placed in the future. We must also keep to the Barcelona targets on childcare.

The resolutions by the political forces of capital conceal the causes and character of the capitalist crisis. They shift the burden of the crisis on to the workers, who paid for the excessive profits of capital and are now being called upon to pay for the crisis and to save and increase capitalist profit. The motions call on the European Union to deepen the anti-labour Lisbon Strategy, to apply the Stability Pact and the Economic Recovery Plan and to proceed with the full liberalisation of the internal market. They propose measures to support monopoly groups by granting an abundant flow of money from the workers' pockets, reducing the taxes on capital and increasing lending to large monopoly companies. They are promoting faster capitalist restructurings predicated on the 'flexicurity' strategy and the Directive on the organisation of working time, in other words on increasing working times by up to 13 hours a day and 78 hours a week and dividing working time into active time and unpaid inactive time.

The development of the 'green economy' and the liberalisation of research and of energy and innovation are paving the way for profitable investments by capital to the detriment of the workers and grassroots classes.

The informal summit on 1 March confirmed the escalation in imperialist infighting and the united front of the monopolies against the people.

in writing. - I agree that the EU maintains a leading role in international climate policy. However, unless it speaks with one voice, this will result in loss of credibility. The EU as a whole appears to be on track regarding targets for climate change, but all countries including Malta have to be careful not to lag behind, as this will affect the credibility of the Union.

Limiting global average temperature increases is necessary not only in the developed world, but also in developing countries. Needless to say, such actions will strain financial resources. The EU has to provide a plan which will address relevant areas and sources of financing.

I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on combating climate change. The European Union must maintain its leading role in international climate policy and make every effort to reach an agreement in Copenhagen allowing a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and the limitation of the global temperature increase to less than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.

Given the current financial and economic crisis, reaching a new agreement in Copenhagen on combating climate change is fundamental. The economic crisis and the climate crisis can be combined to offer major economic opportunities to develop new technologies and create jobs.

This resolution contains positive aspects, which we value. We would highlight the call for the European Union to actively pursue an agreement in Copenhagen which takes into account the most recent scientific reports on climate change, which commits to stabilisation levels and temperature targets that provide strong probability of avoiding dangerous climate change, and which allows for regular reviews to ensure that targets are in line with the latest science. Likewise, we regard as positive the attention drawn to the need to significantly increase financial resources, in order to allow the necessary mitigation action in developing countries.

However, we disagree with the insistence, albeit only in the recitals, on the EU emission trading scheme, particularly as it is stated that this could work as a template for the development of emission trading in other developed countries and regions. We therefore disagree with the economics-based approach, which clearly influences various points of the resolution.

in writing. - I voted in favour of this resolution by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Despite the depth and breadth of the current financial crisis, a product of deregulation, cowardly regulators and greedy bankers, we cannot take our eyes off the need to continue to act to halt climate change. We need to see the current crisis as an opportunity to spend resources to achieve a step change in our lifestyles and promote a green new deal across the continent and the world. We cannot achieve our goals unless we work in partnership with the US and Japan, China and India.

I agree with some points of the resolution on combating climate change. On the other hand, I cannot support several paragraphs of the report. I have therefore decided to abstain and not to vote on this matter.

in writing. - We must use the green economy to create jobs throughout the EU. This must be a priority during the financial crisis.

in writing. - (SV) This resolution contains many deserving exhortations. However, most of what is dealt with in the resolution lies within the political responsibility of the national parliaments.

The proposals in the resolution will also result in a requirement for greater resources for the EU's Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This will entail an increase in the Member States' fees to the EU. This comes at a time when Member States need to retain their reduced economic resources for their own social and employment policies. We do not believe that the EU's Globalisation Fund is the most effective way to support workers who have lost their jobs. The Member States are better placed to pursue an effective policy in this area. Moreover, the Member States are all spending sums of money on stimulus packages of the same magnitude as their total contributions to the EU's budget.

We have voted against this resolution, primarily because of the wording relating to the EU's Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

I voted against the motion for a resolution on employment policy guidelines. In fact, given that the global financial and economic crisis calls for a determined and coordinated response from the EU to prevent job losses, to maintain a satisfactory income level for Europeans, to prevent a recession and to turn the current economic and employment challenges into opportunities, I believe that the measures taken under the governance of the Eurocrats are definitely not enough to bear the weight of the crisis that we are going through, not least in a sensitive sector such as employment.

in writing. - The initiative to launch the Recovery Plan is a reaction to the serious ongoing economic downturn. The top priority of the Recovery Plan must be to stimulate the economy and competitiveness of the EU, and to avoid increased unemployment. Members insist that all financial aid must be timely, targeted and temporary. The present exceptional circumstances have to be seen within the wider context of a firm commitment to bringing normal budgetary discipline back on track as soon as the economy recovers.

In addition, the Recovery Plan must also serve the purpose of delivering a fair international agreement to give poorer countries the opportunity to escape poverty without fuelling global warming, by helping to finance massive investment.

Finally, coordinated action between Member States must be directed at reducing uncertainty in the credit markets and facilitating the functioning of those markets.

Despite certain positive and timely proposals having been adopted, which we supported, particularly the one on tax havens, regrettably most of our group's proposals were rejected, and the main tack of the report is to continue with the neoliberal policies, with a few rose-coloured touches for voters to see in the run-up to the electoral campaign.

Among our rejected proposals were those calling for a significant increase in financial resources and quicker application of the funds intended to support employment, and also a redirection of support programmes towards the most vulnerable groups, including programmes guaranteeing decent living conditions and universal access to high-quality public services. I also regret the rejection of proposals such as those which regarded the amount of the Recovery Plan (1.5% of EU GDP) to be insufficient to successfully tackle the current crisis, noting that the EU will lag far behind countries such as the United States and China. Furthermore, I regret the rejection of our criticism of the Commission for linking the Recovery Plan to the expansion of neoliberal 'structural reforms' and to strict compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact, when what was needed was to dispense with these and change tack.

in writing. - I can only congratulate my colleague Elisa Ferreira on her report on the European Economic Recovery Plan. I would endorse the sentiments of Poul Rasmussen that we have not yet done enough. The bail out of the banks was a necessary but not sufficient step. We must also take steps to deal with the problems of the labour market. Work-sharing must be encouraged and when short time is demanded, we should encourage maintaining hours at the workplace by utilising the time for training to improve skills.

The real crisis is not in the subprime mortgage market but rather in the ten times larger casino economy of the increasingly esoteric and fantasy world of the derivatives market, which needs to be brought under control. I therefore welcome moves to control tax havens and to introduce an EU-wide financial transaction tax to overcome the worst consequences of the crisis, mitigate speculation and raise finance to help us stay on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

The report on a European Economic Recovery Plan, adopted today, supports measures proposed by the European Commission which are intended to stimulate the European economy.

Data from the last few weeks do not engender optimism. It is estimated that economic growth in Europe in 2009 will remain at a level below zero. Throughout the EU, unemployment is also growing. This is the most serious recession to have affected the European Community and the first since the introduction of the common currency.

Determined action is therefore needed, leading to the creation of jobs and a real improvement in the economic situation. A key question is, of course, the so-called healing of the financial system, so that enterprises and citizens can have access to credit. This is particularly relevant to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are, surely, the foundation of the European economy. This is why the effective and rapid restoration of the award of credit must be ensured urgently. Aid designated for combating the crisis must not only be directed at rescuing selected sectors. Such aid is unavoidable, but it should also include an ongoing approach to the competitiveness of European industry. In addition, the crisis must not be used as an opportunity to introduce new, excessively burdensome regulations.

I hope that the European Economic Recovery Plan will soon produce results in the form of the first signs of economic stimulation.

in writing. - (FR) Exceptional situations call for exceptional resources.

The economic situation has deteriorated so much that it justifies concerted action by the Member States to try to relaunch economic activity. Several observations are called for, however. The exceptional situation we are experiencing does not call into question the basic rules of economics. Borrowing today means debts tomorrow, debts that the Member States will be obliged to repay at a future date. Deficits may be necessary, but there will be a heavy price to pay. We have to be aware of this. There is already talk of increased taxes in the near future to keep public finances afloat.

Secondly, all the spending commitments in the recovery plans are far from being of equal merit. Investment spending on the modernisation of production equipment or on research has a very different value to money spent on operating costs. It would therefore be a good idea for the Member States to provide themselves with the appropriate tools for making the best choices.

Finally, since words do have meaning, let us be clear that the recovery plan is not, in truth, a European plan, but rather a coordination of national measures taken by the various Member States. Do we need to do more? The question is worth asking, but the setting up of a common European Union recovery plan would presuppose fundamental reviews of European policies and resources.

The European Economic Recovery Plan is especially important because of its two key elements: firstly, short-term fiscal stimulus measures aimed at boosting demand, protecting jobs and restoring consumer confidence and secondly, smart investments to boost economic growth.

The European Union's number one priority is to protect its citizens from the adverse effects of the financial crisis. In the case of the Romanian economy, these measures will show their effectiveness, especially for SMEs, by simplifying and speeding up procedures and providing Structural and Cohesion Funds, as well as rural development funds, in advance.

The positive vote given to this report also means that the European Social Fund will have to finance measures promoting employment, especially in favour of the most vulnerable population groups. Framework conditions will also have to be created to alleviate the impact on the business sector as this sector has a key role to play in the economic recovery, making a crucial contribution also to creating jobs and therefore generating demand in the internal market.

I voted in favour of Mrs Ferreira's report in the firm belief that it will help overcome the difficult economic period which Europe is going through, following the neo-liberal policies of the last 10 years.

The rich European states must show solidarity with Eastern Europe, and the aid fund granted to countries in this area must be increased. In our view, as European socialists, we must act to eliminate the differences between the more developed countries and developing countries, all the more so as the latter countries' economies are closely linked to the banking institutions in the West. This is why we need a plan to coordinate the economies of all Member States.

We support the introduction of measures against offshore financial activities which allow very high-earners to switch their businesses to these tax havens, without paying any tax, while the majority of EU citizens are paying taxes and losing their jobs. The figures are alarming: by the end of 2009, the number of unemployed is expected to reach 25 million for the whole of Europe (500 000 in Romania). Abolishing tax havens will get rid of unemployment.

We need to promote and support European solidarity between old and new Member States, which makes the vote on the amendment relating to this issue a test for the EP.

in writing. - The economic situation in Europe and further afield is as grave as any of us can remember, and it is absolutely right that the European Union and the Member States do everything that they can to ensure that a recession does not turn into a slump and that where government action really can kick-start economic activity, it should be allowed to do so.

This report is not perfect and we cannot agree with everything in it, but it reiterates the key points that the downturn is not an excuse for protectionism, excessive debt or the removal of competition rules. We have resisted efforts from the left, whose amendments have aimed to turn a reasonable report into an unaffordable shopping list or an attack on capitalism and the financial system in general.

It is now important for all of us to roll up our sleeves and get our economies working again. This report recognises that the free market and the individuals and businesses of Europe are vital to the reconstruction process, and it is on that basis that the British Conservatives support it.

Despite containing positive elements, Elisa Ferreira's report on the European Economic Recovery Plan suffers from the same problems as the plan itself: it depicts the situation without having properly set out a real understanding of the causes of the current crisis; it lists the initiatives required to restore the confidence of economic operators without, however, having identified to date any evidence of this effect; and it offers little in terms of European mobilisation. For that matter, on this point it should be added that, if this report solves little in concrete terms, that is because the European Parliament has little ability to do so. The same can be said for the European Commission.

Out of this plan's budget, only 15% will be funds managed at Community level. The answer will therefore indeed have to be found at European level, but primarily through the political willingness of the Member States to coordinate their responses to the current economic situation. The impetus must come from the Member States, if it comes at all, given that the current signs of a lack of European political will are worrying. You only have to look, for example, at the contradictory positions adopted by the German or Austrian Social Democrats in the EP or when they are representing the governments of their countries.

I agree with some points of Mrs Ferreira's report on a European Economic Recovery Plan, but I do not subscribe to it in its entirety. For this reason, I have decided to abstain and not to vote for my fellow Member's report.

The main problem created by this crisis is the rise in unemployment, a situation which can only be reversed by increasing investment.

In order to increase investment, we need credit to be accessible and cheap, but everything is pointing to the fact that, for the time being, this will be scarce and much more expensive for the most vulnerable countries, such as Portugal.

These countries are facing increased financing difficulties, which is why I clearly support the possibility of having, in the eurozone, a single central issuer of European public debt. For that matter, this is the scenario which is most compatible with the long-term sustainability of the euro.

In the current circumstances, it is vital to reinvigorate the European credit market by granting responsible loans to viable businesses and to families.

The financial assistance given to banks and businesses must also be well-directed, temporary, transparent, guaranteed in cost-benefit terms and strictly controlled.

The solidity and solidarity of the European project may be at stake and we must therefore act in a coordinated manner and respect the rules of the internal market, without allowing any protectionism.

I support the report on the European Economic Recovery Plan presented by my fellow Member, Elisa Ferreira, as I agree with the general lines of its approach.

in writing. - This report accompanies the recovery plan of the European Commission, which attempts to reinvigorate the EU economy. The EPLP can support the main thrust of the rapporteur's ideas and believes that many of the issues outlined are critical for a real recovery.

The Commission response during the economic crisis has been muted and Parliament believes that more effective tools are required to produce recovery. In fact, an environmental approach could lead to greater innovation and spark renewed productivity whilst also having a positive effect on our environment. However, care has to be taken not to injure specific industrial sectors or reduce our overall economic possibilities, and therefore consideration of a targeted approach is very necessary. Similarly, a new approach to financial supervision denoted by the de Larosière wise men's report is also vital to ensuring against systemic risks.

The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance takes the view that what we are experiencing now is a culmination of three crises that are interrelated: an economic crisis, an environmental one and a social one. This is why the Verts/ALE Group is opposed to promoting a 'European recovery plan' in the light of the imminent European Spring Summit, whose only mission is to stimulate the old laissez-faire model back into life.

Pumping enormous sums into this model carries the serious risk of deepening the environmental and social crises. It is counterproductive simply to increase demand in order to bring production back on song. This is exactly what the Ferreira report proposes, which is why I voted against it.

The economic recovery plan must make new financing instruments possible and, at the same time, by means of regulations, inject stability and reliability into the system. The incentive to go for short-term profit by means of a selection of bonuses must be removed and replaced by rules for so-called lever funds and private equity funds. Transparency, open bookkeeping and supervision must render tax havens impossible. By means of a precise description of tasks, banks can once again become servants of the real economy, where the European Central Bank can act as a guard dog.

in writing. - The financial crisis is the first test of globalisation. A crisis fuelled by greed and now consumed by fear should make us question our fundamental values and what kind of society we would like to live within. This is not a time for narrow nationalism, but a time where a strong Europe has never been so important. The need for a coordinated approach, not just across the EU, but across the world, makes the G20 in London so important.

I voted in favour of the Ferreira report, which calls on the European Commission to come up with strong, clear guidelines aimed at better coordination among all Member States in terms of management of this powerful economic crisis with a view to protecting as many jobs as possible. I urge the Commission to initiate the relevant procedures as soon as possible.

Through this report, the European Union is inviting the European Spring Council to give a strong political impetus and draw up a roadmap for all the legal initiatives in order to guarantee, along with Parliament, that they will be adopted in good time.

The report highlights the extremely adverse economic and social consequences of the crisis in many of the new Member States, which poses a considerable risk of destabilisation and increasing poverty. Spill-over effects are expected to affect the euro and the economies of the eurozone. We urge a coordinated approach at Community level, bearing in mind Community solidarity and the adoption of collective responsibility in this regard. We also invite the Commission to review and consolidate all the instruments aimed at stabilising the Member States affected, which includes stabilising exchange rates, so that security provisions and rapid, effective response packages can be implemented.

I have listened very carefully to the speeches of the rapporteurs and the group chairmen, including the swipe which the group chairman of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament took at the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats with regard to their voting behaviour in respect of Amendment 92. Indeed, we do not agree with the implications of this amendment, and together with my group colleagues, I voted emphatically against it. Surely it cannot be the intention to take short-term measures that undermine long-term objectives?

For this reason, it is not reasonable to force Member States into making a budgetary effort, irrespective of their level of blame, which is an important factor in establishing to what extent deficit spending can be justified. My group was right to hold firm to its opinion which it shares with the Commission, namely that we should also have future generations in mind. This is why it is justified to vary the budgetary incentives according to the level of blame of the Member States. For this reason, demanding a uniform effort of 1.5% of GDP is not viable or justified.

The European Economic Recovery Plan shifts the burden of the capitalist crisis on to the workers' shoulders, promotes the more general aims of the EU and protects the profits and collective interests of the plutocracy.

The purpose of the all-out attack on insurance and labour rights and on the incomes of grassroots families and their standard of living is so that the EU can assure the euro-unifying monopolies that they will be 'in an advantageous position when the economy recovers' compared with the international competition.

The EU and the governments are trying to obtain grassroots consent, using the carrot and stick method, in order to impose with the least resistance the capitalist restructurings set out in the Lisbon Strategy: revolving employment and unemployment, an increase in the retirement age and drastic cuts in wages, pensions and social benefits.

Moreover, the decisions taken at the summits and the financing of measures solely by the Member States highlight the escalation in imperialist infighting, which leads to a policy of 'every man for himself'.

There is only one choice for the workers: resistance, disobedience and counterattack with the Greek Communist Party, condemnation of the policy of the European one-way street and of the forces that support it, the reorganisation of the grassroots movement and the fight for grassroots power and the grassroots economy.

Madam President, I voted for the report. Transparency is not just a symbol but a principle on which all institutional procedures should be based. Citizens and elective bodies must be assured the greatest possible access to documents held by the European institutions in order to enable them to participate effectively in the political process and to hold the public authorities to account for their actions. For this reason I argued strongly in the past for the publication of parliamentary attendance.

Despite the progress made by the European institutions on openness and transparency, the situation cannot exactly be described as perfect and this recasting of Regulation (EEC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents held by the European institutions should be seen as another step towards achieving an administrative environment where the availability of, and ease of access to, information are the rule rather than the exception.

To conclude I would like to point out the great achievement recently accomplished: the European Parliament now uses no fewer than 23 official languages and European Community documents are available in all of these. This represents a guarantee of democracy.

This own-initiative report should be viewed from the perspective of the legislative debate under way aimed at amending the regulations relating to the Structural Funds and, in particular, the ERDF regulation (Angelakas report) and the ESF regulation (Jöns report).

In an effort to reach an agreement at first reading and give a rapid response to this crisis, which directly affects the people of Europe, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has chosen not to amend the legislative proposals. For the sake of consistency, this same approach has been applied for this vote.

My colleagues from the MoDem party and I share the same concerns regarding the fight against climate change. The latter will have to be confirmed as a priority of cohesion policy after 2013.

Do not count on us to praise the hollow European Economic Recovery Plan, which, for the most part, will be self-financed by each of the Member States ('European solidarity' at its best ...) and which does not call into question the neoliberal policies that are at the root of the worsening working and living conditions of the overwhelming majority of the population.

As a result, not surprisingly, the majority of Parliament rejected our proposals, which:

condemned the fact that, at a time when the socio-economic crisis in the EU is worsening, the Community budget for 2009 is 'the lowest ever';

insisted on increasing the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund;

underlined that 'additional advanced payments' under these Funds would result in a reduction in Community financing over the next few years;

criticised the under-implementation of these Funds, particularly in the context of worsening socio-economic conditions in the EU;

demanded that these Funds be regarded as a spending target and proposed increasing the rate of Community cofinancing and abolishing the N+2 and N+3 rules with regard to these Funds;

insisted on these Funds being effectively used to promote real convergence, thus abandoning their constant subordination to the neoliberal objectives of the 'Lisbon Strategy';

insisted on fighting company relocations.

in writing. - I support this report which recommends faster, more flexible payments for structural funding. This report will ensure wide use of structural funds to secure jobs, and to create more jobs. I welcome this report which calls for funding to be provided to projects earlier and reduce the need for bank loans.

I voted against Mr Kirilov's report on Cohesion Policy: Investing in the real economy. It is, in fact, crucial to understand that the EU's cohesion policy makes an important contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan and is the Community's largest source of investment in the real economy, providing targeted assistance for addressing priority needs and areas with growth potential, both in the public and in the private sector. However, this ought to make us think about the mistakes made in the past that have led to this serious economic situation. Strict legislation is required in this sector, too, otherwise the same mistakes are liable to be repeated in cycles.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Statement by the President

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to ask for your understanding and to apologise for the fact that the session is starting so late, but I was only told two minutes ago that I will be asked to make a statement on a very sad event. I would like to make this statement now with your consent.

It is with great sadness and outrage that we have heard today about events in the town of Winnenden in Baden-Württemberg in Germany, where fifteen people were tragically killed at the Albertville secondary school. The perpetrator, a seventeen-year-old former student at the school, later committed suicide. During a shootout at a supermarket in the town, two policemen who were in pursuit of the perpetrator were injured.

On behalf of the European Parliament I would like to express my deepest condolences and my solidarity with the families and all the relatives of the victims, who are innocent young students and three teachers from the school.

This tragedy takes place only six months after a similar terrible gun rampage at a school in Kauhajoki in Finland. As responsible politicians in the European Union and in all the Member States, it is our task to do everything we possibly can to ensure that acts like this are anticipated at an early stage and prevented from occurring, if this is something that we can influence.

We are also shocked by another tragic event in the state of Alabama in the United States, where a gunman on the rampage shot at least ten people before turning his gun on himself.

I would like once again to express on behalf of everyone here our deepest sympathy and our solidarity with the victims and their families. I would be grateful if you would take time to remember those who have been killed.

(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

State of play of SIS II (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on:

the oral question to the Council on the state of play of SIS II, by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mrs Roure, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and Mr Lax, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - B6-0010/2009), and

the oral question to the Commission on the state of play of SIS II, by Mr Coelho, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mrs Roure, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and Mr Lax, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - B6-0011/2009).

Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, in the European Parliament we clearly support the rapid entry into operation of the SIS II (Schengen Information System), which should have occurred in 2007. The second generation of the SIS represents a Community approach to the need to step up security at the external borders and share important innovations such as biometric data and the interlinking of alerts. We accept that this system can only enter into operation once it is robust and can operate fully 24 hours a day. In my opinion, the time has come to find out who is responsible for this delay, make an in-depth assessment of the situation and find solutions that will make this project technically viable and restore its already weakened credibility.

We know that various tests were carried out last year, the end result of which was negative, particularly for the operational system test. The Council and the Commission decided to set a period of four months in order to try and solve the persisting problems, albeit without any great success, as can be seen from the results achieved in December 2008 when the tests were repeated. Despite some improvements having been made, as far as we know, there are still major issues in terms of the performance and robustness of the system, loss of messages, data quality and the process of synchronising the national copies with the central system. The SIS II clearly cannot start operating until these issues have been solved. I should like to express my doubts about the ability of the contracted company to solve, in such a short period of time, all these issues which have not been solved previously during a much longer period of time. I hope that an independent audit of the project can be launched in order to find out who is responsible. I have no objections to the alternative technical scenario of the evolution of the 'SIS I for All' system to SIS II, provided that the legal framework approved for the SIS II is fully respected. At the end of March, a report assessing and comparing the two scenarios shall be presented. Parliament wants to have access to this study and to be informed about the new direction to be given to the project, in terms of both the level of confidence in the technical side and the legal implications, the new timetable and the budgetary impact. I should like to remind the Council and the Commission, particularly at this time, that greater transparency in this whole process is particularly advisable.

Mr President, SIS II, as we know, is a very important tool for ensuring the security of the Schengen area, especially following the enlargement to include the 10 new countries.

Since the adoption of the legal bases in 2007, not once have we had the opportunity to see a detailed report on the developments or on the technical or political problems that are said to be hindering the start-up of the system.

It was through the press that we learnt that all the tests required to launch the central system in complete safety had failed in December 2008.

We know that the Commission has tried to draw up a remedial plan to resolve the main problems, and we know that several Member States, within the Council, are already thinking of an alternative that would consist of a simple upgrade to the SIS system currently in operation.

The problem is therefore not technical, but political. This Parliament has been asked to define by codecision the architecture of SIS II which, of itself, would have ensured the security necessary for our area of freedom, security and justice. We have worked on it without losing sight of security and the protection of the fundamental rights of our citizens.

In this instance, it is the political responsibility of the European institutions, and of the Council and the Commission, in particular, that is at stake, for we believe that Parliament has acquitted itself well in relation to the citizens.

We await, now and in the future, the political reasons for this radical change of direction. This could, of course, have very serious consequences for the budget earmarked thus far for this project, beginning with the putting aside, where necessary, of the available resources, until such time as the future of the project and its legal basis have been duly defined.

author. - (SV) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, we in the European Parliament need to know whether the Council and the Commission still believe that SIS II will ever be up and running. Will the Commission persevere in trying to find a technical solution to the current problems? What is the way forward? As expressed in the two previous speeches, we in the European Parliament wish to be kept up to date on the problems, and this has not happened up to now.

If SIS II cannot get off the ground in its present form, is there a plan B and will such a plan B be presented? As Mrs Roure mentioned, the question of SIS II is ultimately a question of the Union's credibility when it comes to guaranteeing internal security within the EU. However, we must also remember that the same infrastructure is to be used for the visa information system, VIS. In the long term, therefore, the credibility of the Union's visa policy is also on the line, that is to say, its ability to manage relations with the surrounding world in a dignified way.

Finally, I would like to ask the Commission if it still has the full support of the Member States for this project. Are they willing to bear the costs of a project that seems as if it will never get off the ground?

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, before I address the subject of our debate today, let me start by expressing my deep condolences to relatives of the victims in the tragic incident in Baden-Württemberg today.

Now let me turn to the subject of our debate today. Firstly, we are grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. This is an important issue, as you all know well. A number of operational difficulties have led to specific problems in getting SIS II up and running.

The Presidency wishes, as you request, to be completely transparent with you about the history of and the background on this issue. Because of the negative results of the original tests on the system, further tests were conducted in November and December 2008. The final results of these operational system tests were only known in the second half of January 2009.

At their informal meeting of 15 January 2009 in Prague, Justice and Home Affairs Ministers were informed by the Commission that the outcome of these tests had been less than satisfactory. The ministers agreed immediately on the need to implement a new global SIS II management approach, involving Member States working together with the Commission. The new management approach will provide for closer monitoring of the project, thereby allowing for early warning of any potential difficulties. It was also agreed that measures would be taken at a subsequent JHA Council, which took place on 26 and 27 February 2009. At that meeting, the Council agreed in its conclusion to invite the Commission to keep Parliament and the Presidency of the Council fully informed about problems related to SIS II and the way forward.

This Parliament has asked whether the problems identified to date will require the system to be rebuilt. According to the information received by the Council on the status of the SIS II project, a number of problems persist. However, we understand that the view of the Commission is that all outstanding issues can be resolved without a major redesign of the SIS II application.

At its February meeting, the Council endorsed the implementation of the SIS II analysis and repair plan, which will allow for the identification of all issues and their immediate solution, as well as the evaluation of the technical architecture so as to ensure a stable and flawless SIS II system. Nevertheless, the Council also agreed that the contingency plan should be followed in case serious problems emerge which could not be resolved. As far as an alternative to SIS II is concerned, the JHA Council in February welcomed the completion of the feasibility study serving as a basis for creating a workable, alternative technical scenario for developing SIS II based on SIS I+ evolution as a part of the contingency plan.

The Council also requested that as soon as possible, and by May 2009 at the latest, a report containing an in-depth assessment and comparison of both scenarios should be submitted to the Council by the Presidency and the Commission. The Council will assess, on the basis of this report, the progress made on SIS II development and, as far as the alternative scenario is concerned, will examine the prospect of achieving the objective of SIS II as set out in the legal framework governing the establishment, operation and use of SIS II, on the technical basis of SIS I+ evolution. This examination will be carried out as soon as possible and at the latest by the Council meeting on 4 and 5 June 2009.

As to the details requested by Parliament on the resolution of the outstanding problems and, in particular, the financial aspects, the Council invited the Commission not only to inform the European Parliament about the problems related to SIS II, but also to inform both Parliament and the Council fully and on a regular basis about the expenditure figures related to the central SIS II project and to measures taken to ensure complete financial transparency.

On the basis of the report requested from the Presidency and Commission, the Council will, at the latest by its meeting in June 2009, discuss the calendar for entry into operation of SIS II. This will take into account the provisions on time schedules set out in Parliament's resolution of 24 September 2008 on the draft Council regulation on immigration from the Schengen Information System - SIS I+ - to the second-generation Schengen Information System - SIS II. This was incorporated into Article 19 of the Council Regulation of 24 October.

I am sure that the Commission will be able to provide some additional information in response to the questions raised. I would simply like to assure you, the Members of this Parliament, that the Presidency will follow this issue closely and ensure that the way forward agreed last month by JHA ministers is strictly respected.

Mr President, I wish to confirm what Mr Vondra has said. I must also add that, together with Mr Langer, the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Interior, we have made an absolute priority of this SIS II issue.

I am going to try, in turn, to give you some clarifications. The Commission's main contractor for developing SIS II has performed a series of operational tests on the central system running interactively with some national systems. Between November and December 2008, the results of these tests led us to conclude that the central system had not achieved the level stipulated in the contract.

In mid-November, the Commission initiated a detailed analysis of the SIS II solution, which is currently being developed by Hewlett-Packard/Steria, in cooperation with experts from the Member States, and with the help and assistance of two well-known IT consultancies.

Following the failure of the operational tests, we then implemented an analysis and repair plan that will take an estimated four months to complete. The objective of this plan is to bring the implementation of SIS II up to a satisfactory level of stability and performance.

The aim of the plan is, firstly, to fix the known bugs linked to the central system - some of the bugs have already been fixed - and, secondly, to verify that the implementation of SIS II is not suffering from insurmountable structural weaknesses.

Targeted tests are being performed in a number of priority areas to remove the uncertainties surrounding the architecture of the current solution. This activity is running in parallel with the finalisation of the technical analysis of the underlying problems.

The Commission has also introduced a global approach to the management of the project so that the central and national components of SIS II can be better integrated, in accordance with the competences legally established by the Commission and the Member States.

In concrete terms, the Commission is coordinating a joint management structure for the project. This joint management structure brings together the national project managers, the central project managers and the Commission's contractors. This structure will accompany the project throughout the analysis and repair phase, then during the qualification tests, then during the migration phase, until SIS II is commissioned.

At the end of the analysis and repair phase, we will have a precise idea of the resources that still need to be implemented before SIS II can be started up and of the corresponding schedule, as Mr Vondra just said. Obviously, there is no doubt that the objective of bringing SIS II into service in September 2009 will be subject to delay.

The current difficulties facing SIS II were discussed at the informal meeting of the ministers on 15 January and at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 26 and 27 February. The broad outlines of the approach recommended by the Commission for the continuation of SIS II were accepted.

Firstly, the need to continue with the feasibility study into an alternative technical solution based on the current SIS I+ received support from the Council. We are therefore able to continue this feasibility study into an alternative solution.

However, any alternative technical solution will obviously have to comply with the legal framework created for SIS II, as adopted by Parliament and by the Council. Obviously, great care will need to be taken with regard to the maximum re-use of the investments, as well as to the situation of the Member States and associated countries that intend to become a part of the Schengen area in the years to come.

The ministers decided to re-convene, as has just been said, in June at the latest - at the start of June - in order to assess the progress made and to define, where necessary, new directions and any changeover to an alternative option. In the light of this, the Council has asked the Presidency and the Commission, in close cooperation with the SIS II Task Force and in consultation with the appropriate bodies, to present the Council with a report containing a detailed assessment and comparison of the two scenarios. This report is to be produced as soon as possible, and by no later than May 2009.

To this end, common comparison criteria have been agreed on for the purposes of assessing the respective advantages and disadvantages of each solution. For clarity's sake, this means that we will have a Council decision at the start of June. The latter will be taken in light of the tests that will have been completed and this, we believe, will make it possible either to carry on with SIS II or to move towards an alternative solution, but one that will, of course, still fulfil the objectives that you have set.

I am, of course, very aware of what Mr Coelho and Mrs Roure said about the need for a high level of transparency. I would like to say that we send, and will continue to send, the minutes of the SIS II committee on a very regular basis. I must also say that I have written to Mr Deprez, the chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, to provide him with detailed information on the situation with SIS II. A copy of this correspondence has also been sent to Mr Coelho.

I also wish to say to Mr Lax that the problems with SIS II do not affect VIS. The problems with SIS II do not involve the infrastructure that it shares with VIS. It can be said that VIS is going very much according to the plan agreed with the Member States.

What I wish to say to you is that we have in fact organised, both with the Task Force and within the Commission, extremely regular meetings with the co-contractor and the two co-contractors, especially Steria. We can truly hope, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that this issue will be concluded in the coming months, with this decision on a final date, set as the start of June, when the Council will, in fact, have to make its decision.

I undertake here and now to keep Parliament abreast of all of these developments.

The operational problem with the Schengen Information System II was discussed recently as part of the Council meeting in February 2009. It was highlighted once again that an immediate solution needs to be found to the impasse which SIS II is currently at.

However, I get the impression that instead of answers, there are even more questions raised after the discussions about SIS II. The Council supports the implementation of an analysis and repairs plan to help identify the problems with SIS II's technical architecture, with the aim of making it stable and reliable. On the other hand, the Council does not exclude the possibility of deciding to adopt an alternative technical solution which can achieve the objectives proposed by SIS II.

Whichever of the options is applied, it must not have repercussions on the schedule for the inclusion of the countries which are still excluded from the Schengen area. I would like to know what measures the Commission will adopt to avoid any possible delay and how the additional costs incurred by these changes will be covered. The example of Romania speaks for itself. Romania's external border is 2 000 km long. Its integration into the Schengen area scheduled for March 2011 is a major priority. All this indecision may have consequences in terms of meeting this deadline.

I would like to mention one other thing. At a time when the Commission is preparing to draft a new legislative proposal on the next stages in border management, I would ask the Commission to evaluate first of all the effectiveness of the current systems used to manage borders in order to achieve the best synergy between these systems, and then assess the opportunity for investments in border logistics.

In order to achieve the EU's strategic objectives, the Commission should not start developing new tools from scratch until the existing ones, such as SIS II or VIS, are fully operational and reliable.

Mr President, the situation we are discussing is an eloquent example which shows that it is sometimes easier to achieve a consensus and gain political agreement on the opening of borders than it is to overcome technical problems.

The entry of new Member States to Schengen on 23 December 2007 was a great event for the citizens of those states. I know this, because I am from Poland. My country availed itself of this blessing and very much values the opening of the borders, because it meant the disappearance of the last discriminating circumstance which divided us from the Member States of the old European Union.

Also, it is in my country that the Frontex agency is based. I know that Mr Barrot has been to Poland, where he held talks in Frontex and also visited the part of the EU's external border for which Poland is responsible. I know that in practice, there are no serious problems with guarding this border, and that it is secure. However, we do have problems with technical matters, the solution of which is growing into a political problem, as my colleague Mrs Roure said. I fully agree with her.

If, however, there are technical problems, if there are difficulties, then I suppose every EU institution has a responsibility to address the body which took so long to implement SIS II. It is a pity this has not been done and that transparency in this material has been a little forced.

I think that wherever the resolution of problems which are important for citizens is concerned, the European Parliament cannot agree that any actions should be taken independently of it, or that it should be ignored, especially in the case of a matter of security.

I should like to close with a very small remark. If there were problems, if Hewlett-Packard did not manage to surmount the technical problems, it should be remembered that we have splendid specialists in Poland, young people who are wonderful IT engineers, and who are renowned the world over. I think they could be useful, and could produce the desired result significantly cheaper, faster and better.

(DE) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, Schengen is, and always has been, synonymous with the link between security on the one hand and freedom and liberality on the other. For the citizens of Europe and for all of us, this has been part of the added value offered by the European Union. It has always worked very well and has been applied effectively in the interim on a 'one for all' basis.

What is happening now is annoying. However, it is also annoying that Parliament, which has always been very cooperative, has not been given the necessary information. We have always kept the citizens of Europe informed. The Schengen Information System II will be functioning perfectly and on schedule and now we find out that problems have arisen and that there does not seem to be an end in sight to the dilemma.

I would be interested to know whether the figures circulating in the media, which indicate that around EUR 100 million has so far been spent on developing the Schengen Information System II, are correct. Will the company suffer the consequences? Why has the Commission, the Council or another body not introduced a system of checks in good time?

(SL) Actually, it is strange that issues concerning the system's operability should crop up time and again whenever we tackle these kinds of major and weighty technical questions. We have, by now, already dealt with the technical issues connected with data processing. This is why the public is justifiably asking why it is that we have no professional institutions at an EU level which are sufficiently competent to address any technical problems that might arise from the operation of exceptionally large and comprehensive databases.

I have participated in these debates from the very beginning. I have also worked together with the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, and am aware of certain technical difficulties and deficiencies that still remain, including those involving the level of expertise available. Therefore, my feeling here is that we need to carry out a genuine technical and financial review of the system and take to task those who have been managing this project. In fact, this is not just my feeling; it is the feeling of the public at large.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I hold you personally in high esteem, but what is happening here really is an intolerable mess, involving an unacceptable degree of waste and incompetence. For this reason, I call not only on the Commission but also on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Budgetary Control to look in detail at this question.

I am pleased that the Czech Republic holds the Council Presidency because Bavaria and the Czech Republic have exactly the same security interests. We know that, despite all the fears relating to the opening of the borders, the security situation has been considerably and fundamentally improved since the borders were opened, as a result of excellent police cooperation. This could be a model for other parts of Europe and I would like to thank the Czech Republic for this on behalf of Bavaria. We expect that the Schengen Information System will eventually cover all areas and that it will not be restricted to individual, exemplary, bilateral arrangements.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, I would like to thank you for this debate. I think it shows that there is a problem which needs to be fixed. The Council, under our leadership, did what it could in January. It took seriously this initiative to build the contingency or alternative plan and to push for a solution by setting the deadlines.

That is what we can do. As regards the financial issues, I shall leave the floor to the Commission to respond. We now have excellent cooperation between Minister Langer and Commissioner Barrot, so we believe that we will be able to deal with that.

Concerning the question of whether this is a political or a technical problem, we believe that this is just a technical problem. It is not a smokescreen, as has been suggested, to cover some political problems. No - the system must be operational as soon as possible.

Regarding the comments by Mrs Grabowska: yes, we remember what it means to be in the waiting room. We were discussing this a year ago. All the countries that are interested in seeing some progress here are suddenly sharing experiences similar to ours. We are committed to setting out a technical solution which will allow participation by industries of additional countries, in accordance with the particular calendar.

I shall limit myself to these few concluding remarks. I said a lot at the beginning. Now we will move on.

Mr President, Mr Vondra, thank you for the Czech Presidency's commitment to this issue. Your support has been much appreciated.

I should first of all like to reply to Mr Marinescu by saying that there is no particular problem, given that the Member States that are not yet members of Schengen will be able to join in the SIS II system too. We shall have several 'slots', or times, when new Member States that are not Schengen members will be able to join in SIS II, and so, all being well, there should not be any particular problems.

Mrs Grabowska, I must thank you also for all that the Republic of Poland is doing to guard the external borders. I have had the opportunity to observe, in fact, the quality of the work carried out by Frontex with the Polish teams on the Ukrainian border.

I should simply like to say, in response to Mrs Roure and Mrs Grabowska, that the problem is basically a technical one. It is not, as Mr Vondra said, a political problem. The truth is, quite simply, that the Member States, or some Member States, have made greater and greater demands. Therefore, it has to be said, SIS II has had to meet increasingly sophisticated objectives. Consequently, the system has become more complex and, despite all the tributes you have paid to information technology, the implementation has turned out to be more difficult than expected. Nonetheless, it is true that the problem remains essentially a technical one and that it should therefore be able to be resolved.

I should like to say to Mr Pirker that Parliament will be kept well informed, and I hereby undertake to do this. I have personally taken this on during the course of this project, and I think I can say that I truly consider it to be an absolute priority. I wish also to reassure Mr Brejc that we have clearly identified those in charge. Working with the Commission, we have set up this Task Force, in which the Member States are closely involved. I think that we now have a definite steering group, but our co-contractor also has to be able to meet the requirements we have set.

I should also like to reply to the financial question posed by Mr Pirker and Mr Posselt just now. The Commission's total budget commitment for the SIS II project amounts to about EUR 68 million. The corresponding contracts include feasibility studies, development of the actual central system, support and quality control, the s-Testa network, preparation for operational management in Strasbourg, security, preparations in relation to biometric matters, and communication. That, then, is the commitment: EUR 68 million.

As far as payments are concerned, EUR 27 million have actually been spent to date on technical development: EUR 20 million on developing the system; EUR 7 million on providing a network that is at the forefront of technical progress; and EUR 4 500 000 on quality assurance.

It has to be said that if, after gaining a clear idea of the reliability or lack of reliability of SIS II, the Council decided to move over to the SIS I+R formula, we could at that point consider reusing the communication network put in place for SIS II, meaning that the corresponding investments could, for the most part, be preserved.

Our real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is equipping Schengen, the Schengen area of free movement, with a genuinely effective tool. It is true that, if we succeed with Schengen II, it will be the most effective system in the world, given the results it will enable us to achieve. The information technology, however, has to be in place.

Anyway, what I should like to say to you, after the Czech Presidency - and once again I am grateful to Mr Vondra for the Czech Presidency's commitment to this difficult issue - is that I truly believe that, together with the current Presidency, we have made every effort to avoid any further delay and to genuinely enable our co-contractor to meet our expectations. In any case, we shall have a definite date fixed to enable the Council to take the necessary decisions. Once again, I do, of course, undertake to keep Parliament informed.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

I believe that this project aimed at improving the mechanism for managing the European Union's external borders should not be regarded as an attempt to halt migration as a process. The real purpose of the measures for making EU borders more secure is nothing at all to do with stemming the influx of immigrants, but is about tightly controlling them. Proper migration management is beneficial to the European Union Member States' societies and economies.

I must emphasise that the European Union should focus more attention on the management of its peripheral borders where there are conflict zones. For instance, the activities carried out until now by the European Union Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine (EUBAM) are worthy of particular recognition. These include establishing a single customs procedure at the border, setting up barriers against smuggling and reducing the activities of criminal groups.

On the other hand, the failure to resolve so far the Transnistria conflict makes it fairly difficult for the Moldovan authorities to manage this section of the border, where there continues to be a large flow of illegal migration.

I would like to express my firm belief that the European Union has sufficient political, economic and security leverage to stop the illegal actions mentioned above, which also means getting more actively involved in settling the unresolved conflicts at its eastern external borders.

Croatia: progress report 2008 - Turkey: progress report 2008 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: progress report 2008 (debate)

The next item is the Council and the Commission statements on:

Croatia: progress report 2008,

Turkey: progress report 2008, and

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: progress report 2008.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, let me introduce the debate on the progress reports on the three countries Croatia, Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Let me begin with Croatia. Your report rightly states that Croatia made good progress over the past year. Since the start of the negotiations, 22 chapters - out of 35 - have been opened, of which seven have been provisionally closed. The Presidency will continue to take forward the negotiations. Two accession conferences in particular are planned: at deputy level in the coming weeks, and at ministerial level in June.

Your report rightly highlights the importance of reaching a settlement to the outstanding border dispute with Slovenia. I would like to assure this Parliament that the Presidency will continue to make every effort to help resolve this issue and, in this context, we fully support the ongoing efforts of the Commissioner, Olli Rehn, to find a solution to allow us to continue with the accession negotiations. We had a lunch just before the sitting to discuss this in depth. Concerning the last development, we welcome Croatia's decision announced on Monday that it accepts the mediation proposed by the group of experts proposed by Olli Rehn. We are encouraging both Slovenia and Croatia to work constructively in order to find a permanent and mutually acceptable solution as a matter of urgency, because it should not be just a prescription for more delays.

Apart from this important issue, further progress in the wider negotiations depends, above all, on Croatia itself. The necessary political, economic, legislative and administrative reforms have to be completed, and it has to meet its obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. The implementation of the revised Accession Partnership is also important in preparing for further integration within the European Union. The Council considers that the indicative and conditional road map drawn up by the Commission in its 2008 Progress Report is a useful tool. It will assist Croatia in taking the necessary steps to reach the final stage of the negotiations. That said, despite good progress, much remains to be done.

Let me pick out some of the key areas where further progress is needed, beginning with judicial reform. The EU has made it very clear that the establishment of an independent, impartial, reliable, transparent and efficient judicial system is essential. It is a condition for strengthening the rule of law and the proper implementation of the acquis. A professional, accountable, transparent and independent public administration is also key. Significant legislative reforms have been achieved in these two areas, but we need to see how they will work in practice.

The same is true of the fight against corruption and organised crime, as outlined in your report. The powers and resources of the Office for the Prevention of Corruption and Organised Crime have been strengthened. This is also the case with the criminal courts investigating cases in this area. The main issue now is to make sure that the expected results are delivered. The full implementation of the anti-corruption programme and action plan is key to addressing this serious problem.

The Union has also underlined that full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), including access to documents, is essential. We are following very closely developments in this area and we invite the Croatian authorities to ensure that full cooperation with ICTY is maintained. We welcome the recent agreement concerning the missing documents and urge Croatia to deliver on it.

On refugee return, we note that the implementation of the convalidation decision for validating pension rights has begun and information on the changes to the rules has been made available to the returnee community.

On housing care, the 2007 cases have been resolved, but the 2008 benchmark has not yet been met. Work on ensuring the sustainability of refugee return must continue. This also goes for legislation to improve the rights of minorities.

You have rightly highlighted the issue of regional cooperation in your report. Efforts to improve good neighbourly relations must continue.

Let me now turn to the issue of Turkey. Negotiations with Turkey continued during 2008, and a total of four chapters - as is almost a tradition - were opened during the course of the year.

Despite the EU's encouragement to Turkey to step up its reform efforts, 2008 did not deliver the expected level of reform. Further work on the political criteria remains key. Significant efforts will be needed in a number of areas, as highlighted by the Council in its conclusions of 8 December 2008 and in the Commission's 2008 progress report. This is an issue to which you have also drawn attention in your report.

At the same time, the Presidency welcomes the recent positive steps undertaken by Turkey, including the recently adopted national programme for the adoption of the acquis and the appointment of the new chief negotiator. It is important that these commitments are now translated into real and tangible actions.

We would like to take this opportunity to stress the strategic importance of Turkey. The Presidency shares the opinion of Parliament that Turkey needs to be commended for the progress achieved in the field of energy. We continue to assess ways forward in this crucial area, particularly in terms of full support to the Nabucco pipeline project.

As far as Turkey's progress to accession is concerned, we would like to highlight that progress in the area of freedom of expression is essential for overall progress in the negotiations. Besides the welcome amendments to Article 301 of the Criminal Code, which have had a positive effect, there are still a number of legal provisions that remain in place which could lead to restrictions in this area. Website bans, often disproportionate in scope and duration, remain a cause for concern. Adequate legal solutions are also required to ensure that religious pluralism is brought in line with European standards.

A comprehensive anti-corruption strategy needs to be developed. We are concerned also at the increased number of reported cases of torture and ill-treatment, in particular, outside official places of detention. The law on the duties and legal powers of the police, amended in 2007, must be monitored closely in order to prevent violations of human rights. The ratification of the Protocol to the Convention against Torture is vital.

As far as the south-east is concerned, we welcome the announcement of the guidelines and general content of the South-East Anatolia Project. We now await concrete steps leading to the economic, social and cultural development of the region. This must include addressing longstanding issues such as the return of internally displaced persons or the question of village guards.

As far as EU-Turkey relations are concerned, it is clear that Turkey needs to fulfil its obligation of full, non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is an important issue, as highlighted in your report, and should be addressed as soon as possible, as it clearly affects the pace of the accession negotiations. Issues covered by the declaration of 21 September 2005 will continue to be followed up, and progress is urgently awaited.

Furthermore, Turkey also needs to commit itself unequivocally to good neighbourly relations and to the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Despite all these difficulties, progress continues in a range of areas. Work is currently under way on Chapter 16 on taxation and Chapter 19 on social policy and employment. Despite the fact that negotiations are becoming more complex as they advance, the Czech Presidency is committed to making progress on those chapters where progress is really possible. Moreover, the Presidency puts emphasis on achieving progress in Chapter 15 on energy, in compliance with energy issues, because it is one of our priorities.

Finally, let me turn to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is a dynamic country with considerable potential. At the same time, it faces a number of significant challenges. Both these points are brought out admirably in your report. There is indeed much in the report with which the Council is in agreement.

Your report places considerable emphasis on the question of a date for the opening of accession negotiations. You also rightly highlight the wish of all sides to find an early and mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the name.

As far as recent developments are concerned, the early elections in June 2008 were held in several stages following significant problems both during the run-up, and on the original election day on 1 June. The OSCE/ODIHR/Council of Europe noted that there was a 'failure to prevent violent acts' in the run-up to the elections, and that the elections did not live up to a number of key international standards.

As a result, we underlined to the government and all political players the importance of addressing these core points in the run-up to the presidential and local elections due in a few days time. It is our impression that this message has been heard and that significant efforts are being taken to prevent any disruption. We shall see whether these efforts bear fruit.

The Commission's 2008 Progress Report is helpful. We have taken note of the blueprint drawn up by the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is a detailed text which represents a serious effort to take on board the Commission's recommendations. Against the background of the region as a whole, the document and the work that has gone into it should be viewed positively.

The internal cohesion of this multiethnic state is, of course, key to its future development. I would, therefore, like to endorse the importance which this Parliament attaches to the Ohrid Framework Agreement This has been pivotal in drawing the country back from conflict and in assisting in its path towards greater European integration.

On visa liberalisation, we are currently at an evaluation stage, and I would not wish to prejudge the outcome. On a personal basis, I would simply say that I have much sympathy for the hopes and aspirations of ordinary citizens of the former Yugoslavia who would like to be able to travel freely again. But the essential precondition remains the preparedness of the country to fulfil the specific criteria set out in the visa liberalisation road map. Personally, I hope that positive developments can be achieved soon.

This brings me to one of the key points in your report and resolution. The Czech Presidency is fully committed to the European perspective for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Further progress in this direction is achievable. But the key objectives of the Association Partnership have to be fulfilled and we need evidence of well-conducted elections, in contrast to what happened in 2008. These points will be evaluated by the Commission in its next progress report. We look forward to this report, and to further developments in Skopje.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, today's debate provides a very good opportunity to review the accession process in the three candidate countries.

Let me start with Croatia. Mr Swoboda's draft resolution addresses the main challenges which face Croatia today. I fully agree with Deputy Prime Minster Vondra that the accession negotiations with Croatia have generally been going well since they started in October 2005, and that is why, in November 2008, the Commission proposed an indicative road map for reaching the final stage of accession negotiations by the end of 2009, provided Croatia fulfils the necessary conditions.

On this too, I share the analysis of your rapporteur and Mr Vondra as regards the future challenges such as judicial reform, the fight against organised crime and corruption, and reform of the ship-building sector and bringing it into line with our state aid regime and competition policy.

Unfortunately, the accession negotiations with Croatia are currently stalled because of the border issue. We have worked with the Czech Presidency on this matter, and I very much appreciate the support of the Presidency in our efforts to find a viable way forward.

Although this is a bilateral issue, it has become a European problem, and the Commission therefore took the initiative to offer European facilitation to solve the border issue and allow Croatia's accession negotiations to continue, assuming that both sides found such facilitation useful.

That was the message I took to both Ljubljana and Zagreb in January. I have since then been discussing the terms of such facilitation with both foreign ministers - most recently in a trilateral meeting yesterday evening - following the decisions of both governments on our initiative.

I welcome the endorsement in principle from both countries on such European facilitation, which would be provided by a senior expert group chaired by President Martti Ahtisaari. During our talks yesterday, we explored the possibilities for agreeing on the specific terms of facilitation. We agreed to continue the talks in the near future. Hence, this is still work in progress.

Let me point out that, in its efforts, the Commission has relied on the negotiating framework, which is the very foundation of the EU accession process for Croatia, agreed by Croatia and all the EU Member States, including Slovenia.

By adopting and agreeing the negotiating framework, both Croatia and Slovenia agreed to resolve any border dispute in line with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The UN Charter states, and I quote, because this is of particular importance: 'The parties to any dispute [...] shall [...] seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice'.

There are two equally important conclusions to this statement in the UN Charter. First, the parties can choose any one of the methods outlined in the UN Charter. The Commission's initiative is, without doubt, among these methods.

Second, whatever method in the UN Charter they agree to choose, they have to agree between the two of them. I sincerely hope that this will happen sooner, rather than later. The Commission's initiative provides a very solid basis for this, and a viable way forward.

To sum up, the Commission's objective is indeed to solve the border issue and, in parallel, to unblock the EU accession negotiations of Croatia so that Croatia is able to meet its target timeline of concluding the technical negotiations by the end of 2009.

I welcome Ms Oomen-Ruijten's carefully balanced resolution on Turkey, and support the Presidency's efforts to open chapters which are technically ready to be opened. We have unfortunately witnessed a certain slow-down of political reforms in Turkey in recent years. However - and I agree with your rapporteur on this - since the end of last year and the beginning of this year, there have been certain positive developments, such as the launch of a new television channel broadcasting in Kurdish and the establishment of a parliamentary committee on gender equality. Moreover, the new 'National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis' and the appointment of a new full-time chief negotiator are also steps forward.

I am also encouraged by the fact that Prime Minister Erdogan and the leader of the main opposition party, Deniz Baykal, signalled their commitment to Turkey's EU accession process during their recent visits to Brussels. I hope these developments will result in a strong political and societal consensus to pursue EU reforms with renewed vigour and energy.

This is connected with freedom of expression, which is a core European value. An open and transparent relation between the press and public authorities is indeed elementary to the quality of the democratic debate in any country. This is particularly true for a country like Turkey which is going through a difficult process of transformation and reform. The Commission is therefore very closely following the ensured existence of press freedom in Turkey. It should be genuinely respected, as it is the very foundation of any open society, and thus of the continued democratic transformation of Turkey.

I shall say a few words on Cyprus. There is a unique chance this year to reunite the island and bring to an end this long-standing conflict on European soil. It is essential that Turkey proactively support the ongoing settlement talks between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus.

Concerning the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I thank Mr Meijer and the shadow rapporteurs for a well-balanced resolution. I share their regret that, three years after the country achieved candidate status, accession negotiations have not yet started.

The key outstanding condition is the ability to meet international standards for the conduct of free and fair elections. This is a core requirement for compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria, and the presidential and municipal elections in March and April will therefore be a moment of truth.

I share the positive assessment in your draft resolution on the progress made by Skopje in implementing the road map towards visa liberalisation. The Commission remains committed to making a proposal to the Council on visa-free travel in 2009, once the conditions have been met by each country in the region. I know how important this is for the ordinary citizens of the Western Balkans.

I shall summarise by saying that, for the sake of stability and peace, liberty and democracy, we shall continue our work for a gradual, managed accession of the three candidate countries, despite the very challenging economic times. I trust that Parliament will also continue to support this very valuable common goal.

Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would like to speak first and mainly about Croatia. Croatia has made progress in a number of areas. I am very grateful for the efforts which have been made in Croatia itself, in particular, with regard to judicial reform. A number of steps were needed and, as a result of the appointment of two new ministers, some things have been put in motion. I know that ministers cannot do everything, but significant progress has been made on combating corruption and cross-border crime.

Secondly, as far as the question of cooperation with the International Criminal Court is concerned, I would like to state clearly that I expect Croatia to take all the necessary steps in this respect. There have been disputes about different chains of command and the corresponding documents. I hope that these issues will be resolved in the near future so that they do not cause interruptions or delays in the negotiations.

Thirdly, Croatia has also made some moves towards economic reform. I am very pleased about the plans in this area, particularly relating to the shipping industry. It has not been easy, but the important foundations have been laid. I am also happy that agreements could be reached with workers in the shipping industry. These reforms will be painful, but they are necessary and they can be made in a sensible form.

I come now to the main question, which is always controversial, concerning border disputes. Commissioner, unfortunately I must tell you that I am rather disappointed that you have addressed this issue without making contact with Parliament. I have sent you the documents and you have failed to respond. We would probably have made more progress if you had handled these issues with more sensitivity. In order to ensure that no misunderstandings arise, I fully support your proposal for mediation. However, we could have moved further forward if a clear statement had been made in advance on the question of the importance of international law rather than afterwards.

We are in a difficult situation. It is clear that movement is needed on both sides. The wording of your original proposal was not ideal. I would have preferred you to be in closer contact with Parliament and with the rapporteur. This would perhaps have allowed us to achieve more by working together. Unfortunately that was not the case, but that is not what lies at the heart of this debate. The key issue of the debate is how we can make progress.

We will make progress. This is likely to be the wording which I will propose to Parliament tomorrow. We will say that the mediation that you have proposed - that is how it is and I fully support it - should be based on international law, including the principles of equity. The two sides must agree to move in this direction. Both Croatia and Slovenia must recognise that international law is necessary but, of course, also that the principles of equity, fairness and a just solution - a political solution, if you want to describe it in that way - are essential. Both sides must acknowledge this and it is actually rather sad that we are in a situation where we cannot progress. Given the other problems which there are in the world and, in particular, in Europe, it should be possible to solve these problems by mutual agreement. Despite all the criticism, I do, of course, wish you every success in your efforts to convince both sides. Unfortunately, yesterday's discussion was not as positive as it should have been, but I hope that will soon change.

I would like to make one more general remark which also applies to Macedonia. There are bilateral problems, but they should not be allowed to block the negotiations on enlargement. As regards our amendment, which is often misunderstood, it is, of course, the case that bilateral problems should not form part of the negotiation framework. They must remain outside the framework. This is all about the negotiations between the European Union and the individual countries. The bilateral problems must be resolved in parallel, if both sides - in this case Macedonia and Greece - are prepared to consider the issues. This Parliament must give a clear signal that both sides in all these disputes must be prepared to move. It is not possible for one side to compromise and the other to remain in the same position. We must make it clear in all these cases that the bilateral problems must not be allowed to block the accession negotiations. They can be resolved in parallel with the negotiations and this Parliament will help to ensure that both sides make a move in the two disputes which we are discussing here. I hope that we will then achieve positive results.

Mr President, I should like to start by conveying my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has contributed to this report. I have submitted a critical, yet fair, assessment of the progress which Turkey made in 2008. It is a report that contains many points, holds up a mirror for Turkey and only sends out one clear message, namely that for the third year running, too little has been done in the way of political reform.

Political reform and meeting the Copenhagen criteria are absolute priorities. This is not about opening chapters. This is about what unites European citizens, the rule of law, independent and impartial justice, the freedom of speech, a well-functioning press and an individual civil right for each citizen. Mr President, more must be done in those areas. Only then can political chapters be opened.

Mr President, Turkey should not prescribe these political criteria on our behalf. The Turkish Government told its own citizens when it took office that it is necessary to modernise Turkey. For this purpose, the political criteria need to be reformed, because in order to create a socially-oriented market economy, people must be given the opportunity to experience their creativity and all citizens must enjoy the same rights. This is why the political criteria are now central in our report.

When I, along with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), and everyone else, visited Turkey, I got the feeling that something was shifting and could see a little light at the end of the tunnel, as Commissioner Rehn commented before. Ten years ago, I could not have imagined that there would be television programmes in Kurdish. This, too, has been included in the report. Moreover, I very much appreciate Turkey's positive role in the Caucasus. I have expressed my appreciation for the first steps in the direction of opening up the borders with the Armenians, because they too need to be released from the isolation they are currently facing.

Mr President, a national programme has been approved to carry out those reforms. These are all positive elements, and I sincerely hope that Turkey will now apply itself to addressing these reforms with the new negotiator. A modern and prosperous Turkey is of the utmost importance to the Turkish people, but - and I say this in every Member State - certainly also of major importance to us all in the European Union.

I should like to make a few more points, Mr President. We frequently receive reports that the freedom of the media and press leave something to be desired and that the press, when it exercises it freedoms, is subsequently faced with fiscal assessments or other measures. This needs to change.

Finally, on the subject of the amendments that have been tabled, I should like to counsel the Socialist Group in the European Parliament against them, to accept the report as it is before us. We acknowledge that improvements need to be made, but we should not make additional requests, as these are unnecessary and will only lead to polarisation in this House.

Mr President, EU enlargement is, at the moment, far less of a priority than in the years leading up to the major enlargement waves of 2004 and 2007. Public opinion in the existing Member States is far less positive about this now. This is, to a large extent, attributable to the differences in prosperity and to the level of salaries, differences that can lead to more labour migration from poorer to richer Member States.

Similarly, the problem of visa requirements reviled in the countries of former Yugoslavia is very much related to this fear. As a result, many residents of those countries who gained easy access to the present EU Member States until 1992 are now finding it difficult to visit our countries. This needs to change.

When candidate countries try their best to become fully-fledged members of the European Union as quickly as possible, they can make mistakes in the process. For this exact purpose, Macedonia passed new legislation in 2008 at break-neck speed, that now turns out to be inconsistent with our prevailing views on careful democratic decision making.

The opposition, along with various non-governmental organisations and individual citizens, have complained about careless governance in different cases. In their view, the largest governing party takes more liberties than what befits a pluriform society, in which democracy is about more than just holding elections. Criticism has been levelled at the police for failing to register complaints lodged by the public. There is indignation about the demonstrative arrest of the mayor of the City of Strumitsa and of other politicians.

I suggest we do not sweep these points of criticism under the carpet when we adopt the resolution tomorrow. There is every reason to speak out openly that not all is well yet, not by a long shot. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that Macedonia is no worse off than other states during their accession negotiations and even sometimes after their accession. If the accession negotiations with Macedonia get underway now, it will not be until 2017 at least when that country can join.

A year ago, Parliament endorsed my proposal to start these negotiations as quickly as possible. Subsequently, the disruption of the parliamentary elections became an argument to wait for the presidential and local council elections that are to be held soon. A further delay in the process brings with it two major drawbacks: the broad support within Macedonia for EU membership will crumble away, and the status of the candidate country will thus lose all meaning in future.

Everyone knows that using the name Macedonia without any prefixes will meet with insuperable objections from Greece. For Greece, this neighbouring state is North Macedonia, High Macedonia, Vardar Macedonia or Skopje Macedonia. This is a considerably more positive attitude than that prior to 2006, in which Greece wanted to avoid any use of the name Macedonia for its neighbours to the north.

It is precisely in Greece's interest, much more so than the other Member States, for this northern neighbour to join the European Union as quickly as possible. For this reason, a solution must be agreed by both states at the earliest opportunity. The alternative is that both states continue to wait until the other state makes the first major concession, but this other state cannot be the only party to run diametrically counter to public opinion at home.

We must steer clear from a situation in which referendums will decide that compromises cannot be struck with the neighbour. As long as no compromise has been reached, my successors will be reporting each year for decades to come that progress is not possible.

Finally, the other bilateral difference of opinion between Slovenia and Croatia should also be resolved promptly. In 2011, Croatia must be able to be a fully-fledged Member State. State support for the shipbuilding sector should not prove a hindrance if other Member States are allowed to give state support to their banks or their automotive industries. It should be possible to maintain the level of employment in Pula, Rijeka and Split.

Mr President, in this enlargement debate, we must correct three important mistakes. Firstly, Turkey is not a European country, but forms part of Asia Minor. As the President-in-Office of the Council has rightly said, Turkey is a strategically important partner and therefore we need a strategic partnership and not accession to the EU.

Secondly, the problems relating to Macedonia have nothing to do with the fact that the democratic system there is allegedly not working, Commissioner. I was present at the elections and they were exemplary. There were difficulties with a tiny minority within the minority. In fact, the problems concern the dreadful name issue, which is being misused for the purposes of blackmail by both sides.

Thirdly, Croatia has been ready to join the European Union for a long time. We could have completed the negotiations this year quite easily, as the European Parliament has demanded on several occasions and will probably demand again tomorrow. The fact that we have not yet reached this point is entirely due to a blockade by Slovenia in the Council. Mr President-in-Office of the Council and Commissioner, I call on you to find a reasonable solution which will finally bring this blockade to an end. The border problem is exactly the same as when Slovenia joined. We cannot allow one country to join despite an unresolved issue and not the other.

Therefore, we need to support the Slovenes and Croats in their search for a sensible solution to the border problem but, at the same time, to open all the chapters in the negotiations. The two issues have nothing to do with one another and opening the chapters in the negotiations is a requirement for achieving a positive result this year with an excellent and exemplary accession candidate.

As far as the solution to the bilateral question is concerned, where we are offering our help, I would ask you, Commissioner, to work towards an objective arbitration process. On Monday, your spokeswoman said that this could take place on the basis of international law and jurisprudence. I would like to ask you whether you feel this wording to be suitable for a compromise to be reached between the two sides.

I would in any case like this wording to....

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, I should like to make a few points with regard to the excellent report by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten on Turkey. My group subscribes to the main conclusion in the report, namely that too little progress has been made recently.

Admittedly, 2008 was a turbulent year for Turkish politics, and this turbulence will have stopped a few reforms from being carried out, to the extent that part of the process has ground to a halt. Now that these problems in Turkey have been resolved to some extent, we hope that the government, based on plans it has tabled, will make haste to do what is necessary to keep the negotiation process with the European Union credible. I would refer to the national programme for reforms that has been set up by the present government.

Needless to say, our group will continue to support the negotiations with Turkey, and these negotiations are, as far as we are concerned, about EU membership, even though we should not labour under any illusions as to the process and the possible duration of these. It is unacceptable, though, for the impulse to come from Turkey alone. We at the EU, too, should remain reliable partners in that process.

Turkey is of strategic importance to the European Union, not least on account of our energy supply and everything that is related to this, and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is in favour of opening the energy chapter in the negotiation process. Eventually, though, Turkey will need to do most of the groundwork, and the Oomen-Ruijten report contains many points which we have looked at in a critical light and should continue to do so.

I should like to mention a few points from this excellent report. Freedom of speech must be guaranteed. We are still not happy with what is happening over there. Recently, there was an Internet campaign concerning Armenia and the genocide. Surely the way in which the authorities are responding to this undermines this freedom.

Something that is of paramount importance, that we also want to keep repeating and about which the European Parliament should not leave anyone in any doubt, is that we will never accept the Islamisation of Turkey, and that ultimately we will be able to admit that country only on the basis of its secular character as is now enshrined in the Constitution.

I should like to finish off with one last remark. Commissioner Rehn has spoken in somewhat optimistic terms about the negotiations in Cyprus. In my view, we should not do anything, but neither should we neglect doing anything, to secure the success of these talks, and we will also need to appeal to Turkey to do nothing that could thwart these talks, because it is important for the parties to negotiate in freedom about how they would like to shape their joint future. I can only say that I hope that the optimism displayed by Commissioner Rehn is justified.

At the end of last year, there were two important developments in Croatia's accession process. On the one hand, the Croatian Government took significant steps towards judicial reform, making decisive moves against organised crime and showing results in the fight against corruption. At the same time, the accession negotiations came to a halt because of the bilateral border dispute. This affects not just Croatia, ladies and gentlemen, but, more fundamentally, the credibility of the enlargement process. Such behaviour threatens that credibility, and therefore it is very important for the obstacles to be removed as soon as possible. Blocking these talks sends the very dangerous message that accession does not depend on fulfilling the conditions but on settling bilateral disputes, in which one side, in a position of strength, seeks to force its will upon the other.

We welcome Commissioner Olli Rehn's recommendation of mediation, and it is very heartening that Slovenia and Croatia responded positively. We hope that henceforth there will no longer be any reason for obstructing the subsequent accession talks. We continue to believe that it will be possible to conclude the negotiations by the end of the year, in accordance with the original timetable. For this to happen, however, further efforts are necessary. We expect Croatia to dispel all concerns about their cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague, and to turn over all the documents which the tribunal requests. This is very important. We likewise consider it important to assist in refugee return, to integrate the Roma minority and to complete the desegregation programme as well as to use EU funds effectively, since we have seen significant deficiencies in this regard. It is still possible that we can keep to the original timetable. This is our joint responsibility. We expect constructive actions on the part of Croatia as well as of the European Union, for this is not just a matter of our joint effort but of the credibility of the entire enlargement process.

Mr President, firstly I would like to congratulate Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, Mr Swoboda and Mr Meijer on their very solidly prepared resolutions.

As far as Turkey is concerned, the picture of our relations outlined in this document is not optimistic, but it certainly is true. I am glad that in the resolution, our expectations in the area of freedom of religion for Christian communities in Turkey have been upheld, including the right to teach, the right to train clergy, and also protection of the property of these communities. As with other matters, we are experiencing continuous and increasingly irritating delays from the Turkish side in relation to these issues.

Irrespective of the accession process, Turkey is a very promising and important partner for Europe in the areas of security and energy. The efforts of the government of Prime Minister Erdogan and President Gul at improving relations with Turkey's neighbours have been the most important aspect of Turkish politics recently. It is a pity that these efforts were undermined by rash measures in relation to Israel. The attempts to link development of strategic cooperation between the EU and Turkey, which is a matter of immediate importance, with the negotiation process, the dynamics of which are slowing for objective reasons, are also disturbing. That is how I understand the Turkish statement on Nabucco. We need a more pragmatic approach here. The temptation of blackmail is a bad counsellor.

As for Croatia, we should do everything we can to maintain the tempo of the accession process, which foresees accession of Croatia to the EU in 2009. The stability of this region is still fragile. Neither border disputes nor disputes over ownership can become additional conditions for expansion in the Balkans. In the name of stabilisation in the region we should, as quickly as possible, include Croatia in the integration process, and then Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro, and perhaps Kosovo and Albania.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can be brief about the Oomen-Ruijten report. It is, all in all, a fine report that gives an accurate account of the remaining problems and where there is progress, it says so. In that respect, all credit to the rapporteur.

I would, in fact, like to seize this opportunity to take stock of five years of EU/Turkey relations in this parliamentary term. Looking back to five years ago, 2004 turned out to be the golden year of reforms that brought Turkey really closer to the EU. It is strange, and also a little sad if truth be told, that since 2004, the rate of reforms has been too slow, that, in actual fact, the EU is now less willing to give Turkey a fair chance and that in Turkey, enthusiasm for membership has waned.

All parliamentary reports published in all those years clearly state Parliament's priorities where crucial reforms are concerned. First of all, with regard to freedom of speech and opinion, even though the notorious Article 301 has been changed, the situation is still unsatisfactory. It is very unfortunate that websites, including YouTube, are still not available in Turkey, and there is unacceptable pressure from the government on parts of the media.

Secondly, concerning the Kurdish issue, there was considerable hope in 2007 that, following the accession of the Kurdish-nationalist party DTP, a solution would be found between the DTP and the AKP. This was not the case, unfortunately.

Thirdly, with regard to religious minorities, although there is a law on organisations, which offers a solution to some of the minorities, nevertheless for a large Muslim minority, the Alevites, still no solution has been found. Despite all this sluggish progress, there is still a majority in this Parliament who are in favour of accession.

In my view, the message of this debate and of the debates over the past five years to the Turkish Government should be that this support, despite inadequate reforms, will only persist if new reform proposals are made without delay in all three areas.

In this respect, I share to some extent the Commissioner's optimism about Kurdish television, about the openings that have been created between Turkey and Armenia. The will to reform from 2004 will need to return. If this happens, I am convinced that our debates and those in Turkey will once again be filled with optimism.

Mr President, Commissioner, the progress report on Turkey and its evaluation in December concern whether or not this country has complied with the Copenhagen criteria and its obligations under the Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol to the Ankara agreement.

The objective of full integration, which is important both to Turkey and the European Union, is still the driving force behind a series of reforms and changes in Turkey's policies in order to secure the rights of all minorities, find a political solution to the Kurdish question, recognise the Armenian genocide and open the border with Armenia.

Turkey needs to comply with all its contractual obligations towards the European Union, as all previous candidate countries have done. Instead, Turkey has failed to comply with the contractual obligations undertaken towards the European Union with regard to the Republic of Cyprus as a Member State. It refuses to open its ports and airports to ships and aircraft from the Republic and lift the veto on the participation of Cyprus in international organisations and, while seeking a role as a regulatory factor in the area, continues to infringe international law by occupying Cyprus.

Today we are in the middle of negotiations to resolve the Cyprus question on the basis of a two-zone, twin-community federation with political equality, as formulated in the UN resolutions under international and European law. The European Union must therefore abide by its initial positions and step up the pressure, so that Turkey allows substantial progress to be made with the negotiations, stops the occupation and takes the action needed to clarify the fate of the missing persons. We have re-tabled this issue with amendments, even though there is another resolution on the missing persons, following the recent statements by the Turkish soldier Olgkats about the execution in 1974 of 10 Greek-Cypriot prisoners who are still missing. This is a purely humanitarian issue and does not diminish in value however many times we repeat it.

As regards the energy chapter, it cannot be opened unless Turkey stops preventing the Republic of Cyprus from exercising its sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. I see in your own report, Commissioner, that the Commission is concerned about the harassment of vessels conducting research for hydrocarbons in Cyprus's exclusive territorial zone by Turkish warships, and that in its conclusions of 8 December 2008, the Council urges the avoidance of any kind of threat, source of friction or action which could damage good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

It would be a good thing, Commissioner, for you to push Turkey in the right direction, precisely as set out in your statements. We have tabled an amendment on this point, the content of which is fully in keeping with your statements, Commissioner, which are therefore the statements of the European Commission.

Mr President, in Paragraph 17, rapporteur Mrs Oomen-Ruijten calls upon the whole of Turkish society to practise freedom of religion on a large scale. I fully endorse this appeal, because it touches on one of Turkey's and the EU's basic accession criteria.

In the meantime, however, Turkish education and the Turkish media are competing in the dissemination of the stereotypical caricature of indigenous Christians, Turkish Christians, as enemies of their nation, as accomplices of western powers, who wish to re-colonise the homeland and share it out between them. Commissioner, will you call the passive Turkish Government, who are also responsible for this, to account for this accession obstacle?

Also, Commissioner, all Turkish identity documents reveal the religion of its citizens, the very cause of many forms of social discrimination against Turkish Christians. This is ample reason, Commissioner, to insist on the immediate scrapping of this section in official documents with your Turkish interlocutor.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although Croatia appears to have made satisfactory progress on adopting legislation to combat discrimination, I would suggest that before we praise the statements made in the resolution, we should check to see how the laws are applied. For example, with regard to access to real estate, especially as far as opportunities for Italian investment are concerned, there appears to me to have been very little progress made in practice. I do not support the resolution because, despite the obvious deficiency of the progress made and the discrepancies with the acquis communautaire, it looks forward to accession that may take place, in my opinion, too soon. Let them give back what they have stolen from our Istrian and Dalmatian refugees since 1947. Then, and only then, can we talk about their accession.

(SV) Mr President, the resolution on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is, in my opinion, a well-balanced text and I would like to thank Mr Meijer for concentrating his work both on the reforms and objectives that have been achieved and on the issues that still require further efforts. I am particularly pleased about the fact that the resolution sends the clear message that the current situation after three years of waiting to start negotiations is very worrying and unacceptable. It is absolutely clear that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a European state whose place is within the European Union.

When we discuss this issue in Parliament, I usually avoid mentioning the name dispute between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I believe that there are many other issues that should be discussed more thoroughly that we never discuss because the name dispute takes a disproportionate amount of time. Today, however, having read a number of the amendments, I feel the need to emphasise very strongly that it is unacceptable to exploit whatever bilateral conflicts there may be to make it more difficult for a country to move faster towards European integration or to prevent a country's participation in international institutions.

Many countries have had, and still have, bilateral conflicts, and we all want these conflicts resolved as quickly as possible in a way that is acceptable to both sides, but in the meantime, they should not, in my opinion, block the European integration process for each other, particularly when the countries in question are in a sensitive position, both geographically and politically.

(PL) Mr President, for the third year in a row, I am acting as rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament regarding the progress report for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. I must say that the situation regarding Macedonia is reminiscent of a scene from an ancient Greek tragedy. Whilst it is true that the good will of all parties is universally declared, nothing further than this is forthcoming. Three years ago, I was sure that at the end of the present Parliamentary term, we would be able to talk about success in negotiations with Macedonia concerning accession to the European Union. This has not happened. The main problem is the matter of the name. Irrespective of the fact that this is a bilateral question unrelated to the Copenhagen criteria, it is affecting the political situation during negotiations with Macedonia concerning accession. Greece is willing, Macedonia itself is willing, but, for several years now, it has not been possible to come to an understanding in this matter. As rapporteur for this report for the Socialist Group, I can only express the hope that this question will be resolved with the interest of the European Union, Macedonia and Greece in view.

There is a problem with the stabilisation of political institutions in Macedonia. We see this very clearly. We also see very clearly the political will of society, the authorities and political groups in a country which is moving towards ties with the European Union. The Council should decide to commence accession negotiations before the end of 2009, but this should be dependent on full realisation of the most important priorities of prior understandings. In this respect, the forthcoming Presidential and local elections in Macedonia are very important. We in the European Parliament are going to monitor these elections closely.

Mr President, thank you for clarifying that. Greece joined the European Union in 1981 and membership has brought many benefits to that country, of which I am extremely fond. Almost 30 years later, however, Macedonia naturally wants to join the European Union and share those same benefits. It is therefore only right that Greece, as a neighbouring Balkan state, expresses its firm solidarity and works to help a small country like Macedonia to achieve its aspirations.

But because of its own province named Macedonia, Greece objects to the use of the name 'Republic of Macedonia' on its own, insisting instead on 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', or FYROM. For the sake of consistency, why does Greece not therefore also insist on calling Estonia the 'Former Soviet Republic of Estonia' as a formal title?

I therefore regret that Greece is now considering applying its veto to Macedonia's membership over this issue. I fear that Greece risks bringing itself into ridicule and I urge the Government in Athens to soften its line. I am known in this House and in my constituency as a strong philhellene and a friend of Greek and Cypriot MEPs alike, but I am also a member of the newly formed EP Friends of Macedonia. Let us resolve this outstanding issue promptly and sensibly. Also, I call on Parliament to send a delegation of MEPs to observe Macedonia's forthcoming presidential election and help legitimise the outcome.

As regards Croatia's imminent EU accession, it is regrettable that border disputes with Slovenia remain outstanding. As in the case of Greece and Macedonia, these difficulties must be solved bilaterally rather than being dragged into the EU accession process.

Slovenia joined the European Union while it still had outstanding issues with Italy, which did not stand in its way and try and block its accession, so I see no reason why Croatia should be held back in turn. In a similar vein and in future, I would never countenance Croatia vetoing Serbia's admission because of territorial disputes.

Of more immediate concern to my electors who are suffering from enlargement fatigue is the scale of organised crime and corruption in Croatia, which the Government must truly make it a national priority to eradicate.

(DE) Madam President, first may I clarify that I am speaking on the subject of Turkey on behalf of my group and not in my own name. Developments in Turkey are a matter for concern to liberals and democrats. In three years, there has not only been too little progress in the pace of reform, there have also been some setbacks. As Commissioner Rehn rightly stated here, freedom of the press is a core value in the European Union. In a country which wants to accede to the EU, there must be respect for the freedom of the press beyond all doubt.

However, what we see is something else. Critical journalists have difficulty obtaining credentials. The new owner of ATV still has a great many questions to answer, there are calls from the highest offices for a boycott on certain media and the Dohan group has been hit with an arbitrary tax penalty of EUR 400 million. This is an arbitrary measure which brings us to the question of the rule of law, which is as important to liberals as freedom of the press. The rule of law must also be guaranteed. Reports on increasing cases of torture and maltreatment in police custody are deeply worrying to us, especially where they take place outside official prisons or police stations, but of course, if they take place there, that of course also worries us.

Symbolic or purely pragmatic measures such as the acceptance of a new programme or the appointment of a new chief negotiator are welcome, if you look at it from a purely practical point of view. However, they alone are not enough to give renewed impetus to the pace of reform. In the opinion of the liberals and democrats, Turkey must reform its economy and society, politics and constitution irrespective of its accession prospects, in its own interest, in the interests of its people.

I should like if I may to say something else about this debate. This debate reminds me of a fairground carousel, on which sometimes a Turkish, sometimes a Croatian and sometimes a Macedonian horse rides by. I think we should restructure this debate, and soon. Moreover, I would be grateful if we held it in Brussels and not in Strasbourg.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on the question of Croatia, well, those who speak on behalf of and were elected by the Italian public have a duty to point out their rightful claim. Over 60 years have gone by since the historic theft of our property in Istria and Dalmatia. Croatia has a moral duty to perform and President Barroso has a dossier on this delicate and injurious issue, which must be brought to people's attention. It is primarily a moral issue rather than a political one, a matter of returning property to its rightful owners: 1 411 estates originally belonged to Italians.

As for Turkey, how can we think of calmly granting membership to a country that is at present imposing an Islamic veto, within NATO, on the nomination of a Secretary General merely because he represents a country, namely Denmark, in which the cartoon affair took place. Turkey, an Islamic country, has called an Islamic halt to the nomination of a Prime Minister to the post of Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance, for the sole reason that he is Prime Minister of a country in which Islamic cartoons were published - a liberal country in which obviously, by contrast with Turkey, it is possible to publish ironic cartoons about Mohammed. In Turkey there is a law - and the Commissioner should be aware of this - that prohibits the construction of any non-Islamic place of worship on a street on which there is a mosque. In other words, if there is a mosque on that street, then no other religious building is allowed. Our rapporteur, who is I think wearing a lovely pair of trousers, would not today be allowed to walk into the Turkish parliament in her trouser suit. That shows how far behind we are. Turkey is Asia, not Europe.

(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first may I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister of Macedonia here today on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.

Secondly, my thanks to the Czech President-in-Office of the Council and for the statement by Prime Minister Topolánek, who firstly pointed out yesterday that the dispute between Macedonia and Greece over names is a bilateral affair and should have no repercussions, and who secondly argued in favour of Macedonia's accession to NATO as quickly as possible, and hence for Greece to withdraw its veto - two very important points.

We are perhaps sometimes somewhat arrogant when we debate candidate countries, which is why I should like to raise the issue of personal responsibility, because we discuss the prospects and shortcomings of candidate countries here but, on the other hand, we have very fundamental political forces, such as the conservatives in Germany, who want to push for Croatia to be accepted and for no other states to follow.

If this were to become the majority opinion in the European Union in the next parliamentary term, it would destroy the heavily-financed peace plan set up after the Balkan wars. We would lose credibility and the credibility of Europe would be set back. I ask everyone to resist that.

With Croatia and Slovenia we assume that, without double standards and without any veto, things are going well and that the border disputes can be set aside and we hope that negotiations will be started with Macedonia as quickly as possible.

Madam President, if Turkey joins the European Union, it will be the poorest and most economically backward Member State, with a population of over 72 million people. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people will migrate to countries like Britain.

The European Union will border countries such as Syria, Iraq and Iran, with enormous potential for future conflict and confrontation.

However, the people who should really be worried about Turkish entry are Greek Cypriots: if Turkey joins the EU, the Turks will have the right to go anywhere in the EU. Thousands of Turks will be able to legally go to Southern Cyprus and effectively occupy it, quite legitimately, if they so wish.

In the European elections on 4 June, voters of Greek origin in London should remember that the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties all enthusiastically support Turkish entry. The only British party in the European Parliament that opposes Turkish entry is the UK Independence Party.

(NL) Madam President, if nothing else, the negotiations with Turkey have helped the Commission and Council perfect the art of euphemisms. The way in which the problems in Turkey are being minimised is starting to become impressive. This has even become the subject of occasional ridicule in Turkey.

The catalogue of problems is so extensive that it is puzzling that the negotiations are still carrying on. Indeed, the Commission had promised that the negotiation process would keep pace with the reform process in Turkey. This promise has well and truly been broken now, because new chapters are being opened constantly.

The balance sheet of more than three years of negotiations is positively lamentable. Let us therefore pull the plug. Turkey is not a European country and does not, therefore, belong to the European Union, but let us instead work out a relationship of privileged partnership.

(DE) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, Croatia is the first country for whose accession to the European Union, following experience from the last two enlargements with Romania and Bulgaria, the bar has rightly been set very high, which is why the benchmarks and progress made by Croatia are especially praiseworthy. The remaining reforms in the judiciary referred to are being tackled. Full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, the call for which was reiterated, is on the right path.

With Slovenia, there is the question of bilateral border disputes. Commissioner, you suddenly referred to 'European border disputes'. Before 2004, they were not European border disputes; they were border disputes which were not acknowledged. Nor, at that time, did anyone apply to the UN in order to settle this dispute; now they have done so. So, if Slovenia stopped obstructing the opening of the necessary negotiation chapter on the grounds of these bilateral border disputes, which were not an obstacle to its accession to the European Union, accession negotiations between Croatia and the EU could be concluded by the end of this year.

The candidate country Macedonia has also made huge progress. If the elections to be held at the end of March meet international standards, the EU would finally have to set a date for the opening of accession negotiations. The purely bilateral dispute over names between Macedonia and Greece should not encourage Greece to enter a veto.

All that remains is to hope that the two EU Member States of Greece and Slovenia remember their own situation before their accession to the EU and conclude that they should act fairly and in a European manner towards their neighbouring states.

If, with the help of their neighbours, Croatia and Macedonia achieve the objectives I have described this year, that would send out a positive signal to the rest of the Western Balkan states that the EU is serious about the promise given in Thessaloniki about the accession of all the Western Balkan states, by which the CDU also stands Mrs Beer.

(CS) I would like to make a few comments. Firstly, it is good that this debate on EU expansion is taking place because it is important that even in a period of great economic crisis, Europe does not lose sight of one of its successful priorities, namely further expansion. We must maintain our focus on this priority. Secondly, as far as Croatia is concerned, I firmly believe that the accession talks can be completed this year. I would therefore like to call on the Council to act now and set up the technical working group that will be tasked with drafting the accession treaty. As far as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is concerned, it is unfortunate and demoralising for Macedonia that accession talks have not yet started in Skopje, despite the fact that it is three years since Macedonia obtained candidate country status. I would therefore like to call on the Council to speed up this process. And as far as Turkey is concerned, I agree that political reforms must be accelerated before the so-called political chapters can be opened. However, I cannot understand why it is not possible to negotiate with Turkey over the 'Energy' chapter, for example, which is vitally important, both for the EU and Turkey.

(SL) We in the ALDE Group support Mr Meier's report. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) deserves an opportunity and a better future. What it also needs, however, is a modicum of international respect, including the right to its own identity and recognition of its own language and culture.

The issue of the country's name has been dragging on for too long and the atmosphere in the country has been worsening for some time. There has been more and more populism and nationalism, there is too much political entrenchment, and verbal attacks are being levelled at neighbouring countries. Naming infrastructural installations after characters from the periods of Greek history which predated the arrival of the Slavs in those regions is not conducive to good neighbourly relations. Erecting more 10 m tall monuments is unnecessary.

If we wish to prevent instability, we need to help the state, politicians and people of FYROM to break out of the blockade. Abolishing visas does not go far enough. What this country needs is a date for the beginning of negotiations. They deserve the opportunity to show their merit during the accession process. We need to help them now and show that we have confidence in them. This will help us contribute stability to the region and facilitate development in a positive direction. FYROM needs a positive response now, because time is very much of the essence. In fact, you could say that time is money.

Allow me also to say a few words about Croatia. Commissioner, two former prime ministers of Slovenia and Croatia, respectively, namely Drnovšek and Račan, attained a major achievement when they concluded an agreement concerning the border. Unfortunately, they are no longer with us, but they had the courage to press ahead, invest in the future and attain an achievement of some kind. I think it is right for you to urge both governments to follow in their footsteps and to reach an agreement concerning the border again, and in the near future, too. That would be a good thing for Slovenia, Croatia, the European Union and the Western Balkans.

(PL) Madam President, negotiations with Turkey about accession to the EU are still in progress, although they should have been completed long ago. The Turkish Government has not presented a cohesive and comprehensive programme of political reforms. Turkey has not recommenced work on a new secular constitution, an important element of which was supposed to be protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms which the Turkish government was going to guarantee.

Discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities continues. Turkey has not taken steps either to strengthen the impartiality of judicial institutions. Freedom of speech and of the press is still not protected in Turkey, indeed, it is openly violated. Domestic violence and forced marriages continue to be common.

Turkey's opposition to strategic cooperation between the EU and NATO manifestly acts against the interests of the Community. Furthermore, Turkey does not recognise the independence of one of the Member States of the European Union, namely Cyprus. This is a scandal. Turkey is a country which is antidemocratic, it violates human rights, and is guided by a value system which is foreign to us. It will be much better for Europe if Turkey does not become a member of the EU.

(DE) Thank you, Madam President. In this very comprehensive debate here today, I just want to highlight one problem and that is the issue of multilingualism in Macedonia.

Conflict broke out recently in schools in Struga between Albanian- and Macedonian-speaking parents. Under pressure from these nationalistic-minded parents, those in charge reacted by separating teaching by ethnic groups, which is a step in the wrong direction. The learning of languages is not fostered by keeping linguistic groups apart; it is fostered by informally bringing people who speak different languages together at school, at work and at play. The teaching of English, which is now already compulsory across the board from year one, is of course to be welcomed, but it should not be used as an excuse by Macedonians not to learn Albanian or for Albanians not to learn Macedonian. Schools in multilingual regions have a very particular task: they must teach the children their mother tongue and the language of their neighbours.

United in diversity is the motto of the EU and should also apply to Macedonians.

(DA) Madam President, I believe that Turkey should be a member of the EU. The criticism of Turkey is justified in many cases, but the excuses and the sitting on the fence must stop and a serious plan for Turkey joining the EU should be drawn up. It will take time, but the country must join and this is something we should say in a clear and binding way. Instead of a pseudo-debate on democracy in Turkey, we need a real and open discussion on the place that religion can and should play in the social debate. We need to create a form of European cooperation that is capable of meeting the challenge presented by a Europe made up of different religions. That is, we need to do this without losing sight of the central values and the inviolability of the person springing from the European values created in the melting pot of Jewish, Christian and Hellenistic culture in the centuries before and after the birth of Christ.

(FR) Madam President, I have one minute to say to you that, despite the determination and the blindness of the European institutions, one thing should be obvious to everyone: the time has come to put an end to Turkey's accession process.

Negotiations have become bogged down, there is a mutual lack of understanding and a permanent state of ambiguity. This situation is detrimental to all - to the European Union as well as to Turkey. We have to stop the hypocrisy and the pretence.

We must remember one obvious fact. Turkey is a country in Asia Minor. Turkey is not a European country, either geographically or culturally. Turkey is militarily occupying a part of a Member State of the European Union since, to this day, we have only ten negotiating chapters out of 35 and only one has been closed. It is time for everyone to regain their freedom, independence and sovereignty, starting with Cyprus.

The people of Europe do not want Turkey in Europe. Let us respect our people and show respect for Europe!

(HU) As chairman of the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee, I would like to draw your attention to a highly significant development. On Monday, the Croatian Prime Minister - and not only the Prime Minister but the President as well, and each of the parliament's opposition parties - agreed that the EU should mediate in resolving the border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia based on international law. I consider it unprecedented in the history of the EU that one Member State should paralyse the enlargement of the Union and currently prevent 12 negotiation chapters from being opened, while back in 2001, at the time of its own accession talks, it declared that it had no border disputes with its neighbours.

Since the start of accession negotiations in 2005, numerous results have been achieved regarding the transformation of the judicial system and public administration, anti-corruption measures, minority rights, refugee return and regional cooperation. In the case of Croatia, this involved for the first time the attainment of a set of benchmarks. Around 100 of these were successfully achieved. Through these extraordinary efforts, the Croatian people now look forward at last to positive messages from the European Union. The sensitive and self-conscious population was disappointed when a neighbouring, friendly country single-handedly blocked the continuation of the accession negotiations. The long-term, reassuring stabilisation of the Balkans is possible only by way of European integration. The Union is mistaken if it allows Slovenia to obstruct Croatian talks because of its bilateral dispute, even though Croatia has done everything possible in the interests of defending fundamental European values and adopting the acquis. I would note, Madam President, that it is unfortunate - perhaps for those who are listening to us as well - that we are dealing with the fate of three important, historic countries at the same time, as if they were one and the same. It might have been better to discuss the three countries each in its turn.

(NL) Madam President, I should like to take up a point which Mrs Oomen-Ruijten also made, namely that of political criteria. In the negotiation process with Turkey, civil rights were very clearly placed on the agenda. This is also reflected in this report.

A number of things have clearly improved: Kurdish television, but also the installation of a women's committee in the Turkish Parliament, for which I, as rapporteur on women's rights in Turkey, worked extremely hard in recent years. These are major reforms.

Another obvious improvement is the increase in the number of shelters for abused women. What happens, though, to those women when they leave the shelters? How are they and their children looked after? Turkey should address this issue. With the local council elections to be held at the end of this month, more women should sit on the local councils.

I should also like to draw your attention to the fight against fraud. Turkey should cooperate with the European Union more effectively in the fight against fraud and in the fight against female trafficking, because far too many people become the victim of fraud involving the green funds or fraud involving charity organisations.

Madam President, I have never supported the admission of non-European Turkey into the EU, but the current economic downturn makes me more convinced than ever of that view.

As a huge net contributor, the United Kingdom carries a disproportionate burden in funding the EU so, when it comes to the massive additional cost of enlargement to include Turkey, we would be burdened beyond what we could bear. With a reduced tax base, falling income and increased welfare outlay, and a crippling debt legacy in the future decades arising from the mismanagement of the Labour Government, we cannot go on taking out our diminishing cheque book to pay for Turkish enlargement.

Call that narrow, mercenary national interest if you will, but to me it is inescapable common and fiscal sense.

(EL) Madam President, as the oldest member in the region of both the European Union and NATO, Greece was and continues to be at the vanguard of efforts to integrate all the Balkan countries into the Euro-Atlantic structures, because it firmly believes that the development of countries in the area will benefit everyone.

Greece has invested over a billion dollars in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and has created 20 000 jobs, which is unprecedented for foreign investment in a local economy. As far as Greece is concerned, the question of the name is not simply a problem with historic, psychological or sentimental dimensions. It is an ongoing material political issue which concerns all Greek citizens and the European values of good neighbourly and regional cooperation.

I would remind the House that Greece consented to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia being granted candidate status for accession to the European Union in document, with an express commitment to negotiating a mutually acceptable solution on the question of the name under the aegis of the UN which would contribute to regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations, because without a solution, there can be no friendship and without friendship, there can be no alliances or partnerships.

Our representation is not opposed to all the expressions in the report which strongly support a solution to the issue under the aegis of the UN. Unfortunately, however, over and beyond this clear position, there are additional phrases in paragraphs 12 and 13 which undermine efforts to resolve the problem and encourage intransigence, which is why they are absolutely unacceptable, while Amendments 1 and 2 restore the correct wording to paragraphs 12 and 13.

For the rest, the report contains many elements which will help the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to continue its efforts on the road towards Europe.

(EL) Madam President, the policy of enlargement is the most successful expression of the European Union's foreign policy. In the case of Turkey, the message must be clear: the objective is integration, but it comes through fulfilling its obligations, consolidating democracy, respecting human rights and maintaining good neighbourly relations.

Turkey is at a crucial stage, both internally and in redefining its geostrategic role. Within this framework, it is vital that it continues its reforms and moves steadily towards Europe. However, I would point out that the climate of tension which Turkey recently cultivated in the Aegean has caused new problems.

In the case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Commission clearly emphasised that the country does not meet the basic requirements for the opening of negotiations, given that it has significant democratic deficits. As far as the dispute over the name is concerned, despite the fact that Greece has demonstrated a spirit of cooperation and realism, the government in Skopje has failed to respond.

Unfortunately, however, in the report by the European Parliament which we are examining today, my country is presented as the only country responsible for the delay in opening negotiations. That is unfair on Greece and does not facilitate the resolution of a problem which has plagued both countries for over 15 years.

(SL) So far, I have endorsed all of the European Parliament's reports charting Croatia's progress on its way to fully-fledged membership of the European Union. I salute Croatia's many new achievements on this occasion, too. I will be happy to endorse this important report, which has been painstakingly prepared by my fellow member Mr Swoboda, as well, provided that the compromise amendments reflect a balanced and realistic approach. That is the only kind of approach that can eliminate the causes of the obstacles and speed up the process of Croatia's accession.

I fully agree with the President-in-Office, Mr Vondra, when he says that we need a constructive and dynamic approach. In this context, it seems important to me that, following a string of unsuccessful bilateral attempts, the European Commission has now, with its mediation initiative, offered an opportunity for a new and credible attempt to be made to reach a final resolution of the problem of the border between Slovenia and Croatia and, by the same token, to make rapid progress in accession negotiations with Croatia.

I am pleased to note that both countries have been receptive to the initiative and that talks have commenced at a high level. I hope that the initiative will bring us much closer to a threefold victory: a victory for Croatia, Slovenia and the European Union. We cannot allow only one party to be the winner or only one viewpoint to prevail: we can only win if we work on the basis of common objectives and common will.

Likewise, I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Swoboda, when he says that we need to observe the principle of equity, which is part of international law. I also fully agree with the Commissioner, Mr Rehn, that a suitable point of departure for the settlement of the border dispute is the United Nations Charter and that the Commission's initiative reflects the spirit of the Charter.

It is time for the negotiating table to take centre stage, without any rhetoric or pressures which might injure either party's dignity or Croatia's accession status. We need a positive atmosphere. I firmly believe that we have only one positive solution in prospect, one that Slovenia and Croatia will agree on under the mediation of a third party, i.e. the European Commission. I would like to see this happen as soon as possible.

(EL) Madam President, I agree and recognise Turkey's European prospects, but if these prospects are to have an auspicious outcome, Turkey needs to:

Firstly, really respect the rights of minorities and avoid policies such as those which it applies, for example, in Imvros and Tenedos.

Secondly, improve its relations with Greece, a Member State that supports its European prospects, for example, by removing the casus belli and putting a stop to its infringements in the Aegean once and for all.

Thirdly, make progress on the Cyprus question. This progress will be marked, on the one hand, by the removal of Turkish occupying troops and, on the other hand, by taking a constructive stand on all aspects in order to resolve the question. I would remind the House that I belong to the generation which grew up with the slogan 'our borders are in Kyrenia'.

(PT) The process leading to Turkey's accession to the European Union is advancing at a slow pace. At this moment in time, it is not the moderate pace with which reforms are being carried out in Turkey that is holding up the process, but the slowness of the Council and the European Commission. The economic, social and political impact of this future accession was discussed in depth last December in the Polish city of Sopot, at a conference at which I had the pleasure and honour of speaking.

As regards the priorities of the Turkish Government, it is appropriate to mention the breakfast meeting that was held with Prime Minister Erdogan last January in Brussels. That meeting resulted in a timely clarification, which was complemented by contacts made by some of us with the Republican side and by a varied group of people and organisations from the Turkish Republic, in addition to the constant work that we have done in the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee.

To end, I would say, Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that this process is decisive for a truly enlarged Europe, which is strong and open to the world, secular and democratic, and in which the democratically unified Republic of Cyprus has the place that it deserves.

(BG) Thank you, Madam President. Turkey plays a key role in Europe's geo-strategic and energy security and will continue to be a stabilising factor during the crisis too. It is true that events such as the proceedings to close down the AK Party, the 'Ergenekon' case and the local elections slowed down the reforms in the country, but the appointment of a new chief negotiator will create a fine opportunity for the Turkish Government to accelerate the process of harmonising its legislation with European standards and to make progress in the political criteria in the negotiation chapters.

I believe that Turkey should achieve three priorities if it wants to make serious progress on its way to membership. Firstly, it must continue to work constructively for a successful outcome to the discussions on the question of Cyprus, but this commitment must be shared by all countries in the process and must not be used as a pretext for blocking the negotiations. Secondly, it must respect freedom of speech and thought. Thirdly, it must guarantee protection for minority communities, especially with regards to their cultural and educational rights. As Turkey continues all the time to modernise, it must win back its pro-European supporters. Thank you.

(NL) Madam President, I was one of the MEPs who voted in favour of Turkey prior to the opening of the negotiations, and to my mind, these negotiations are, in reality, an exercise in conflict prevention. I am convinced that the negotiations will impact greatly on many areas of policy. They are set to create a better social climate in Turkey, better environmental and health legislation and better labour law for Turkish people.

In time, the negotiations will also bring about better living conditions for many population groups: women, religious minority groups, Kurds and Alevites. Progress is too slow, though. There has been a standstill for four years now, and there are many painful areas that deserve to be addressed. The discrimination against parties such as the Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) is unacceptable. There is a lack of civil and political supervision of the army, and this is simply unacceptable.

The freedom of opinion and the freedom of the press are essential, and torture and abuse in prisons cannot be tolerated. The Kurdish problem also requires a political solution as a matter of absolute necessity. I take the view that under these circumstances, we should definitely continue the negotiations.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Rehn on his position on the Oomen-Ruijten report, which was that it is essential for Turkey to proactively support the ongoing talks between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus. That is why we are in full agreement with the rapporteur when, in paragraph 40 of her report, she calls on Turkey 'to facilitate a suitable climate for negotiations by withdrawing Turkish forces and allowing the two leaders to negotiate freely their country's future'.

I would suggest that, at this moment of direct talks, it might not be advisable for the European Parliament to include in its report any proposal for derogations from the acquis.

To complement the rapporteur's position, we also call on Turkey to comply with its obligations regarding investigations into the fate of missing persons and to stop interfering in the Republic of Cyprus' exclusive economic zone. In so doing, Turkey will itself facilitate its way towards accession.

(FR) Madam President, yesterday I submitted an oral question to the Commission and received a note from Parliament's Secretariat informing me that the Commissioner was going to answer my question this afternoon.

I declare that my name is Panayotopoulos and that I submitted a question about paragraph 6 of the framework for negotiations with Turkey.

Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, I think that the Commissioner has heard you.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, we have had a very long but important debate here today. This is a crucial year in the accession process for Croatia and for the whole of the Western Balkan region and we certainly attach importance to and welcome Parliament's continued support in bringing Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Western Balkans closer to the EU.

Much has been said about the lack of progress in Turkey regarding its reform effort. We therefore welcome the reaffirmed commitment of Turkey towards its EU path, as Mr Erdogan said, and invite her to take the opportunity in 2009 to prove this commitment and make further progress in its path towards the EU.

Turkey has to deliver on long-awaited reforms. The continuing support of the European Parliament throughout the process is significant, in particular, given the challenges ahead. I will have the opportunity of meeting the Turkish negotiator tomorrow in Prague.

At the same time, we should not take lightly the strategic importance of Turkey, in particular, in the current turbulent times, nor should we forget our previous commitments. As far as I know, President Obama, during his visit to Europe, may visit Turkey as a kind of model Muslim country. I think that this is not the time for Europeans to give up in our engagement with Turkey. I think that Joost Lagendijk, rightly, said this.

Concerning the border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia, I was listening carefully to what Hannes Swoboda, István Szent-Iványi and many others said, so let me just repeat that we as the Presidency welcome the fact that both Slovenia and Croatia have now agreed to pursue their work on Commissioner Rehn's initiative concerning this dispute. We fully support this initiative and we are concerned that it has not generated any fruitful outcome yet regarding the specific terms of facilitation. We note that time is running out, and the Presidency is keen to ensure concrete progress in the negotiations based on the work already done. We are therefore considering the possibilities for enhancing our support for the Commissioner's initiative in the near future. We were just discussing this over lunch.

Concerning the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bernd Posselt, among others, said that we should support the effort of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and I think he is right. I shall just mention that the Czech Prime Minister Topolánek visited Skopje yesterday and reaffirmed our commitment to the European aspiration of this country.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I want to thank Members for a very constructive, substantive and responsible debate, and I would like to make just a few points concerning your speeches.

First, it is clear that all policy making in Europe and in the world is overshadowed by the very challenging context of today, because of the financial crisis and the economic recession that our citizens are feeling and, of course, this is dominating the minds of our leaders in the European Union.

Still, it is absolutely essential that we as the European Union maintain our commitment to the EU perspective on south-eastern Europe, and this has been the expressed political will here today in the European Parliament, which I welcome and appreciate.

Secondly, concerning Cyprus, my friend, Mr Wiersma, said that I must be an optimist. I think something was lost in translation, even though I thought I was speaking English - maybe with a somewhat ethnic accent from eastern Finland! However, I do not consider myself either an optimist or a pessimist, but rather I am usually a realist as regards the analysis of things and determined as regards those issues that I can really influence. Here, I think that it is absolutely essential that we support the talks of the two leaders and of the two communities that are going on at the moment, so that we can seize the opportunity in 2009 to achieve a comprehensive settlement and, of course, we expect Turkey will contribute to a favourable political climate to achieve such a settlement.

From the point of view of the European Union, it is important to ensure that any solution is in line with the Union's founding principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. In other words, the EU can support any such solution that creates a united Cyprus respecting the principles on which the EU was founded and able to carry the obligations of EU membership. This clearly implies a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality, as defined by the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council.

Finally, concerning Croatia, I thank the speakers for their support for the Commission's initiative on mediation - an initiative that is based on international law, and here I refer to both the UN Charter and the negotiating framework between the EU and Croatia. I can only underline that, whatever method is chosen, it will need to be a bilateral agreement between the two countries, Slovenia and Croatia. We are working on that in order to facilitate such an agreement.

I sincerely wish that you can support the Commission's initiative in your resolution so as not to create a situation where we would have to return to square one, because this is the only realistic and viable way forward.

Let me conclude by saying that I sincerely believe that it is still possible for Croatia to reach the ambitious target of concluding the accession negotiations by the end of 2009, provided that the negotiations can proceed soon. That is why I encourage both countries to agree rapidly so as to solve the border issue and, without delay, unblock Croatia's EU accession negotiations. I should like to thank you for your support for this initiative.

I have received three motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, 12 March 2009.

Madam President, I have a specific question for the Commissioner, namely whether he agrees or proposes that the phrase 'principle of equity' in the Commission statement be replaced by the phrase 'international law and jurisprudence'.

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr Posselt, the debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

I congratulate Mrs Oomen-Ruijten for this excellently drafted report.

I would like to highlight two ideas:

1) First of all, I believe that the EU must continue to encourage the development in Turkey of pro-European, modern, secular elites, as well as spread European values and good quality information about European integration. To this end, the EU must support more actively educational reform in Turkey, the guarantee of universities' autonomy, the development of European integration studies and the Erasmus Programme. Students, researchers and teachers who want to study EU institutions and policies in depth must be encouraged and supported in this.

2) Secondly, at the same time as supporting the rights of those belonging to national minorities, the EU must resolutely condemn actions by ethnic separatists. I am referring to Kurdish separatism in Turkey and Turkish separatism in Cyprus, but there are also other examples. The EU must support the strict application of the principles of territorial integrity and good neighbourliness with regard to Turkey, Iraq, Cyprus and the other countries in the region.

in writing. - I am encouraged that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Commission are confident that negotiations for Croatia's accession to the EU can be concluded this year. Croatia has made good progress in adopting the Community acquis, the anti-corruption body USKOK has intensified its work and legislation has been introduced to reform the Croatian judiciary.

However, this is tempered by the knowledge that cases remain where the ICTY has been unable to access certain documents relating to alleged war crimes, and further attention must be given to minority rights such as the status of the Krajina Serbs and refugee return.

Enlargement is one of the great successes of the modern European Union. Having integrated many European nations ravaged by the Cold War, we must now do the same for the Western Balkans. Croatian accession is the first crucial step.

The Turkish question has always been surrounded by misgivings and mistrust. There were always problems that went far beyond the need for fulfilling the strict criteria for accession.

In that respect, it is enough to look at what kind of neighbourly relations Turkey maintains with other EU Member States such as Greece, Cyprus or with a country outside the EU like Armenia. Furthermore, if we take into account that Turkey is the only state that considers the European Union to consist of only 26 Member States, it is strange that Turkey itself would wish to join and belong to this community in the future.

My position is that as long as the country does not substantially change its behaviour on fundamental issues, the process of its accession to the EU will vanish into the future. When the EU decided to start accession negotiations, it was done in the hope and expectation that Turkey does indeed have a place in the European family. Let me ask this question: is it certain that Turkey today thinks along these lines?

If and when Turkey engages unambiguously in establishing good relations with its neighbours, settling outstanding problems peacefully in conformity with the UN Charter and other European documents, then there is hope.

If Turkey fulfils these criteria without reservation, then chances are that it will gain the support of each of us, and may also regain the sympathy of European citizens.

Over the last year, we have seen significant progress and the intensive efforts of Croatia in accession negotiations. Negotiations over EU membership are on the right road, although the country must concentrate on further reforms in such areas as administration, the justice system, the economy, the battle against corruption and organised crime, respect for and protection of minorities, and the investigation of war crimes.

Continued efforts are essential for full transposition of the acquis and its effective implementation. Furthermore, it is extremely important to bring about an improvement in the relations of Croatia with its neighbours and, in particular, with Slovenia, and to find a definitive solution to the question of the borders with other neighbouring countries.

Croatia should also include in its policy for development the objectives which the European Union currently sets for itself in the area of the climate package and renewable sources of energy.

The further progress of Croatia in accession negotiations depends, in particular, on the completion of essential political, economic, legislative and administrative reforms. In this context it should be recalled that the Commission's road map is a very useful and helpful tool which supports Croatia in finalising individual chapters of the negotiations. I hope that it will be possible to reach the closing phase of the negotiations, perhaps even this year.

, in writing. - (HU) Energy cooperation has emerged as one of the major questions in EU-Turkey relations. The main reason for this is that Turkey, as a transit country, can significantly contribute to reducing the EU's dependency on energy sources and to diversifying its energy supply. Enhanced cooperation with Turkey can, at the same time, be an important step towards expanding the internal energy market.

I am convinced that the fundamental goals of Turkey and the European Union point in the same direction. We would like to meet the growing demand for energy consumption from as many sources as possible. Promoting diversification is most urgent in the area of gas supply. To this end, the construction of the Nabucco pipeline is of key importance. The gas crisis in January has demonstrated more powerfully than ever the need for the aforementioned infrastructure. Therefore, it is a welcome development that the European economic stimulus plan should set aside resources for the construction of the gas pipeline.

With regard to Nabucco, before the first shovel of soil can be turned, we need bilateral governmental agreements involving Turkey as soon as possible. I consider regrettable the comments that link Ankara's attitude to Nabucco directly with the country's accession to the EU. I am convinced that cooperation on energy policy matters cannot be turned into a foreign policy weapon. For this reason, more intensive energy dialogue is needed between the European Union and Turkey. One possible stage in this could be the opening of the chapter on energy.

The Commission's annual report on the progress made by Turkey in 2008 as a candidate state is balanced. Although the reform process should be given a boost and eight negotiating chapters are still blocked, the Commission has welcomed in particular Turkey's recent diplomatic activity and its role in promoting stability in the region. The events of summer 2008 highlighted Turkey's strategic role, including in the energy sector.

In the area of regional cooperation, the constructive role which Turkey played in its relations with neighbouring countries and in the Middle East through active diplomacy was noted. The developments in the Caucasus highlighted Turkey's strategic importance for the EU's energy security, especially through the diversification of transport routes. The document emphasises the importance of close cooperation in the energy sector between the EU and Turkey, with the Nabucco project being a key element in this respect. Following the initiation of negotiations between Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders on reaching an understanding on the Cypriot question, it is vital for Ankara to continue to support finding a solution, along with the efforts which the UN is making to this end.

The expansion of the EU and the continuing integration of Western Balkan states into the EU are priority dossiers for Romania. Romania supports the substantial progress made in the negotiations with Turkey, a process which is dynamic enough to encourage internal reforms.

in writing. - During the past five years, the New Member states have witnessed numerous positive effects of the membership of the European Union. That experience is not to be monopolised, and I therefore support fiercely the EU's continued enlargement. However, as much as I would like to see Turkey joining the EU in the near future, the progress report unfortunately indicates something quite the opposite.

I have addressed this issue several times in this Chamber, pointing to the Armenian genocide, concerns over the Kurds and the occupation of Cyprus.

In addition to that, when examining the progress that Turkey has made towards the completion of negotiations on 35 acquis communautaire chapters since October 2005, one can see that only twelve chapters have been opened and, until now, just one - the chapter on science and research - has been closed.

I would like to ask the Council and the Commission how they propose to accelerate the course of the negotiations and solve the dispute on Cyprus.

in writing. - (HU) The Member States of the European Union should show greater solidarity and tolerance towards the accession countries. My country, Romania, was not prepared for accession, and there are still deficiencies in the area of minority rights. Nevertheless, Hungary did not prevent Romania from joining, because it considered European solidarity and tolerance more important. The accession countries naturally must take greater strides towards guaranteeing human and minority rights, but current EU Member States must set a good example. I therefore consider it important for us to address the EU Member States first of all:

to sign and ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,

to rescind the law, in force in one EU Member State, that introduces the notion of collective guilt,

to learn from the example of Kosovo, to guarantee the cultural and regional autonomy of traditional national minorities living in the territory of current EU Member States.

in writing. - (HU) The stabilisation of the Western Balkans and strengthening its ties with Europe is an important task, since the region is of geostrategic importance to Europe. At the same time, from numerous perspectives, including in the areas of the economy and energy, the Western Balkans remain considerably vulnerable and dependent.

Croatia, we hope, will be able to join us in 2011, during the Hungarian Presidency, but this depends on a successful conclusion of the recently initiated bilateral talks with Slovenia, with international mediation, regarding the division of the Bay of Piran. A further condition is that Croatia cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague in searching for and handing over war criminals. Moreover, we need to send a positive message to those countries in the region where, due to various external and internal factors, the timetable for accession is still uncertain. Let us ratify as soon as possible the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia and with Bosnia and Herzegovina, grant full candidate status to all the countries in the region, and decide on a precise timetable for the earliest possible agreement on visa liberalisation. The financial crisis has dealt a severe blow to the Balkans, and if necessary, the EU Member States will have to play a part in the stabilisation of the region, and we must provide assistance to countries in difficulty. The EU must follow attentively the inter-ethnic relations in the region, paying particular attention to the sensitive internal situation in Macedonia, which currently runs the greatest risk of serious conflict in the region.

The mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the report by Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

rapporteur. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, since its inception in 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has indicted 161 people. Proceedings have been fully concluded against 116 of them, while for a number of other defendants, the criminal procedure is still in progress.

Proceedings are yet to start in two cases only, while two main defendants, Messrs Mladić and Hadžić, are still on the run. Although the UN Security Council has asked the Tribunal to wind up its activities by no later than the end of 2010, it has left some room for manoeuvre.

After an understandably difficult start - after all, everything was new and had to be invented on the spot, as it were - the Tribunal has turned out to be a very sound, serious and capable legal body that does not limit its activities to administering justice, which, by the way, it does with the greatest care, something which has boosted its legitimacy. In addition, the Tribunal has set up proper outreach programmes to contribute to the assimilation and reconciliation process in the countries that came into being after the former Yugoslavia collapsed.

The Tribunal also helps train national legal bodies which, after all, have to handle the lion's share of the dossiers on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, it was never the intention for the Tribunal to step into the shoes of national courts across the former Yugoslavia on a permanent basis.

Quite the reverse. It is the countries in question that have to ensure that the war crimes and crimes against humanity are prosecuted and tried. With this in mind, the Tribunal has passed on a number of dossiers to national courts and has focused on the most important cases.

The Tribunal has also set up a proper completion strategy in three stages to meet the requirements of the Security Council. The plan provides for full completion of all legal proceedings by the end of 2011, with a possible extension into 2012. To provide for all eventualities but, above all, to ensure that Messrs Mladić and Hadžić will, in any event, undergo the same procedure, an effective, highly-qualified and sufficiently equipped mechanism will need to be put in place that can take care of the rest of the tasks, even after the Tribunal's mandate has come to an end.

For all these reasons, we would ask the Council to urge the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council, to extend the Tribunal's mandate by at least two years, to see to it that after this period, a reception mechanism is provided for and to ensure that the Tribunal's archives are kept and made accessible.

In a similar, but somewhat broader, context, we would ask that a good working relationship with the Tribunal and the development of an effective judiciary which also handles crimes against humanity remain assessment criteria for our relations with the countries in the Western Balkans. We urge the countries in question to continue to lend their cooperation to the Tribunal and provide sound answers to the main prosecutor.

Finally, we ask the Commission to continue to pay attention to the training programmes and other initiatives that are aimed at mutual dialogue, the joint search for the truth and reconciliation. After all, the administration of justice alone - however good - does not yet lead to reconciliation, and this is desperately needed so that the men and women of the Western Balkans can finally start building on their future.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, I think this debate is a timely one and that Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck's report includes a number of important recommendations. It gives me the opportunity to raise an issue which is central to our policy towards the Western Balkans.

The work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is an essential element in rendering justice, coming to terms with the past and moving forward. It is also key to strengthening the rule of law in the region. This can be a slow, and at times difficult, process, but the ICTY has made important progress. So far, it has completed proceedings against 116 accused with very different verdicts. Only two of 161 indictees remain at large.

When the ICTY was set up in 1993, the domestic judicial systems in the former Yugoslavia were unprepared for dealing with crimes of this scale. Yet it was clear that they had to be addressed. No contract, no agreement, no society can be sustainable without justice. Our strategy towards the region is to assist in stabilising the countries of the Western Balkans and helping them realise their EU perspective. A central element of that policy is cooperation with the ICTY. We support its mandate in several ways.

Firstly, the countries of the Western Balkans are part of the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP). This process depends on respect for democratic principles, the rule of law, human rights and the rights of persons belonging to minorities, fundamental freedoms and the principles of international law and regional cooperation. It also depends on full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. SAP conditionality is monitored through the annual progress reports prepared by the Commission. The next progress reports will be published in October 2009.

In addition, human rights and rule-of-law issues, including strengthening the functioning, impartiality and responsibility of the judiciary system, and the fight against corruption and organised crime, are key priorities of the EU's European Partnership with the countries of the Western Balkans. These are updated on a regular basis.

Furthermore, the Council has adopted two common positions aimed at supporting the implementation of the mandate of the ICTY by imposing an assets freeze on indicted fugitives and a travel ban on persons assisting ICTY indictees to evade justice. These common positions are regularly extended and updated.

The European Union will support the work of the ICTY until it has been completed. I entirely agree that in the longer term, the legacy of the ICTY must be preserved. Whenever this happens - and it is not a matter for the EU to decide - the domestic judicial systems will need to be ready to take over the ICTY's files. This is one of the reasons why the emphasis we have placed on judicial reform and good governance in the SAP is so important.

The work of NGOs and individuals, such as the Humanitarian Law Centre in Belgrade and the Research and Documentation Centre in Sarajevo, who are seeking the truth, also deserves our full support.

Let me close by thanking this Parliament for your support in this area and, in particular, for this helpful and constructive report.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I welcome the initiative and report by Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck. This initiative and report send a very welcome signal about the commitment of the European Parliament to support the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

For the Commission, it is clear that the international community must maintain its full support for the ICTY to complete its remaining tasks. There can be no impunity for war crimes and, as you well know, full cooperation with ICTY is a condition for making progress in European integration. This necessary condition affects the EU accession process of Serbia today and it has affected Croatia. I hope it will not affect Croatia again, on condition that Croatia maintains full cooperation with ICTY.

This principle also includes the handling of war crime cases that are referred back to domestic jurisdiction by the ICTY. We have provided financial support and we are intensifying our support and efforts at capacity-building in this important field, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina which has by far the largest caseload.

The Commission has recently approved funding for a project initiated by Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz on internships in his office to train visiting war crime prosecutors and young professionals from south-east Europe.

We are also working with Chief Prosecutor Brammertz on other projects including a regional conference for war crime prosecutors from the Western Balkans. That will take place in Brussels in early April, next month.

All in all, the Commission remains fully committed to ICTY and continues to support Mr Brammertz and his dedicated colleagues in efforts to bring to justice those who are responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law and thus we want to support this important work contributing towards reconciliation and the maintenance of peace in the Western Balkans.

I look forward to continuing to work together with Parliament in this regard.

Madam President, I should like to extend warm thanks to Mrs Neyts for the completeness of her report. She is right in saying that Parliament should indeed set out its priorities very clearly. War criminals should not be exempt from punishment. All countries in the region must lend their full cooperation, and the International Criminal Tribunal should be given the chance to conclude its activities with due care.

Madam President, clearly, the Court in The Hague, with 116 finished cases and much work in the region, can submit a very fine result. Nobody can claim any longer that the guilty get off scot-free. I am also pleased with the emphasis that is placed on the full cooperation that is to be given to the Court. This applies to all countries from which suspects hail. The people that are still on the run should be brought to justice, and all the countries in that region have given their word to the European Union to this effect. We would not be credible if we did not hold firm to this. In fact, with the rapporteur's consent, I will table an oral amendment on this matter tomorrow.

Madam President, the Court's value is considerable, not least because there is still so much work to be done in the judicial system in the Balkans. This is why it is also good that this report stresses the importance of the proper functioning of an independent and impartial justice system. This is, after all, one of the Copenhagen criteria.

I would like to make two points. With regard to the deadline of 2010 or 2011, I take the view that we should not be so strict. It is, after all, far more important that the Court can continue to function after this deadline if necessary to bring certain aspects to a close.

Secondly, as regards completion, even with the arrest and trial of Messrs Mladić and Hadžić, the Court's work will not be finished. The residual mechanism and the International Criminal Court can take over, but good and less good experiences should never be lost, in my view.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, since its establishment in 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has fundamentally reshaped the role of international humanitarian law and has provided the victims of the tragic Balkan conflicts, who would otherwise have gone unheard, with an opportunity to voice the horrors that they and their families experienced and to seek justice.

The ICTY has shown that no one, whatever their position or status at the time of the conflict, is immune from justice - a precedent that now sees the International Criminal Court promote respect for human rights across our world.

Today, we reiterate that, for the former Yugoslavia, there can be no impunity for those indictees who are still being sought. Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić are still renegades from justice and must be handed in.

We should also give our full support to Chief Prosecutor Brammertz's call for the necessary documentation, vital to the case against the former General Ante Gotovina and others, to be made available to the Tribunal - an issue that our Croatian friends, amongst others, know is pertinent to the EU accession process.

The Socialist Group has proposed two amendments to plenary. Firstly, that it should be made clear that any proposals for a possible mandate extension should not divert attention from the key task of completing trials and moving towards the earliest possible closure. Secondly, we appeal for free access to the ICTY's archives by prosecutors, defence counsel and, eventually, historians and researchers.

I thank the rapporteur, and I commend these amendments to the House.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, we need to support, to its conclusion, the impressive work of the Hague Tribunal in bringing perpetrators of terrible crimes to justice and not impose an artificial cut-off, because time pressures would prejudice fair trials while shortcuts would harm the safety of witnesses. While many lower-level cases have been successfully transferred to national courts, some of them may be unable or unwilling to conduct criminal proceedings in accordance with international standards, which means that transfers are sometimes being resisted by victims and witnesses.

In order to permit the continuation of the ICTY's mandate, we urge the Council to encourage the Security Council to provide sufficient resources from its general budget, not least to be able to retain key specialists and highly qualified staff. The Tribunal must leave a sound legacy, both as a model for other potential ad hoc tribunals and in order to contribute to the strengthening of justice in the Balkan countries.

There is a need for increased EU support for domestic war crimes investigations and trials and for the Copenhagen criteria to include even more support for a well-trained and high-performing judiciary, but the legacy of this is that the Tribunal must also contribute to reconciliation and inter-ethnic understanding, and the work of NGOs deserves more resources.

Commissioner Rehn reminds us that full cooperation with the ICTY is a condition of EU accession but the truth is, as Commissioner Orban candidly told me last night in the absence of Commissioner Rehn, that there is no unanimity in the Council as to what that means. That has led to confusion and a consistent postponement of deadlines. Much as we all want Serbia and Croatia to join, the Council, Commission and Parliament must be united and firm in saying that indictees like Mladić and Hadžić must be delivered and, in the case of Croatia, evidence and witnesses facilitated. We cannot afford to relax these conditions.

(NL) Madam President, I should like to bring up a few points in this brief debate. The work of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is of eminent importance, not only because it guarantees that those responsible for the war crimes in the Balkans are brought to justice, but also because it serves the public's sense of justice. Moreover, the Tribunal plays an important role in European policy with regard to the Western Balkans. This is something that is also stressed in Mrs Neyts's report.

Now that the end of the Tribunal's mandate is in sight, we have to think about bringing its work to a close. In my group, what is paramount is that the capacity is kept at the same level to finalise the cases that are still in progress and to bring the last two suspects who are still on the run, Messrs Mladić and Hadžić, before the Tribunal.

Indeed, we should not at any time want to create the impression that the length of the mandate and its expiry will somehow mean that these people could remain at large. Whether this is done by extending the mandate or by creating a residual mechanism is not a question of principle for us, and as far as we can see, we can perhaps also find a way of putting the judges, the lawyers and the secretariat on a form of standby.

(FR) Madam President, the European Union applies the principle of equal treatment to all of the countries of the Balkans.

If, on the one hand, we are insisting that Belgrade hands over Mr Mladić before the interim agreement on trade within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement can be implemented, it is clear that we are also asking for Croatia's full cooperation with the Tribunal.

However, this cooperation leaves much to be desired, to say the least. During the last visit by the Chief Prosecutor, Mr Brammertz, to Zagreb, in February, where he had gone to ask for the missing documents relating to the use of artillery in 'Operation Storm', which, for the record, resulted in the exodus of 200 000 Serbs and the death of 350 civilians, the Prosecutor demanded Croatia's full cooperation and, although the European Commission has just given the green light to opening Chapter 23 on the judiciary and fundamental rights, some European governments will not hear of it, nor will the European Parliament.

There will, in fact, be no support for us in the Balkans without a guarantee of peace, and the best guarantee is truth and justice for the crimes of the past.

I should like to congratulate Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck on her report, which received unanimous support within the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(RO) I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Neyts, and I welcome the report on the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a report which I have also contributed to with a few amendments and which raises a series of real issues which we have a duty to consider.

We must ensure that the results achieved so far by this tribunal in punishing war crimes and promoting reconciliation in the Western Balkans are effectively utilised. The tribunal's work must be fully completed. It is also necessary to assess the results achieved so far, especially the objectives which have not yet been attained. Based on this assessment, the Council should consider extending its mandate for as long as required.

Certainly, this tribunal will not be able to continue its work indefinitely. This is why we need to ensure that there will be a mechanism in place to carry on the residual functions which are not met at the moment, for as long as required. In this respect, I welcome the proposal to the United Nations Security Council aimed at setting up an institution with this in mind.

Another measure which I feel is crucial to the development of sustainable institutional facilities in the Western Balkans is the creation of a set of regulations and evaluation criteria for judicial systems in these countries in order to support national courts.

(PL) Madam President, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has made a significant contribution to the process of reconciliation in the Western Balkans and has helped to bring about the restoration and maintenance of peace in the region. It has also contributed to the creation of the foundations of a new world standard for conflict resolution after the end of a war. It should, however, be emphasised that support for development of the potential of national judiciary in the Balkans is a fundamental matter, so that local courts will be able to continue the work which the Tribunal has begun. Proper cooperation between courts and prosecutors in the Western Balkans is another important challenge, especially in cases involving extradition and mutual legal assistance. There is also an obvious need to introduce mechanisms which will ensure that after its closure, the functions of the Tribunal and the material it has produced will strengthen the principles of states governed by law.

Finally, I should like to appeal to the countries of the Western Balkans, and to the countries of the EU, to support the work of non-governmental organisations and also of other institutions which help victims, propagate dialogue and understanding between ethnic groups, and which support efforts for reconciliation in the Balkans.

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, in conclusion, I would like briefly to reiterate our full support for the ongoing work of the ICTY as an important part of the healing and reconciliation process in the Western Balkans, now and in the future.

Let me just mention that we will be having meetings with the Chief Prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, in Prague tomorrow. I agree that the Tribunal should be in a position to carry out its mandate, complete the ongoing trials and open new ones against the two indictees still at large. I also agree that the legacy of the Tribunal has to be preserved by strengthening the local capacity to deal with the outstanding cases. After all, these are the cases which concern the Western Balkan countries and for which they themselves eventually need to take responsibility.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I wish to thank you for a very concise but important debate and congratulate Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck on her report and initiative.

The ICTY is indeed an expression of European values of justice and the rule of law, and therefore this debate is so important. It is also an essential element of our enlargement policy in the Western Balkans.

On dates, I can only agree with the ICTY itself - that the dates in the tribunal's completion strategy are target dates only and not absolute deadlines, as correctly stated in Mrs Neyts-Uyttebroeck's report.

For the Commission, the crucial issue is retaining the support of the international community for the completion of the Tribunal's existing mandate so as to ensure that there will be no impunity for war crimes in the future.

rapporteur. - Madam President, I wish to thank everybody who contributed to this debate.

I also wanted to say that I have found with everybody who works or has worked at the ICTY a degree of dedication and commitment which I have seldom seen elsewhere. That has been a great pleasure.

That was all the more reason to come forward with these proposals.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 12 March 2009.

Written statements (Rule 142)

Mr President, the work of the Hague Tribunal deserves the permanent support of the European Union, mainly because of the creation of foundations for a new standard in conflict resolution, and also because of its significant contribution to the process of reconciliation in the Western Balkans region.

In the light of the UN resolution calling for an end to the work of the ICTY, I agree with the rapporteur that the possibility of extending the mandate of that institution should be investigated. The continued work of the Tribunal is needed, if only because of the fact that many criminals remain at large, and a significant number of cases still require reliable examination.

It is my conviction that a key factor here is also the creation of a perspicuous mechanism of operation for the judicial system in the Balkans, which will assume the original functions of the Tribunal after its closure. In addition, I appeal to Member States to support the work of non-governmental organisations and also of other institutions which help victims, promote dialogue and understanding between ethnic groups, and support efforts at reconciliation.

Ten years after the dirty war unleashed against Yugoslavia by the USA, NATO and the EU, those guilty of crimes against its people are salivating over the thousands of people murdered, including women and children, and over the massive damage they caused in the Balkans. The report in question extols the Tribunal in The Hague which they set up in order to try their victims and exonerate the American and European imperialists of their crimes, a tribunal with fabricated charges, with parodies of trials, which resulted in the murder of the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. With unbelievable insolence, they are calling for its operation to be extended so they can set up new guilty parties and exert terrorist pressure on the people of Yugoslavia by calling on them to sign a declaration of repentance for defending their country and of subjugation to their European murderers.

Simply voting against this despicable report does not suffice. The Greek Communist Party has abstained from the vote. It refuses even by its presence to participate in the legitimisation of imperialist crimes by the European Parliament. In this way, it pays minimum homage to those who paid for the imperialist barbarity of the USA, NATO and the EU with their blood.

Real tribunals of the people will be set up and the real guilty parties and murderers in the USA, NATO and the EU, the centre left and centre right governments, will be judged and sentenced for their crimes.

Question Time (Council) 

The next item is Question Time (B6-0009/2009) to the Council.



Subject: Improvement of quality, availability and financing of long-term care

Given the challenges that Europe is facing as a result of an ageing population, leading to an increasing number of people in need of care, combined with changes in size and composition of families, labour market changes and increased mobility which will all impact on the availability of carers, the Commission's Demography Report (SEC(2008)2911) recognised that such challenges would require a variety of policy responses including the strengthening of solidarity between the generations in terms of long term care, greater recognition for professional carers and, most importantly, greater support for family carers.

The Presidency has already indicated its priority with regard to paying greater attention to the improvement of quality, availability and financing of long-term care. What steps does the Council propose to take during its Presidency to support informal carers throughout the EU, many of whom already provide long-term care and indeed save our health services millions of euros in healthcare provision?

President-in-Office of the Council. - Let me react to Mrs Harkin's question.

The Presidency is fully aware of the importance of long-term care in the context of an ageing population. According to Eurostat, the population of over-65s in the EU will double between 1995 and 2050. In its conclusion of 16 December 2008 on public health strategies to combat neuro-degenerative diseases associated with ageing, the Council welcomed the work already carried out by associations that defend and support patients and their carers and called on the Member States and Commission to reflect together on support for carers and to consider ways of developing it further.

In addition, the Council also invited the Member States to establish, in cooperation with the stakeholders concerned, a national strategy action plan or any other measures aimed at improving the quality of life of patients and their carers, as well as to improve the distribution of useful information to patients, their families and their carers, in order to make them aware of the care principle and best practices that have been identified.

The Council also recommended that Member States should evaluate the complexity or redundancy of administrative procedures which confront patients and their carers and consider measures for simplifying them.

Moreover, in the 2008 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, transmitted by the Council to the European Council, Member States committed themselves to increasing access to quality services. To this purpose, they reaffirmed that the right balance needs to be struck between public and private responsibilities and formal and informal care, and that provision in a residential or community setting is to be preferred to an institutional setting.

The Council also called on the Social Protection Committee to continue to promote the sharing of experiences and exchange of best practice regarding the quality of long-term care, assistance to carers, the organisation of long-term care and the importance of integrated care.

The Presidency will carry on the objective of the 18-month programme of the Council in the field of public health and focus efforts at EU level on enhancing the exchange of experiences relating to healthcare and solidarity with carers, taking into account the health challenges created by our ageing societies.

The Czech Presidency will pay special attention to issues of community long-term care, informal family care, and the dignity and rights of older persons. The Presidency will organise a European conference on dignity and hazards for the elderly, which will take place in Prague on 25 May 2009.

The Conference will focus on the reform of social and health services to respond better to the needs and preferences of older persons and families and will deal, inter alia, with such issues as Community long-term care, family care, geriatric frailty, prevention of abuse and neglect of the elderly, and the role of municipalities.

The Presidency will also organise the European Conference called 'Social Services - a tool for mobilising the work force and strengthening social cohesion', which will take place in Prague on 22 and 23 April. The conference will pay special attention to growing employment opportunities in social services in the context of population ageing, support for informal carers and the role of social services in active social inclusion and reconciliation of care and employment.

Priority attention will also be paid to independent living in the community. The conference should contribute to the exchange of best practices.

Let me conclude with the recent development in the area of taxation. The Ecofin Council reached an agreement just yesterday in Brussels that all Member States should have the option to apply reduced VAT rates on a permanent basis to domestic care services such as home help and care of the young, elderly, sick or disabled.

I have been very encouraged by the Czech Presidency, particularly in the emphasis it has placed on the family. The Commission's report on demography, which shows that we have an ageing European population, is subtitled 'solidarity between the generations', but it is really within the family that we learn solidarity and that this is based on love and care.

I am also very glad that the Czech Presidency has identified respect for human dignity, because that principle is at the heart of care. I would like you to comment on that because, as far as I can see, in order for care to be delivered to those who are dependent on care in a way that respects human dignity, we have to keep that principle in mind.

(DE) Madam President, I think it is a very good thing that efforts are being made to support relatives so that they can take over long-term care. Unfortunately, in reality, there are not enough relatives to do so. On the contrary, we need an increasing number of highly trained staff. Hence my question: what initiatives will the President-in-Office of the Council take to ensure that sufficient professionally trained carers are available? Has any thought been given to a form of harmonised training, as these are new initiatives?

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, I thank Members for their comments regarding the Presidency's efforts to improve living conditions for the elderly. The problem of ageing is one which we all share; and we should approach this with some dignity.

It is, of course, true that many of those challenges remain in the national competences of the Member States but, at the start of the debate, I mentioned the two conferences. I think Member States could provide training and counselling opportunities to family carers. The development of high-quality education is a key factor for improving the quality of care, as are temporary replacement care and special leave for employees who look after family members. Here, flexible working time, part-time jobs and other care-friendly employment arrangements are important.

Finally, social protection for family carers is also important. The care provided by both informal and professional carers must be appreciated and organised by society. Economic security, therefore, is a prerequisite for ensuring the quality of care.

Subject: Unemployment in Europe

What initiatives is the European Council pursuing at present to combat youth and long-term unemployment in Europe?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I should like to thank Brian Crowley for raising the question. I think you are certainly aware that the Member States are, in the first instance, responsible for designing and implementing their employment policies. However, the Council has a number of responsibilities in the field of employment, including the annual adoption of the employment guidelines in accordance with Article 128 of the Treaty. Especially now that Europe is facing a financial and economic crisis, the Council is paying special attention to the employment policies of the Member States.

You specifically asked in your question about the current initiatives by the European Council to help combat youth and long-term unemployment in Europe. In December 2008, the European Council agreed on a European Economic Recovery Plan to provide a coherent framework for action to be taken at the level of the Union, as well as for measures adopted by each Member State, taking account of their individual circumstances. The European Council's conclusion stressed, in particular, rapid additional action by the European Social Fund to support employment, especially for the benefit of the most vulnerable groups in the population. The European Council undertook to evaluate the implementation of the plan at its upcoming March spring Council, indicating that additions or amendments to it could be made if necessary.

During the first half of 2009, the Czech Presidency is paying particular attention to employment measures also, within the context of the spring European Council. The spring European Council will consider the employment situation in the Community and adopt conclusions thereon on the basis of the Joint Employment Report adopted by the Council and the Commission.

The opinion of the European Parliament on the matter will be welcomed in view of the European Council in March. Based on the assessment of the European Council, the Council will adopt the guidelines on the Member States' employment policies. The present employment guidelines adopted last year, as well as previous versions, have consistently stressed the importance of tackling youth and long-term unemployment in the Member States.

Since the autumn of 2008, when the effects of the present crisis on employment started to be evident, the Employment Committee, which was established by the Council in accordance with Article 130 of the Treaty, has undertaken the new task of continuous monitoring of the Member States' employment situation. The committee's findings are being passed on to the Council.

Moreover, the Presidency has decided to organise the Employment Summit so as to maintain a platform for the debate and eventual decisions, and that will be held on 7 May. Topics for discussion will be confirmed after the spring European Council - so we are planning to have the orientation debate on this next week. It should also be mentioned in this context that during this year, the European Parliament and the Council, as the co-legislators, are evaluating and considering amendments to the European Globalisation Fund, an instrument aimed at the elimination of negative globalisation impacts, where job losses certainly belong, as well as decreasing the risk that redundant employees will become long-term unemployed. The aim is to avoid long-term unemployment by timely assistance to the employees affected through activation programmes, such as training, which would enable improved qualifications.

On the whole, promoting employment, including fighting long-term unemployment and youth unemployment, has always featured high on the agendas of the Council and of the European Council. The Presidency supports the implementation of the flexicurity principles. Their implementation to national policies, together with continuing structural reform, will help improve the situation of vulnerable groups in the labour market, which include the young, the elderly, the long-term unemployed and people with low qualifications.

The honourable Member can be assured here that during spring 2009, amidst the global financial and economic crisis and rising unemployment, this continues to be the case.

I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his response. I think it is a tribute to the Presidency that they had planned an employment conference before we recognised or realised ourselves the seriousness of the unemployment arising from the economic crisis.

But in light of that employment summit that will be taking place, there are three key issues which have to be focused on and dealt with: firstly, not just using the European Social Fund merely for training but also to ensure that that training leads to actual jobs and is not just training for training's sake; secondly, ensuring that the Globalisation Fund is made more active immediately because the job losses are occurring now; and thirdly, and most importantly, encouraging our colleagues in the Council not to engage in national protectionism of jobs in their own countries to the detriment of jobs in other countries, since if we coordinate and cooperate, we have a better chance of success.

Would the President-in-Office agree with me that the situation we are in is not akin to the 1930s, but more akin to the situation at the end of the Second World War, and that what we really need is something more akin to a Marshall Plan-type new input for recovery in Europe?

Would he agree, therefore, that there is potential for the European Investment Bank to get an investor, such as China, to lend money to the EIB to invest in Europe, which could then be refunded through the extra trade tariffs and VAT collected by the Union to whoever lent that money to the EIB? Would he agree that while the Employment Conference is welcome, we need some new thinking and something as dramatic as what happened at the end of the Second World War?

(DE) Madam President, existing barriers to mobility are, without doubt, partly responsible for youth unemployment. We have excellent cross-border training programmes, including for apprentices, but the barriers in the field of social rights and health insurance mean that all this potential for mobility and additional training abroad cannot be used. What is the Council Presidency doing to counter this?

President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, I think there are two separate points, one from Mr Crowley and one from Mr Mitchell. I think we need to avoid the various protectionist temptations here which could even lead to growing unemployment in various Member States. The national solution should not be to the detriment of the neighbours and the price for it should not be paid by future generations.

We need to have measures and to react to the current situation, and we are trying to do this. I agree with Mr Mitchell that we need a plan, yes, and we have some plans. We have the European Economic Recovery Plan and we need to implement it. Of course, we are in discussion with and working with the European Investment Bank. Its President Maystadt held a conference two days ago at which he demonstrated how much the EIB had spent since the crisis started - about EUR 10 billion more than in the previous year. There is another initiative by the EIB, together with the EBRD and the World Bank, to allocate resources amounting to more than EUR 24 billion to cover the needs of the various SMEs, for example. That is important in maintaining employment.

Regarding the revision of the regulations on the European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Fund, an agreement on the proposal for a revision of the regulation on the European Social Fund, simplifying the recording of the expenditure and increasing payments on account to the Member States, has been reached in the Council. Currently the Parliament's position is awaited and the revised regulation could enter into force in May 2009.

Subject: Disparity in global production standards

Europe imposes high standards, which we all applaud, on food production and manufacturing inside its borders but does not require these standards to be met by imports. European standards, particularly for food production and the manufacture of clothes and toys, are the best in the world; but these high standards add costs and make production inside EU borders more expensive. Imported products, which are not subject to the same high environmental and other standards, are placed on our shelves, often at much cheaper prices.

What is the Council doing at the WTO and other global fora to raise awareness and encourage higher production standards around the world, giving better protection for workers and consumers?

President-in-Office of the Council. - I appreciate another question again from the Irish MEPs - it looks like the Irish are most active during Question Time here.

So, concerning the initiative at the WTO to raise awareness and encourage higher production standards around the world, let me first of all remind the honourable Member that the Commission is the main trade negotiator of the European Community at the WTO, acting on the basis of the mandate given by the Council. Therefore, we would need Commissioner Ashton here.

Regarding production standards, Article 20 of the GATT allows governments to act regarding trade in order to protect human, animal or plant life or health, provided they do not discriminate or use this as disguised protectionism.

In addition, there are two specific WTO arrangements dealing with these issues: the sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures and technical barriers to trade (TBT) agreements.

The SPS is a separate agreement containing basic rules on food safety and animal and plant health standards. It allows countries to set their own standards, provided that these are based on science. The TBT agreements oblige the WTO members to ensure that technical regulations, voluntary standards and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.

Members of the WTO are therefore encouraged to use international standards, guidelines and recommendations where these exist. They may take measures which result in higher standards only if there is a scientific justification for doing so.

The European Community imposes high-level standards through which we protect our consumers. However, we must ensure that the required standards are not in conflict with the agreements mentioned above.

We all know that there are different viewpoints on these issues and that the European Community has been many times on the defensive side of a dispute over such measures.

In the Community's view, good regulatory practice can, among other things, help to avoid unnecessary obstacles to international trade and make sure that legislation is not more trade-restrictive than necessary. At the same time, it can defend the right to set public policy objectives, for instance, in relation to human, animal and plant life and environments at levels it considers appropriate, provided these are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.

In the current context of the financial turmoil and economic meltdown, the importance of full compliance and effective implementation of all WTO rules and agreements cannot be over-emphasised.

The European Community has been working towards strengthening the international standards within the relevant WTO committees, in particular, the TBT, SPS, TRIPS, trade and environmental committees. A recent case which may be mentioned is the hard stance of the European Community in the SPS committee at the end of February on the issue of some members' non-compliance with the standard of the World Organisation for Animal Health.

I would like to thank the President-in-Office for the detailed and technical response, but let me give you a practical example which may focus your mind. In a few years, the European Union will ban the production of eggs from caged systems. However, the system will still be used outside of our borders and we will import liquid egg or powdered egg from those cages that are banned in the European Union, and producers wonder at the logic of all of that.

I ask you, as a man who is quite logical and detailed in your responses, how do you argue the case for that type of system unless we say that you cannot import the liquid egg or the powdered product coming from a caged system? It is ridiculous to ban it internally.

Minister, I think the key focus of the question was that of competitiveness and how we retain competitiveness for EU producers. Given that EU producers, particularly of food, have the extra costs of meeting EU standards and, at the same time, compete with imports from countries that do not, in those circumstances could I ask you whether you are persuaded that the CAP should be used to fund maintaining the competitiveness of EU producers? Without that funding, we are going to suffer exactly the fate that Mrs McGuinness has referred to.

President-in-Office of the Council. - I am not among the greatest defenders of the CAP. I am generally in favour of continuing reform of the CAP, but I hope that we will not be in a situation of importing liquid or dried egg. Also, I believe that most of the EC's standards regarding placement on the market are based not just on what we have agreed here in Europe but on the internationally agreed Codex Alimentarius standards and the UN Economic Commission for Europe standards. It is important that everybody follow certain standards, and that we do not create the conditions which would seriously undermine this.

TBT agreements oblige the WTO and its members to ensure that technical regulations, voluntary standards and conformity assessment producers do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.

Subject: Climate change

What preparations is the Council making in the run up to the G8 summit in July and the climate change conference in Copenhagen later this year in order to move international negotiations forward on climate change? In particular, can the Council report on any improved cooperation between the EU and the new US Administration in this area?

In addition, what further action in the fight against climate change is the Council planning in order to consolidate the package of measures agreed upon in December?

President-in-Office of the Council. - In December 2008, the Poznań Conference agreed on a work programme for 2009, which clearly identified steps towards the Copenhagen Climate Conference to be held in December 2009. Poznań has also sent the message that the current financial crisis is not to be seen as an obstacle to further action on climate change, but instead as yet another opportunity for transforming profoundly our economic system and moving toward a low-carbon economy.

That being said, we have to be aware that we will not have an easy time in doing so. The economic downturn will affect the willingness of the stakeholders involved to absorb additional costs related to the reduction commitments, as well as mitigation and adaptation measures.

The Czech Presidency intends to pursue efforts at international level towards a successful agreement in Copenhagen in December. As you know, as a follow-up to the Commission communication called 'Towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen' and on the basis of the input of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change set up by the European Parliament, the Council adopted conclusions on this issue last week, thereby further developing the EU position on a comprehensive post-2012 agreement.

The forthcoming European Council is also expected to agree key political messages. In addition to the shared vision of the long-term action on mitigation and adaptation as well as technology, the identification of appropriate means for financing effective and long-term climate policies is key in the EU's position and will determine, to a large extent, the success of the Copenhagen Conference.

The EU has already started to engage in active outreach, not only with key negotiating partners and the main emerging economies, but also with the new US Administration, which has already signalled its readiness to engage again in a meaningful way.

The Presidency has had its first meeting with the new US Administration and plans to have further exchanges as soon as possible. Climate change will be one of the topics discussed during the informal EU-US Summit in Prague on 5 April. The first signals coming from Washington are, in any case, encouraging so it will be crucial to ensure good cooperation between the EU and the US in order for our positions to be as ambitious as possible and to ensure that, consequently, the major emerging economies will follow suit.

For the EU's efforts to fight climate change to deliver, it is absolutely crucial that we bring other major world CO2-producing economies on board. It is for this reason that several of these countries have also been invited to the G8 meeting - South Africa, Egypt, China, India, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea.

As far as the climate and energy package is concerned, by reaching agreement on this package in December 2008, the EU sent a very strong political signal to all its negotiating partners in the world. Now we will start its implementation, which involves a lot of technical work.

Aware of the need to determine in further detail the criteria which the European Union would wish to apply in deciding to move from a 20% to a 30% reduction, the Council is currently considering the issues of complementarity of effort and of the adequacy of possibly developing country actions on the basis of the Commission communication. The relevant text is included in the Environment Council conclusions of 2 March 2009.

What would Question Time be without our Irish colleagues and their effective and articulate contributions? I am speaking first now, but really to make a point to the Presidency.

The point behind my question is that we should be aware that our younger constituents in particular - and I am sure I am not the only one in this situation - want to urge both this Presidency in its mid-term, and also the Swedish Presidency, to look carefully at what the Americans are trying to do in ensuring that there is no conflict - and Mr Vondra did mention this - between tackling the urgent priority of the economic crisis, unemployment and so on, and encouraging action on climate change, promoting the climate change package and encouraging industries to be involved in the low-carbon economy.

I am not asking the world, but I should like to say: please, always be aware that they are not mutually exclusive objectives. Many of our younger constituents across the EU are telling our presidencies this very thing.

(RO) Bearing in mind the effects of climate change such as the long periods of drought, the decrease in drinking water resources and the desertification of large areas of European territory, I would like to ask the Council if it is considering the development of a European irrigation system.

I believe that investment in agriculture must be a priority during this economic crisis. In addition, in terms of the European Union's trade balance, agriculture is an extremely important area and we must guarantee the availability of sufficient, accessible healthy food for Europe's citizens.

I would like to recall for the Presidency-in-Office that at the Summit meeting last December, all Heads of State and Government agreed to a declaration which stated, inter alia, that, in the context of an international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen in 2009, for those who wished to do so, part of the auction revenues would be used to enable and finance actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change in developing countries which have ratified the agreement, in particular, the least developed countries.

My question is very simple. Because Summit declarations do not appear in any Official Journal or on the record, before the end of your Presidency, Minister, could you put the full content of that declaration at last December's summit on the record here in the House? It is most important that we have a record of such important declarations.

President-in-Office of the Council. - I think it is in the conclusions of the Environment Council in early March. I do not have the papers with me so I will look carefully again. My feeling is that I have read this. We are ahead of the European Spring Council meeting and I would expect confirmation of all those ambitious goals.

I do not know - and this raises some other questions - whether we will come up with an appropriate amount of money to put on the table for funds to help the developing countries with mitigation and adaptation, because we are just at the beginning of our talks with the US and other partners and it would not make sense to show our cards right now.

The debate with the Americans is ongoing. The Deputy Minister of the environment met Carol Browner early this month and Martin Bursík, who is the Czech Minister for the Environment, is going to meet his partners in Washington - I think later this week or early next month - so there is already a dialogue.

Yes, of course, we need to find common ground. There is the economic crisis; there are those ambitious environmental goals. You are right that we can find a lot of synergies and there is no need to fight. If you read the European economic recovery plans, there are a lot of programmes which have a green cover or a green colour. At the same time, a lot of public explanation lies ahead. The conditions in the Member States of the EU are not necessarily always the same so I expect a lot of public work and public diplomacy lies ahead of us in this area.

Subject: Road safety

According to the priorities of the Czech Presidency, the high number of people killed on European roads requires an enhancement of Europe-wide effort to improve road safety.

What plans does the Presidency have to tackle this issue?

President-in-Office of the Council. - As the honourable Member has pointed out, improvement of road safety and reducing the high number of fatal accidents on Community roads are among the priorities of the Czech Presidency for the transport sector. This is not surprising, as we are the country located right at the centre of the continent. Traffic intensity and the related dangers are a top priority for us.

Sharing the same concerns as you and with a view to improving the current situation in the short term, the Presidency intended to hold a ministerial debate at a Council meeting in spring 2009 on future development in the area of road safety in the context of the preparation of a new action plan on road safety. However, in view of the fact that the Commission has indicated to the Presidency its intention to postpone the date of the adoption of this new action plan, the Czech Presidency considers this debate to be premature.

One example of concrete action under our Presidency in the field of road safety is a final negotiation between the Council and the Parliament on a proposal for a regulation concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles. As you know, the Presidency and Parliament's representatives managed to reach an agreement concerning this proposal and the European Parliament adopted the regulation yesterday. The general safety regulation requires the mandatory fitting of electronic stability control systems on all vehicles, and an advanced emergency braking system and a lane-departure warning system on heavy duty vehicles. These new technologies can significantly improve vehicle safety and it is clear that road safety will benefit when they are introduced as the standard system on new vehicles.

Agreement at first reading will allow the obligatory introduction of electronic stability systems in new vehicles from 2011, one year earlier than foreseen in the original Commission proposal. Furthermore, the Council has just started the examination of the Commission's action plan for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in Europe and the associated proposal for a directive laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport. Both items have as one of their goals the improvement of road safety through the application of information and communication technologies to the road transport sector.

The Presidency intends to invite the Ministers to adopt the Council conclusions on the action plan at the Council meeting in March 2009 and a general approach or a political agreement on the abovementioned proposal at the Council meeting in June 2009. The role of the ITS in the area of road safety will also be discussed during the informal meeting of transport ministers to take place in late April in Litoměřice in my country.

Intelligent Transport Systems and applications such as emergency call and driver hyper-vigilance systems, speed alerts and alcohol locks could make a considerable contribution to enhancing our road safety. Electronic stability systems and eCall alone could save up to 6 500 lives a year in Europe if they are fully deployed. Given the importance the Presidency attaches to road safety, it will examine any other proposals on these issues that the Commission may present shortly, provided the limited time available until the end of June allows it.

(GA) There is another question from Ireland, though it is in our own language this time round. In your opinion, what are the biggest causes of the high number of deaths on the roads? Does the Czech Presidency intend to develop any new coordination between the different standards in place in the different European countries in relation to cars being in good condition. As well as this, do you think that more than just technology should be employed to reduce the number of deaths on the roads?

(RO) The EU has not done enough to reduce road accidents. Road safety can be improved through investments in infrastructure, improving the behaviour of those involved in traffic and by compliance with road legislation.

The European Commission has come up with a proposal for a directive on cross-border enforcement in the case of fines issued for breaking traffic regulations. The European Parliament has voted for this. What stage are things at and what are the prospects of this dossier being approved by the European Union's Council?

Firstly, I would like to ask the Council if it accepts that what we need are specific targets for each Member State in relation to reducing the numbers of deaths and fatalities on our roads.

Secondly, would the Council accept that we need the enforcement of a system whereby, if an offence is committed in one jurisdiction, the offender can be prosecuted by the courts in that jurisdiction, even though the offender has returned to his or her native homeland?

Last, but by no means least, I welcome the Council's information in relation to the eCall system, but when will it be mandatory in all Member Sates? It is vital from the point of view of accidents, and particularly single vehicle accidents.

President-in-Office of the Council. - First of all, I understand how these issues are very important during the election campaign because everybody cares about this road safety problem. I think we have to be aware of one thing, that the governments and the European Council in particular cannot be responsible for every single life on our roads. It is also and primarily the responsibility of the drivers behind the wheel.

But of course we need to focus on this issue and, again, for us it is among the priorities, so we need to move this discussion ahead. That is why we have selected this as one of the key items on the agenda of the informal Transport Ministers' meeting at the end of April and certainly, I will tell my colleague in my government, our Minister of Transport, how important this issue is for you, too.

The main topic of this informal meeting is the deployment of the Intelligent Transport System (ITS) in the EU. Road safety and security are certainly one of the six priority action areas which were identified by the Commission in this ITS action plan. We want to move the debate forward.

Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

Green Paper on the European Workforce for Health (debate) 

The next item is the Green Paper on the European Workforce for Health.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very pleased to have been invited to make a statement to Parliament on the Green Paper on the EU Workforce for Health, adopted by the Commission on 10 December 2008.

That invitation comes at an opportune moment, as we are now approaching the end of the consultation phase, which will be closed at the end of this month.

It is clear that there are growing pressures on all EU health systems arising from an ageing population, health threats, as well as the rising cost of new technologies and patients' increased expectations - and all this against the background of a difficult economic situation.

Without a well-trained and motivated health workforce throughout the EU, the financial sustainability of European health systems will be threatened and health inequalities will increase.

As the European population gets older, so does its health workforce, and there are insufficient new recruits coming through to replace those who leave. We need to reflect on the reasons why young people are not motivated to become health workers.

This, coupled with the mobility of health professionals within and between Member States is creating common health workforce problems for most European health systems.

I expect a large number of responses to the Green Paper from the many stakeholder organisations in the field of health that have expressed concerns about this important issue.

I also look forward to receiving contributions from the members of this Parliament. Those will really facilitate our work and serve our common objective.

The analysis of the answers we receive will guide us in developing strategies at EU level to support the Member States in tackling these challenges.

The health workforce debate is distinct from the issues covered by the draft directive on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare.

Indeed, that proposal focuses on the rules and arrangements needed to provide access, in equitable conditions, to safe and high quality healthcare for patients moving across Europe.

The primary aim of the draft legislation is to enforce, in a fair and consistent manner, patients' rights as recognised by the European Court of Justice. It does not seek to regulate cross-border provision of health services, freedom of establishment or the mobility of health professionals.

However, that does not mean that the draft directive ignores safety and quality of care for patients seeking healthcare abroad - which is intrinsically related to the context in which healthcare is provided by health professionals.

In this respect, the draft directive sets out very clearly an essential rule, which is that, as regards cross-border healthcare, the rules of the country of treatment apply.

Let me also briefly mention other provisions, such as those in Article 5 of the proposal: Member States would commit to defining national quality and safety standards, to implementing them effectively and to making them public. Healthcare providers would provide all the relevant information to enable patients to make an informed choice - including details of their insurance cover or other means of personal or collective protection with regard to professional liability, which must be in place in all Member States, patients would have a means of making complaints and of receiving remedies and compensation when they suffer harm arising from the healthcare they receive.

With this set of principles and rules, I believe that the draft directive defines a clear relationship between the patient and the provider to ensure sound information as well as safe and quality care for European citizens who decide to travel to another Member State for treatment.

Let me also recall that, under the primary responsibility of my colleague Commissioner McCreevy, there is another important piece of EU legislation which regulates mutual recognition of qualifications for doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives and pharmacists. I refer to Directive 2005/36/EC, which is now in force. That Directive also provides for specific obligations for Member States as regards the exchange of information in the case of movement of health professionals. Those flows of data are facilitated by the use of the internal market information (IMI) system, which already allows for the electronic exchange of information on the five main health professions. Furthermore, an extension of IMI to all regulated professions is envisaged.

To conclude, tackling the challenges of the EU health workforce whilst ensuring financial sustainability of health systems will be one of the major tasks for Europe over the next decade. This requires a comprehensive policy approach, as no Member State can realistically find its own solution in isolation. The solution cannot simply be to attract health workers from developing countries, where the shortage is even greater.

To that effect, the Green Paper will allow for discussion and further definition of the issues at stake, leading to the design of common actions, where appropriate. I know that your expectations are high, and I count on your help in building solutions to support the invaluable contribution that health professionals make to the lives of each and every one of us.

Commissioner, I have no doubt that you will have a very fruitful response from MEPs to your request for contributions to the Green Paper on the European Workforce for Health.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, both for giving up her evening to come and join us in this packed House, but also for bringing the message that she has brought. It is an important Green Paper and it should start a major discussion within this Parliament and beyond.

She raised one or two questions during her submission just now, including her question about why more nurses and doctors are not coming forward. If I may say so, I think that is half the question. The other half is why so many are leaving. The key to this will be to find ways of recruiting and retaining healthcare professionals. That goes particularly, perhaps, for nurses, but also for doctors and for other therapists and so on. I think we have to look at the career structures that we provide. We have to see how promotion is seen as a potential. We have to cut down some of the barriers within and between the professions. We have to ensure that the work environment is pleasant. It is going to be tough but it can be comfortable as well. We have to make sure that research facilities are available in Europe so we do not lose people abroad. Perhaps, above all, we have to listen to the sharp-end professionals. Too often - I know from when I have been in government and you know as a Commissioner - we listen to the top people and we do not go down to the beds and listen to the nurses and the doctors who are actually dealing on the ground. If we did more of that, then perhaps we would get more of our policy right.

I, of course, want to refer - as the Commissioner has referred - to my report, the Parliament's consideration of cross-border health. We said right from the beginning that important with that were the two measures that were not coming at the same time. One of them, of course, was patient safety and we do have a measure that has sped its way on the fast track to join us. This one is somewhat behind. It concerns the health professionals. We do need to have the health professionals providing that service - that back-up - to cross-border health to enable patients to move safely and with confidence. Indeed, standing here in Strasbourg, we think of the Strasbourg, Liège, Luxembourg example of where the reference network concept may be of great value in terms of both patients and training and research.

The Commissioner has referred to the movement of health professionals, and we need to look at ways of making that a reality without endangering patient safety. I think that certainly includes the issue of language tests, which are not an obstacle but must be a protective measure for patients. She has referred to the recognition of qualifications. That clearly is important, whether you are treated at home by an incoming doctor, or you are going abroad to meet a local doctor there. There are some professions - and chiropractice is one - where you have recognition in some countries and not in others. We need to look at ways of bringing those ancillary health professionals into the centre of our planning.

We also, of course, need to be sure we have patient safety in terms of doctors who are disciplined or struck off - doctors, nurses, any health professionals - and in my report, I call for this to be facilitated by the Commission. I think that is something we need to look at more.

The Commissioner rightly referred to the brain drain. It is tragic that we are not providing enough health professionals but go and grab them from the countries that can least afford it. If you look at the figures, we see, on average, 1 in 4 doctors and 1 nurse in 20 has trained in Africa and is working in OECD countries. It is partly that we as countries pinch them and it is partly our NGOs who also use them and recruit them in the country concerned, pay them more than they would be paid in their own countries. Therefore, they do not go back to work there.

All those things are important, Commissioner. We need to look at the safety of health professionals. We need to put needle-stick injuries and hospital acquired infections on our agenda, as well as assaults on staff. We know from talking to midwives recently about the difficulty of getting professional indemnity insurance. Those are some of the issues that I hope will be to the forefront in our discussions on this very welcome Green Paper.

Madam President, I should like to endorse much of what Mr Bowis said a moment ago. The Green Paper we received from you, Commissioner, is a fine document. Needless to say, we cannot wait for the reactions to it, as is always the case with a Green Paper. These are, of course, partly predictable, but it is, in any event, useful to receive these, so that they can be incorporated in possible future legislation.

This Green Paper is important, seeing as it concerns a matter that needs to be dealt with. The Green Paper is the result of a controversy that arose over the proposals submitted by Mr Bolkestein at the time, and we welcome the fact that the Commission handles it in this way, with due care, with a Green Paper, and with ample room for debate, because there is, above all, much anxiety surrounding this issue, in my view. This is why I do not want to confine my contribution to the topic of health workers alone, because I think that we will discover the same fear of the unknown in the European dimension in healthcare in other areas too.

Much has been done in recent years in the area of public health in the European Union, both under your predecessors and with you, Commissioner; I should therefore like to seize the opportunity to congratulate you, Commissioner, on the stamp which you managed to place on this policy in a relatively short space of time. I did not think it possible in such a short space of time, and I think that we can all be proud of the way you managed to achieve this.

A great deal has been achieved in recent years, for example in the area of drugs for paediatric use, a matter in which respect the public is not even aware that there is a problem, but where a European solution is very much on the agenda, because Member States cannot resolve this on their own. It is precisely the economies of scale that come into their own here. I take the view that this also applies to other areas: to the policy on tobacco and discouraging smoking, for example, where the European Union leads the way, not only in the Union, but also beyond. In this instance too, it is precisely the economies of scale that make us effective. We are also very involved in cross-border care and the protection of patients' rights in Europe, also under the watchful eye of rapporteur Mr Bowis, and I hope and expect that we will achieve a positive result in that area too.

Each time, though, with each topic that is discussed, you notice that not only ministers, but also fellow MPs in national parliaments, are reluctant to further deepen European cooperation in the area of healthcare. With 27 different systems in the European Union, we are all convinced that our own healthcare model is the best. Anyone you talk to will convince you that their system stands out. This is, of course, impossible. You cannot have 27 different systems that are all the best all at the same time.

Needless to say, a great deal of thought has gone into such a system in each country. In each case, people and well-intended interests are involved. When finally a difficult balance is struck, the European Union suddenly comes storming in with an idea that we happen to think is the best. I can understand very well that this will meet with resistance.

In a few areas, however, precisely these economies of scale - for example, in the case of rare diseases - can benefit the patients and systems alike. There are plenty of reasons for more European involvement in the area of public health. Nearly 40 000 patients in Europe are waiting for organs, and every day, nearly ten people on these waiting lists die.

Every year, alcohol abuse claims 195 000 lives and costs the European economy EUR 125 billion. This is a matter that is probably best tackled not even nationally, but locally. There are also European trends, though, for example in the case of alcohol abuse among young people. We have to examine whether this should not be better addressed at European level after all. We are, however, being stretched on the basis of the present Treaty texts to tackle these problems.

We should nevertheless achieve more, for example - and this is where the value of a Green Paper lies - where the actual free movement of health services is concerned. I am convinced that if we faced up to all the problems, because there certainly are some, and came up with solutions, for example, to prevent medical blunders, or to enhance the legal certainty of patients, but also that of health workers, that eventually everyone would benefit, provided this free movement is organised in a responsible manner but becomes possible nonetheless.

If better cooperation in the area of organ donation and effective cooperation in the protection of pandemics - something I always bring up - are not addressed at European level, I am convinced that we will be faced with major problems if, some time in the future, a flu epidemic travels our way from Thailand. In actual fact, the Commission should, in those cases, be able to take crisis measures within 24 hours.

Finally, Article 152 is, to my mind, not up to standard after all when it comes to organising effective European action in future. If we were to consider changing the Treaty at some point in the distant future, we should, in my view, consider extending the legal basis for public health in a new Treaty.

Madam President, I should like to join Mr Bowis and Mr Maaten in congratulating the Commissioner on her Green Paper which is not a day, or even hour, too soon, in my view. The Commissioner said herself that a rise in the ageing population will indeed bring more pressure to bear on health systems, but also, and mainly, on workers. Indeed, anyone who takes the time to listen to the people working in the sector will know that the general working conditions are extremely tough, both physically and often also mentally.

Working in this sector demands a great deal from workers, and is often underpaid. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that the turnover of staff in the sector is very high. It is also a fact that all too often, the contracts are very precarious, resulting in many people leaving the sector prematurely. In my judgement, the Union will therefore need to pursue a number of things in its policy: sustainable employment, a good working environment, safe work, no brain drain, and decent work.

The Commissioner was right to make reference to the directive which Mr Bowis is currently working on, the Directive on cross-border healthcare. In my contacts with people in the sector, however, they were also keen to point out the relationship between working as a health worker and the Working Time Directive. In the Working Time Directive, contracts, rather than the people, are now used to determine the duration.

I have found out that there are Polish doctors who work in Polish hospitals on normal contracts during the week, and travel to the United Kingdom during the weekend to do a 48-hour shift there. This is unheard of, of course. This is something that should be taken into consideration, certainly in the Working Time Directive. I therefore hope that this topic will also be addressed when we discuss the Green Paper.

Madam President, the Green Paper on the European Workforce for Health reveals the plans of capital and of the European Union for privatising health and welfare, with painful consequences for working and grassroots families in the health sector.

These changes form part of the more general anti-grassroots reversals in social insurance and social services being promoted in all the countries of the European Union with the active support and complicity of the centre left and centre right forces, which treat health as a commodity, a source of profitability for capital, and patients and their families as customers.

The core objective is to extend the business activity of capital and construct a system in which public-sector health services operate on private-sector criteria, in competition with the private sector.

The first victims of this commercialised health system are the very people who work in this sector. 10% of the workforce of the European Union, these workers, often work under unacceptable conditions which are dangerous to patients. The constant violation of working times is probably the rule rather than the exception. Their pay, in the public sector at least, is being cut, as is their efficacy, due to the choices of private insurance companies. The central theme of the Green Paper is the mobility of workers and the application of the rules of the Bolkestein Directive in the health sector.

Health is a social value, not a commercial commodity. Health workers provide a social service and are not a means of generating profit. Only by fighting will the workers be able to secure a high standard of free services provided solely by the government, well away from any private business activity.

on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Madam President, more people work in health than any other area. The groups of health workers we instantly think of are doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, who are supported by radiologists, lab technicians, researchers, therapists, biochemists and an army of administrators and staff who keep health services functioning.

There is also a second group of professionals: the herbal physicians, chiropractors, osteopaths, homeopaths and nutritionists who focus on a more natural approach to health.

Lastly, there are the family carers, the largest single group of health workers who labour day and night without pay in the health sphere.

Going back to the first group, in this report, the Commission is concerned that the number of professionals working in mainstream healthcare is not sufficient to meet the needs of the growing demand. The Commission further stresses the need to attract young people to choose these professions. However, in some countries, this is not the problem.

In Ireland last month, 3 500 young people took an exam in the hope of securing one of a few hundred medical school places. Similarly, there will be far more young people applying for nursing, therapies, etc., than our universities are willing to train.

Commissioner, it is not a question of attracting young people. It is a question of allowing them to train. Our secondary students in Ireland are working towards a career in medicine, but it is, unfortunately, made unattainable by a rationing system that is out of touch with demand, which leaves us with severe shortages of qualified professionals.

I know that similar disconnects between training and demand exist in other European countries. I would suggest that, in working to attract young people to this profession, you will only frustrate them until we provide them with the opportunity to gain these skills.

Having not allowed these students to train and thereby creating an artificial shortage, we then, of necessity, bring in medical personnel from third countries - even the poorest countries - leaving their own people without medical help and creating a brain drain.

The second group of health professionals I mentioned, like herbal physicians, were unfortunately completely left out of this report. To leave them out fails to acknowledge the valuable contribution they make in keeping Europeans healthy and is out of touch with the wishes of many Europeans who seek their help.

This sector is very important. The Commission's apparent attempts to suppress it with directives, like the Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Directive, further compound this growing gulf between EU policy and people's everyday health choices.

Finally, I would like to make reference to the third and largest single group of health workers: the family carer. These are the people who care for dependant older people and those with disabilities. We need them more every year, not less. As Europe ages and the number of people with disabilities increases, we cannot take them for granted. The only way we are going to keep these essential carers is if we support them in their work.

Finally, our health force is more important than ever. The Commission is right to say that there are new and re-emerging threats to health, such as communicable diseases. Yet the Commission should also take careful note that every chronic disorder related to the immune system dysfunction is on the increase, for example, asthma, allergy, multiple sclerosis, autism, diabetes, epilepsy, fibromyalgia and many more.

I would advise the Commission to look at every one of these diseases that is on the rise and try to understand what is triggering these epidemics because, allowing them to increase unchecked and to affect more and more people, is both cruel and unsustainable.

Madam President, I welcome the Commission Green Paper and its objective of increasing the visibility of the issues around the EU health workforce and identifying challenges and action that can be taken.

However, I wish to take the opportunity to emphasise one aspect of the Green Paper, namely the training of the health workforce. I initiated Written Declaration 0095/2008 on this issue, which is ongoing. I strongly support the idea that it is absolutely essential to develop training communication courses for the health workforce in order to provide clearer and more complete information to patients. Patients' ability to understand health and medical issues and directions is closely related to the clarity of the communication. Despite various initiatives to improve the quality and the availability of health information, studies indicate that patients want more information than they currently receive and that health professionals tend to overestimate the amount of information that is supplied.

(PL) Madam President, the shortage of healthcare staff is a global phenomenon. However, we feel this most acutely in our own back yard. The lack of specialised medical assistance, the lack of clinical experience in particular specialities and of specific medical services leads people to seek medical help in other countries.

It is therefore very important to regulate the principles of cross-border medical care. The patient has the right to know what standard of services is offered by specific centres, how the care will be financed, how much the healthcare system of the patient's own country will pay for treatment or rehabilitation, and how much the patient will have to pay. A directive on this matter is essential.

A further question is raising the qualifications of medical personnel, including help connected with language courses, which should aid mobility. I think the proposal to establish a reference network for health personnel is expedient. Commissioner, thank you for your Green Paper.

Madam President, the promotion of a sustainable workforce for health across Europe is crucial in continuing our improvement in healthcare services and facilities across the 27 Member States.

Europe faces a number of challenges in sustaining and improving our healthcare services. The demography of the Member States poses a major issue for health workers as Europe's population ages and life expectancy increases by 2.5 years every decade. Increased pressures apply to the workforce because, as the population ages, so too do the workers. The key to maintaining an adequate workforce in the face of this imminent retirement is to ensure that there are sufficient younger recruits available to replace those who retire.

The importance of improved healthcare research and data across Europe cannot be stressed enough. At present, there is a lack of up-to-date, comparable data and information among the Member States on a number of key healthcare issues including training and employment of workers, age, gender and international flow of health professionals. The availability of Europe-wide information is immensely important for the planning and provision of future health workers and for all health authorities.

(PL) Madam President, it is very much in our interest to ensure that our healthcare system functions as efficiently as possible. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with the guidelines of the Green Paper, to raise the qualifications of medical personnel and to provide comfort and suitable working conditions for medical staff. We cannot allow doctors to be on duty for too long.

I would also like to draw attention to the question of health promotion. Promoting a healthy lifestyle is a good prophylactic method which can prevent a variety of diseases and illnesses. This is why, bearing in mind that prevention is better than cure, every kind of publicity and campaign promoting health should be supported. Let us remember that investing in any kind of innovative treatment method, clinical equipment and new technology amounts to investing in ourselves.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I wish to thank all the speakers for their valuable contributions. This shows that your contributions can be very helpful, because already some very important points have been made.

These include, for example, the question of how we can create the right work environment for workers in order to keep them in their home countries and, also, how we address the very serious problem of the brain drain.

I was in Liberia last week and was shocked to hear that for a population of 3 million, they have only 150 doctors. The rest of their doctors are all in the United States of America. This is a very big problem - not only for Third World countries, but also within the European Union, as there is a very serious brain drain from the east to the west. We have to see how we might possibly encourage health workers and health professionals to stay in their home countries. In order to do that, we have to create better work conditions for them.

Formal care cannot be addressed without taking into account the need for, and the capacity for, informal care, which we indeed reconcile in the Green Paper.

Mrs Sinnott raised the very important question of how to train more people and offer people more opportunities to train. That is the other side of the coin. On the one hand, we want more health workers, but on the other, we do not have the capacity to train them. All these are very important questions which we shall be able to answer and give solutions to once we collect all the important comments that you and other stakeholders make on the Green Paper. At the end of the process, we hope we will arrive at some solutions to the problem before it becomes truly insurmountable.

The debate is closed.

5th World Water Forum in Istanbul, 16-22 March 2009 (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul, 16-22 March 2009, by Mr Borrell Fontelles, on behalf of the Committee on Development - B6-0015/2009).

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in a few days' time a delegation from this Parliament will travel to Istanbul to take part in the 5th World Water Forum, an event which will bring together all the global players with an interest in water: UN agencies, development banks, States, professional organisations, NGOs and local authorities.

At a time when water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource and the pace of climate change leads us to expect more and more conflicts in relation to access to water, I wanted to prepare for this meeting by putting a strong text to the vote within our institution in order to lay the foundations for European action in this field.

The situation is serious, as you know. Water shortages have spread beyond the traditionally arid areas. Access to water, the quality of which is constantly deteriorating, has become a concern for all of us. The UN figures speak for themselves. One billion people do not have access to safe drinking water; two and a half billion people do not have access to sanitation; five thousand children under the age of six die every day from diseases caused by lack of clean drinking water or sanitation, or by their poor quality.

The scandal is that the first victims are always the poorest. Access to water, which will be one of the main challenges in the years to come, could further delay the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The next World Water Forum must be an opportunity to find solutions together to respond to this enormous challenge.

My first priority was to emphasise that water is a shared resource of mankind that should be a universal right. That is the first paragraph of the proposed resolution, and it is vital, because the policies we are implementing depend upon it. Remembering this basic principle means saying 'no' to making water a commodity, since, unfortunately, we know only too well the disastrous consequences of that.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report of 2006 shows there has been flagrant injustice. The lack of distribution systems has often resulted in a lack of safe drinking water for the most disadvantaged people. Consequently, millions of people have to resort to unofficial sources which, taking into account the intermediaries, charge prices that are five or ten times higher.

We are fighting for access to safe drinking water and sanitation for all. This means that water has to remain under public control, which alone can assert the common interest. It is this principle that should guide our policies, and I am pleased that the resolution makes reference to it.

Public intervention is indeed able to resolve this problem of access. A pricing system that is fair and sustainable for all would be both less costly for poor people than having to resort to the unofficial sector and would allow investment in the necessary infrastructures.

This goal can be achieved only if we all contribute to it. Public development aid must therefore be used together with the resources of local authorities, bank loans, private capital and innovative partnerships.

I should like, in particular, to stress the importance of financing based on solidarity, such as that made possible under the Oudin law in France. The latter allows local authorities to collect one cent per cubic metre from their users' water bills to finance international cooperative actions dedicated exclusively to water.

Is the Commission prepared, Commissioner, to encourage the development of this kind of instrument? Such development has to be done in accordance with the notion of the public good, and that is why I am pleased that the text of the resolution points out that public-private partnerships must be strictly defined and subject to regulation.

Since the last World Forum, the role of local authorities has been recognised by all the stakeholders, including members of Parliament and ministers. The next forum, in Istanbul, will stand out because of two major advances: the signing of an agreement by local authorities on water and the organisation of two days wholly devoted to the role of the local authorities.

Are you prepared, Commissioner, to make use of the enormous reserves of expertise and of human and financial resources of the local authorities to encourage the North-South Partnership? With their successful experience and their technical skills behind them, the cities of the North are keen to help their counterparts in the developing world.

Finally, the UN has today published a report on water that makes some frightening projections for the future. Under the double pressure of demographic growth and climate change, the water crisis has been made worse by the inadequacy of the political reaction. While water is the priority for all development policy, only 6% of international aid is devoted to it.

That is why I want Europe, our Parliament and the Commission to send a strong message to the people of the South, because this inequality of access to water cannot continue.

I should like to make a brief personal comment: I sincerely hope that water will not cease to be a common resource and that it will be a right for all.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all I would like to convey the apologies of my colleague, Louis Michel, for not being able to be here in person, as he is in the Congo. However, it is with great pleasure that I will take up the points, because they are so important.

The Commission fully agrees that water and sanitation service provision is naturally addressed at the local level, through local government, municipalities and communities. We have to recognise, however, that weaknesses exist between those different levels, most notably in weaker countries where the provision of basic services is not a strong priority.

Last year, the European Development Days here in Strasbourg focused on the role of local authorities, who are at the heart of access to essential services, as well as on the importance of local governance and the participation of citizens. This is obviously a central issue for the water sector and the Commission, through its different instruments, is working to increase support to local authorities and reinforce partnerships between local actors from the North and the South.

At EU level, European water policy is also based on the principle of good governance, encouraging the involvement and participation of citizens, local communities, NGOs and stakeholders. This is reflected not only in the Water Framework Directive but also in initiatives such as the EU Water Initiative launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, which contains the reinforcement of the role of local actors among its objectives.

In Africa, where the Millennium Development Goals linked to water and sanitation are still not on track, investments need to increase, and the Commission has demonstrated its political commitment by creating a financial mechanism.

The Water Facility of half a billion euros has enabled mobilisation of double that amount through cofinancing of a large number of programmes to improve the water, sanitation and hygiene situation of millions of people. It has also improved water governance and management in ACP countries. The focus on the involvement of local actors has been one of the added values of this facility.

The EU will be represented at the Ministerial Segment of the World Water Forum by the current Czech Presidency. The statement that is being prepared includes references to the need for good governance through capacity development and institutional reform at all levels.

The Commission's policy, approved in 2002, promotes integrated water resources management in developing countries. It is in this framework that the different uses of water - such as drinking water, sanitation, irrigation etc. - have to be addressed, in order to reach an optimal allocation of benefits among all users.

Moreover, the best practices of different experiences of green belts around cities, particularly in Africa, are currently being analysed in the context of the 'Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel' initiative as part of a feasibility study supported by the European Commission. Further support to this initiative will be considered within the framework of the Africa-EU Partnership on Climate Change.

I am pleased to announce that the Water Facility will continue under the 10th European Development Fund and that EUR 200 million has been set aside for that purpose. Member States are invited to participate with additional funding.

The Commission's strategy is based on an integrated framework for collaboration with partner governments, EU Member States and all the stakeholders concerned.

The Water Facility complements the national programmes with its capacity to work with decentralised actors and develop innovative solutions. The ongoing preparation of the 10th EDF Water Facility identifies in particular the potential offered by public water operators, who provide over 90% of water and sanitation services globally.

Therefore, public-public partnerships potentially constitute a very cost-effective approach in terms of promoting the relevant 'good governance' principle in the ACP water sector, with potentially long-term and sustainable impacts on institutional and organisational change. Such 'twinning' partnerships - for instance through training and technical assistance - can be efficient ways to promote the principles of good governance in the water sector in ACP countries.

Finally, let me confirm that aid effectiveness and the division of labour are discussed with relevant partners within the mechanisms of the EU Water Initiative. A mapping of EU Development Assistance in the water sector has been carried out to improve that ongoing dialogue. The question of donor orphans is an important one in the water sector and the Commission intends to take this into account in the conception of the new Water Facility under the 10th EDF.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would repeat the words spoken in this House several years ago, on 13 March 2006, by Eija-Riitta Korhola. She described the situation with regard to access to clean water as follows: 'The figures are alarming: 3 900 children die every day because of a lack of clean water. One fifth of the world's population, some 1.1 billion people, suffer from a lack of clean water. More than 40%, meanwhile, are without proper water and sewage services.'

Three years have passed since that statement and what has happened? What has happened is that the global scenario is worryingly exactly the same, which cannot fail to be cause for concern. We are now facing a serious crisis in basic sanitation that involves us all. I would point out that this problem particularly affects the poorest and least developed regions of the world, not least sub-Saharan Africa. This continues to be the area most affected by a lack of water quality, particularly in rural areas and in the slums that surround the major cities. However, the problem is vast. I have here with me a UNICEF brochure which dates from 2001. However, in the main, its statements still hold true and are striking. What does it tell us? It tells us that these 1 billion people are spread throughout virtually the whole world. These 1 billion people have no access to clean water: 4% in the Middle East and North Africa, 4% in Central and Eastern Europe, 19% in South Asia, 25% in sub-Saharan Africa, and 42% in East Africa and the Pacific. If we look at the figures within each of these areas, it is the regions of East Africa and the Pacific, and sub-Saharan Africa which present alarming numbers, with 24% and 43% of the respective populations still not having, at the beginning of the decade in 2000, any access to clean and safe water.

It is vital to remember the health complications, some of them fatal, which stem from this lack of water, and how these impact on the development and progress of the populations deprived of this essential good in terms of both quality and quantity, and also the border tensions caused by access to water and how these risk becoming more acute if nothing is done to prevent them.

The European Union, as a global player and as a contributor par excellence to the world effort to tackle this problem, cannot excuse itself from taking part in the major debates on this issue. I welcome the reports that the Commissioner has made to us in this House. I therefore also welcome the holding of and the European participation in this 5th World Water Forum. This will provide another opportunity for all the main players to debate the issue objectively and to prepare a clear approach to this problem. I cannot do other than support this effort, as the whole Committee on Development has also done in the sense of promoting subsidiarity. Furthermore, as there are many responsibilities in this respect at local level, I also support the other concerns of our committee. Ladies and gentlemen, water is a good which is essential to life, to the life of each one of us and to the life of humankind.

Madam President, I am, on the whole, pleased that this 5th World Water Forum is to be held in Istanbul and, above all, that the European Union is to participate with a delegation from the Commission, and also one from the European Parliament. I also understand and endorse the need to support the local public authorities in their attempts to establish democratic, participative systems and improvements or innovations in water management, and also to support decentralisation processes.

The primary and fundamental aim of all this is to protect the fundamental right to water and sanitary services but, clearly, this must be within a rigorous framework of respect for sustainable development which, in the European Union, is set out in the Framework Directive on water as a reference point, with the Millennium Development Goals as the basis for development.

I must say that all this - and I will set this out tomorrow in an amendment which I hope this House will adopt - was the subject of debate last autumn at the Zaragoza International Expo 2008 which, in addition, was the first time that the European Parliament participated alongside the Commission on equal terms. At the Expo, over 2 000 experts, in the Water Tribune, and NGOs, in the forum named the Agora, as well as the delegations from the Commission and Parliament, debated and generated an enormous volume of debate and very interesting, creative proposals on water management.

This took on a permanent form in the '2008 Zaragoza Charter', adopted on 14 September 2008. This contains 17 points, some of which I would like to highlight. The Charter states:

'that access to drinking water and sanitation is a human right that must be guaranteed by all public authorities';

'that access to water has an enormous influence on development';

'that forecasts show that climate change is capable of modifying the availability and demand for water all over the planet';

'that the sustainable production of food is directly linked to the efficient use of water'.

'that river basins are the best suited environments for harnessing water and their good management makes it possible to resolve conflicts between countries, regions and users'; and, finally,

'that the public authorities must take the initiative in promoting the legislation and arrangements required to ensure access to water by all'.

I call upon the Commissioner to take into account the conclusions of the Zaragoza Charter, in the drafting of which we, the Commission and Parliament, participated, alongside experts, NGOs and associations, and that, in fact, it constituted a forum for preliminary debate in view of the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul.

I believe that it is worthwhile incorporating the conclusions of the Charter and also of the Water Tribune into the European discussion and debate materials that we, as the European Union, are displaying at the pavilion at this international expo.

on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, two years ago, we held a debate in this House and adopted an exacting resolution on the subject of water on the occasion of the Fourth World Forum held in Mexico City. We wrote then that water must be considered a human right and that active policies must be developed to realise this right through forms of public-private cooperation, focusing, in particular, on local communities.

Unfortunately, that resolution was not supported by the European Commission, which was present in Mexico City - I would remind the Commissioner of this today - despite the fact that it was widely praised by many countries, especially in Latin America. The very nature of this kind of forum, a private structure, unfortunately prevailed. We now have the opportunity to send a parliamentary delegation to Istanbul, and it would be advantageous if our presence there were supported by an equally strong resolution as that of 2006: we are not quite there yet, which is why I am tabling these amendments.

We need to reach a real turning point on the water issue. The terrible statistics on water shortages are well known, and they are destined to get worse as a result of climate change. Indeed, it is in the area of climate change that new action is needed. Climate change is making access to water more difficult, and poor water access in turn aggravates climate change. So, as well as the rights issue, and that of public-private collaboration, we also have to look at building a strong relationship with the Kyoto Protocol. It is the UN that must be involved at the heart of matters concerning water. A dedicated UN body could be entrusted with global water governance, removing it from the private philosophy still present in the current forum. This would encourage connection with the important conventions on climate change and desertification that form part of the UN framework.

Appropriate finances will then, of course, be required. These could come from general taxes and charges, for example, on mineral water which - I would like to point out to my fellow Members - we use to excess even in this Parliament. The privatisation of water must be opposed: it would make access to a vital resource no longer a right but a market. I believe that the whole history of Europe teaches us that it is the public that has guaranteed the right to water in our homes, which does not happen on other continents increasingly prone to infiltration by the private sector.

These are practical matters, but they also have enormous moral importance. It is not by chance that the right to water is championed by large secular but also religious movements and celebrities. Recently, and many times over the last few years, the European Parliament Chamber has been made available - rightly, and I thank the presidents for this - for important meetings of global activist organisations. At the latest of these, the idea was put forward of a true protocol on the right to water, which I am convinced we should all support.

(PL) Madam President, the majority of us can take free access to water for granted. We use large amounts of water every day. It is worth remembering, however, that according to estimates of the World Health Organisation, one sixth of the Earth's population, that is to say, over one billion people, do not have access to water which meets basic, minimal standards of cleanliness. This means that in the civilisation of the 21st century, millions of people are suffering thirst and dying as a result of diseases caused by drinking contaminated water. Recently I was in Lagos, the largest city in Africa, where barely 1% of the people have access to running water.

Statistics of this type are horrifying, but nonetheless the problem of water does not make the front pages of newspapers, does not excite the general interest of the media, and is not the subject of discussions and disputes, as is the case, for example, with AIDS, the fight against malaria or global warming. This surely results from the fact that the problem concerns only 2% of Europeans, whereas it concerns 27% of people in Africa. It is estimated that in Africa alone, more people die each year from diseases caused by drinking dirty water than from AIDS and malaria put together.

It can, therefore, be said that lack of access to drinking water does not kill in a spectacular way likely to be given prominence in the media, and does not generate as broad interest as a disaster like an earthquake, a tsunami, flooding or armed conflicts. As Mr Ribeiro e Castro has already said, however, the facts are that, on average, every day 6 000 children die from diseases caused by a lack of water. This means that one child dies every 15 seconds. Can you imagine the reaction of the world, the response, the degree of mobilisation and determination, if this were happening in Europe, and not in Sub-Saharan Africa or Asia?

Consequently, the problem of access to water is not only a problem for developing countries, but also for developed countries. Universal access to drinking water is an essential condition for the development of countries and the fight against poverty. Unless this need is met, there is no point in talking about improving healthcare or developing education. Unless water for the needs of farming or simple industry can be guaranteed, whole societies are condemned to a battle for daily existence. This leads to armed conflicts, migration and destabilisation. In other words, it hinders development and increases developmental inequalities.

Politicians will also be present at the Forum we are debating. They will discuss matters of current importance. One of these matters is the situation in Darfur, where President al-Bashir is expelling organisations which, among other things, have been helping to ensure that the people of Darfur have access to water. There will therefore be an opportunity to persuade, amongst others, President al-Bashir, to allow international organisations to supply water to the people of Darfur.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to remind you as Mr Musacchio did, that in February, this Parliament, together with Mikhail Gorbachev's World Political Forum, hosted a conference with a meaningful title: 'Peace with Water', a conference that produced a memorandum for a world water protocol that deserves serious consideration and was, moreover, supported by all the major political groups in this Parliament, but which seems to have been ignored by the Committee on Development, which drew up this document.

I do not think this was by accident: the text we are debating today in fact appears weak and vague on all the crucial points that will be on the agenda in Istanbul. Take the example of water as a fundamental human right. If it is a right - and it is absurd to deny it - then it cannot also be a commodity. A right cannot be bought or sold in a free society. A right is only bought in a society of slaves. We are well aware, however, that the giant private interests want to take possession of this right. So what will Europe say at Istanbul? Who, as it says for example in recital J, needs to increase the financial priority of water? That is a prime example of ambiguous wording. Furthermore, is the state, or public ownership, the sole player in water policy? Or, as it says in paragraph 12 of the resolution, is it the 'major player'? What does this phrase really mean? For the rest, it contradicts paragraph 2 of the same document, where it is rightly stated that water is a 'public good' to be kept 'under public control'.

In short, we are in the midst of a general crisis in our society's model of development yet we are still clinging to an idea of the market that appropriates nature itself for private gain. Lastly, there is another very weak point: the document contains no organisational proposal for world water management. The aforesaid memorandum did, however, outline a proposal for a world agency, which is repeated in one of the amendments that I will support with my vote.

(PL) Madam President, the 5th World Water Forum is an event which should be an opportunity to work on systems of public water management which will be effective, transparent, regulated and in keeping with the objectives of sustainable development for meeting the needs of society. A special role and special tasks in this area await local authorities. In addition, the food crisis has shown a need for the development of new techniques, such as for the irrigation of farming areas. At the same time, it is important to ensure that natural fertilisers are used, or fertilisers which are rapidly broken down in the soil and do not pass into underground waters.

Finally, how does the Commission intend to act upon the will of the European Parliament expressed in its resolution of 15 March on the Fourth World Water Forum, concerning support for and ways of jointly financing water management? The problem of water is the most important challenge faced by the world and by Europe.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Members are right, the figures are alarming and warrant serious reflection. Many, too many, people in the world are still denied their fundamental right to water. In recent years, regulation in this field has been significantly extended. At Istanbul, I would, however, like to see attention drawn to the need to rationalise the many international bodies that play a part in the governance, direction and control of world dynamics associated with water, whose activities and competences often overlap at present. This reform can be deferred no longer.

I also hope that the 5th World Water Forum will recognise the concept of water as a global public resource and that this idea will gain support, with consequent appropriate policies on its protection, on public ownership and on usage and distribution procedures.

(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that, together in this House, we have been repeating the same things for years.

I think everything has already been said about water, about this shared resource of mankind, and, unfortunately, it has to be said again because the situation is far from improving, rather the opposite. The latest United Nations report shows that, in fact, the situation seems to be getting worse. I therefore think that, despite the proposals that have been made and the policies that have been conducted by the European Union, which are a first step forward, we really need to go further than that because, without water, there is no life. We must also be aware that many populations, particularly countries we trade with and have dialogue with, have had their water supplies cut off or still do not have access to drinking water.

This is absolutely inadmissible and unacceptable. In my opinion, we really must support - and I think that the European Union must provide support at international level and at Istanbul - the status of water as a shared resource of mankind. It is not a commodity which can be sold or which could be sold by our multinational companies. That is really what we must fight for at Istanbul, and I think that our fellow Members will fight for it.

Madam President, I have listened to my colleagues quite rightly highlighting the shortage of water, lack of access to water, the diseases that come from that. All that is fundamentally important for this water forum.

I just wanted to raise the other side of that coin because those of us who were recently in Guyana with the ACP regional conference were made very aware of those countries which have too much water because of climate change. Mr Musacchio was talking about the climate change impact on water; how it can contaminate, how it can dry it up, lose the access, but here we have too much and we have to bear in mind what that does in terms of polluting water supplies and causing damage to crops and all the rest of it.

So we have, I believe, to add to this list for the water forum the issue of forestation/deforestation, because, unless we get that right, we will go on having floods as well as droughts.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, nobody can underestimate the importance of water and the need to manage our water sources well. However, as I said in my introductory remarks, we also need to assist the poorer parts of the world in gaining access to clean drinking water. The Commission will continue to assist these countries.

Water is a primary human need, as was recognised and reaffirmed during the Fourth Water Forum in Mexico in 2006. Of course, as I said before, the EU will be represented and will put forward a strong case on all the points I have made at the forthcoming Forum in Istanbul.

Mr Bowis referred to another very important question - and I agree with him - namely that, because of climate change, we see other parts of the world being flooded with water. We really have to take action about that. As he said very clearly, forestation is one of the solutions to the problem.

I have received one motion for a resolutiontabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 12 March 2009.

Court of Auditors Special Report No 10/2008 on 'EC Development Assistance to Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa' (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on Court of Auditors Special Report No 10/2008 on EC Development Assistance to Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa by Mr Borrell Fontelles, on behalf of the Committee on Development - B6-0016/2009).

author. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Africa is the only continent that has not made any progress to speak of when it comes to meeting the Millennium Goals, particularly in the area of health, that is, in mother and infant mortality, the fight against HIV/AIDS, TBC and malaria. This is wholly attributable to their weak healthcare systems and the human resources crisis that is sweeping that sector. It is therefore abundantly clear that investing in health systems is essential in the fight against poverty.

This is, moreover, also the Commission's view, but according to the report by the Court of Auditors, even though the Commission has claimed this for years, it has done precious little in the way of making any practical changes. The Commission is making efforts, mainly via vertical funds in the fight against AIDS, and this may well be necessary in our view, but this should not be at the expense of the overall package of investments in basic healthcare.

Commissioner, the budget for basic healthcare has not increased even proportionately since 2000 in the framework of the whole package of official development aid. There is therefore enough reason for this Parliament, on the basis of the Court of Auditors' report, to ask the Commission a few questions and make a few recommendations. I would like to make four points.

Firstly, the budget for healthcare must be increased. Clearly, a joint initiative is what is needed here from the EU along with its partner countries. The developing countries have committed to investing 15% of their budgets in the framework of the Abuja Declaration. This cannot possibly be done, though, Commissioner, if the Commission and Europe are only prepared to spend 5.5% of the European Development Fund (EDF) on this. I should therefore like to find out from you in what way the Commission would like to ensure that in the framework of the 10th EDF, the investments in health will be increased.

Secondly, better and efficient use should be made of budgetary support. Even though this is one of the Commission's showpieces, it receives low scores in the Court of Auditors' report. Nonetheless, budgetary support very much has the potential of meeting the shortcomings in southern healthcare systems. Whilst sectoral budgetary support can really target health systems, it is hardly used in sub-Saharan Africa.

General budgetary support can also prove helpful, provided the Commission can commit, and kindle enthusiasm in, the partners to select healthcare as a central sector, and we would urge the Commission to do this. My question to the Commission is: in what way will you ensure that much better and much more targeted action is taken both via sectoral support and general budgetary support?

Millennium Development Goals (MDG) contracts are one of the Commission's promising instruments. I am 100% behind them, but in all honesty, they are somewhat too insubstantial and too short-sighted because they are only meant for the good students, and so alternatives are very much needed for the others.

Thirdly, expertise must be enhanced. According to the report, the Commission has too little expertise to put its policy proposals in the healthcare sector into practice. This is why we would ask the Commission to guarantee this expertise by drafting in more health experts and also by working more effectively with the WHO and the Member States.

Fourthly, the healthcare sector must be better coordinated. Commissioner, it is absolutely vital for the European Code of Conduct on Division of Labour to be put into practice, and that the investments in, and programmes on, healthcare between the different EU countries are better coordinated. In addition, we must ensure that the so-called orphans among the needy countries can also guarantee aid in the area of health.

I should like to finish off with a word of thanks to Mr Staes who, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, supports the concern expressed by the Committee on Development, and has asked the Commission to clarify its plans with a view to the discharge procedure, and preferably before the end of 2009.

It is clear, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that this Parliament urges the Commission finally to translate its policy priorities into reality with more conviction and with better instruments. This is more than necessary if we want to be in with a chance of achieving the Millennium Goals by 2015, because, Commissioner, basic healthcare deserves sustainable investments in the long term.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Commission really welcomes the European Court of Auditors' special report on EC support to health services in Africa. The debate on this oral question gives us an opportunity to discuss our health support to Africa with you, the European Parliament.

I am not going to repeat here the formal reaction the Commission has already made regarding the Court of Auditors' special report, which has already been published on the Internet.

Unfortunately, this report has not received wide coverage in the press and, when it was mentioned, things were sometimes oversimplified by saying that 'Europe has not kept its promises in Africa'. Let me therefore just clarify a few essential points before we enter into the debate.

The Commission remains fully committed to supporting the Millennium Development Goals, the health-related Goals 4, 5 and 6 being an integral part of these goals: reduction of child mortality by two thirds, reduction of maternal mortality by three quarters, and halting and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS. This is what our development cooperation stands for, but our commitment must not be measured by budgetary allocations to the health sector alone.

Doubtless, child mortality will be reduced by effective health service interventions, vaccinations in particular. Therefore, we monitor vaccination coverage not only in our health programmes but also in many of our general budget support operations. However, child mortality also depends on other factors such as nutrition, housing, access to safe water, sanitation and education. Therefore our contribution can, and will, frequently be outside the healthcare sector itself.

When deciding on sectoral allocations and modalities of our development assistance, we agreed in Paris and Accra to increasingly respect basic principles of aid effectiveness. Here are just two examples. The first is leadership by partner governments. This means, after an in-depth discussion with the partner country, accepting the sectors proposed for support. It might not be the health sector but education or water and sanitation.

Second: alignment on national systems. This means channelling our aid, preferably as budget support (provided that the basic criteria are fulfilled). If the country has a sufficiently well formulated poverty strategy, our support may preferably be channelled as general budget support.

Although this support will not then be earmarked as health sector support, it is linked to targets for health, such as vaccination coverage rates or proportions of births assisted by skilled health personnel. Such targets are usually part of the poverty strategy and are monitored, and budget support disbursement is often linked to progress on them.

In addition to the global commitments on aid effectiveness made in Accra and Paris, we, the European Union, have collectively agreed on a code of conduct that foresees, for example, a reduction in the number of sectors in which each and every donor is active, in order to reduce the administrative and managerial burden on our partner countries through the multiplicity of donors. This is the meaning of the division of labour approach that EU Member States and the European Commission have agreed upon. We know that it will not always be easy to agree on this at the country level, particularly as health scores high in public opinion, and all donors and donor countries want to be present and to be seen. We will, at times, have to resist such a tendency and leave it to the other donors to do the job.

I therefore hope that our debate today will contribute to further clarifying these issues and to helping ensure that Europe fulfils its promises to Africa.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for that response. I am sure you are right, Commissioner, that figures can mean many things and we need to look very carefully at them. But of course, today we are looking at the Court of Auditors, so we have to look at the figures. I sometimes wish we would look at people rather than figures, but we agree 'no wealth without health'. That is not just a slogan but a reality in so many low-income countries.

We agree that the Court of Auditors says only 5.5% of EDF funding is going to health, whereas the European Union's policy - and Parliament's policy - is that 35% should be spent on health and education. There is a wrong figure there, and it may well not be as bad as that figure suggests. Nevertheless, it shows we have got to do a lot better, and that involves cooperation - if I can use that term - with the 15% pledge enshrined in the Abuja Declaration by the countries themselves.

However, Commissioner, I want to come back to the people. Go to Mali and see the diabetes out of control and look at the cost to families: over 30% of their family income spent on insulin, if they have to buy it - and they do have to buy it. Go to Chad and ask about the mental health services, and they will tell you that they used to have them before the civil war. Go anywhere in Africa and see the inhumane treatment of people with epilepsy, whereas for a few cents, we could make most of them seizure-free. Go anywhere in Africa and see the AIDS orphans and see and meet the grandparents trying to raise the grandchildren because the parents are dead.

The statistics are there. We know that in the Americas, 14% of the world's population has 10% of the global burden of disease and 42% of the health workers. Sub-Saharan Africa has 11% of the world's population, 25% of the global burden of disease and 3% of the health workers. It reflects the debate that we had earlier. But we have to look at those things because you cannot have health without health services, without health workers and without health education.

We also have to look at some of the projects that we are embarking on. It is not just TB, AIDS and malaria, but all the other diseases. It is the neglected diseases, for which the Commission stands proud with its cooperation with the pharmaceutical companies on that initiative to bring help to people in need of those medicines. We have to look at the causes of ill health, and the debates this evening have centred round those.

Only if we pull all these things together will the statistics add up - and that means the people will add up. What we do better will help people to be better, and then their economies could be better too.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report of the Court of Auditors will not be officially presented in the Committee on Budgetary Control until next week. I should therefore like to congratulate the Committee on Development and also Mrs Van Lancker, who have made sure that this debate is being held here today and that tomorrow, we will be adopting a resolution which gives a detailed account of what has gone wrong.

We should pay close attention to Mrs Van Lancker's long speech and the recommendations she has made in it. Commissioner, we should pay close attention to Mr Bowis's speech, who managed to list the shortcomings very expertly.

Anyone who reads the Court of Auditors' report cannot simply skate over the issue. The figures are there for everyone to see, and Mrs Van Lancker was right to point out that the Millennium Goals for this sector will be achieved with great difficulty, if at all. Studying the figures which the Court of Auditors quotes for each country will bring you back down to earth with a bump.

With regard to AIDS prevalence, 34% of the population is affected in Swaziland, 23% in Lesotho and 14% in Malawi. Child mortality in Swaziland was 78/1000 in 1997, compared to 86/1000 now. In Lesotho, life expectancy in the mid-90s was 60, now only 41. In Kenya, more than 1 in 10 children die before the age of five. The recommendation, the analysis of the Court of Auditors about the efficiency of EU policy has, in the last few years, been painfully disquieting.

I therefore hope, Commissioner, that the Commission will indeed succeed in answering the questions by 10 April, which I, as rapporteur of the Committee on Budgetary Control, managed to have included in this resolution, so that we can incorporate the answers in the discharge procedure that is due at the end of April.

(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, anyone visiting sub-Saharan Africa can easily see, in most countries, the enormous weakness in their health systems and the extremely negative impact that this weakness has on the lives and health of the people who should be helped by these services.

The figures regularly published at international level constantly confirm this. In this respect, the idea that simple and practical gestures, which are not particularly elaborate or even particularly expensive, might be sufficient to save many lives is extremely disturbing. European financial support can be crucial in this respect and we must always keep in mind that cooperation in the area of health is truly strategic and directly involves not just one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) but many of them. The Court of Auditors found, and I quote, that 'EC funding to the health sector has not increased since 2000 as a proportion of its total development assistance despite the Commission's MDG commitments and the health crisis in sub-Saharan Africa'. End of quotation. It also recognised, and again I quote, that: 'The Commission contributed significant funding to help launch the Global Fund [to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria] but has not given the same attention to strengthening health systems although this was intended to be its priority'. End of quotation.

According to the Court, this will have happened, and again I quote, because 'the Commission has had insufficient health expertise to ensure the most effective use of health funding'. End of quotation.

The Court of Auditors therefore directly presents the European Commission with a huge challenge, which I endorse. For our part, I want to reiterate this challenge, based on the objectivity of this data and this assessment. Health services already form part, but must increasingly form part, of our development assistance priorities, and they therefore merit an increase in funding. Optimising how aid is given, bearing in mind the apparently opposing needs of coordination of management and proximity to the beneficiary populations, will be to provide a service that can save many lives.

The European Commission cannot fail to respond positively to this challenge and I urge it to do so. Just now, Mr Bowis made a touching speech in which he managed to put faces, human faces, to the dry coldness of these numbers from the Court of Auditors. The challenge for us, Commissioner, is to ensure that our cooperation can put a look of happiness and hope on these same faces. That is why, Commissioner, it is vital that we change the numbers in our health cooperation.

(FR) Madam President, I did not really want to speak on this report, but just to add a point that is particularly close to my heart and which I have raised on several occasions at the ACP meetings. It is the issue of health conditions for the Tuareg people in Niger. In this context, Commissioner, I should really like to raise the problem of European companies that exploit natural resources in African countries and, in particular, the French company, Areva, which is going to exploit uranium in Niger, without giving any information to the local communities, with the result that the people living there are using, for example, radioactive materials or scrap metal for cooking utensils.

Today, the authorities in Niger are not allowing serious studies to be carried out on the situation regarding radioactivity among these people, but we know that they are in an alarming situation.

We had asked, during one ACP meeting, for an epidemiological study to be carried out on these people. I am putting this request again today to the Commission.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, not only have I listened carefully to what has been said tonight, and not only have I paid attention to what was said in the report by the Court of Auditors, but also, as I said before, I have just come back from a visit to Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia and have seen with my own eyes what the needs of these countries are in the field of health. They have needs in terms of infrastructure, needs in terms of the trained health providers we have already talked about, and needs in terms of medication.

Those needs are immense, and I cannot but agree with you that we have to intensify our efforts in offering our help, in the field of health, in the poor countries of Africa.

I can assure you that I will convey your comments to my colleague, Louis Michel, and I am sure he, too, will consider all your suggestions and comments with great attention, just as I have done.

I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

Implementation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) (debate) 

The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Mrs Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the implementation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA).

Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Commissioner, the European Parliament, under the authority of our rapporteur, Mr Gauzès, has been very committed to ensuring that the legislative measures necessary for implementing the SEPA - Single Euro Payments Area - project come into existence.

When we drew up the accompanying legislation, the Directive on Payment Services, we asked ourselves some questions. We now realise that these questions were probably justified.

Now that this project is to be launched, we have some concerns, because we do not have the impression that the level of mobilisation, which it seems to me has nothing to do with the challenges of the crisis, has not quite materialised as it should have done.

The fact is, this project, which has received a great deal of support from those in the sector and from the legislator but which, above all, must provide a modern payment tool that is suited to the circumstances of our single currency, the euro, is in danger of not achieving the critical mass that it should have in order to be fully effective.

We are particularly concerned that the launch of the SEPA Direct Debit scheme, which is undoubtedly one of the most original aspects of this project, is running into some difficulties.

We feel that, in view of the Commission's responsibility, there are two questions to be asked. Firstly, how does the Commission intend to promote and support migration to the SEPA payment instruments? A timescale had been fixed, and it is obvious that it does not take all the practicalities into account. Secondly, is the Commission of the opinion that the migration of a critical mass of transactions to the SEPA instruments should have been achieved by 2010, and, if not, what should be done to achieve this?

When we adopted this legislation, we did not decide on a clear and binding end date for migration to the SEPA instruments. We think it is undoubtedly time to do so. We understand that some questions still remain about the compatibility of national systems with the SEPA system and about what is meant by definitive migration, but we feel that it is the Commission's responsibility to support the industry in finding solutions to the questions they still have.

Next, there is the matter of interchange fees, which clearly has been ignored or neglected, when, for many players, it is absolutely central to the success of the SEPA project. From this point of view, it sometimes seems that, among the various competent bodies, be they in the professional banking sector, the Internal Market and Services Directorate-General or the Directorate-General for Competition, we are passing the buck somewhat.

Perhaps it is part of the legislator's responsibility to talk with these players and to demand some sense of responsibility from them. We feel that, at this stage, we cannot call a consistent piece of legislation into question without supporting the market operators in their efforts to develop an alternative system. This is precisely the difficulty we have with this issue of interchange fees.

The Directorate-General for Competition has indicated, in some cases, that it considers this piece of legislation to be contrary to the competition rules, but then it believes that it is up to the industry to find an alternative solution. The fact is, the alternative solutions that exist at Member State level have not been tested by the Directorate-General for Competition. Therefore, there is no way of knowing whether the Directorate-General for Competition could support them, or whether some of the solutions are appropriate for the problems we face.

For example, imagine that financing an interchange system relied on penalties imposed under the legislation, that is to say, on errors committed. In practice, this would very often mean making the most vulnerable people pay, and that does not seem to me to be reasonable or socially just.

I therefore call on the Commission to take action on two important points: to fix an end date for migration and to help develop an alternative system or a system that is acceptable from the point of view of the rules of the Treaty on interchange.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all may I convey the regrets of Commissioner McCreevy for not being able to attend.

Well, this is indeed a long question but I believe both the question and the draft resolution on SEPA implementation correctly identify the key issues we need to resolve to make a success of SEPA.

The first question asks how the Commission intends to promote and foster migration to SEPA instruments.

SEPA is primarily a market-driven project, but given the substantial benefits to the wider economy, the Commission has sought to encourage SEPA migration, for example by acting as a catalyst to raise the political profile of SEPA through our SEPA Progress Report and by encouraging early migration by public authorities. And, also, by striving itself to be an early adopter of SEPA. And finally, as announced in last week's Commission proposal 'Driving European Recovery', by coming forward with proposals to ensure that the full benefits of SEPA are realised.

The second question asks if a critical mass of payments will have migrated by the end of 2010. Clearly we favour rapid migration to keep extra costs during migration to a minimum. Although the SEPA Credit Transfer (SCT) has been successfully launched, less than 2% of payments have migrated. Furthermore, the Sepa Direct Debit will only be launched later this year. So the current pace of migration is too slow to attain critical mass migration by 2010.

The third question was on the necessity of a clear and binding end date. We see the strong merits of fixing an end date and, of course, 2012 does not seem unreasonable. However, for many Member States this remains a very sensitive question. We therefore favour establishing a clear process to examine this question, by collecting information on the impact of an end date on different stakeholders and launching a meaningful debate with them.

This could pave the way for some political endorsement and, if needed, a possible legislative proposal, for example, at the end of the year.

Your fourth question asks how to enhance legal certainty for the SEPA Direct Debit in relation to the MIF and existing mandates.

We need a temporary solution to the business model problem to provide legal clarity and get the SEPA Direct Debit successfully launched. That is why the Commission fully supports the efforts of Parliament and the Council to find a temporary solution within the context of the revision of the Regulation on cross-border payments.

The Commission also supports the continued legal validity of existing national direct debit mandates under SEPA migration. However, this is a legal matter for national authorities to solve, for example, by using the opportunity provided by the Payment Services Directive's implementation.

The fifth question related to how the Commission is tackling the MIF issue for card payments.

This work is progressing primarily through the Commission's assessment under the competition rules of the two major international card schemes, namely MasterCard and Visa.

On 19 December 2007, the Commission decided that the MasterCard MIFs for cross-border card payments with MasterCard and Maestro branded consumer credit and debit cards were not compatible with the competition rules. MasterCard is appealing the Commission's decision.

In March 2008, the Commission opened proceedings to establish whether Visa Europe's MIF constitutes an infringement of Article 81. Discussions with Visa are ongoing as well.

The Commission seeks to maintain a level playing field for MasterCard and Visa Europe as well as for the other payment card schemes which might emerge in the future.

Your penultimate question asks if the Commission should propose a concrete solution to the MIF issue. In a market economy, it is incumbent upon industry to propose an appropriate business model. In relation to cards, as I have said, discussions are ongoing with Mastercard and Visa. In relation to SEPA direct debit, the Commission is willing to assist industry by providing urgent guidance within the framework of a sustained dialogue with the banking industry and on the basis of contributions by the relevant market actors. This guidance should be provided by November 2009 at the latest.

And your final question asks what specific measures the Commission intends to propose to make sure that SEPA migration does not lead to a more expensive payment system.

In the Commission's opinion, this should not happen. Firstly, SEPA should foster competition and increase operational efficiency through economies of scale - both producing downward price pressure.

Secondly, SEPA should also increase transparency, which will limit cross-subsidisation and hidden pricing, although optically, some users may perceive the switch from high hidden pricing to low visible pricing as a price increase. Here, clear communication by banks will be important.

Third, the Commission is carefully monitoring the impact of SEPA on customers by launching studies.

Finally, we agree that there is concern that efficient national debit card schemes may be replaced by more expensive alternatives. However, there are initiatives that could develop into a new pan-European debit card scheme and an overall backstop is provided by the existing powers of EU and national competition authorities.

Therefore, in conclusion, SEPA should result in a more efficient payment system and adequate safeguards under EU and national competition policy exist.

I therefore very much welcome this Resolution and Parliament's strong support for SEPA.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, much has just been said about what has become of this Payment Services Directive for which I was Parliament's rapporteur and which was adopted at first reading in 2007.

The purpose of this directive was, among other things, to give the various banking institutions, grouped within the EPC, the legal instruments necessary for the implementation of SEPA. A European regulation has therefore been adopted for bank cards, credit transfers and direct debits.

SEPA is an integrated market for payment services in euros where there will be no difference between cross-border payments and national payments. This situation will have benefits both for the banking sector and for consumers.

As you said, the Commission has committed itself to ensuring that migration to the SEPA instruments does not result in a more expensive payment system for the citizens of the European Union.

Since the adoption of this report, migration to SEPA has progressed very slowly, much too slowly. On 1 October 2008, only 1.7% of transactions were made by way of the SEPA Credit Transfer format.

That is why, today, we are approving the European Parliament resolution calling on the Commission to fix an end date for migration to SEPA products. This date must not be later than 31 December 2012, after which date all payments in euros should be made using the SEPA standards.

Before this migration can take effect, however, the sensitive problem, the sensitive issue of multilateral interchange fees, needs to be resolved. These fees should not be abolished. Payment services are a commercial activity. It is legitimate to cover costs and keep a profit margin for participants.

On the other hand, opacity or arbitrariness should be avoided. It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to lay down guidelines with respect to the application of these interchange fees.

In order to have more legal certainty, these guidelines must be known before the SEPA system for direct debits is launched. Without this legal certainty, banks in many countries might not launch the direct debit system, and this could bring implementation of SEPA to a halt.

The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament have tabled very similar amendments along these lines for tomorrow's vote. Obviously, we hope that they will be taken into consideration.

(LT) At this difficult time, it is very important to find possible sources of economic growth. The development of our European financial market is exactly such a source of possible growth for the European economy. In this instance, we are talking about the payment market, and it is regrettable that the decisions we have taken are being implemented rather slowly. Technical possibilities of banks are usually cited as the main reason, as these are mostly technical solutions, but I would like to say that technical modernisation of banks is in the interest of the banking sector and the banks themselves and, in this way, they can modernise their market, their payment systems and increase their profits. Therefore, it is very important that Member States implement the Single Euro Payments Area implementation plan with more determination.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we know that the Single Euro Payments Area represents a genuine challenge to small and medium-sized enterprises. They have recently been working very intensively with the credit card system and the prices and costs which result from these systems differ greatly. I believe that the required degree of transparency is not present here.

It is precisely during a crisis that we need commensurate support for business. It must be possible to improve the creditworthiness of companies by reducing costs, because then, of course, they can get access to credit again. I think that the SEPA would be a good instrument here. It should be implemented as quickly as possible in order to achieve a situation where not only can small and medium-sized enterprises work cheaply and efficiently, but where this also applies to transactions between small and large businesses.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and its Chair, Mrs Berès, for this debate. The Commission welcomes Parliament's support for SEPA, which is not only a self-regulatory initiative, but also a major public policy initiative reinforcing economic and monetary union as well as the Lisbon agenda. Parliament and the Commission clearly share the same vision and the same goal for SEPA.

Let me, however, recall three important points. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the Commission has been very active in helping to drive forward the SEPA migration process, in particular, by putting pressure on public authorities to be early adopters. We will relentlessly continue our efforts as a SEPA catalyst.

Secondly, although we share Parliament's interest for an end date for SEPA, we do not believe that the time is right to carve an end date in stone. We have put a process in motion and are convinced that a lot of ground work is needed before such a commitment can be envisaged.

Thirdly, I can confirm that the Commission will provide guidance on the compatibility of multilateral, interbank remuneration with competition rules. We know there is little time left before the entry into force of the SEPA direct debit, and that our guidance should therefore be available before November 2009. However, let me insist on one point: that guidance can only be provided subject to the industry supplying us first with concrete ideas for possible business models.

I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, 12 March 2009.

Sri Lanka (debate) 

The next item is the debate on the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka.

(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like first of all to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for agreeing to accept the procedure laid down in Article 91 and to put this emergency resolution on last Monday's agenda, since, at our last plenary here, in Strasbourg, we already had an emergency resolution on this issue of Sri Lanka. I would also like to thank Parliament for having agreed to this debate taking place this evening, and I thank you, Commissioner, for coming to this debate, as I know the time is difficult for you.

We wanted this resolution because we have to send a strong political signal to the government and the Tamil representatives in Sri Lanka, because the situation is getting worse every day. We have first hand accounts from Tamil families and people who are in Europe and who are always sending us messages and accounts of what is happening to them and what is happening to their families trapped in the conflict between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan army. These people are enduring really terrible suffering.

We do not know how many people are affected, but we estimate that between 150 and 200 000 people need to be evacuated. What is meant by 'evacuated', though? The NGOs are asking us to have them evacuated by sea, but, there again, I have to ask: to go where? Where are these people going to go?

This afternoon, I met a little girl who was born in a Sri Lankan refugee camp and who is now in Europe. If it is that these people have to leave their country to go and live in refugee camps, then that is not the solution, either.

Therefore, we are asking in this resolution for there to be an actual ceasefire. Of course, there will be debate with the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats about an immediate or temporary ceasefire. We are really asking the authorities for an immediate ceasefire so that civilians can be removed from danger, because we know that there are people who have been killed. We have had another example of this today with these testimonies. We are asking, of course, in this resolution, for the Sri Lankan Government to cooperate with the NGOs and with countries that are willing to help to resolve this conflict. We are also asking if the European Union can help to deliver desperately needed food and medicines.

Finally, may I say on behalf of my group - since it is on the initiative of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance that we tabled this emergency resolution on Monday in the Committee on Foreign Affairs - that we are asking for this issue to be taken very seriously by some of our fellow Members, who have different interests in this country. I would remind you that, for a long time now, some of the political groups have been asking for the opportunity to speak about the situation in Sri Lanka and that, for internal reasons in some countries, we have not been able to debate this issue of the Tamils and their situation, which has deteriorated since the 1980s.

Since you are here with us, Commissioner, maybe we can ask ourselves another question. The European Union appears to have the ability to help in resolving conflict. Perhaps the time has come for us to consider the possibility of setting up a conflict resolution unit within the European Union.

We can see in the Caucasus, we can see everywhere else in the world that the European Union is taken seriously for the proposals that it issues. In resolving conflict today, we must no longer be just a supportive participant, but an actual promoter of conflict resolution. If, today, we can start to lay the foundations to resolve this conflict with a strong European Union presence and a strong message to the authorities, I believe that we will have also increased our stature in terms of political union.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as one of the Tokyo Co-Chairs of the Sri Lanka peace process, the European Commission and I personally have been following the developments in Sri Lanka very closely. We are deeply concerned about the current situation and the tragic humanitarian consequences of the conflict, as expressed in the GAERC Council conclusions of 23 February and the Co-Chairs' statement, issued locally on 3 February.

We are particularly preoccupied about the plight of thousands of internally displaced persons - you are right - trapped by fighting in Northern Sri Lanka. We are no longer facing a crisis but what I think is already a humanitarian catastrophe. This was confirmed to us by a wide range of independent sources, including the UN and the ICRC. The Government's recent announcement about opening two evacuation roads at the north and at the south of the safe zone is a positive step but we want to know how this will work in practice.

We have called on the parties - the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan authorities - to protect the civilian population as required under international humanitarian law and to allow the safe and voluntary movement of people away from the combat zone. Both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army are responsible for the dramatic increase in civilian casualties during the past months. There is an immediate and urgent need to act to save lives in Sri Lanka, as was also confirmed by the UN Under-Secretary, Sir John Holmes, who drew attention to the high casualty rate, and also the ICRC.

The Commission is convinced that the outcome of this crisis will have lasting consequences for peace, for reconciliation and for the unity of Sri Lanka and, in this context, strongly supports the call issued by Sir John Holmes to the Government of Sri Lanka to interrupt hostilities to allow time for the civilian population to get out safely and to the LTTE to let the civilians go and agree on a peaceful end to the fighting.

The Co-Chairs have also appealed to the LTTE to lay down their arms but unfortunately, this call has been rejected, even ignored. We feel that the Government of Sri Lanka has an obligation to protect all its own citizens and agree to a humanitarian ceasefire - this was also said in the Council conclusions last time - to allow sick and wounded people to leave Vanni and to arrange for food and medicine to be let in. This is also what India suggested last weekend.

We continue to be alarmed about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, against the background of reports of extrajudicial killings, abductions and serious intimidation of the media. It is very important that the Government follows up the most prominent high-profile cases. There cannot be any impunity for such crimes.

At the end of the day the European Commission continues to be convinced, as I myself would say, that there is no military solution to Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict. An inclusive dialogue is required, leading to a political settlement. Lasting peace and reconciliation can only be achieved by addressing the concerns which led to the insurgency in the first place and by providing adequate space for all the communities. As a Co-Chair, I have always said there can only be a political solution by means of some sort of devolution package, which has been on the table, has been taken off the table, and now has to come back on the table.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam Commissioner, Sri Lanka's brutal civil conflict is finally nearing its end. Of course, it is too early to say whether this will mean the end of terrorist activity by the Tamil Tigers.

We certainly should not support a permanent ceasefire at this stage in case it allows the Tigers to regroup. In my view, their only option now is to lay down their arms or be defeated militarily with more casualties. A long-term ceasefire would be a disaster because - as a suicide attack in Sri Lanka earlier this week demonstrates - the LTTE is ruthless, bloodthirsty and rightly identified as a terrorist organisation by the European Union and the United States.

We should be resolute in our support for President Rajapaksa in his efforts to end an insurgency that has only brought untold human misery to Sri Lanka and severely retarded economic development on that beautiful island. However, thousands of innocent civilian IDPs still remained trapped on a narrow coastal strip. These civilians must be allowed to leave so that the army can conclude its offensive. It is reprehensible, but entirely to be expected of the Tigers, that they are exploiting these civilians as human shields. The Tigers have been deaf to appeals from the international community to surrender and establish a temporary humanitarian corridor.

Nevertheless, allowing the UN and other organisations to arrange safe passage from the conflict zone for these civilians is essential to avoid further bloodbaths. Sri Lanka appreciates its own responsibility in this regard and wants to avoid civilian casualties but, understandably, the army's patience is limited and fears that the Tigers will seek to escape by a sea evacuation procedure, mixing in with the civilians.

Therefore, we on this side of the House endorse the establishment of a humanitarian corridor and a temporary and immediate ceasefire or cessation of hostilities, but we also want to see the comprehensive defeat of the LTTE and a peaceful, just and multi-ethnic Sri Lanka established in its place, where there is maximum autonomy to the Tamil majority areas and an equitable sharing of resources and power within a unitary Sri Lankan state.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I very much welcome this debate in the presence of the Commissioner, whom I thank very much for her serious, her strong and her profound statement. It is clearly a very important subject, although it is regrettable that we are discussing it at 11 o'clock at night with so few people here. But the attendance does not, I think, reflect the interest in this topic, nor the seriousness with which many Members view it. We are, to use the Commissioner's words, deeply concerned about the situation. Tonight's debate recognises also that the situation has moved on and, as Mrs Isler Béguin said at the beginning, that we need to send a strong signal about the deteriorating situation that is worsening day by day.

I support the original resolution tabled, with the exception of the one word 'temporary'. I deplore the language that Mr Tannock has just used, when he said that a long-term ceasefire would be a disaster. Surely - I appeal to you - we are not interested in just a temporary ceasefire. In every case of conflict around the world, this Parliament, composed of compassionate people, has argued for a permanent ceasefire that can pave the way for diplomatic rebuilding, so that dialogue can begin - and, yes - so that we can get that peaceful, just and multi-ethnic society that Mr Tannock spoke about and with which I agree.

So I applaud the Greens for their first amendment, Amendment 1, and I am sure that all decent people here, concerned about the civilians in Sri Lanka, will too. A temporary ceasefire by its very nature implies a return to war later on, which nobody wants. A return to war will mean more deaths, more suffering, more humanitarian tragedy and I cannot believe that anybody on either side of the House really wants that.

Likewise, Amendment 2: I support this amendment too because it condemns all acts of violence by whoever is perpetrating them, on whatever side of the conflict. We cannot condone any violence, including the recent suicide attack which has been referred to.

Then I turn my attention to Amendments 3, 4 and 5. I would like to read a short piece that I received from a Sri Lankan Member of Parliament in the Jaffna district, Mr Selvarajah Kajendren, dated 10 March. He says 'I wish to bring to your urgent attention the civilian deaths in Sri Lanka. The Army fired artillery shells fitted with cluster munitions from 2 a.m. till 10 a.m. on Tuesday 10 March 2009' - this week. 'The Sri Lankan Government forces indiscriminately attacked all parts of the 'safe zone' using every kind of lethal shells, some of them banned in many countries. In this indiscriminate cluster shelling, more than 130 civilians were killed, including children, and more than 200 were severely injured.'

I doubt that anyone would suggest that this is fabricated. More, I would suggest that we all want to do everything we can to help bring an end to that sort of violence. He also refers to his colleague, Mr S. Kanakaratnam, who is living right in the middle of the 'safe zone'. He says that from 1 January to 6 March this year, 2 544 civilians have been killed in these 'safe zones' by bombing campaigns and well over 5 828 civilians have been gravely injured. Yet the Sri Lankan army, he says, have been bombing by air and artillery fire, killing on average 30 to 40 civilians on a daily basis.

I do not believe that he would be fabricating. From what the Commissioner has said, from all the evidence given by all the NGOs that have got anywhere near there, that seems to be reflective of what is happening.

Amendment 6: I refer here to the report by Sir John Holmes, which was sent to me by His Excellency, the Ambassador of Sri Lanka, in Brussels. In the report, he says there is serious overcrowding in some of the transit sites. His words are reflected in my amendment and it is right that we should be concerned about these camps. I have some pictures of the camps. Anybody is welcome to look at these pictures that have been sent to me. Again, I suggest they are genuine and not fabricated. I know that the Commissioner's office in Colombo is following this very closely and has close contacts within the real danger zone.

Amendments 7 and 8 strengthen the original reference to the war zone so that civilian needs can be fully attended to. We ask for unhindered access not only to the combat zone but also to the refugee camps so that humanitarian agencies, which everybody in this House supports, are granted full access. Everybody round the Chamber would support the work of the humanitarian organisations.

Finally, Amendment 9 suggests we send this resolution to the Secretary-General of the United Nations because I believe that this is an international humanitarian crisis, as reflected in the title, and that we should do everything we can. That is why I thank the Greens for putting this down and I ask all colleagues to support the amendments tabled by all political groups.

Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Ferrero-Waldner for her speech and for her response to the call from the NGOs and the people who are trapped.

We are afraid of finding ourselves in a somewhat similar situation to Burma after the tsunami in 2006, where the junta prevented access to humanitarian aid. Now, therefore, we must do everything possible so that humanitarian aid and our aid reaches the people who need it.

I should also like, however, to speak to my fellow Members from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, because I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that we must appeal to wisdom. Indeed, we submitted this proposal for an emergency resolution in order to allow Parliament to express an opinion and adopt a position tomorrow.

What I would not want, under any circumstances, is for one side or the other not to vote for this resolution because of differences of opinion about an immediate ceasefire or a temporary ceasefire, which we understand because the debate has already taken place. I therefore genuinely call upon you, please, to act wisely.

On the other hand, I should like to say, particularly to Mr Tannock, that, to repeat the words of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner: armed conflict never solved any problem. We know that. War never resolves anything.

In my opinion, asking for a temporary ceasefire is irresponsible with regard to the people concerned. That would mean, in fact, putting them back into battle at some future time - and what a future that would be - once the people had been evacuated. Can we allow ourselves to leave people to be evacuated? Tamil people are people who own land. Therefore, they want to return to their land. They are Sri Lankan.

I therefore believe that we have to pay close attention to this matter, but I am prepared to make concessions and to withdraw amendments provided that, together, we can reach a common position so as to send out this strong political signal to the entire world.

Mr President, we should be under no illusions about the terrible impact of war on innocent civilians and our moral duty to do all that we can to reduce their vulnerability and to help in the provision of humanitarian assistance. That is why Parliament passed its urgent resolution on Sri Lanka less than three weeks ago.

For decades now, Sri Lanka has been afflicted by a terrorist campaign conducted by the internationally proscribed LTTE. There is no equivalence between terrorists and the legitimate forces of a democratic government. Let us remember that it was the LTTE that perfected suicide bombing as a tactic, that it pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks, and that it makes undisguised use of child soldiers and of human shields. Over the last 26 years, it has systematically carried out thousands of deliberate murders across Sri Lanka and, just two days ago, 14 people were murdered in a suicide attack during an Islamic festival in the Matara district.

The LTTE is now in a desperate end game and, typically in such situations, is turning to international apologists to get it off the hook. A tiny minority of Members of this House were unhappy with the resolution passed by the majority in this Parliament and, disgracefully and improperly, they wanted to focus condemnation on the Sri Lankan Government. We cannot support amendments based on unattributable - and often nonsensical - allegations, as we have heard from Mr Evans, or selective quotation from one NGO report. We have no good reason to dispute the Government's firm assertion that its troops have not fired on no-fire zones and will not do so.

Six days ago, the Secretary-General of the United Nations called on the LTTE to remove its weapons and fighters from areas of civilian concentration and to cooperate in all humanitarian efforts calculated to relieve the suffering of civilians. The European Union has condemned the action of the LTTE in preventing civilians from leaving the conflict area.

The greatest service all in this House can do is call on the LTTE to lay down its arms and to release the civil population from its grip. Then, much-needed humanitarian aid can be delivered, people can begin to look forward to better lives and all Sri Lanka can get back on the path of democratic politics and to building a fair and more prosperous society for all its citizens, free from terrorist oppression.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I totally agree with you that we need a political solution, not a military solution in Sri Lanka. I have visited this country many times as a member of the South Asia delegation. I know how the people long for peace after 25 years of violence.

However, I must say that, in this sort of war, the LTTE should make a move and unfortunately, is not doing so. You too mentioned that and the Foreign Ministers again urgently called on 23 February for this organisation to lay down its arms and end the terror. Just imagine a Member State of the EU in which terror has reigned for 25 years. That there is a great deal of chaos and disorder there is easy to imagine. I support the Tamils' cause, but I reject the LTTE's methods equally decisively. For weeks, we have heard that in this small district, more than 100 000 people have simply been seized. Reuters reported just yesterday that, according to eye witness reports, people are being shot when they try to leave this zone. So we need to call on the LTTE and the forces behind the LTTE to end these practices. The game is up; they cannot carry on like this.

Obviously civilians in this war zone are exposed to barrage fire from both sides. We must also call on the government to respect international law and permit humanitarian actions. It is the fundamentalism on both sides that is demanding so many victims. I think we should prepare for post-war order. As you said, the 13th amendment in the Sri Lankan constitution must be implemented, which provides for decentralisation in the sense of regional administration by the people who live there and the EU can provide valuable help here. I am sure that you in the Commission and we in the EU are prepared to do so.

(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that what the Commissioner said, namely that a military solution is not possible, needs to be reported on the front pages in Sri Lanka. Namely that, in terms of the tensions in the country and the problems that have piled up here over the years, the government does, in fact, keep trying to make an offer. It founders quite simply on the communication strategy.

Of course, you also have to see that the strategic position of Sri Lanka also gives external factors room, setting external factors in motion that are very hard to control within the country alone. Care therefore also needs to be taken to ensure that the economic situation improves and that the infrastructure in these areas is improved, so that the necessary communication between the parties to the conflict is possible. Perhaps it would be possible to use one or other of the mediators here.

(NL) Mr President, what is happening in Sri Lanka now has been in the making for quite a few years. It is not simply a humanitarian problem, but mainly a serious political failure. After years of violent struggle for the separation of the North-East of the country, a previous administration of Norway offered mediation between the Sinhalese majority government and the rebel Tamil movement. The Norwegian negotiator who worked for a long time to reach peaceful solutions is now a minister in the new government himself. Unfortunately, though, this option for a peaceful solution has since been abandoned.

In the summer of 2006, the Sri Lankan Government ended the peace attempts and opted again to unilaterally impose a military solution. This government is now probably labouring under the illusion that it managed to achieve a major success, whereas in reality, a peaceful, harmonious co-existence of the two peoples as equal partners will be even more difficult in future. Without a compromise on a peaceful solution, the future looks gruesomely violent. We have to revert back to peace mediation without winners or losers.

(DE) Mr President, thank you Commissioner for speaking so plainly. I think that our main focus now must be directed towards the fate of the civilian population and the only thing that can, in fact, apply here is what was said in the Council of Ministers on 23 February, namely that the EU calls for an immediate ceasefire. I am against adding the word 'temporary', otherwise the humanitarian disaster which you referred to will continue.

I also think that, in this situation, where the people are trapped in this zone, we must oppose all acts of violence that prevent people from leaving the combat zone. In this situation, it does not matter to me if the violence is being perpetrated by the LTTE or by government troops. Our focus must be on the people themselves.

Perhaps I might make a comment to my honourable friends from the former colonial power who are preparing to leave our group. I hope that the impression which has imposed itself upon me, that there is also a certain domestic incentive to lash out so unilaterally at the LTTE alone, is false. I also hope that they do not have a specific segment of the electorate in mind.

Mr President, this is not a point of order. I was indicating to your colleague that I wanted to 'catch the eye' to speak, which I am allowed to do and which I thought I had done.

I want to thank Mr Meijer for his remarks. He also referred to the valiant work of Mr Erik Soldheim, from Norway, whom I met 10 days ago in Oslo.

I very much agree with Mr Gahler, who spoke a great deal of sense: it is the fate of the civilians that concerns us. I suggest that of all the amendments, the most important is Amendment 1, which calls for an immediate and total ceasefire, and which must be in the interests of all the people of Sri Lanka.

There is much evidence. It is not circumstantial. Some of it is from the office of the regional director of the health services of the Sri Lankan Government, which talks about a humanitarian catastrophe and the substandard conditions in which people are living. This is echoed by the European Commission, the ICRC, the UN, the International Crisis Group and Refugee Care Netherlands. The title of the debate this evening is the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, and we have a duty to do everything we possibly can to prevent that, which I think we can, if we find the right way forward.

Ladies and gentlemen, I strictly applied the Rules of Procedure. As I was able to give the floor to five speakers, and as only three actually spoke, I decided to also give the floor to Mr Evans.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for what has been a very important debate, even if it was short and took place late in the evening.

Since the beginning of this Commission's term of office, as a Co-Chair, I have been very much preoccupied by Sri Lanka. There were moments when we had some hope - rather more at the beginning - but hope has now faded away. I wanted to take part in the Geneva Process, but it seems that was difficult for the Government of Sri Lanka. In any case, this process unfortunately broke down. I was also ready to go up to the north to start mediation, like my predecessor, Chris Patten. But the north was not ready - officially Mr Prabhakaran had measles or chicken pox. In any case, I am in complete agreement with Mr Gahler, who said - and this is also my own concern - that we should put people and humanitarian concerns first.

As is so often the case, we have been the largest humanitarian donors in Sri Lanka. In 2008-2009, we allocated EUR 19 million for humanitarian assistance, which was then channelled through partners like the ICRC, the United Nations and also some international non-governmental organisations. These organisations are ready to help the affected populations, but they have real problems - which they tell us about - in gaining access to the conflict area. Since September 2008, the ICRC has been the only agency allowed to operate in the LTTE controlled areas in Vanni. The World Food Programme has been allowed to send some food convoys, but this has only been sufficient for around 50% of needs. Since 2008, we have provided another EUR 7 million in humanitarian assistance to the two organisations. We have also been pushing consistently, in both Colombo and Brussels, for better access to these populations by humanitarian organisations.

Therefore, I can only say - together with the other Co-Chairs and also particularly with Norway - that we have used every opportunity to press the parties in conflict to implement the 2002 ceasefire agreement and to solve the conflict using peaceful means, but nothing has worked. Numerous calls for a return to negotiations have always been totally ignored and unfortunately, the military route has prevailed. The scope for intervention by the international community has narrowed more and more over the last three years, but not one of the Co-Chairs has abandoned the mission. We have all remained committed to contributing to a peaceful solution to the conflict, as can be seen from the last Co-Chairs' press statement released on 3 February, of which I am sure you will all be aware.

Therefore, what we must do now is again press for humanitarian access, get the humanitarian and civilian population out, and then try, when the time is right, to start to foster a political dialogue with the parties in conflict and try to persuade them that a political solution is the only way out. Otherwise, there will be a guerrilla war, which will not solve anything for this beautiful island. It was once a paradise and could become a paradise again.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, 12 March 2009.

Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

Closure of the sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.35 p.m.)

Opening of the sitting

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

Documents received: see Minutes

Workers' participation in companies with a European Statute (motion for resolution tabled): see Minutes

Eastern Partnership (debate) 

Ladies and gentlemen, the first item today is the Commission statement on the Eastern Partnership.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am very glad to have this opportunity for a timely debate on the Eastern Partnership. It is one of the flagships of the European Union's foreign policy, and its strategic rationale is clear: more security, more stability and more prosperity in our eastern neighbourhood.

The conflict in Georgia and also the gas crisis in Ukraine are just two examples of the periodic crises and the instability affecting this region. These have had a direct impact on the Union and its citizens. To these two crises we now have to add the financial crisis, which hits our eastern neighbourhood particularly hard. While each crisis requires its own immediate response, we also have to provide medium- and long-term action to prevent new problems from arising and, in addition to these immediate issues, our eastern neighbours all want stronger links with the European Union, albeit to varying degrees. They also need reinforced help to consolidate their democratic institutions, statehood and rule of law.

The European Union can and must respond to these challenges and the Eastern Partnership is, so to say, our political answer. Increasing our support for reforms and helping our partners to align with the EU acquis will help stabilise our eastern neighbours.

On 3 December 2008 the Commission put forward an ambitious communication on the Eastern Partnership on my initiative. It built on prior ideas by our Czech, Polish and Swedish friends, and it built on many of the European Parliament's suggestions, including deep free trade agreements, more mobility of people and greater funding. As part of the Eastern Partnership, we also proposed upgrading our political relationships through association agreements with each partner - but only once they have fulfilled the relevant political reform criteria.

We proposed measures to enhance cooperation on energy security and, importantly, increase support for economic and also social development to address the imbalances within countries that are so often a destabilising force. We also recommended setting up a multilateral framework for the Eastern Partnership with four thematic cooperation platforms: firstly, democracy and governance stability; secondly, economic integration and convergence with EU policies; thirdly, energy security and, fourthly, contacts between people.

We suggested making the European Parliament's Euronest initiative an integral part of the Eastern Partnership and setting up an Eastern Partnership parliamentary troika for the European Parliament, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

To implement all these proposals and step up support for internal reforms, the Commission asked for EUR 350 million additional funds over four years. That is only 3.1% of the total ENPI envelope and, for example, much less than the additional allocations to the occupied Palestinian territories in 2007 to 2009 alone. In short, this is not an excessive sum: it is a necessary investment in our long-term security.

I know some of you would like to do even more for our eastern partners. You have said that the Commission proposals do not go far enough or fast enough, particularly for the mobility of people, but other voices have said the opposite. We need to strike the right balance, therefore, between ambition and realism, and we need to move fast.

I am glad that we all share the goal of bringing our eastern partners gradually closer to the Union and also tackling the threats to their stability. The Eastern Partnership is a key tool to accomplish that.

I hope that today's debate sends a strong signal to the 27 Member States in the run-up to next week's European Council and in preparation for the Eastern Partnership Summit on 7 May 2009.

The Eastern Partnership goes to the very heart of the challenges we face today. It is in the EU's direct strategic interest: a new security crisis in our eastern neighbourhood would have implications not only for our neighbours but also for the whole EU and its citizens. I am, therefore, very grateful for the support of this Parliament, and I look forward to working with you on your contribution and in the implementation.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, as rapporteur for the eastern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy, I welcome the Commission's commitment to deepening relations with six countries to the east in the new Eastern Partnership. It is important to emphasise that the Eastern Partnership should not by itself preclude the possibility that some of those countries should one day join the EU as full members. For example, as you well know, I have long been an advocate of Ukraine's EU membership, and I remain convinced that absorbing Ukraine is definitely in the EU's strategic interest.

I also welcome the establishment of a new parliamentary body, Euronest, as a forum for MEPs and national parliamentarians to reinforce each others' democratic mandates through dialogue including, for instance, facilitating Armenia and Azerbaijan to sit down together and discuss the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, and negotiating free trade agreements and visa facilitation through these new association agreements. However, I hope that the Eastern Partnership will not lead to new dividing lines being drawn between those countries in the Partnership and those countries further east and outside of it. We must bear in mind that countries in Central Asia like Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are looking west to the EU for assistance and engagement. We must therefore be careful not to lose sight of our responsibilities to Central Asia simply because we wish to strengthen relations with countries adjacent to the EU to its immediate east.

With regard to Belarus, I have been a staunch critic in the past of the Lukashenko dictatorship. Nevertheless, I welcome the recent thaw in relations. I have long advocated a carrot-and-stick approach whereby President Lukashenko's efforts at democratic reform and openness should be recognised and rewarded by closer ties to the European Union.

As to whether Mr Lukashenko should be allowed to participate in the summit in Prague to launch the new Eastern Partnership in May, such a step, to my mind, is probably premature, as President Lukashenko still needs to demonstrate an irrevocable commitment to EU common values and democracy.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your opinion and your commitment to this matter.

I would like to underline what you said, namely that we are facing huge challenges in our neighbourly relations as regards stability, democratic change and now, of course, economic development as well. Now is therefore also a good time for us to express our commitment and our readiness to cooperate closely with our eastern neighbours.

It is clear - and we should also say openly - that we have an interest in the influence we as the European Union have on our eastern neighbours. However, we want to extend our influence, not by violence, not by threats and not by coercion, but by offering to support precisely those countries in their search for stability and democratic change. I hope that they really are all seeking democratic change, particularly now when, like Ukraine, they have huge economic problems.

Economic problems, for some of which they are not to blame, but of course for some of which they are also partly responsible. We should also be aware that we also need to be critical of some things. Precisely because we are offering our support, we also need to criticise what we think needs criticising and to demand what is necessary in order for these countries to play their part too. I am thinking in particular of Ukraine, but I will come back to this country shortly.

It is absolutely vital that we do not see this Eastern Partnership as a tool to use against Russia, but rather as a strengthening of the countries which, in terms of neighbours, have the European Union on one side and Russia on the other, as - all being well - Russia should become our partner, particularly with regard to this policy.

I am very pleased that the United States and President Obama, together with Vice-President Biden and the Secretary of State Mrs Clinton, are now pursuing a different policy. We should not hold back our criticism with regard to internal developments in Russia. However, the reset button of which Mr Biden spoke in Munich should also be pressed as an attempt, as an offer to Russia to start a new relationship.

In this regard, my group is not particularly happy about the fact that the report by Mr Onyszkiewicz, as agreed in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, does not take up what the US is now offering. We are lagging behind the US. That is terrible. We should be going forward with the US, while naturally always keeping the issue of human rights in the foreground. This will be necessary and I hope that we shall still achieve a joint resolution on Russia. This, in my opinion, is vital.

I have already mentioned that our offer, our Eastern Partnership, does not mean that we approve of everything that is happening in our neighbouring countries. For example, if I consider the situation in Ukraine, it must not be a case of 'no matter what you do, what disputes you have and what problems you fail to solve, you will have the support of the European Union'. The leading forces in Ukraine must ultimately address the problems together, because the gas crisis is linked to a dispute within the political spectrum of Ukraine, and that, to us, is totally unacceptable. I do not wish to apportion blame here - we can all form our own opinion. However, it is absolutely vital that we make this clear to Ukraine. The same applies to Georgia and to all other countries. The European Union has made an offer and I hope that our eastern neighbours will accept this offer, take it seriously and actually make stability and democracy a reality.

The Eastern Partnership, as a logical and essential new priority resulting from the expansion towards the east, is perhaps the most ambitious foreign policy initiative of a reunified Europe. It is a good step, but it will make sense and be successful only if there is real political will behind its implementation. It is therefore not enough simply to stick a new label on our existing neighbourhood policy; we have to set our sights far beyond the existing policies and formulate much higher aspirations.

The first task is undoubtedly to convert the existing cooperation agreements into association agreements. Part of that process also entails setting up a permanent institutional organisation, but that is not the most important part. Meetings of Heads of State or Government and ministerial meetings are obviously essential, but they succeed only if real advances are made in the domain of the two fundamental pillars. The goal is to establish a free trade zone with free trade agreements and gradually to abolish visa requirements. We know that both of these seem distant goals at the moment. The countries concerned are not yet ready for this, and the Eastern Partnership has to help these countries fulfil these conditions as soon as possible, since this is to everyone's mutual benefit. The gas crisis in the past months has demonstrated how vulnerable Europe is in terms of energy. Therefore, an especially vital part of the agreements is energy cooperation, which may involve transit countries like Belarus and Ukraine or exporting countries such as Azerbaijan. Consequently, we consider this of extreme importance.

I would like to emphasize that this cooperation must also convey values. The Eastern Partnership will be a success when the values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and minority rights are constantly kept in the forefront, lending a helping hand to partners in their steps forward but also making them accountable in these areas. The Eastern Partnership must also be open to Belarus, but only once the conditions have been fulfilled. It must be made clear that distancing themselves from Russia does not in itself mean getting closer to Europe. Indeed, they have a lot to do in guaranteeing human rights and democracy before the road to cooperation opens up for them as well. The Eastern Partnership has obvious budgetary consequences: EUR 350 million have been appropriated for the next few years - and even this will probably not be enough. The task of Parliament is to furnish the necessary financial backing, and thus we must recognise that within the Eastern Partnership the most crucial motivating factor for the partners is their European aspiration. Thank you.

Mr President, the announcement of the Eastern Partnership has raised new hopes amongst our European neighbours. If we dash these hopes again, we will be limiting our influence in the East in every respect. Our neighbours will thus be pushed into Russia's sphere of influence, marked by destabilisation and authoritarianism. I would appeal for caution in the case of Belarus. This country's current promises that it will achieve democracy remain groundless. In the meantime, the Belarusian authorities are deporting Catholic priests linked to the television channel BelSat, and have refused to grant them permission to register their office in Minsk. Young people who support the opposition are being conscripted into the army. Attempts to use the crisis as a pretext to refuse the Eastern Partnership funding and to slow down the process of signing agreements on free trade and visa freedom are a recipe for disaster for the European Union in this part of the world. If that happens, remember not to grumble about Moscow's policies. We have the necessary instruments available to us today. If the Eastern Partnership winds up merely providing new packaging for the same old content, then we should not be surprised if we fail in the East.

Mr President, I would firstly like to welcome the Commission initiative, which is very well prepared. Secondly, it is not about the eastern policy of the Union, it is about a new formula, so the question should be raised of what is the value added. I would say that, besides what we have been trying to do, whether successfully or not so far, we are now trying to have not only friends around us, but also friends who are friends amongst themselves. That is key for the stability and security of the European Union. In this multilateral dimension I see the value added of this new project. I hope it will be approved in March by the Euroepan Council. We know that it is the priority of the Czech Presidency - although we do not have the pleasure of seeing the Czech Minister in the Chamber.

Association agreements are the key element of this and should be similar but, at the same time, differentiated according to the possibilities and performance of every one of the six parties in this multilateral framework. Energy security, as was said, is a key issue. It is of key interest to us and to the six countries to be linked by this energy security access.

There were questions during the debate on whether to have third countries involved. I think the approach whereby we have Turkey and Russia linked on a case-by-case basis is the correct approach. Belarus should obviously be invited, but on a very conditional principle, where we should fix the minimum thresholds on fundamental values.

We are very happy that the Commissioner has noted and taken into account that the parliamentary assembly of the Eastern Neighbourhood, Euronest - invented by this House - will be an integral part of the project.

Regarding funding, properly addressed, it will have to be in the next financial perspective. So far I hope that this 600 will be fine, but I have one important remark in order to eliminate all the controversies. It should not be done to the detriment or at the expense of the southern neighbourhood. The southern and eastern neighbourhoods should be both synergetic and symmetric in this context.

(BG) Mr President, Commissioner, we cannot but give a positive assessment of the Commission's proposal. Its timing is perhaps really ideal too because in the current crisis situation all European countries need solidarity. We discussed fairly extensively just yesterday and the day before yesterday the issue of solidarity between new and old Member States. This is an artificial argument to a certain degree, but is one which is actually going on in the heads of many people. However, it is the European Union's eastern neighbours which are in need of a particular show of solidarity at the moment because, in practical terms, they do not have those support mechanisms which their neighbours immediately to the west of them have. Therefore, such an initiative will offer them a significant assurance that the European Union is still thinking about them and is prepared to invest in developing relations with them.

At the same time, we can say that this is a good initiative, but we will have to see from now on how this initiative will develop because, on a number of occasions, we have witnessed good initiatives fizzle out over time. On the other hand, the fact is that some of these countries which this initiative is targeted at have membership of the European Union as their prime objective. In this sense, it is very important that this notion of Eastern Partnership is not perceived either by us or our eastern neighbours as an attempt to replace future membership for good by such an initiative. With this in mind, I would like you to tell us, Commissioner, based on your contacts, how this initiative is being received by our eastern partners. Officially, of course, they are bound to support it, but specifically from the point of view of possible future membership, I wonder whether they have these misgivings.

I also think that this initiative has one element missing, which was also emphasised by fellow Members, namely the role of Russia. We are aware, of course, how delicate this matter is, given that the countries we are talking about are neighbours not only of the European Union, but of Russia as well. It is also very important for us to develop relations with Russia in respect of these countries so that no rivalry emerges between the European Union and Russia, no clash between the two main influences in these countries, resulting in political instability. In fact, this is exactly what we are witnessing at the moment, to a certain degree. Some of the countries are literally divided and their citizens are split between expectations of Russia and expectations of the European Union. I believe that we must be more active and have much more to offer these countries.

I would like to conclude by saying that I support the easing of visa requirements, which is a very important step, but I want to see as part of this initiative more measures linked to education and exchanges, all of which is related to expanding contacts between citizens in these countries and the European Union, as well as, of course, to increasing the knowledge in these countries about the European Union. Thank you.

(LT) The Eastern Partnership policy is a particularly important policy, like the Euronest project which should be implemented in the nearest future. Therefore, I am convinced that we must find the additional EUR 350 million required to implement the Eastern Partnership policy in the coming four years. Regarding Belarus, three weeks ago a delegation from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the European Parliament visited Minsk. Our delegation arrived the day after High Representative Javier Solana's visit to Belarus. On the one hand, his visit was a clear signal to Minsk that the European Union is ready to begin a new stage of pragmatic relations. On the other hand, it seemed that many of the European Union's earlier requirements are, if not forgotten, at least not being mentioned. For the majority of people in Belarus, resonant phrases about a constructive dialogue and the discussion of fundamental problems failed to show clearly what policy the European Union will pursue in the future. What is done is done. The visit took place and not a word on democratic values was uttered. I am pleased that the PPE-DE delegation was in Minsk the day after Mr Solana, and we especially emphasised the human rights situation and requirements for freedom of the press. In conclusion might I add that an invitation to Mr Lukashenko to participate in the Prague Spring Summit would be incomprehensible and hard to justify. Secondly, the Belarusian government must implement democratic reforms, and must continue implementing them. There should be no carte blanche for the Lukashenko regime.

Mr President, the Eastern Partnership is a project which covers six countries. One of them, Belarus, is a dramatic example of self-isolation, to which we have responded in the past with a policy marked by the 'too little, too late' syndrome, both in terms of sanctions and of incentives. Belarus has little in common with, say, Georgia. Cooperation between Mr Lukashenko and Mr Saakashvili looks like political fiction and political horror combined.

The other five countries are on the Black Sea, where we have a synergy - which means that there is no strategy yet. Could the Eastern Partnership stand in for a Black Sea strategy? One could hardly imagine a regional strategy there without Turkey and Russia, but these particular countries are left out of the process. What all these countries have in common is the fact that they were all part of the Soviet Union, and they are all neighbours of Russia as much as they are neighbours of the European Union. In other words, we are dealing with a common neighbourhood. Russia looks to that neighbourhood as being its reserved sphere of interest. We certainly cannot accept that but, on the other hand, the Eastern Partnership appears to be a way to reciprocate the Russian policy on its neighbourhood. This makes that neighbourhood an area of conflicting interests and rivalry.

The real challenge is how to develop an EU-Russia common policy in respect of their common neighbourhood. Otherwise we will not achieve security and stability there, but the opposite. As far as everything else is concerned, we already have democracy and good governance, economic integration and convergence, energy security and human contacts on the agenda. From this point of view, Ukraine is much further advanced than the others, and I assume that it is not very happy to see that our offer now has to be shared with the others.

The real problem was not the lack of labels but the lack of delivery. By putting our money where our mouth is - and of course, Madam Commissioner, you are perfectly right to say that we need a budget in order to make good policy - and by adding a little visionary realism instead of naive confrontation, we might really transform the Eastern Partnership into a valuable and positive asset.

Mr President, I would like to welcome the Eastern Partnership project that will hopefully strengthen democracy and reforms in our eastern neighbourhood. This is not just a regional initiative, however: it should be seen as an all-European project. Therefore, it is crucial that all Member States commit themselves to making their full contribution.

With commitment of that kind the traumatic conflict in Georgia last August could probably have been prevented. It is high time, therefore, that all states in the region understand that such projects cannot be seen as an old-style fight over spheres of influence, and I share the view of the Commissioner that the goal is to achieve more stability and security in our neighbourhood.

The Eastern Partnership will mean upgrading the EU's relations with six of its neighbours. It could be compared to establishing four common spaces between the EU and Russia, but the main element of this relationship will be reciprocity and conditionality. The Partnership will mean bilateral commitments to advance both free market economic relations and the rule of law, and the scope of the relationship will depend on the progress of each partner in these areas.

I would like to stress one more principle. The Eastern Partnership should not be limited to cooperation between governments. It has also to involve civil society and especially stimulate grass-root exchanges between citizens, NGOs and local authorities.

Belarus opposition leaders who were here this week were, by the way, worried by the EU opening up to Belarus because it did not include the civil society, and in the case of an authoritarian country like Belarus I think partnership must be clearly based on concrete steps of progress in the field of human rights.

(RO) The Eastern Partnership initiative is especially important and a set of instruments needs to be implemented as quickly as possible to facilitate its application.

I welcome the platform for cooperation promoted by this new partnership framework as the need to readjust our relations with our neighbours is vital, not only with a view to making cooperation with them more effective, but also in order to be able to resolve the major problems which we are facing at the moment, such as the economic crisis and energy security, and which cannot be handled solely internally.

The partnership encourages projects of the utmost importance to the EU by promoting an institutionalised framework which puts both relations with neighbours and intraregional cooperation among neighbours at a higher level. There are priority projects which are vital for dealing with the energy crisis: those in the Black Sea region and those using resources from the Caspian Sea area. These projects can only be carried out against the backdrop of a secure neighbourhood and close relations with the relevant regional players, based on joint, mutually beneficial commitments.

Mr President, I would like to refer to Ms Andrikienė's speech on the recent visit to Minsk by a delegation from this Parliament.

Commissioner, in your reply perhaps you could confirm that you would reject the view of Lukashenko and his colleagues that we should have a relationship without condition. When we were in Minsk we obviously met the democratic opposition leaders and we also spoke with the press. It is clear that Lukashenko does want good relations with us, but this is not out of the goodness of his soul: it is because he has very serious economic problems and wants to stay in power. He has ordered his police to break up peaceful demonstrations and, having released political prisoners, he is now re-arresting them.

Commissioner, in your speech - which I was present for - you talked about people-to-people contact. What do we, here in the EU, say to the people of Belarus and the students of Belarus? Are we supporting them, or are we supporting the dictatorship which, for the time being, rules over them?

Mr President, my speech looks at the relationship between the Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea synergy.

In my opinion, the main obstacle is finding the synergy's proper place in this increasingly complex picture of EU initiatives towards the east. Consequently, the real substantive issues of the Black Sea area, like energy and frozen conflicts, are approached either through: the EU Neighbourhood Policy, where the money is; the future Eastern Partnership, designed to increase the security confidence of the countries involved and secure the energy deliveries to the EU after the Georgian war; the EU's strategic relationship with Russia and Ukraine; or the accession talks with Turkey.

What then, is, left for the Black Sea synergy to achieve? Not much, I should say, apart from seminars and studies on how to extend the existing European initiatives towards the area and non-political issues. It is, therefore, necessary to improve the substance, too, of the framework known as 'synergy' if one wants to maintain its credibility.

(PL) Mr President, the Eastern Partnership is a complex set of proposals which should support our eastern neighbours along the path of democratic change. Each of these countries is faced with a choice. They can follow either the Russian or the European model. The European Community can certainly offer them more. The European Partnership is not an attempt to gain control of this area, or to extend our sphere of influence. Instead, it is an agreement which will clearly benefit both sides. Partner states are being given a new opportunity and support for their economic and social development. The Community will guarantee greater energy and political security for itself.

We should aim to relax visa restrictions. If we make it easier for the citizens of Eastern Partnership countries to enter EU territory, they will discover how significant the benefits of cooperation with the EU can be. Greater contact between citizens, especially young people, will certainly also help to bring the partner countries and the EU closer. We should make it possible for young people to learn and to travel, and we should promote educational and cultural exchanges. Young people, who are aware and educated, are the future of our continent.

(LT) During my visit to the Ukraine I noticed that little attention is being paid to the development of the legal framework in our eastern neighbourhood. The introduction of the Community acquis helped Lithuania to reform its economic and legal system and to become a member of the European Union. I hope that the Eastern Partnership Programme will devote ever more attention to the development of the legal framework in our neighbouring countries. Not only will this help ensure institutional stability, it will also help implement economic reforms. On the other hand, the development of the legal framework allows us to encourage cooperation between the European Union and its eastern neighbours, because it ensures a stable environment for capital investments and for the application of human knowledge.

Mr President, as two of my colleagues are not in the Chamber, I am availing myself of the time to say a couple of extra words on this issue, which is so vital to the immediate external priorities of the European Union in the coming years.

I want to congratulate the Commission on its initiative on the issue of making energy security one of the prime objectives for dialogue and for the political agenda. External energy security policy is vital. We saw the recent spat between Ukraine and Russia and the downstream effects it had on consumers in countries as far afield as Bulgaria and Slovakia.

It is important to remember that a number of the countries of the six concerned - such as Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia - are key transit countries. There are also producers - like Azerbaijan and the Caspian gas and oil fields. There is potential for a trans-Caspian link to central Asia which, as you know, Commissioner, is dear to my heart, and I have always been an advocate of further rapprochement with Kazakhstan. It is important that we maintain stability in the Caspian region and also diversify away from over-dependence on gas supplies from Russia, and in particular Gazprom, which is often used as a sort of branch of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

I have to say also, with some regret, that while the Eastern Partnership is great for the countries of the South Caucasus - although it remains to be seen whether they can also integrate more regionally, rather than just enjoy bilateral relations with Brussels - it does not bring much that is new for countries like Ukraine. Such countries already have access to free trade agreement negotiations, with the issue of visa facilitation on the table, along with participation in the CFSP and the SDP. There is nothing much new for Ukraine, I am sorry to say, but it is great for the other countries.

(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would still like to remind you that we have not managed to settle the frozen conflicts in these eastern regions, nor have we managed to avoid war between Russia and Georgia.

I believe in fact that this Eastern Partnership is welcome because there is a need, in the first place, to stabilise these regions and to avoid falling into the trap of the area of influence because there is us, there is the United States, there is Russia and there is Turkey. I also believe that we have to ask ourselves, in the context of this partnership, if there is not a need to introduce a neutral buffer zone, in other words states which would have neutral status to avoid the friction which we are witnessing today with Georgia and the Ukraine seeking NATO membership. We know perfectly well the effect of this membership on Russia.

We are looking for stability and energy security from this Eastern Partnership. We must ensure this security because, as one of the Members said, energy from the Caspian Sea travels through the Caucasus; so we must have stability in the Caucasus.

I also believe that our fellow citizens should get to know these regions and, for this, I believe that the Commission must invest in some projects. The problem showed itself in fact when the new countries gained accession. I think then that we must introduce projects to make these regions known and to ensure that they have a European perspective.

Mr President, catch-the-eye is a good opportunity for polemics. I disagree with my colleague Mr Severin. He would admit a droit de regard in zones of influence for Russia. If we want stability on our eastern frontiers we need more democracy and more market economy. Russia is less democratic and less a market economy than those neighbours, so no joint policy will bring us closer to that goal.

Symmetry with Russia in this policy will not provide us with more progress in the region. We were not invited by Russia when the CIS was constructed, and a mix of our and Russia's policies would be totally counterproductive.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, this is a really interesting debate, and I wish to thank the Members very much for their overall great support for this Eastern Partnership approach.

Let me say at the outset that it is based on values. It gives support for both political and economic reform. It will require resources - and I wish to thank Mrs Andrikienfor her clear support on this - and, as many of you have said, it will also require political will.

It is crucial that, apart from government-to-government cooperation, there be cooperation with the population, which is clearly there, and there is also the parliamentary aspect to things. Therefore, it is very important that you also use the new Euronest and all other means in order to really instil our ideas. That is my first comment.

A lot can be said about this Eastern Partnership. The first thing to ask is what the added value is to our normal neighbourhood policy. The answer is 'quite a lot'! We are going into greater depth: the association agreements are already very broad and deep. There should normally also be free trade agreements, which cannot easily be offered to everybody, because it requires a lot of structural changes in the countries concerned. That is very important.

There is a move to more political cooperation and mobility for security, which many of you have mentioned. It is very important to have visa facilitation, but other countries need to do more on border management and documentary security etc. There is an outreach - a greater offer.

Then there is the multilateral component because, as I have always said, the neighbourhood policy, along with the Eastern Partnership, is in principle a bilateral offer - as Mr Swoboda rightly said - but it also has a multilateral component that enables countries to work with each other, which, as in the case of the south, is always more complicated.

This is an offer, and by that offer we are trying to bring the countries closer to us. We do not have the same instruments as one has with candidate countries, where in order to enter the 'club' they have to comply with a certain number of conditions, and if they do not, then they cannot enter. Therefore, we have to work with initiatives, with instigations and with positive momentum. That will take time, because this is also a question of societal change, but it is very important to be there and offer and agree to that.

I also agree with those who said that we should not see this as a threat to Russia. That is true, and at the same time this is a small group of six eastern partners, together with the European Union, and on an ad hoc, case-by-case, basis we can here or there maybe associate Russia or Turkey.

However, the Black Sea synergy is a very important initiative on projects that reaches out to all partners, including Russia and Turkey. It is a young policy and one has to give it a chance. We cannot implement a strategy in just one year. We have to be patient with this very important policy, which we must continually try to develop.

I would say to Mr Szent-Iványi that we support the eastern partners in meeting our conditions. That is crucial. We therefore have a mechanism for giving them more capacity-building and more institution-building, because we can see that sometimes the institutions are weak.

Concerning Ukraine, we are working on the legal framework, but implementation is up to the governments in every democratic country, once the parliament has adopted the legislation. Therefore, with the Eastern Partnerships, we are trying to support and to push, but it is also up to those countries to do their job. As Mr Swoboda mentioned, it is very important that we are also critical when necessary, and there has to be genuine leadership in a country. At present we are not always sure about that, and want the country to move ahead.

I am very grateful to Mr Saryusz-Wolski for his support. It is absolutely right to say that differentiation is also key here, because the various countries are very different: Ukraine is in the forefront, in principle, then there are Moldova and Georgia, and then there is a country like Belarus, in which the situation is very delicate.

I am preparing for a visit to Belarus, where we have to work a delicate balance, because we want to offer something - particularly to the population. From the very beginning, the Commission has supported the students in Vilnius, and I would like to see more support from the various Member States, because the ones that always speak up about this should also do something. I have always been in favour of that.

However, we also want Mr Lukashenko to go on with his reforms, which is what we are saying. It is important to communicate in such a way that this message is clear. On Monday, there will be a GAERC meeting at which the question of what to do about Belarus will certainly come up. The outcome will most probably be along the same lines as now, because we are not yet satisfied but, at the same time, we have seen some positive steps.

In reply to Mr Vigenin, I would say that this does not replace membership. There cannot be membership, because neither these countries nor the European Union is mature enough for their membership. Therefore, we have to design. This is a policy designed to give as much as we can, provided the countries want to take it. The difficulty is that it is much easier, as I have already said, to give something if you lay down conditions or if you say: 'well, try to do this, try to do that, and we will give you opportunities'. In this case there is no immediate goal of having a specific result, but the overall result is better stability, more security and more opportunity.

Concerning security questions, I would say to Mrs Isler Béguin that it is absolutely true that we have to work for more security, but many other questions also come into the picture. We are working very hard on Azerbaijan, on the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, on Moldova, Transnistria and on Georgia, and are sticking very firmly to these questions. It is a principal question. We will not recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia but, at the same time, we have to work with Russia and have to engage with Russia. On this point, I agree with Mr Swoboda that we have to be realistic, but also to make our firm position clearly known.

These are the major issues, on which all of you have made very valuable points. In a multilateral framework it is very good to have civil society involved, in all its different forms, and also presents a great opportunity for them and for us to work on energy security. Energy security today is one of the important issues where we have a real win-win situation: we are highly interested and they are highly interested. We have to bring that together.

That concludes this item.



(PT) I should like to ask the Bureau whether we are going to discuss a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council, given that the Council representative is not here. Is there any news as to whether or not he will arrive during the debate?

Mr Ribeiro, we have no news from the Council. We hope they are well, but no, we have no news.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

in writing. - In a time of economic crisis, one could ask the question: should Europe focus on looking after its own rather than assisting its eastern neighbours?

Europe should decidedly continue supporting them.

Firstly, economic instability in the eastern neighbourhood, mostly notably in Ukraine, which is suffering major problems, poses a threat to security in Europe. Conversely, a stabilised Ukrainian economy, increasingly integrated with the EU, is an enormous potential market for EU Member States.

Secondly, bringing our eastern neighbours into the European family, even if the prospect of actual membership of the EU is probably still a not a realistic option in the immediate future, is a long-term project. Dealing with the current crisis is something we will have hopefully resolved in the next year to 18 months. The Eastern Partnership is a project for many years.

Thirdly, even if the leaders of some of our eastern neighbours, such as the Belarusian President, and, to a lesser degree, bickering leaders in the Ukraine, may discourage us from tightening these ties, we must remember that our eastern neighbours are more than their current leaders and, in the light of their internal political problems, they need our support, example and encouragement.

We should be pleased that the European Union is opening up new opportunities in terms of relations with its eastern neighbours. In December 2008, the European Commission adopted a proposal, tabled by Poland and Sweden, to strengthen the European Union's cooperation with six of its eastern neighbours. This move encourages hope. I hope that this project will not remain on the figurative drawing-board, and that it will be implemented in the context of our relations with Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus. The Eastern Partnership provides for a real increase in the level of political cooperation, including new types of association agreements, far-reaching integration with the EU's economy, easier travel throughout the EU for citizens of the countries covered by this partnership (provided that security requirements are met), agreements aimed at improving energy security, which benefit all those involved, and increased financial assistance.

We should be aware that the Eastern Partnership requires commitment from both the Eurpoean Union and from the partner countries. This effort can bring tangible political and economic benefits. It will contribute to increasing the level of trust between partners and, as a result, stability and security for all. We may have particularly high hopes for the proposed main framework of the Partnership, especially the creation of four political platforms, democracy, good governance and stability, economic integration and convergence with EU policies, and energy security and interpersonal contact. Of course, there are many doubts, such as the matter of the real intentions of the Belarusian government and the issue of relations with Russia.

EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership - Mexico Strategic Partnership (debate) 

The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

by Mrs Koppa, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the European Union-Brazil Strategic Partnership, and

by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on an EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership.

Mr President, Latin America is a continent with more than 600 million inhabitants, contributes more than 10% of the world's gross domestic product, has 40% of the earth's plant species and at the same time has a dynamic and extraordinarily active young population.

Despite the economic boom of recent years, however, this is not the best time for Latin America in terms of its integration. This is what President Óscar Arias said at his inauguration and I was reminded of it last weekend at a seminar organised in São Paulo with Alejandro Toledo, the former President of Peru, and Fernando Enrique Cardoso, the former President of Brazil.

There have been tensions between Argentina and Uruguay; the ALCA project has failed; Venezuela has left the Andean Community; there have been problems between Brazil and Bolivia over the nationalisation of energy resources, and between Argentina and Bolivia for the same reason; there have been disputes between Ecuador and Colombia, between Colombia and Venezuela, between Mexico and Venezuela, and so on.

This initiative by the European Commission, supported by Parliament and the Council, to establish this strategic partnership therefore sends out a clear, well-defined message that Latin America remains on the list of action priorities for the European Union, due not least to Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner's personal commitment.

In the case of Mexico, this strategic partnership aims specifically to underline that country's importance on the Latin American and world stages and, in addition, it is an essential, key step in consolidating our existing relations with Mexico and expanding coordination on topics of world importance.

This new step is an opportunity to boost political dialogue even further and to coordinate the positions of both parties at world level and also in the various multilateral forums and international bodies. Consultation mechanisms will enable joint positions to be adopted on concrete issues of global reach such as security, the environment or socioeconomic questions.

For the European Union it is also an excellent opportunity to develop privileged relations with a country that plays a leading role in Latin American forums such as the Rio Group, in which it holds the presidency until 2010. Mexico takes part in the G20, the G8+5, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and also the OECD, in which it is the only Latin American member.

Therefore, seeking joint solutions to the world economic and financial crisis, drawing up ambitious strategies for the success of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change to be held in Copenhagen, developing a structured dialogue on immigration, or collaborating to achieve the Millennium Development Goals are some of the things that can be achieved at the annual summits between the European Union and Mexico if the strategic partnership that we are proposing is set up.

In the resolution that it will adopt this morning, Parliament will also reiterate its support for President Calderón in the fight against drug trafficking and organised crime. In addition, and in a spirit of mutual respect, dialogue and shared responsibility, I believe we should take on joint challenges, such as seeking to protect vulnerable groups in society like women or representatives of the media.

Commissioner, this year we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the political talks held in San José, at which, thanks to the major mobilisation of political talent in Central America and the monitoring by the European Union, peace was finally brought to the conflict-torn Central American isthmus.

In its support for peace, understanding, concord and reconciliation, the European Union has, in my view, been doing an honourable job in Central America and also in other parts of the world. Now that these values are being consolidated, albeit not without difficulty and not everywhere to the same extent, it is clearly time for development. Based on our European experience, however, that will be more difficult if there is no integration.

I believe that we are providing a substantial impetus through this strategic partnership with Mexico and, above all, we are sending out a clear, well-defined message about Europe's commitment to Latin America.

rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I am delighted that we are debating and will be voting today on the report on improving our relations with Brazil. The creation of a strategic relationship between the European Union and Brazil is of mutual benefit, firstly due to Brazil's changing position at global level to become a leading force in the developing world and, secondly, because Brazil plays a vital role in bridging differences on questions of global interest.

Over recent years, the European Union has maintained a very broad spectrum of relations with Brazil and a coordinated cohesive framework is therefore needed for relations on both sides. Stronger relations will be based on historical, cultural and economic ties and on common values for democracy, the rule of law, human rights, concern about climate change and sustainable development, disarmament, energy and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The strategic partnership must be substantial in scope and of a gradual nature.

Brazil is also a country of decisive importance to Mercosur. It must therefore commit, within the partnership, to strengthening relations between the European Union and Mercosur and addressing questions of common interest. Within this framework, the strategic relationship will be a means of deepening interregional, economic and trade relations.

Due to its enhanced role in the area and its active involvement in the UN, Brazil can, I believe, play an essential role in preventing and resolving regional conflicts in Latin America, thereby helping to consolidate peace in the area.

In light of the global economic crisis, the European Union and Brazil must cooperate at World Trade Organization level with a view to the successful conclusion of negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda. Brazil is in a position to do more to address the new challenges of the global economy, given that regulatory matters play an important part in safeguarding competition law and in sustainable development.

As far as the reform of the financial system is concerned, its membership of international fora may help in reviewing the role of international institutions in the surveillance and regulation of financial markets.

Like other developing powers, Brazil is becoming more and more active in international efforts to deal with global poverty and inequality through cooperation programmes with the long-term objective of sustainable development.

As far as environmental protection is concerned, Brazil is the country with the largest areas of vital rainforests. The European Union and Brazil must cooperate proactively at international level to protect them and to address climate change and the loss of biodiversity. Political undertakings need to be made to implement the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Action also needs to be taken to protect and manage water resources.

I should say at this point that Brazil is the first country to develop important biofuel production, thereby achieving tangible results in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Consequently, exchanging experiences and cooperating in this sector may prove to be very useful to the European Union and, conversely, renewable energies and energy-saving measures will be very useful to Brazil.

Migration is one basic issue on the European political agenda. Consequently, the strategic partnership should, in light of the Lima Declaration, promote a wide-ranging dialogue on migration, covering regular and irregular migration and the protection of migrants' human rights.

Finally, the European Parliament welcomes the launching of negotiations on a visa agreement between the two sides, which will facilitate the free movement of people.

Member of the Commission. - (FR) Honourable Members, friends, allow me first of all to thank in particular the rapporteurs, Mrs Koppa and Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, for their excellent reports on, respectively, the strategic partnership between the European Union and Brazil, and between the European Union and Mexico.

I must also say that I am proud, as Commissioner, that we have brought forward many proposals and many communications concerning Latin America in general, and Brazil and Mexico in particular, because it seems to me that it was the right time to do it.

In recent years, Brazil and Mexico have proved to be front-line actors, both on the world stage and at regional level. In line with this fact, the European Union has recognised the need to consider these countries strategic partners, in particular because of their economic weight in Latin America and also because of their role as regional leaders and, very often, their importance in regional security issues.

The foundations of our relationships are extremely solid. Not only do we have, as we all know, close historical and cultural links, but we also share common interests and values, and our economic links are increasingly solid.

The European Union is, in fact, the top trading partner for Brazil which, for its part, is the principal beneficiary of European Union investments in Latin America. Brazil alone has, in fact, attracted some EUR 87 billion, in other words more than all of the capital invested by the European Union in the other three 'BRIC' countries, namely Russia, India and China. It is also true that Brazil is very important to cooperation in relation to the WTO. As a partner, it can sometimes be difficult but, naturally, it has its own point of view.

Since the implementation of the European Union-Mexico agreement, which was a pioneering agreement between a Latin American country and the European Union, average annual European investment has tripled and the Union is today Mexico's second biggest trading partner. Naturally, Mexico is also a partner that shares the same values and the same interests. That is why we have drawn up this strategic partnership as a powerful instrument that, we hope, will bring tangible benefits not only to our respective citizens, but also to those of other countries and regions in the world.

I wish to stress that the European Union, Brazil and Mexico continue to cooperate to confront the financial crisis and to prepare the ground, as you said, Mrs Koppa, to ensure the success of the G20 summit taking place in London in April.

They also continue to work together on common challenges such as climate change - the major issue for us - the fight against drugs, in which we are relying greatly on President Calderón, who has a major fight on his hands, and the sensitive and difficult question of migration.

We have seen the Mexican Government's current efforts to fight the illegal drugs trade, even though, unfortunately, the government is having to confront an almost unprecedented level of violence. We must absolutely, therefore, help Mexico.

Honourable Members, what does the strategic partnership mean for us? I believe that it will allow us better to prepare for the future by addressing a whole host of bilateral and world issues of common interest in a more structured, more coherent and better coordinated framework.

I am very happy to note that, with the deepened relations with these two countries, we have laid the emphasis, correctly, on several priorities identified in the European Parliament's report, such as coordination at a multilateral level, meaning the United Nations as well, democracy, human rights and the other global issues that I have just mentioned.

With Brazil especially, we have also begun work on the question of renewable energies, like biofuel, in which Brazil has real experience and on which President Lula himself addressed us during the Portuguese Presidency.

On the monitoring and implementation of this partnership, Mr President, our main challenge for 2009, as relates to Brazil first, is to make a reality of the joint commitments entered into in the action plans.

We would like to complete the negotiations on two major aspects. First, the agreement on the exemption of short-stay visas and the granting of market economy status to Bulgaria and Romania. Also, we are planning in 2009 to open new dialogues on education, culture and economic and financial affairs, as well as pursuing the current dialogues, and we will continue to work with Brazil on all the other global questions.

As for Mexico, the strategic partnership decided on by the Council will, I hope, soon be announced at a European Union-Mexico summit. Meanwhile, the Commission, with the Member States, has committed to work with the Mexican Government on an operational document that specifies the practical actions that will optimise the strategic partnership.

Finally, let me mention the role of the European Parliament. We have always been in favour of any contribution Parliament could make in relation to the launch of this strategic partnership, and we enthusiastically welcome these recommendations today. In this context, I wish to say that I can only welcome the fact that the Parliamentary relationships appear to be extremely promising, given that some 96 members from the Brazilian Parliament's parliamentary group on the European Union are here.

I believe that we share the same interest and, as for the joint EU-Mexico parliamentary committee, we can also see that it is in operation and its next meeting will take place at the end of March.

To summarise, Mr President, I believe that we are actively engaged in making a reality of the numerous commitments that we have made in the framework of the partnership and we hope in this way to work for greater security in the world as a whole.

Mr President, I shall take the floor first of all to congratulate the Commission on its initiative, which implies recognising Brazil as a regional power and upgrades its relations with the European Union to strategic level. These relations have until now been based on the 1992 Cooperation Framework Agreement and the 1995 EU-Mercosur Framework Agreement.

In recent years, however, Brazil's role in world affairs has changed for the better and the country has shown itself to be a key partner for Europe. This new scenario leads us to intensify and diversify our relations.

Firstly, the EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership should help that country exercise regional and world leadership.

Secondly, in connection with the Millennium Development Goals, although programmes such as the 'Bolsa Família' ('family fund') have succeeded in improving human development and in cutting extreme poverty practically by half, it cannot be ignored that income inequalities are still very great, that there exist considerable concentrations of poverty and that there are also substantial regional differences between the north and the south of the country.

In this respect, an exchange of political experiences would be welcome, which could lead us to propose innovative solutions in the fight against poverty, inequality and social exclusion, the reduction of imbalances, and in terms of social protection and decent work for all.

We share basic concerns in the area of environmental protection and, on this basis, we should begin a dialogue on issues such as climate change, water management, biodiversity and deforestation, as well as on the role that indigenous peoples should play in all these things.

In the field of energy cooperation, the dialogue initiated in 2007 has enabled us to make progress which we now need to consolidate on topics such as sustainable biofuels, renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-CO2 energy technology.

The strategic partnership with Brazil also brings with it a commitment to greater regional integration to strengthen our cooperation with Mercosur.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am pleased that we are having this debate. Of course we have intensive relations with both these countries, but I would like to talk about Mexico in particular.

In our debate, we in the Committee on International Trade saw it as particularly important to discuss matters that affect our area. It is especially important to us that we strengthen the free-trade agreement once again. If you look at the figures, you can see that, although our trade has definitely intensified in recent years, there is still considerable demand and that we - and the European side - still have considerable restrictions when it comes to market access. I would sincerely ask you, Commissioner, to again do everything you can to analyse the situation once more together with your competent colleagues and, where problems exist, to really lift these restrictions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us, on the one hand, to talk about strategic partnerships with such important countries in Latin America and then, on the other hand, to still have to battle with such absurd market restrictions. Sometimes, of course, they make sense, but as a rule they are in fact not useful at all. I would be very grateful to you, and to the committee, if we could resolve this matter.

The second point that we feel is important is that, in the context of global international relations, we should also truly give Mexico the status it deserves. This, of course, relates in particular to the still very fragile arrangement in connection with the G20. Our delegation has written a letter, which we have also sent to you, in which we ask that Mexico also sit at the G20 table and for this to be a permanent arrangement rather than merely a brief appearance.

My final request is for you to attend our delegation meeting on 30 and 31 March; I know that you cannot attend personally, but for you to arrange for someone from your area of competence to attend when Mr Guadarrama, Mr Buganza and Mr Green, who chair the Mexico delegation, come so that they really feel that the Commission values the delegation and its visit.

Mr President, the countries of Europe are linked to Latin America by close historical, cultural and human ties. As a Spaniard and, what is more, a Galician, I am very aware of that. In addition, we share principles and values that are also a result of our Christian heritage.

Latin America and the European Union are, in general, natural partners, and we must intensify our relations. I am delighted that there is broad agreement in this House on the fact that the European Union should establish strategic relations with both Mexico and Brazil. I said as much myself with regard to Mexico in April last year during a debate here in Parliament on the Lima summit.

The strategic partnership should be accompanied by regular yearly summits. We have held them with Brazil since 2007, and the Salafranca report rightly calls for them in relation to Mexico, in view of the Council's somewhat ambiguous conclusions of October 2008. I hope such a summit may be held with Mexico this year.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union's strategic partnership with Mexico and Brazil is highly beneficial at both bilateral and global levels. Bilaterally, there is ample potential for the relations to grow. In the case of Mexico, for example, the association agreement has resulted in a spectacular increase in trade and investment. The fight against organised crime and drug trafficking and cooperation in the field of energy are other areas where joint cooperation is necessary, as well as greater coordination in multilateral forums.

In the case of Brazil, the intensification of relations should also help to unblock the EU-Mercosur Agreement.

I should like to highlight the positive economic results achieved by Mexico and Brazil throughout this decade, in contrast to previous periods. Without that progress, which has been due to well-conceived policies, the current extreme world crisis would have devastated their economies. In contrast, their governments can now use the reserves they have built up to implement anticyclical policies in the same way as the developed and some emerging countries.

Mexico and Brazil are also playing an increasingly important role on the world stage. They take part in the Heiligendamm process and, as major economic powers in Latin America, they are members of the G20.

In today's complex and interconnected world - I am just finishing - with all its global challenges and threats, including climate change, cooperating in a spirit of shared responsibility with players as significant as Mexico and Brazil is highly beneficial for the European Union and also, of course, for the whole international community.

Mr President, on 15 July 2008 the European Commission adopted a communication to the Council and Parliament recommending that a strategic partnership be established between the European Union and Mexico.

For its part, on 13 October 2008 the European General Affairs and External Relations Council recognised Mexico as a strategic partner, pending Parliament's opinion on the matter.

I would recall that, at the seventh meeting of the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee held at the end of October last year, we said that a strategic partnership between Mexico and the European Union would provide the impetus needed to strengthen and develop the true potential of our bilateral relations.

This is a good time in the relations between the two sides and the results of the current global agreement are good. We stress the need for our respective executive powers to strengthen collaboration in the political, economic and cooperation spheres, particularly in view of the new challenges of all kinds resulting from the financial and economic crisis that is causing havoc in our continents.

Mexico is a great country with which we share values and goals, such as the development of democratic forms of government, a commitment to gender equality, consolidation of the rule of law, fair and sustainable development and respect for human rights. We advocate closer cooperation in the fight against organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking, based on the principles of shared responsibility and strict adherence to international law.

Consequently, we shall support the proposal for a recommendation on the EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership to be put before Parliament this morning.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it is already widely acknowledged that Brazil has become an increasingly significant regional and global player. The crucial role Brazil played in the establishment of UNASUR is just one more confirmation of the country's reputation and deserves clear recognition, as does Brazil's endeavour to support and influence the democratic evolution of some countries in Latin America.

I agree with the rapporteur that Brazil and the European Union share the same values regarding democracy, the rule of law and the promotion of human rights, and share the same principles on market economy. Therefore it is clear why Brazil is a key partner for the European Union.

For several years, Brazil has enjoyed an economic growth which I hope will not be too badly affected by the current ravaging economic crisis. Unfortunately, however, the economic development and accumulation of wealth in Brazil did not translate into the eradication of poverty. As the report notes, Brazil still has a high number of poor people and it is a sad reality that the concentration of wealth is based on cultural and racial grounds. It should be emphasised that 65% of the poorest Brazilians are black or of a mixed ethnicity, while 86% of the most privileged are white. I appreciated President Lula's idea that his government should not fight wealth but poverty. I am convinced that EU support and assistance would be beneficial in trying to put an end to this polarisation between the very poor and the very rich.

But, in order to do this, we need the financial assistance available under the development cooperation instrument for Brazil to be used to support the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and for sustainable development purposes. At the same time, the European Union needs to continue to focus on the topic of combating deforestation. This is a key issue, as Brazil has a rich but fragile environment. We need not only to develop strong partnerships, but also to coordinate with other donors and have projects that should put words into action as far as the protection of the environment is concerned.

Our strategic partnership should also support the development of a strong Brazilian civil society, encouraging contacts between European and Brazilian NGOs, entrepreneurs and businesspeople fora, and should promote exchanges on an educational and cultural level. Cooperation on higher education under the Erasmus Mundus programme or other biregional schemes should be viewed as an investment in what is the most precious capital of a country, its human resources.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dialogue and political and commercial collaboration with Brazil is an important goal for Europe; a goal to be developed and strengthened, beginning with the fight against poverty, particularly among children, and moving towards strong commercial agreements to build up trade and investment.

However, this strategic partnership cannot avoid certain immovable points. Firstly, the need for greater cooperation in the fight against corruption, organised crime, cross-border crime, drug trafficking, money laundering and international terrorism. Secondly, the need for close collaboration in legal matters, notably with regard to collaboration in extradition procedures and the mutual recognition of judicial rulings.

Mr President, I think it is obvious that we cannot ignore the context in which we are discussing this agreement. In Europe the current crisis is above all affecting the sectors more oriented towards exports, while in Mexico it is very specifically affecting those actors that suffer most from the consequences of the economic slowdown.

An agreement of this kind should be beneficial to both parties, but the experience we have at the moment is that that is not always the case. For Europe it is very beneficial. I think that is obvious, and we can see it clearly when we look at the results of the last eight years, during which the trade balance has been strongly in the EU's favour.

There has been an 80% rise in the trade deficit, which means that Mexico is now highly dependent on Europe. There are other risks, however, which we must not forget. The fact is that most of the investments that the EU has made will later have positive consequences for Europe as well. I mean that many of the exports that are made are basically in-house, within companies.

I am not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, but I am saying that we must be careful and remain very aware that it may have highly negative consequences. Above all, however, the most worrying factor is the liberalising obsession shown by certain governments, which is embedded in certain attitudes in this context. Banking, for example, is one of the most important sectors and one that has proved to be essential in tackling this crisis but, in Mexico, 90% of this sector is currently in foreign hands, with 50% of that in European hands.

I do not think that that is the best way to approach an agreement of this kind. An agreement should correct, or at least not fuel, some of these risks, and that is what we propose with some of our amendments.

Mr President, with regard to the partnership with Brazil, the report undoubtedly has some highly positive aspects. The call for multilateralism, especially in the international forums of the United Nations; cooperation in the areas of the environment, sustainable development, forest and water resource management and education; as well as cooperation relating to renewable energy and technology are, in our view, highly appropriate and positive.

As for the focus on immigration, despite the shameful directive, I believe that in this specific case it is talking about human rights and the rights of migrants, which is why I think it is very appropriate. Another important point is cooperation to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, as well as social cohesion in relation to the important leadership shown by Brazil in its policy to reduce poverty through the 'Bolsa Família' or 'family fund'. A further undoubtedly important aspect of the partnership is Brazil's role as one of the leaders in the process of regional integration through Unasur. In other words, there is a whole range of important points which also suggest that civil society itself should be involved in these negotiations.

On the other hand, there are aspects of the report that we do not like, which is why we are going to abstain. Firstly, it recommends putting an end to economic protectionism in Brazil. I think this text was drafted before the crisis; as I see it, protectionism is a reality today. The winds of change that are blowing to end or mitigate the crisis are undoubtedly pointing towards public intervention in the economy by governments. I think the free market is over, and it has left behind a crisis of unforeseeable consequences for humankind.

Another very important point that we do not like is that the report calls for joint participation in nuclear research projects, especially the ITER thermonuclear reactor project. I do not think that is right for us, as we are not in favour of nuclear energy. With greater efficiency in energy consumption and more renewable energy, I think we can do without a form of energy that is highly damaging to humankind. That, despite the positive points, leads us to abstain.

The Mexico report is a very different matter, since the partnership with Brazil is yet to take off. Mexico has been working within our strategic association agreement since 1997, and we therefore already have results that enable us to judge whether it is going well - whether it is going as well as we would like or not.

We are going to abstain on this report as well, for a number of reasons. Firstly, we believe that the report ignores negative consequences in economic terms. It is true that there has been progress if we look at aspects where the country has a poor human rights record, in relation to the murder of women. Amendments have been tabled that I think clarify and improve the text, but there is a part that we do not see as being positive, and that is everything concerning the Treaty on Free Trade and the consequences it is having for small producers in Mexico. This is not a good time for Mexico, as for any other country in the world in the current crisis. Foreign investment in Mexico is certainly concentrated in just a few sectors and is not helping to expand the domestic economy.

Our group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, is therefore going to abstain in the vote on this report.

Mr President, in recent years there has been a growing trend in the Union to conclude strategic partnerships with third countries. In itself, this does not trouble me much. It can be useful to give more shape to bilateral relations through such a partnership, but there are at least two risks involved in this structure.

Firstly, Europe cannot declare every country a strategic partner. To do so, in my view, would lead to a devaluation of the term 'strategic'. I therefore argue that only the bilateral relationships with crucial partners should be brought under this banner. As far as I am concerned, this actually applies more to Brazil than to Mexico, the subject of our debate this morning.

Secondly, I sometimes get an indefinable feeling that these strategic partnerships are largely symbolic. It is a chance to call another summit and then things remain largely as they were. These partnerships often function solely as a forum. The question of tangible results is frequently left unanswered.

I have the same sense, to some extent, in relation to Parliament's draft recommendation to the Council in relation to Brazil, which we shall be discussing tomorrow. Here, too, I feel that there is not enough mention given to specific problems. Mr President, I should like to illustrate this concern using three elements of the draft recommendation.

Firstly, the recommendation notes, somewhat misleadingly, that this partnership is not to be at the expense of the Union's relations with Mercosur. How is it possible that the European Union, which always puts itself forward as a promoter of regional cooperation, could allow its bilateral relations with Brazil to take preference over its regional cooperation with Mercosur? The Union is choosing the wrong priorities here.

On the strength of our involvement with the region, the European Union must, in fact, indicate to Brazil the importance of a strong Mercosur and must encourage the country to itself invest strongly in this cooperation agreement. Instead, the Union will be sitting down with Brazil at the bilateral level and, in so doing, will be signalling that Mercosur is of secondary importance as far as we are concerned.

In the field of trade, too, it seems to me the draft recommendation has not been worded strictly enough. There is a call for us to work together for the smooth conclusion of the Doha round. This is, of course, a fine aim, but would it not be better to first specify the key points of difference between the Union and Brazil?

The subject of market access is a salient issue for both camps. I believe that the Doha round has more chance of succeeding if this matter is resolved at the bilateral level. I am not saying that that would be easy, but I do believe this to be a better way forward than making rhetorically appealing declarations.

I have also looked at the draft recommendation from the perspective of my geopolitical interest. From that perspective, it occurs to me that the recommendation fails to call on Brazil to take up a leadership role in the region. With this point, I shall wind up my speech. Brazil must gauge political developments in the region well and can do so primarily from the ambition of its neighbour Venezuela to dominate the continent.

That is a situation that is in the interests neither of the continent itself, nor of the European Union. The controversial Venezuelan referendum on amending the constitution illustrates well enough that there will then be little left of European values such as democracy.

- (FR) Mr President, it is fine to have a strategic partnership to begin with, to have the Volkswagen factory in Puebla and to have joint parliamentary committees with Chile and with Mexico, but it has been 30 years, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said in his report, of being realistic, of cooperating, of setting a climate, a little discussion on agriculture, drugs, women, water and so on.

We have to go further. More ambition is needed, both for Europe and for Latin America. We have to set a target: for example, 2025. In a generation, in the next 20 years, we must create an alliance of civilisations between Europe and Latin America, and why not even integration!

To do this, there is the EuroLat framework, the parliament which brings together Europe and Latin America. In this framework, a manifesto is needed, a resolution which will be the equivalent of what 8 May 1950 meant for Europe. Let us pool our peoples, our resources, our intelligence, old and young from both sides and create, without delay, an area of free movement for students, researchers, intellectuals and intelligence. That would mean an automatic cultural visa. Malinche needed no visa to go and teach Quechua or Mayan to Cortés. It is the first step on the road to creating a block with a billion Latin Americans, a billion Christians in the match of nations.

I know full well that this may appear unrealistic to the economic realists, but if the dream you are chasing is not big enough, you are going to lose sight of it even as you chase it.

(RO) I wish to express my support for Mr Salafranca's report. I believe that once the Global Agreement has been implemented, we must move to a higher historic level in the strategic partnership between the European Union and Mexico.

This partnership has become necessary, bearing in mind not only Mexico's important role on the global political and economic stage, but also its very close economic ties with the European Union. Mexico has a population of more than 100 million, is the tenth-largest economic power in the world and is a member of the G20 Group.

Against the backdrop of global challenges such as the economic crisis and global warming, cooperation with Mexico will prove to be beneficial. It goes without saying that we want the new partnership to formalise annual summits between the European Union and Mexico, based on the model used for high-level meetings featuring in the European Union's relations with other strategic partners.

We must also support the parliamentary dimension of this partnership through the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee and the EuroLat Assembly, which have played a particularly beneficial role in recent years. Given that it is the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, I think that we must focus greater attention on cooperation between the European Union and Mexico in the fields of research, culture and education, as well as scientific and student mobility.

Mexicans are the largest Spanish-speaking population in the world and share common cultural values with Europeans, which includes close ties with Romania's cultural heritage, based on their Latin legacy. For example, an exhibition staged in July 2005 at the Romanian Peasant Museum in Bucharest demonstrated the astounding similarity between Mexican popular art and numerous creative works of Romanian popular art. I feel that the European Union's institutions should tap to a greater extent and on a constant basis the potential which culture, education and art offer in terms of bringing peoples closer together.

Last but not least, I think that this strategic partnership's contribution should also include guaranteeing the safety of European citizens who travel to Mexico. Mexico offers exceptional tourism potential, has magnificent historical cultural treasures and is also a favourite destination of many Europeans. However, they must not be put in danger because of the crime and corruption which are evident in certain regions of the country. The battle against crime may become more effective through trilateral cooperation between Mexico, the European Union and the United States.

(RO) I feel that the cooperation agreements between the European Union and Mexico and the European Union and Brazil are of paramount importance. These cooperation agreements must be based on respect for the values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

I would like to emphasise the need to step up the efforts between the European Union and these two countries in promoting scientific and technological transfer, with a view to consolidating real cooperation in fighting climate change and improving environmental protection. The Integral Support Programme for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises will make a fundamental contribution to the economic and social development of these countries. Especially during the current global economic crisis, it is important to create and preserve jobs and continue the efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

As rapporteur for the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States with regard to certain aspects of air services, I want to stress the importance of this agreement. It promotes free competition in the area of air services. Mexico can impose, if applicable, in a non-discriminatory manner levies, taxes, charges, duties or dues on fuel supplied on its own territory for the aircraft of the air carrier appointed by a Member State of the European Community, operating on a route between a point located on Mexican territory and another point located on the territory of another state on the American continent.

I would like to mention that this matter is extremely important, particularly in view of the implementation of the system for trading greenhouse gas emission certificates. Furthermore, these two countries, Brazil and Mexico, have a particularly important role to play in concluding the future post-Kyoto agreement, which we hope will be signed in Copenhagen in December.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will vote against the report on the Brazil partnership and will abstain on the issue of partnership with Mexico. We do not take great pleasure in this, but we feel that this vote clearly demonstrates our dissatisfaction with practices that we have been denouncing for some time. As regards Brazil for example, the subject of partnership is being settled with more Mercosur dumping. It focuses on what we believe to be the wrong priorities - Mrs FerreroWaldner has for instance referred to biofuels, but in the resolution there is a whole series of considerations about nuclear power and CCS, and therefore carbon. A country like Brazil, however, should instead work with us to develop renewable technologies and energy savings: that is the way forward for that country.

Then, as regards Mexico, Mr President, we have tabled some amendments - the rapporteur, moreover, has been fairly open with certain matters mainly concerning human rights. However, a strategic partnership and parliamentary dialogue should, in our opinion, focus on current political concerns. Top of the political agenda today is the great economic crisis that the country is experiencing, the problem of returning migrants and, of course, violence and organised crime. I think that the partnership must concentrate much, much more explicitly on this rather than on matters that we surely consider to be less important.

One word more, Mr President, concerning the issue of interparliamentary dialogue, to which we all, of course, attach great importance: I believe and hope that the next EuroLat meeting will be able to find a way out of that somewhat formal and, frankly, unhelpful framework that has characterised many of our meetings, and I sincerely hope that it will also have an impact on national debate in those countries.

(PT) The changes taking place in Latin America should encourage the European Union to establish new cooperation relations with the countries of Latin America. Greater attention should be paid to social and cultural aspects and to support for development in a framework of mutual respect for the different levels of development and different political choices of the people. Unfortunately, these are minor aspects in the proposals put forward by the European Union.

Generally speaking, their main interest is economic, aimed at safeguarding the business of large European economic and financial groups. This situation has been highlighted by social organisations, particularly in Brazil, as we discovered during the last trip to Brazil by the Delegation for relations with Mercosur. At a time when, for example, most of the population in Mexico is suffering from the consequences of the serious economic recession and when the overwhelming majority of the Mexican banking sector is controlled by foreign companies, particularly European banks, it is regrettable that the European Union is still using its agreement with Mexico more as a point of entry to the United States than to support local development. As a result, it is contributing to the destruction of Mexico's small and medium-sized enterprises and its productive fabric, particularly the industrial fabric, due to the insistence on free trade, liberalisation of strategic sectors and commercialisation of essential goods such as water.

We therefore need to radically overhaul the EU's policies on partnership agreements, so as to give priority to cooperation and to economic and social development. In this way we can help to create jobs with rights, ensure social progress, promote the rights of indigenous peoples, defend the forests and biodiversity, and also recognise the sovereign right of Latin American countries to high-quality public services, control of strategic sectors within their economies and respect for the decisions of the institutions chosen by their people.

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would argue, as I have on other occasions, that a strengthened relationship of cooperation with Latin America is a strategic move for the EU because, as in the case of the Salafranca report, the establishment of a closer relationship is explained not only by historical and cultural ties and shared values - as the rapporteur rightly states - but it also provides multi-sector, inter-regional and intra-regional development opportunities for both sides.

While I therefore welcome the proposed initiatives to increase trade and investments between the Union and Brazil, I do however wonder what improvement is possible as regards legal and environmental collaboration, the recognition of human rights and protection against organised crime often exported to the Union - these areas are just as important. The subject of migration and emigrant remittances must also be examined, as there is no doubt that profits acquired through clandestine work and other illegal activities are illegally exported. As regards migration, I would question what guarantees we can receive from a nation that protects criminals and swindlers like Cesare Battisti and the 'wizard' Mário Pacheco do Nascimiento. This example alone explains my total opposition to opening negotiations on a visa waiver agreement between the European Union and Brazil.

Mr President, as the Czech Presidency is not in the House, I shall speak in English because I believe the message will get through quicker.

I draw your attention to paragraph 1(l) of the proposal for a recommendation on the partnership with Brazil and also to the communication from the Commission of September 2008 on multilingualism.

The fact is that to establish and to develop a strategic partnership with Brazil we speak in Portuguese. When we go to the USA or Australia, we speak English; when we go to Mexico or Colombia, we speak Spanish; when we go to Brazil or Angola, we speak Portuguese; when we go to Senegal or Côte d'Ivoire, we speak in French. This is key to communication; this is key to doing business.

This draws attention to what I called a few years ago the 'European world' languages: linguas europeias globais in Portuguese. I mean that some European languages have the ability to establish a very intimate and close connection with various parts of the world, and these are: English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and, to a lesser extent and on different grounds, German and Italian. The Commission fully understood this and put it in the communication, but, unfortunately, there were misunderstandings in the Council - mainly on the part of the Germans, I believe - and the Council passed a much weaker line in this matter.

I have to clarify that this does not affect, by any means, the equal value of official languages in the Union. This has to do with the internal vision of multilingualism, and we all agree that every citizen has the right to speak, to read and to be answered in his own language. However, this adds another dimension in the broad field of the external value of multilingualism. To have those European world languages in today's globalised world, in today's globalised economy, in this global village, which is cultural, economic, social and political, is a most valuable asset for the entire EU, which we must take full account of and full benefit from. That is why I ask that these languages be properly introduced and managed inside the youth external services and also taught in our schools, as a common asset, as second, third or fourth languages, because these languages, as our relations with Brazil clearly show, increase our EU capacity to relate closely worldwide: to mingle more, to really share, to be part of the same club. This is my appeal to the Council and I greet and thank the rapporteur for her support.

(BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra on the excellent report in such an important area as global cooperation with our strategic partners. Globalisation not only brings us benefits, but it also makes us more vulnerable to global crises and threats. That is why identifying strategic partners and strengthening cooperation at global level will enable us to cope with current and future challenges. We highlight in the report that Europe is Mexico's second biggest partner after the United States. It must be emphasised that Europe regards Mexico as an important partner for supplying raw materials. The security of raw material supplies is specifically one of the key factors supporting Europe's sustainable development. For its part, Europe plays a leading role in protecting the environment and in adopting green industrial solutions.

The strategic partnership with Mexico will strengthen bilateral relations, with the specific aim of achieving more efficient trade in technology and raw materials, and provide a good foundation for bilateral cooperation in the area of environmental protection. To achieve these aims, we must develop and improve the sector-related programmes on which the mechanisms and measures for science and technology transfer are based, because only specific measures will make this cooperation real. In addition, this science and technology transfer is inconceivable without establishing an educational exchange and creating a joint network of scientific research centres. I am therefore calling for the expansion of bilateral cooperation in the field of education and innovation as well. Thank you for your attention.

(DE) Mr President, fortunately the time when Latin America was regarded as the backyard of the United States is long since past. Today we view this area quite differently, and there are a considerable number of areas of common ground and common interest between Europe and Latin America in particular, which justify our extending our strategic partnerships into this area also.

The issues of climate change, energy policy, the financial crisis, drug trafficking and so on have been mentioned. In this regard, we have a lot of common ground and common interests. It is good that we are cooperating on a multilateral basis with this area. It is good that we are also concluding bilateral agreements. However, it is important for us to achieve a balanced relationship between both partners in each case.

Therefore, if we achieve visa-free travel, we should also consider how we will handle deportations, extradition agreements and similar issues, in order that ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

(PL) Mr President, I would like to point out that, this morning, we spoke about the partnership between the European Union and countries such as Brazil and Mexico. We also discussed the Eastern Partnership this morning. I would like to stress as strongly as possible, and this is particularly addressed to Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, that when we discuss the European Union's foreign, or external, policies, such as the EU's relations with Brazil, Mexico or with North African countries, our debates are, to a certain extent, removed from reality. On the other hand, when we discuss our relations with the East, then we are dealing with fundamental matters affecting the EU. Similarly, when we discuss our partnership with Turkey, and that country's EU membership prospects, these are also fundamental matters. When we discuss our relations with Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, in terms of gas supplies, or the issue of Georgia, then we are discussing matters of fundamental importance to the EU, and ones which could plunge the European Union into a serious crisis.

(PL) Mr President, Brazil's role on both the international and the regional stage is growing every year. As a result, this country has become one of the European Union's most important and significant partners. Historical, cultural and economic ties should provide the basis for action within the scope of the strategic partnership between the EU and Brazil. Key issues, on which political dialogue should focus, should include promoting joint strategies to meet global challenges, in areas such as security, human rights, the financial crisis and, perhaps most importantly, the fight against poverty.

We should also aim to diversify our efforts to prevent regional conflict in South America. Our priority should be to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the field of trade and cooperation to protect Brazil's forests - which are, after all, the lungs of the world. A strategic partnership should facilitate the creation of a permanent platform for dialogue between the European Union and Brazil.

Mr President, as a Member of EuroLat I welcome the EU Strategic Partnership with Brazil and Mexico, both thriving democracies. The word 'BRIC' - for Brazil, Russia, India and China - is very much in the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, and Brazil is indeed an emerging global player.

President Lula has demonstrated moderation in government and has been a stabilising force against the rise of populist demagogues like Chávez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia. Brazil will be hit now by the credit crunch and the fall in commodity prices. Mexico will also be affected by the dramatic fall in oil prices. These two countries have enjoyed stability. I also commend the work of President Calderón in Mexico and he also deserves our support in his struggle against the drug cartels.

The two countries, being embedded respectively in NAFTA and Mercosur, are big players in the region and they are key to our relations with Latin America.

(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ten seconds. A while ago, I attended a convention on the subject of pensions, pension payments and how long pensioners draw their pensions before going to a better place. At this convention a league table of states was published in which countries were ranked according to the average number of years for which pensions were paid out. Mexico was considered a shining example to be followed. Why? Because its pensioners, having received their pension and enjoying this benefit, lived for an average of six months, and that was the record, that is to say it was the state held up as the best ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, I fully endorse paragraph 1(e) of this report, which talks about the need for a partnership tackling the major issues of climate change, energy security and the fight against poverty and exclusion.

I have some concerns regarding the WTO agreements - or potential agreements - from the perspective of EU farmers and food producers. As you know, there was a major battle about food production standards, and the Commission finally conceded that it could not allow Brazilian beef into the European Union until it met our production standards. I applaud that decision and I think that we need to do this for every commodity. We cannot expect our producers to meet standards that third countries are not meeting. We will not get the cooperation of our producers for a WTO agreement if that continues to happen.

Mr President, I occasionally indulge in a little multilingualism, and so I am going to try to speak Spanish now.

First of all, I would like to explain to Mr Belder why we have opted for a strategic partnership. I think it is very important to realise, first, that the countries themselves are very interested in it. Naturally, it is a political decision based on certain criteria. For example, Mexico is a very important bridge between north and south and is a stabilising factor, even though it has problems within the country itself.

Secondly, it is currently a member of the G20 and I hope of course, to answer Mrs Mann, that it will continue to be one in the future.

Thirdly, both Mexico and Brazil are strongly committed to global issues that we can only, in fact, tackle jointly. These include particularly the question of climate change and the financial crisis. That is why I think the idea of strategic partnerships is valid: not with the whole world, of course, but with the major players in the world.

In addition, there are many minor or particular, sectoral issues, some of which I would like to mention.

The fact is that we talk to these countries about many difficult issues, such as drugs, corruption, terrorism and organised crime. We hold meetings at senior official level and also at ministerial level, for example, at which we see what can be done to help these countries and where we also exchange experience.

We have set up a forum with Mexico on public security issues, especially in relation to the problem of corruption, and we are exploring cooperation in a number of areas, such as police training, policies on how to work in prisons, and policies to combat people trafficking, drugs, arms trafficking, cybercrime and money laundering. I think it is very important to carry on with these special dialogues.

Regarding the question on when we can have more meetings, I can say that we will try to have a meeting at the highest level this year, but it also depends on the Presidency and whether it includes this topic on its agenda. I hope it will happen in the latter part of the year. In any event we will have a ministerial meeting in Prague on the Mercosur issues, Mercosur and the strategic partnership with Mexico or Brazil. Neither one is ruled out, because we have tried to work very hard in favour of the agreement with Mercosur, but you all know that neither we nor the Mercosur countries, especially Brazil and Argentina, are yet willing to sign an agreement at a time when we do not know which way Doha will go. It has always gone in parallel with Doha.

Of course, we are going to have another ministerial meeting in Prague in May, and again we are going to try and force a possible conclusion, but I think we are still going to find ourselves facing this challenge.

The subject of migration is also extremely important, and I think we have a balanced, non-confrontational dialogue with Mexico, for example, especially on the Return Directive. We greatly appreciate the fact that Mexico has responded very positively and with understanding in an area that is very complicated, as we all know, and in which, in fact, we have to both respect human rights, of course, and also consider the sensitivities of all our countries. I believe this has been taken into account.

I would also like to say that it is the major issues that are always on our table. In December last year, for example, President Sarkozy, President Lula and President Barroso talked especially about the issue of the financial crisis and how to tackle it together, but they also talked about the issue of renewable energy, on which we are already working with Brazil to develop second-generation biofuels.

We are also going to hold a dialogue on human rights for the first time in 2009, in which the rights of indigenous peoples will be discussed, as that is also one of the priorities of the Human Rights Council.

I think I will stop here, Madam President, because there were so many points that I cannot address every one of them.

Madam President, to conclude this debate I should simply like to say that the decision to grant Mexico and Brazil the status of strategic partners is the right decision and one that will mean a qualitative leap in our relations, due to the political, economic, strategic and demographic importance of those countries. It will see them playing in the premier division of EU relations, together with other global partners such as the United States, China and Russia.

Madam President, the difference between Mexico and Brazil at the moment, as the Commissioner has just reminded us, is that Mexico has an association agreement linking it to the European Union, which is something that Brazil does not yet have.

I disagree with the assessments that have been made of the results of this association agreement. The EU-Mexico Association Agreement has a history of success - as Mrs Mann, who chairs the Joint Parliamentary Committee, has acknowledged. That is because the European Union concludes these agreements in such a way that our partners, in this case Mexico or the Mexicans, represent not merely a market but a particular way of viewing things, based on principles, values, representative democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law.

I believe we should realise, therefore, that the agreement has resulted in a boost to our relations, which must now be endorsed by the nature of this biregional strategic partnership.

The Commissioner said that the next encounter now will be the Rio Group meeting, which will take place during the Prague meeting under the Czech Presidency of the Union in May this year. Latin America and our partners need opportunities from us, rather than handouts, and such opportunities are represented today by association agreements.

I am perfectly aware of the limitations that the Commissioner pointed out, because concluding an association agreement, in this case with Mercosur, requires political will on both sides. I realise that the WTO Doha Round and the path of the bilateral association run absolutely in parallel, and the examples of Mexico and Chile fully demonstrate that.

Therefore, Commissioner, we for our part must make every effort to consolidate this strategic association between the European Union and Latin America, which these partnerships with Mexico and Brazil will stimulate and move forward a long way.

rapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, I wish to thank Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and all my fellow Members for their comments on the two reports which we are debating today. I agree with Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra that Latin America is extremely interesting and important for the European Union and we must send out clear messages about cooperation via these reports, especially in these critical times. We need a substantial framework which can cover all issues and provide clear answers.

I should just like to mention a few points in connection with what has been said. First of all, I want to emphasise that under no circumstances is the enhanced relationship intended to undermine Mercosur. On the contrary, we consider that the strategic partnership with Brazil, with the biggest and perhaps most important country in Latin America, could give new momentum to Mercosur. We also need to be perfectly clear about the financial framework within which relations with Brazil will be determined.

I would add that Brazil has been increasingly active in cooperation with the Portuguese-speaking countries of the South and in Africa and could therefore cooperate actively in this sector with the European Union.

We must take care to maintain the balance between the development of biofuels and food security, especially in these critical times.

Mrs Weber raised the question of inequality. I think that the Lula Government has taken important steps in this direction. A lot still needs to be done, but I think the way has been paved.

Finally, I should like to mention that we need to seriously examine the possibility of creating a joint EU-Brazil parliamentary committee, because it is the only BRIC country with which we have enhanced relations which have not been institutionalised.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.



(PL) Madam President, yesterday, at a school in Winnenden, in southern Germany, a teenage madman named Tim Kretschner shot 15 people, mostly children. One of the teachers was killed whilst trying to shield a pupil with her own body. I would like to ask the President to announce a minute's silence before the voting, in order to honour the victims of this tragedy.

I am sorry, you were probably not in the Chamber at the time, but this was remembered yesterday and a minute's silence was observed, announced by our President. I regret that you were not present and were unaware of the fact that it had already taken place.

Written Statement (Rule 142)

I feel that the EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership is beneficial for both sides. In my view, the European Union is a pillar of democracy; indeed, Europe is the cradle of our civilisation. As a strategic partner, Brazil is a bastion of balance and stability in Latin America.

Strengthening EU-Brazil ties may create a common framework which will facilitate the development of these two entities, thereby contributing to an increase in cooperation between the two regions. The EU-Brazil strategic agreement may be, not only in my view but in the rapporteur's view as well, an instrument which will help promote democracy and human rights. In addition, this partnership may contribute to the promotion of good governance at global level, as well as good cooperation within the framework of the UN.

I support the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on an EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur.

50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government (debate) 

The next item is the oral question to the Commission on the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government, by Marco Cappato, Marco Pannella and Janusz Onyszkiewicz, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and Monica Frassoni and Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance - B6-0012/2009).

I should like to make a brief personal comment: I truly believe that our debate can contribute to the freedom of all Tibetan citizens and not to the domination of either a state or a religion.

Madam President, I share your hope. Unfortunately we cannot hope that the President-in-Office of the Council will take advantage of this debate and this discussion to help advance the position of the European Union. In fact the Czech Presidency evidently considers a common European policy to be a barrier to the great national foreign policies of our national states. China is grateful for this, Russia is grateful, that is to say repressive and anti-democratic countries all over the world give thanks for this absence of Europe that is so well illustrated by the absence of the Presidency in this House.

I would like to point out to Mrs FerreroWaldner, as we tackle this point together, what is in my view the ultimate issue: it is not just a question of law and order - in other words looking at how many monks have been arrested and how many Tibetans have been killed recently due to brutal Chinese repression, hoping that the count will be lower than it was a year ago. What I would have liked to say to the Council and will now say to the Commission is that it must give an opinion on the fundamental political point, that is on the talks between the People's Republic of China and the envoys of the Dalai Lama, the aim of these talks and the reason why they were suspended - we could now say they have failed - unless we can revive them.

There are two opposing positions: on one side, the position of the Chinese regime, which says the Dalai Lama is a violent man at the head of a violent people, and that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile want independence for a national Tibetan state, which runs counter to Chinese territorial unity. That is the line taken by Beijing. On the other side, there is the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan government and the Dalai Lama's envoys, who say they seek something else, that their means of fighting is through non-violence and that they simply want true autonomy, meaning autonomy to retain their culture, tradition, language and religion, or their cultures and religions. This is the message of the memorandum that the Dalai Lama's Tibetan envoys presented to the Chinese regime. This memorandum has been published and contains their demands.

At this point the European Union is being asked to choose, to take sides. There are two conflicting positions: one of the parties is lying. The EU can be decisive in the search for the truth. As the Radical Party we propose satyagraha, the search for truth, as a collective global political initiative. The European Union should make use of its diplomatic tools - Mrs FerreroWaldner, please say this to President Barroso - we must meet with the Dalai Lama and do him the honour of allowing him to speak, in order to find the truth. Is Beijing right in saying that the Tibetans are violent terrorists favouring independence, or is the Dalai Lama right in saying that they want a decent and dignified autonomous state? Europe cannot stand still and remain silent in the face of this conflict.

Madam President, 50 years ago, the Chinese army delivered the final blow to Tibetan resistance. Since then, Tibetans have fled, with an inordinate amount of effort, over the Himalayas and across the borders into other states. Up to now, several thousand people a year - all of whom are refugees - have made this supreme effort to cross 5000 m high passes. If, as China has always claimed, the situation of the Tibetans is so wonderful, there would be neither grounds for flight nor justification for the fact that journalists, people from the West and observers have been prevented for months from visiting this country at all or only under close escort. Female journalists are even followed to the toilet by female intelligence service observers to ensure that nothing forbidden can be done.

I therefore ask myself: what is our task as the European Union? We need somehow to bring about the resumption of the Sino-Tibetan dialogue. However, it must take place on a different basis. Up to now all that has happened is that China has repeated the same accusations and demands, without trying in the slightest to understand the Tibetan representatives' explanation that it is not a matter of leaving China and becoming an independent state; it is about achieving autonomy.

Commissioner, how do we deal with the fact that the monitoring of the Internet in Tibet is stricter than anywhere else in China and that it was European companies that supplied the tools to make this monitoring so efficient? We need to act. We are being called on at home to enter into dialogue.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very pleased that this discussion is taking place today, on an issue which has preoccupied many of us for a long time and especially since the sad events a year ago in Tibet. Therefore I think that it is very good that we are having this open discussion to again see what can be done.

Before I come to the many issues you raised in the tabled joint resolution, let me also have a quick word on our bilateral relations with China. The EU policy vis-à-vis China is one of engagement. Our strategic partnership is strong, and this permits us to tackle all issues, including the most sensitive ones. We have constructed an impressive framework of high-level interaction where we regularly address all the global changes that our citizens are facing, without neglecting the issues where we may disagree. Tibet is one of them. Let me be very clear - we do not see eye to eye with China on Tibet, and we still have a very real and legitimate concern about the human rights situation in Tibet, as you have both just outlined; about the fact that Tibet has remained largely closed for the international media, for diplomats and for humanitarian organisations for almost a year now; and about the stalemate in talks between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities, despite the three rounds of talks last year.

These issues were also at the top of the agenda for several EU leaders in bilateral meetings held with the Chinese leadership last year. We have endeavoured to find common understanding with China on this delicate subject, and we have been very clear whenever we have addressed the situation in Tibet with them.

Let me again mention the EU's position, which does not leave any room for misinterpretation. Firstly, we support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China, including Tibet. Secondly, we have always supported a peaceful reconciliation through dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama's representatives. I remember, when I went there with the Commission, President Barroso and other colleagues, I had specific dialogues with many of my interlocutors on this issue. We have always maintained that there should be a reconciliation dialogue and that the dialogue should go on.

This dialogue has to be constructive and substantive, and of course we therefore regret that, up to now, this dialogue has not brought really substantive results. We have always said that the dialogues should address the core issues, such as the preservation of Tibet's unique culture, religion and traditions as well as the need to achieve a system of meaningful autonomy for Tibet within a Chinese constitution. We have always said that this dialogue should address the participation of all Tibetans in decision-making. Therefore we would welcome it if these issues were to be addressed in China's future national human rights action plan.

For us, Tibet is a human rights issue and has therefore invariably been approached as such. We have also consistently passed this message to our Chinese counterparts and listened very carefully to their views. We have made every effort to understand the position in a spirit of mutual respect, but human rights are universal, and the situation in Tibet is therefore - rightly - of international legitimate concern to the whole international community, particularly the European Union. This fact is, of course, emphasised by the existence of instruments of international law for the protection of human rights over half a century.

In your resolution you stipulate the future of a Sino-Tibetan dialogue. As you all know, at the last round of talks, following the request of the Chinese Government, the Tibetan side submitted a memorandum on genuine autonomy for the future of Tibet. In my opinion the paper contains some elements that could provide the basis for future talks. I am thinking of a paragraph on culture, education and religion.

I am also encouraged by the fact that, for the first time in a written document, the Tibetan side has expressed its firm commitment not to seek separation or independence. I think this is important in order to bring this dialogue further. I am also pleased that the Dalai reaffirmed before this House last December his devotion to the middle-way approach and to dialogue as the only means for achieving a mutually acceptable and lasting solution.

Let me conclude by sharing with you a personal conviction. Throughout my political and personal career, I have always strongly believed that, through engagement and dialogue, even the most difficult issues can be addressed and hopefully, when the time is right, can also be solved. Therefore I wish to appeal to China and to the Dalai Lama's representative to resume this dialogue at the earliest possible opportunity with an open spirit and a view to achieving a durable solution in Tibet. I can guarantee, from our side, our wholehearted support for such a process. This is our position and this is the position that we bring to the Chinese side.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, the EU's motto is 'Unity in diversity'. It is a principle that has served us well.

Unfortunately, such an idea does not resonate at all well with the authoritarian Communist dictatorship in the People's Republic of China. Diversity is suppressed, rather than embraced. Minorities wishing to express themselves in any way other than the mainstream Party-sanctioned way are routinely marginalised and persecuted. This trend can be seen in the treatment of many religious minorities, including Christians, Muslims and Falun Gong practitioners, and most notably in the PRC's attitude to Tibet.

In 1950, Communist forces invaded Tibet, leading to the exile of the Dalai Lama 50 years ago. Ever since then, Tibet has been under the control of Beijing. The traditional Tibetan culture, which was isolated for hundreds of years, has now been heavily diluted by the actions of the Government, which has been at pains to prevent any sense of Tibetan nationalism from resurfacing. In fact, the systematic and sometimes brutal suppression of Tibetan culture has kindled the fire of Tibetan identity and awakened the world's conscience to the plight of the people of Tibet.

The inspirational leadership of the Dalai Lama has ensured that Tibet's future remains very much at the forefront of public debate, notwithstanding the huge efforts made by the PRC to admonish those like the former President-in-Office of the Council, Nicolas Sarkozy, who dared to question Beijing's point of view.

We in this Parliament have always taken a strong line in defence of the autonomous rights of the people of Tibet, which does not automatically mean the right to self-determination or independence. In doing this, we do not seek to provoke or antagonise China. However, we recognise that our commitment to certain values - human rights, democracy, the rule of law and freedom of conscience - cannot be seen separately from the undoubtedly important strategic economic partnership that the EU is developing with China.

Pro-China voices on the other side of the House will have their say in this debate, but for too long the people of Tibet have been denied their voice, and we must speak for them.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, the Socialist Group is concerned about the human rights situation in China. While we recognise that the situation has improved significantly over the last 10 years, there are still many areas where human rights are still not properly or adequately protected. There may be a degree of freedom of thought, but there is not freedom of action. We would certainly highlight the failure to allow free trade unions to operate within China. We are concerned about the plight of the 100 million migrant workers who have moved from country to city and who have the most limited access to health and education. We are concerned about the plight of religious and ethnic minorities across the whole of China.

Nevertheless, the Socialist Group was opposed to this debate and resolution. The reason was proportionality. It is right to criticise China for its human rights record, as we criticise the United States for its use of the death penalty, Guantánamo and extraordinary rendition, but we do not have to do it every part-session. Frankly, it is becoming counterproductive. At one time, the Chinese authorities paid heed to our resolutions, but no more. As some individuals and groups in their desperate attention-seeking continue to up the ante with today a demand, I think for the first time, that Member States should abrogate the one-China policy and recognise the Tibetan government-in-exile.

The Dalai Lama was here only in December, speaking on behalf of Tibet in the plenary. Why is it necessary to revisit the issue again? There is nothing new in the resolution.

I, along with Elmar Brok, Philippe Morillon and other Members of this Parliament, had the opportunity last summer to visit Lhasa. We were the first international group to travel there after the troubles in March and spoke both to the authorities and those who were sympathetic to the Tibetan protesters. As I wrote afterwards, the reality was that peaceful protests - and we support peaceful protest - turned into race riots, when shops, homes and Han Chinese were attacked and burned, with dozens of deaths. Schools suffered arson attacks and hospitals and mosques of the Muslim minority were attacked. The Dalai Lama himself recognised the reality of the situation when he threatened at the time to step down as a living god.

China has done an enormous amount for Tibet in terms of providing infrastructure, like the new Qinghai-Lhasa railway, and higher levels of social provision than elsewhere in rural China. The problem is it is beginning to be resented elsewhere within China.

(Protests)

But the problem is, to quote the Beatles: 'Money can't buy you love'. Tibetans still want a degree of cultural and political autonomy far beyond that which China is prepared to grant. As I said at the time, China needs a dialogue with representatives of Tibet to find a solution that grants that autonomy, while protecting minority rights of ethnic and religious groups in the province.

The alternative is that impatient, young Tibetans will turn to violence and terrorism. As a result of the article I wrote at the time, I was asked to discuss the matter with Dalai Lama's representative in London, which I did at some length. I agree with the Commissioner: it is through dialogue and engagement that we will find a way forward, not through shrill, endlessly repetitive, rehashed resolutions, such as the one we have here today.

Madam President, during the last few decades, democratic countries have called, on numerous occasions, for human rights to be respected in non-democratic countries. These efforts have been effective only when countries and international organisations have been consistent in their actions and demands. Unfortunately, the case of Tibet or, more broadly speaking, the issue of human rights in China, has generally often been pushed to the sidelines, with trade relations taking priority. If it were not for the Olympics in Beijing, and the decisive stance taken by many social and non-governmental organisations, the world would still know very little about the situation in Tibet.

Our role, as the European Parliament, is to ensure that democratic countries react strongly and decisively to the actions of the Chinese authorities, such as the 'Strike Hard' campaign which was implemented some time ago. However, this can only be achieved if we consistently and decisively condemn all human rights violations perpetrated by the Communist authorities in China.

It is worth remembering that, in its resolution of 6 July 2000, the European Parliament called on Member States to recognise the Tibetan Government in exile if, within the space of three years, no agreement had been reached between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama's administration. As we know, Beijing still refuses to engage in talks with the indisputable leader of the Tibetan people. Let us also not forget the Eleventh Panchen Lama, the youngest political prisoner, who has been in Chinese custody for 14 years. He will be 20 this year.

I would, therefore, like to once again call on Parliament to be consistent in its actions and to treat its declarations seriously. If we do not show that we mean what we say, it will be difficult to expect others to keep their promises and fulfil their obligations.

Madam President, I have been following the case of Tibet for years. I have visited the region and have spoken to many people inside and outside the country. I consider the Tibetan people's claims to be legitimate and to a certain extent logical. I especially find their current fears more than justified in view of the Chinese Government's policy of severe repression towards them, which has now lasted more than 50 years, apart from a brief and, I would say, false truce during the Olympic Games.

I have known few people more clearly willing to talk and reach an agreement than the Tibetan people. That is why I fail to understand this obsession by the Chinese Government both to twist reality and to insist on blocking the round of talks again and again.

A country is not made great by its military strength or its size or its economic wealth. What makes it great is the magnanimity of its acts and its generosity. The European Union can and must help to resolve this situation, while of course respecting the sovereignties involved, but it must do so firmly. The way to do this is to support the Tibetan request to restart the Chinese-Tibetan talks and to recognise that, if anyone has spent years giving way to and being pressurised by the Chinese authorities, then in this case it is the Tibetan people.

This is not a conflict between equals in terms of either capacity or motives. The European Union must be respectful towards both parties, but it cannot remain neutral towards the oppression, indiscriminate detentions, torture, murders or the religious, linguistic and cultural genocide.

The memorandum for genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people, now rejected by China as a working document, shows that the Tibetan people have already made a genuine effort and given up an enormous amount of what, I emphasise, are their legitimate aspirations.

China now has the opportunity to show the world its generosity and its desire for peace and harmony and, above all, the European Union has the opportunity to help it act in accordance with its greatness.

(DE) Madam President, on 10 March 1959, the Tibetan people were subjected to unspeakable suffering at the hands of the Chinese. Sixty thousand people lost their lives and hundreds of thousands were arrested, taken away and tortured in the months that followed. A year ago, the violence escalated once again. More than 200 Tibetans died, some as a result of deliberate fatal shots, and now - shortly after the 50th anniversary - monasteries are closed to the outside world, access roads are controlled and soldiers and security men stand in readiness to nip demonstrations in the bud. We still have no news of possible rioting. What is the response to this show of power? Silence in the media. The Dalai Lama has urged his people to maintain the path of non-violence. His call for dialogue has had no positive response in Beijing. When an envoy of the Dalai Lama presented specific steps for autonomy in a memorandum, they were rejected by President Hu Jintao. He said, 'we must build a Great Wall against separatism'. This idea, which is pure provocation, was topped by the planned forced introduction of a holiday for Tibetans: 28 March is to be Serfs' Emancipation Day. This is the bitter reality.

Two days ago, the European Parliament displayed flags. In plenary, an impressive number of us placed the Tibetan flag on our tables and showed our solidarity with the suffering Tibetans. There were peaceful protests in all parts of the EU. Our fellow Members - Mr Cappato, Mrs Lichtenberger, Mr Tannock and Mr Romeva i Rueda - are absolutely right: today's resolution speaks loud and clear. The memorandum must form the basis for further negotiations. It is a document for true autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution. The isolation of Tibet must stop - for the inhabitants, for tourists, for journalists. We must have an answer to 600 imprisoned Tibetans.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament cannot allow the recent cry of pain from the Dalai Lama to go unheard. Only a few months ago we listened to him speak in Brussels; we all know him to be a gentle man, a peace-maker, a spokesman for Tibetan culture, that is to say the culture of harmony and fraternity par excellence. It is in the name of these values, speaking of his 'Chinese brothers', that the Dalai Lama has asked - forcefully, however - for legitimate and tangible autonomy for Tibet, recalling the torture and terrible suffering of his people and his land. This is a request that Parliament should be proud to support. It is our political and institutional duty, in the name of democracy, human rights and the values of freedom. The Tibetans look to Europe, perhaps, as their only hope; we really must not disappoint them.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, without a doubt we Christian Democrats recognise the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China over its territory, including Tibet.

However, at the same time we reject China's view that any statement from the European Union regarding human rights in China constitutes impermissible interference in China's internal affairs. According to a modern understanding of human rights and international law - which hopefully China will also soon share - the international community is required express concern about human rights in all parts of the world, particularly in very blatant cases.

How else could an International Criminal Tribunal take action against the crimes against humanity in the countries of the former Yugoslavia and pass judgment if it did not have the right to intervene for the sake of human rights?

The People's Republic of China and its government should therefore recognise that the discussion of human rights such as the freedom of assembly, the freedom of an independent press, religious freedom and the rights of cultural minorities in Tibet and in other parts of China does not constitute impermissible interference. It must face up to this discussion.

Our main concern today, however, is simply the plea - and I cannot therefore understand Mr Ford in this regard, although he has always been more on the side of the Chinese government - for the People's Republic of China and its government to resume talks with the Dalai Lama as leader of a large proportion of the Tibetan people.

To be honest - as my fellow Member has already said -the government did hold these talks last year, but broke them off after the Olympic Games. We are forced to suspect then that these talks were only conducted during the Olympic Games to divert our attention. However, Mr Ford, we will not allow our attention to be diverted. We will place this matter on the agenda time and again and we call on the Chinese Government to enter into real and serious talks with the Dalai Lama, as human rights are still being violated in Tibet and we must ensure that this situation changes.

(PL) Madam President, if we are discussing the fate of persecuted Tibetans today, then we must be aware that their prospects will improve only if the whole international community exerts political pressure on China. Therefore, I must also stress that, in this regard, all the efforts made by Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, and by those in a position to influence global politics, may very well bear fruit.

I must also stress that it was with the greatest regret that I listened to the speech made by the representative of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, who claimed that China's crimes were justified by the construction of a railway line to Tibet. This reminds me of a time when, in Europe, the construction of motorways was used to justify the construction of concentration camps. We cannot allow railway lines and motorways to be built on the pain and suffering of persecuted people.

(NL) Madam President, I stood here one year ago, when we were discussing the unrest in Tibet. We implored China to give the media and international organisations access to the area and I am glad to say that we, as Parliament, called at that point for a serious dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama.

Last year, China showed the whole world, through its organisation and holding of the Olympic Games, that it is a country capable of transformation and of astonishing the world. In the run-up to the Games, China gave foreign journalists some space. I appreciate that this temporary granting of some freedom of the press was for foreign journalists. Sadly, it was short-lived. Last Tuesday, journalists were unable to get into Tibet in order to report on the situation there.

I deeply regret the fact that the Chinese Government no longer guarantees the freedom of the press. At the same time, there is absolutely no freedom of the press for journalists in China. Chinese journalists apply a system of self-censorship that requires them to adopt the government's position. In this case, too, there is a world of difference between the law - which is sound and guarantees the freedom of the press - and the reality on the ground, where journalists have to impose restrictions on themselves. All the media have to submit to the censorship diktats of the parties.

What is more, the government also blocks websites. Internet users inform one another quickly of political developments as they happen. For the dialogue between the Tibetans and the Chinese - the population, the people - it is crucial that they have accurate information. Negotiations can only be held on the basis of facts, and the freedom of the press in China is an important precondition for that to happen. There must be freedom to write, to enable journalists to inform the rest of the Chinese people about what is going on in Tibet.

Let us, Europe, bang our fist on the table and stand up for human rights in China. This is a necessary step in order to get the dialogue between China and Tibet going again. Let China take this one step in the right direction and pave the way for dialogue, or, in the words of the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, 'a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'.

- (SK) I was in China at the time of the sad events of March 2008 in Tibet and I was able to follow the events only on the Internet because we were not allowed into Tibet. I saw then how much the inhabitants of Tibet need help.

I firmly believe that, through this resolution, the European Parliament must convey to the Chinese Government the words of His Holiness the Dalai Lama about how Tibet does not have separatist tendencies and is striving only for the recognition of Tibetan cultural autonomy within the framework of China.

I understand that the EU is trying to establish good economic relations with China, and we communicated this in our discussions with the Chinese Government and MPs in Beijing within the framework of the IMCO delegation visit in March 2008. However, we cannot remain indifferent to the situation in Tibet or to the constant violations of human rights, the reprisals, the suffering and the violence.

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the departure of the Dalai Lama into exile in India, I expect the Chinese authorities to allow independent observers and foreign media unrestricted access to Tibet in order to assess the situation on the ground.

(RO) Commissioner, I would like to thank you for the balanced position which you have presented once again today during Parliament's plenary.

The European Union's relations with China are of strategic importance to all Members of the European Parliament and they do and will have major global repercussions. I would have expected us to discuss the European Union's cooperation with China in reforming the global financial system, bearing in mind China's balanced and constructive position, especially now, before the G20 summit in London. It could have been the right time to put Africa on a common agenda, bearing in mind the major role which China plays there, and I could continue.

In spite of these obvious issues, in spite of the European Commission's agenda with China and unlike the 27 Member States' much more consistent and balanced agenda with China, I note with regret that we, in the European Parliament, are turning this strategic relationship into an issue and pawn in the political groups' electoral campaign.

Human rights are and must be the main priority, but they cannot be the only one.

(PL) Madam President, in the early 1950s, the Chinese Government forced Tibetan representatives to sign an agreement in which it guaranteed Tibet far-reaching autonomy. These guarantees came to nothing. As a result of public pressure and the fear of a boycott of the Olympic Games, the Chinese Government began talks with the representatives of the Dalai Lama. However, these talks were held at a gallingly low level and, moreover, the dialogue was akin to communication between two televisions, set to different channels.

We do not want dialogue, we want negotiations. We want the Chinese to negotiate with the representatives of the Dalai Lama, on the basis of the proposed memorandum. If the Chinese Government thinks that this memorandum is not a good basis, let it justify its opinion, rather than hiding behind the blanket statement that it is nothing more than a memorandum proposing Tibetan independence, which is absolutely not the case.

Madam President, I fully support what has been said by the Commissioner, that dialogue and engagement are of crucial importance. At the same time, we have to admit that what we see today is a clear lack of political will on the Chinese side to have serious and result-oriented dialogue with the representatives of the Dalai Lama.

For many of us the case of Tibet - its autonomy - is a litmus test for the Chinese authorities. Tibet is a reflection of the human rights situation in China, as well as the situation of human rights defenders like Hu Jia, Sakharov Laureate 2008. I do not see Mr Ford in the Chamber now, but I would like to assure him that human rights always have been and always will be at the top of our political agenda.

Madam President, the Chinese Government has termed the anniversary of the occupation of Tibet the 'liberation of serfs'. Sadly, this is Orwellian Newspeak still being practised: slavery is freedom; lies are truth. But it shows that the Chinese Communist leaders have become long-term prisoners of their own bad conscience.

Achieving genuine autonomy for Tibet is closely related to realising the message of another date: soon, 20 years of Tiananmen student democracy.

Achieving real democracy in China is key to a solution in Tibet, but time is running short, and much will depend on our own moral determination.

I also call on the Council Presidency to make a similar statement to our resolution on this occasion and also in June on the occasion of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, this debate has briefly but clearly shown once again our great concern at the situation in Tibet. The interventions have underlined that this concern remains as real and legitimate 50 years after the Tibetan uprising of 10 March 1959. Moreover, I think our discussion has also underlined the necessity for both parties to resume dialogue promptly. I say 'dialogue' because dialogue is always the first important step before moving on to negotiations. It is also the best way to avoid frustration and violence among young Tibetans. I think this is a very resonant reason. That is why a more substantial dialogue is in the interests of both sides.

The Dalai Lama is a respected religious leader and, amongst other things, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. While individual European leaders have met with him in various, but usually religious, contexts, meetings in a political context are not our policy. Having said that, we have frequent exchanges with his envoys, especially on progress with the dialogue process, and this is how we will continue.

The debate is closed.

I too hope that the Tibetan people can have their freedom, but also that they will not have to live under the control of either a state or a religion.

I have received five motions for resolutions pursuant to Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142)

For 50 years, Tibetan refugees have been calling for their fundamental rights to be respected. I am convinced that respecting these rights and reopening the process of dialogue with the people of Tibet is clearly in China's interest. In today's world, a country's image is an important part of the way it operates within the global economy, and in terms of international cooperation. China's refusal to engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama's representatives, and its rejection of the extremely moderate demands of the Tibetans, is harmful to its image. Engaging in talks on rights which are in accordance with the principles of the Chinese constitution would not pose any significant risk for China. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Great countries and great nations should be magnanimous. Such behaviour may provide proof of their greatness.

Engaging in a dialogue with Tibet provides China with an opportunity to show its good, positive, side. Showing solidarity with Tibet and the Tibetan people is not anti-Chinese. It is an expression of concern for human rights, religious and linguistic freedom, cultural diversity and the right to maintain one's national identity and autonomy. Therefore, we are not interfering in China's internal affairs, but merely trying to defend standards and values which are important to us everywhere - in Europe, Asia and throughout the world. China has not been singled out in any way. We defend the rights of small nations even when this proves to be bothersome or uncomfortable. This is because we believe that it is the right approach to take.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.)

1. Better careers and more mobility: a European partnership for researchers (

2. on the protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games (

3. Developing a Common Aviation Area with Israel (

4. Multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (vote) 

5. Sri Lanka (vote) 

6. Deterioration of agricultural land in the EU (

7. Employee participation in companies with a European Statute (vote) 

8. Children of Migrants (vote) 

- Before the vote on paragraph 7:

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, paragraph 7 - the final paragraph - instructs you to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and those other illustrious bodies, including the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, and the social partners but, unusually, does not instruct you to send it to the parliaments of Member States. So I would like to repair that omission and propose the very simple oral amendment: 'and the parliaments of the Member States'.

9. Croatia: progress report 2008 (vote) 

- Before the vote on Amendment 13:

Thank you, Mr President. There have been a lot of discussions between the groups over the last few days, right down to the last minute in fact. The following amendment now seems to me to be the one that has the broadest agreement in this House and also, according to direct information which I have received, was voted on with the agreement of both Croatia and Slovenia.

The amendment reads as follows in English:

'Recalls the informal agreement reached on 26 August 2007 by the Prime Ministers of Croatia and Slovenia on the submission of their border dispute to an international body; welcomes the readiness of Croatia and Slovenia to accept the mediation offer made by the Commission and takes the view that this mediation should be based on international law; in this context, looks forward to a rapid advancement of the accession negotiations;'.

10. Turkey: progress report 2008 (vote) 

- Before the vote on paragraph 4:

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, in paragraph, please insert the adjective 'secular', so that the phrase would be: 'stable, democratic, pluralist, secular and prosperous society'.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, after yesterday's debate and after consultation with the rapporteur, I would like to add one word to the amendment. The word would be 'transitional', and the amendment would then read as follows: 'except for temporary, transitional derogations'.

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, after yesterday's debate, I would like to propose replacing the word 'involve' with 'consult'.

11. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: progress report 2008 (vote) 

- Before the vote:

author. - Mr President, before we vote on the resolution I tabled on the accession process for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I wish to make three technical remarks so that everybody can decide on the correct texts.

First remark: where it speaks about the Macedonian negotiator in paragraph 12, the text should be 'the negotiator of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. This is entirely in line with what we decided on when voting on my reports of 2007 and 2008.

Second remark: in paragraph 18, the Macedonian Orthodox Church is the official name of the biggest religious community in the country. This is mentioned in order to distinguish it from the Serbian Orthodox group. This use of the word 'Macedonian' cannot be replaced by any reference to any state name. As it is the official name of an institution, I propose surrounding the name with inverted commas.

Third remark: as regards the translation of the word 'pending' in paragraph 10 in the phrase 'pending full implementation of the key priorities of the Accession Partnership', the French and Italian versions - at least - differ from the texts in English, German and Dutch. For all final translations I propose using the original English version.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, in paragraph 12 we had Amendment 1 by Mr Swoboda, on which a roll-call vote was requested and, as you know, Mr Swoboda withdrew Amendment 1 today. I would therefore ask that a roll-call vote be taken on the second part of paragraph 12.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I should like to propose a deletion of one part of the text, so the new text of the second part of paragraph 13 should read: 'in view of the new round of negotiations announced under the "Nimetz process”, expresses the hope that all governments in the neighbourhood will support the integration of this country in the EU, thus contributing to the stability and prosperity of the region;'.

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I would like to say first of all that I do not think it is fair that, when I withdrew my amendment, you rejected part of my original text. That is not a fair procedure.

However, with regard to what Mrs Ibrisagic has just said, I would like to say that we are able to accept this wording. I would then also withdraw my Amendment 3 and I hope for fair treatment from the other side.

12. The mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (

- Before the vote on paragraph 1(h):

Mr President, with the agreement of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the rapporteur, I would like to propose the following regarding paragraph 1(h):

'stresses that the key documents vital for the prosecution of General Ante Gotovina, Mladen Markać and Ivan Čermak should be handed over by the responsible authorities;'. The rest is the same.

13. 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul, 16-22 March 2009 (vote) 

- After the vote on Amendment 5:

Mr President, the Zaragoza 2008 International Expo closed on 14 September 2008. It was the first exhibition devoted exclusively to water and sustainable development, and the first exhibition in which the European Parliament took part on an equal footing with the Commission.

The three months of constant debates, with more than 2 000 experts and NGOs, resulted in the Zaragoza Charter, which precisely reflects the state of the debate between Mexico 2006 and Istanbul. Hence we propose the following recital, which I shall read in English:

'having regard to the Zaragoza Charter of 2008 "A New Comprehensive Vision of Water” and the recommendations of the Water Tribune adopted on 14 September 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Zaragoza International Exhibition, and forwarded to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,'.

14. EC Development Assistance to Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa (vote) 

15. Implementation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) (vote) 

16. EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership (

17. Mexico Strategic Partnership (



Before the last vote, which is always unruly, I would like to say something. This is the last plenary sitting in which our Secretary-General, Harald Rømer, will participate. I expressed the thanks of the European Parliament at length on your behalf at the reception two days ago. I would also like to do that here in plenary by way of conclusion: thank you very much Harald Rømer for your service to the European Parliament, which spans several decades.

(Loud applause)

(Protests)

Anyone who has worked for the European Parliament for 36 years deserves well of the European Parliament. Our warmest thanks, Harald Rømer.

(Protests)

To those who are heckling now, I would like to say that I hope that your parents do not discover how you are behaving here.

(Applause)



18. 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and dialogue between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government (vote) 

- Before the vote:

Mr President, I would like to request that the separate votes proposed for paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 be taken by roll call.

- Before the vote on recital E:

I also request roll-call voting for the final vote.

Voting time

The next item is voting time.

(For the outcome and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Mr President, I just wish to say on this report that I am pleased that our group's Amendment 1 was accepted and, therefore, I welcome this development. There is a challenge to protect soils in the European Union, but it is a Member State competence and does not require an EU approach, or EU directives or regulations. Therefore, I welcome the outcome of this vote.

(DE) Mr President, I am very pleased with this and would also like to thank Mr Swoboda very much because this important report has been adopted with a very large consensus.

I would like to take the opportunity to urge our Slovene Members, for whom and for whose country I have the greatest sympathy, to find a way once again of continuing Slovenia's great achievements towards European integration. This country was the first new Member State to introduce the euro and was the first to implement Schengen. Slovenia is a pioneer of European unification. I would like to see Slovenia, in its national interest, also act as a pioneer in connection with the accession of Croatia to the EU.

(NL) Mr President, in principle I support the accession of Croatia to the European Union, but I did not vote in favour of this report. I abstained because there are still a number of problems in Croatia, one example being the problem of corruption. Experience has now taught us that corruption has actually increased in a number of countries that have acceded to the European Union before they were actually completely ready to do so.

The problem with this report is that it states that the conclusion of the negotiations could perhaps be reached in 2009, which is to say this year, while, in my opinion, it is, in fact, unwise to tie ourselves down to a given date. Croatia should be allowed to accede when it is completely ready. At this moment in time, that is absolutely not the case.

(SL) It is my sincere wish that Croatia becomes a member of the European Union as soon as possible and this is a wish that is shared by Slovenia. If our wishes are to become a reality, we need to assist and cooperate with Croatia. We can resolve disputes by listening carefully to all of the parties involved. However, there is nothing in this report, which was endorsed by the European Parliament today, which suggests that we have struck the right balance in voting on the so-called Croatian-Slovenian border dispute. In order to avoid bias, we should also include the principle of equity as a minimum requirement.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that, if we really want to solve this problem, we should ensure that both Slovenia and Croatia observe the outcome of the relevant international body. This is why the parliaments of both countries should ratify that outcome beforehand.

(BG) Thank you, Mr President. I supported the Turkey progress report. The negotiations with Turkey on accession to the European Union pose a serious challenge to all Member States of political and economic significance, as well as in terms of the issue of security. It is particularly important for the country to meet the accession criteria and show consistency, sufficient precision and transparency towards the citizens of the European Union. I feel that it is especially important for the process to progress via good cooperation with neighbouring countries. In this respect, I think that we must note certain progress between Bulgaria and Turkey with the agreement which has been reached on initiating negotiations on matters which remain unresolved so far, specifically on resolving the property issues of the Thracian refugees, which is happening thanks to the efforts of the European Parliament. We will monitor this process particularly closely as it concerns the rights of thousands of people, which must be respected across the territory of the European Union. The Thracian question is also just as important as relations between Turkey and the other neighbouring countries. Thank you.

- (SK) We know what a testing time our friends in the Balkans have had. This applies both to Slovenia and Croatia, when they were attacked by Serbia and our sympathies lay on both sides. I must say that it was generous of the EU to accept Slovenia into the EU before all of the disputes between Slovenia and Croatia had been resolved and I believe that we should adopt a similar approach now towards Croatia.

I am sorry that some politicians in Slovenia would now like to block the accession of Croatia, but this is what I am told by Mrs Jordan Cizelj, who has a sensible and, I would say, balanced approach to this political question. I trust that the informal agreement to be discussed further between Croatia and Slovenia under the auspices of the Commission will end in success.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to explain a point in our Rules of Procedure. To speak during the explanations of vote, you must make a request to the services before the start of these explanations. Of course, I am very flexible and I allow the Members present to speak. But we are not using the 'catch the eye' procedure. You have to put your name down beforehand, prior to the explanations of vote.

(BG) Mr President, I supported the report which was drafted on Turkey's progress as I believe that it is an objective report which offers both Turkey and the European Union the opportunity to forge ahead together with Turkey's preparation for membership. At the same time, I would like to express a certain dissatisfaction that the Chamber rejected the Socialist Group's proposal for it to be noted that Turkey's membership of the European Union is a goal shared by Turkey and the European Union.

I believe that if we want more rapid progress from Turkey on the problems we see with its development, we must also be sufficiently open and not leave our partners in any doubt that the goal of this process is still actually Turkey's admission to the European Union. Turkey's role will grow and it is in the European Union's interest to have a non-Christian country among its Member States because this will give us a number of opportunities to conduct policies which are not possible at the moment. Thank you.

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, the Attack Group is voting against the Turkey progress report because we do not see any progress. In fact, no progress could be achieved anyway. Turkey does not consider anything else other than its own interests, which do not include respect for human rights and the other European and Christian values. For more than 80 years Turkey has not fulfilled the Treaty of Ankara, according to which it owes Bulgaria USD 10 billion. Just imagine how it will comply with European regulations.

Yesterday Mr Wiersma mentioned that failure to acknowledge the 1915-1916 Armenian genocide is a problem. What should we say then about the acts of genocide against the Bulgarians which went on for 500 years, such as the massacres in Stara Zagora, Batak and Perushtitsa, described by the International European Commission in 1876? Mr Wiersma also said that there is no place in the EU for an Islamist Turkey; however, 20 years ago Turkish Islamists blew up coaches in Bulgaria, carrying women and children. Indeed, Turkey paid for monuments to be erected for these terrorists. This is modern Turkey, governed by a fundamentalist, Islamist party. These are its values and we think that they are not appropriate for Europe.

(FR) Mr President, 'to err is human, to persist is diabolical'. Never has this saying been more appropriate than in the lamentable saga of the accession negotiations with Turkey.

Since 2005, you have been giving us the same negative reports on human rights, respect for minorities and the commitments made to the Union, whilst keeping the objective of accession intact.

Now, in reality, that is not the problem. The underlying issue lies in the wish of Europeans no longer to accept the consequences of the freedom of establishment which would necessarily result from accession.

It also lies in the fact that Turkey belongs geographically, culturally, linguistically and spiritually to an area which is not Europe. Consequently, we must abandon this fiction; we must abandon this masquerade of accession and immediately begin practical discussions, in other words aim for a partnership built on our mutual and reciprocal interests. This accession procedure must be abandoned.

(DE) Mr President, in the crucial areas - human rights, the rights of minorities, religious freedom, freedom of expression - Turkey has made next to no progress, and in the last few days has even taken steps backwards.

However, irrespective of this, the Commission claims that we are nevertheless obliged to take a positive position, as this is an important strategic partner. That is true, but that is a foreign policy matter. The fact that we need strategic partnerships is not a criterion for accession.

However, I have nevertheless quite clearly voted in favour of the report, because the Socialist call to focus the report on accession was rejected. This report is a great success and a breakthrough for us, because it expressly avoids setting accession as a goal and because it talks about a long-lasting, open-ended process, the outcome of which is still unclear. We would have preferred a 'no' to full membership, but this wording nevertheless comes close to that and is therefore a great success for those of us who are happy to say 'yes' to partnership with Turkey as part of our foreign policy, but say 'no' to accession.

(NL) Mr President, I abstained from the vote on the report about Turkey because, while this report contained a complete catalogue of criticisms relating to the number of major wrongs that are still ongoing in Turkey, I believe that the only possible conclusion to this report surely had to have been that the negotiations must be stopped, and indeed on a permanent basis, because, after three years, there has still been no appreciable improvement in the situation in Turkey.

I am, in any case, of the opinion that the European Union must remain a European project and that, therefore, there should be no place within the European Union for a country like Turkey, which is not a European country.

Yesterday, a Member from the Socialist Group in the European Parliament said that he would never accept Turkey being further Islamicised. Well, I hope that he and his group will also come out against the Islamicisation of Europe, although I shall not hold my breath.

Mr President, this report sets out Turkey's progress towards eventual membership of the EU. That is an eventual aim that I support. However, I do have some concerns about Turkey's progress towards membership.

One of my concerns is the gradual erosion of the secular republican ideal and the growth of religion in politics. I am also worried about some of the human rights abuses in Turkey that have been documented and some of the actions that have been taken against minority communities. We need to see action over some of those areas before we can consider Turkish membership.

However, it is also important for us to be honest with Turkey, and to say clearly and unambiguously that, if it fulfils all the conditions that other Member States have fulfilled, then it has the right to join. It is not right for individual heads of Member States to put unfair and unbalanced obstacles in the path of Turkish membership. If Turkey fulfils the conditions, then it has the right to join, and should be permitted to do so. We need an EU which is wider and not deeper.

(EL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on Turkey due to the positive elements for Cyprus in paragraphs 32 and 40, even though I disagree with the content of Amendments 9 and 10.

Amendment 9 introduces an unacceptable position on - albeit temporary - derogations from the principles on which the European Union is founded, including the four fundamental freedoms. This has been done at a time when negotiations are being held between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus, who are the only people who can decide on the matter.

Amendment 10 contradicts the fact that the CFSP is part of the Community aquis for the EU and the Member States, and third countries cannot be given carte blanche to participate in planning and decision-making procedures.

(HU) For the last three years, Macedonia has been a candidate country for EU membership. In spite of this, accession negotiations have not yet begun. Unless the European Union promptly takes decisive steps, the resulting loss of credibility could have destabilising consequences for the region. Macedonia has progressed a great deal in the last few years, achieving good economic results, moving closer to a functioning market economy and showing success in the field of lawmaking. Consensus has been reached among government and the opposition, civil society and public opinion in order to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria as soon as possible. Coexistence between national and ethnic communities has also been well organised. Greece's stubborn obstruction of the start of negotiations for accession is beyond comprehension. The naming of the country must not be an obstacle! Bilateral talks about the name can be held simultaneously. I support the report because it is an important message to the Macedonian people and will give a decisive impetus to starting genuine negotiations before the end of this year. Thank you very much.

(DE) Mr President, this report sends an important signal to a country that is playing a stabilising role, has exemplary legislation on minorities, has a broad government majority in which all nationalities are represented and has taken a clear European course under the leadership of Prime Minister Gruevski. I therefore gladly voted in favour of this report, and I believe that we should emphasise two points in particular: firstly, we want the Council and the Commission to tell us this year when accession negotiations are to begin and, secondly, we will not tolerate any bilateral troublemaking, and definitely not with regard to this bizarre name issue. The country is called Macedonia, whether that suits some people or not, and we must finally start to smooth this country's way towards Europe.

(NL) Mr President, I voted against Mr Meijer's report because I, and my party, are of the opinion that enlargement must be brought to a halt for an indeterminate period after the accession of Croatia. European citizens want nothing to do with any further enlargement in the short or medium term, and certainly nothing to do with an enlargement to include Turkey, of course. Yet it is time that this Parliament listened, for once, to those it is supposed to represent.

That being the case, I also oppose the commencement of accession negotiations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which this Parliament is calling for, as well as the granting of a European perspective to the entire Western Balkans. Some of these countries or entities are Islamic through and through and, as far as I am concerned, should not be allowed to join the European Union.

Mr President, I was very pleased with the vote today.

I visited Macedonia very recently, on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, set up by Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister of my country, and saw a country with vibrant political parties and a fascinating tax policy, with flat taxes on both corporation and income tax, and a growing economy. It is a country that this coming month is going to have free, fair and honest elections - probably better than the ones we recently had in the UK, with postal votes. Such a country should be allowed to join the European Union, should it choose to, based on its own self-determination - which is why my previous colleagues should possibly reflect on this matter.

Today we have seen a significant change because, up until this point, Greek Members of this House have been making themselves look completely absurd, and have been placed in a position of ridicule because of their arguments about the name of this country, which is the Republic of Macedonia.

Mr President, the problem with speaking after Mr Heaton Harris is that he has made many of the same points I wanted to make on this issue. It seems to me blatantly absurd that Greece should continue to pursue this long-standing and, frankly, ridiculous tirade against the name of Macedonia. I have some beautiful counties in my constituency - Durham, Northumberland - and it really does not bother me too much if another Member State wishes to give itself the names of those fantastic counties.

For the accession negotiations to be held up not because of an ethnic dispute or a democratic dispute or a human rights dispute but purely because the country decides to name itself Macedonia, is patently ridiculous. I hope that the Greek Members will see the sense of this. I hope that Macedonia will be judged on free criteria that apply to everybody else and, if they fulfil those criteria, if they are a democratic, secular state, if they pursue the right human rights policies then, like all other Member States, they should have the right to join and not be subject to a ridiculous veto by Greece purely on the grounds of the name.

Mr President, the Tamil Tigers have been designated a terrorist group by the EU and by the United States, but thankfully it looks as though their bloodthirsty campaign for an independent Tamil homeland may now be coming to an end. Sri Lanka deserves to live in peace, as we in Europe do.

Like other colleagues in this House, I support a unitary state for Sri Lanka. I think it is also appropriate to place on record that I also think it is probably a good idea, within that unitary state, to grant the Tamils a degree of autonomy. I do not support the Tigers' campaign of violence, and I consider it actually essential that the Sri Lankan army be permitted to continue their military campaign against the Tamil Tigers.

However, it is also appropriate to recognise that there is a humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka at the moment, and the aid agencies should be allowed access. So perhaps it is appropriate to ask for a cessation of the fighting, whilst aid agencies can get access and whilst civilians are allowed to leave the disputed areas. But after that we have to allow the army to continue their campaign.

Mr President, the growth of a corpus of international jurisprudence not anchored in any elected national legislature is one of the most alarming developments of our age. We are reversing not just 300 years of legal understanding of territorial responsibility, that is, that a crime is the responsibility of the territory where it is committed; we are also going back to the pre-modern idea that people who decide on laws should not be accountable to the people who live under them, but rather only to their own consciences.

It might seem very reasonable that, if a man like Milošević or a man like Karadžić is not receiving justice in his own country, we need to do something about it. But the objection to authoritarians like Milošević is precisely that they vitiated the democracy of their country and set themselves up as being above the law. If we replicate that problem internationally, we drag ourselves down to his level, as we did with the farce of a trial we had in The Hague, where for six years we had 27 changes of legal procedure, imposition of counsel and, ultimately, no conviction.

I am not in favour of Mr Milošević: he was a baleful and wicked Communist. But bad men deserve justice - bad men, especially, deserve justice - and when they do not get it, it is the rest of us who are diminished.

Mr President, we all know how important water is and in the developing world in particular, where access to water is very difficult, it is young girls and women who suffer the most. Their educational prospects are hugely diminished because they are the water-bearers, if you like. I saw this in India on a delegation visit and it is very important that we invest more in water management and make sure that it does not become an impediment to the educational progress of young girls and women.

I particularly welcome the vote on paragraph 2, which declares that water is assumed as a public good and should be under public control regardless of how it is managed. It is a precious resource and it is there for the good of the public, not for individual control or profit.

Mr President, I, too, am very supportive of our motion on the resolution of water and welcome our vote on paragraph 2, where we strongly declared that water is a public good and should be under public control. I personally strongly oppose the privatisation of water.

We have seen in recent times how the relentless pursuit of profit has brought the global economy to its knees. We certainly do not want to see the same thing happening where water is concerned. In order to ensure water quality and ongoing improvements in the distribution system, there needs to be continued investment in the transition system. There is no incentive for those in the private sector to do this because, of course, the temptation is simply to increase the price to the consumer, rather than invest in upgrading the transmission system. I have seen this happen in my own county of Sligo, where certain sectors of the community will end up paying more for their water than their fair share because there is simply a lack of investment by the private sector in the transmission system.

Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution and report, but I have some concerns. This morning, the Commission acknowledged that we do not know where the WTO is heading at this point, and therefore how it knits in with the strategic partnership.

We cannot allow a situation where either the strategic partnership arrangement - or indeed a world trade agreement - has a negative impact on Europe's food security concerns. I reiterate the issue around food production standards, which are higher in the European Union. We penalise our producers where they do not meet those standards. We cannot allow a situation where we bring in food from third countries - Brazil or elsewhere - which does not meet our production standards and which results in very unfair competition for producers of food and agricultural commodities within the European Union.

(NL) Mr President, of course a strategic partnership between the European Union and Mexico, and also, in fact, countries like Brazil, is a good thing and something that is in the interests of the EU. The report itself is framed in a largely balanced way, but what I would say is not in the interests of Europe - and this is something that will also give rise to a whole range of questions amongst the general public - is the provision in the report that calls for the conclusion of a mutual agreement on an immigration policy. This does not bode well and it is also the reason why I chose to abstain in the vote on this report.

- (SK) I have also voted for the resolution on the situation in Tibet on the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising because the Chinese authorities have tightened the security in Tibet recently and have forbidden journalists and foreigners from entering the region.

Today's debate in the European Parliament broadcasts the message that we are extremely concerned about the situation in Tibet, particularly the suffering and reprisals against innocent inhabitants.

I call on the Council to set up a Truth Committee in accordance with the resolution, with the aim of finding out what really happened in the negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

I call on the Chinese Government to release immediately all persons who have been arrested merely for participating in a peaceful protest.

(IT) Mr President, I take the floor to express my satisfaction at the widespread support the Assembly has given to the motion that we have put forward with Mr Pannella and Mr Onyskiewicz, The motion does something different from what we heard from Mrs FerreroWaldner today; that is, it takes sides: the side of the search for truth, for the real reasons why talks broke down between the Chinese and the Tibetans, rather than looking at this from a neutral standpoint, as the Commission and the Council unfortunately continue to do, as if it were enough for us to simply hope for dialogue between two parties.

I would like to stress that the behaviour of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament seems to me to be particularly hard to understand; first they were opposed to the debate, then they were opposed to my tabling a resolution, and then they actually voted against it, with Mr Ford offering a political explanation that we are passing too many resolutions on Tibet. Well, perhaps the party and Mr Ford do not understand - or else they understand all too well - that much more is at stake here; the freedom and democracy of more than a billion Chinese citizens as well as the Tibetan people.

(NL) Mr President, it goes without saying that I voted in favour of this resolution; although, of course, we cannot allow ourselves to think that this ultimately innocuous resolution will make much impression on the totalitarian communist regime in China, with whom we nonetheless are so happy to trade.

We would make more impact on the regime if this Parliament and the Council had the courage to state that the occupation and subsequent annexation of Tibet were contraventions of international law and, as such, cannot be recognised by the European Union. We must keep ramming home the message that Tibet must be an independent state and not an autonomous province of China and that a genocide and an ethnocide have been and are being carried out in Tibet.

Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes

Explanations of vote (continuation) 

Mr President, Tibetans, like all nations, have the aspiration to live under their own laws and their own people, and, in denying their national aspirations, the Chinese Government uses a series of arguments about abolishing feudalism and overcoming serfdom and superstition.

Ultimately, it is all a version of what Engels called 'false consciousness': they believe that the Tibetans do not really understand the issue and, therefore, should not be allowed full democracy.

I would just appeal to Members of this House to consider the irony of the similarity between that argument and the one that was trotted out in the aftermath of the French, Dutch and Irish 'no' votes. In this Chamber again, we kept on hearing that people had not properly understood the question, that they had really been voting on something else - against Mr Chirac, or against Turkish accession, or against Anglo-Saxon liberalism - and that they had not understood the issue and that they needed better information.

I believe that people, whether in Tibet or in the nations of the European Union, do have an understanding of their wishes and desires, and they should be allowed to express that through the ballot box. I know I am getting as tedious as Cato the Elder, but he was eventually listened to, and I will repeat, as I have in every speech, that we should have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est!

Written explanations of vote

Mr President, Italy is suffering a real brain drain. This exodus of researchers, year on year, is becoming a definite trend. The Nobel Prize winner for medicine, Renato Dulbecco, said that those who want to carry out research are leaving as they have done in the past, and for the same reasons. They leave because there are no career prospects, suitable salaries or funds for research, and the doors to research centres are barred because, as well as lacking funds, they lack the organisation to receive new groups and develop new ideas.

Italian researchers are leaving due to the absence of infrastructure, above all in the field of science and technology, the lack of funding, the laughable salaries and a selection system that discourages the best candidates and rewards recommendations. They are leaving and they are complaining, because the basic preparation provided by our universities is excellent. All the rest is lacking, however.

I agree that Member States need to ensure open, transparent, competition-based recruitment of researchers based on scientific merit. Merit should be measured in terms of scientific excellence and scientific production (publications). However, other important aspects should also count as merits in a researcher's career: innovation capacity, research management skills, training and supervision skills and collaboration with industry.

I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution because I agree with the idea that Europe needs more researchers. This report is very important because, amongst other things, it urges Member States to improve existing career opportunities for young researchers, for example, through better funding and promotion based on achievements, such as innovation capacity, training periods in companies etc., rather than on seniority.

in writing. - Deputy Locatelli's report is part of the review of the Lisbon Strategy to make Europe's economy the most competitive in the world by 2010, and central to this is the position of researchers in Europe. Four priority areas were identified where progress is essential namely

Open Recruitment and Portability of Grants,

Social Security and Pensions,

Attractive Employment and Working Conditions and

Training and Skills of researchers;

These areas deal with mobility, transparency, publicity and support to researchers and potential researchers. Tying education, innovation and research into a coherent supportive policy is a vital part of a functioning knowledge economy. Our efforts to combat 'brain drain' and establish a 'brain network' will be enhanced by proposals which minimise bureaucratic obstacles and increase social security support for researchers. As Rapporteur on EU ETS I am only too well aware of the critical role of research and the need to nurture the talent and minds available to solve the considerable climate challenges with which we are faced. I am pleased to acknowledge the introduction of an Innovation Alliance between UCD and TCD in Ireland, which is a fine example of investing in researchers at the beginning of their careers.

Despite current events clearly showing that the neoliberal Lisbon Strategy is one of the instruments responsible for the worsening economic and social situation in the European Union, the report insists on its application, with which we disagree.

However, there are positive aspects in the report, which we support, particularly with regard to meeting the needs of researchers, their rights in terms of working and social security conditions, reunification of families, rights of female researchers and access for young researchers, and the call for increased funding for research and the involvement of a greater number of researchers.

However, it is not clear how the proposed European research strategy will guarantee equal rights in all Member States and universal access for researchers, particularly young researchers, to the European Partnership for Researchers, especially in countries such as Portugal, which is not at the heart of political decision-making in a European Union that is increasingly being managed by the major powers. That is why we abstained from voting on the report.

Mr President, does an academic career depend on mobility? To a certain extent, it does. One could say that mobility, especially in the case of young researchers, can have a significant influence on their future achievements. That is because it facilitates access to new information and allows them to overcome the limitations of the environment in which they have been educated. However, that is not all. An academic career begins earlier, in secondary school, where youngsters build the basis of their general knowledge, especially in maths and science.

The next stage involves higher education and graduate and doctoral studies. It is, and here I speak on the basis of my own experience, at the initial stage of a young person's academic career, that mobility, easy access to research facilities and an interesting and promising topic pursued under the supervision of outstanding researchers is most important to these young people, more so than their future retirement pension.

Thus, the most important step towards obtaining scientific research staff involves preparing the right conditions for this kind of study, within the framework of the European Technological Institute or the European Research Infrastructure, for example, including the support provided by PhD grants that are open to EU students and students from third countries, and which are widely publicised. The conditions we provide, in terms of family and professional stability, will determine whether young people, once they obtain their doctorates, go into industry or academic institutions, and whether they go back to their home countries or travel further.

When a student is looking towards a career in research, physical mobility must be promoted as an educational experience which cannot be replaced by virtual mobility. We must ensure that the most brilliant minds receive sufficient finances and human resources to support them. For some, this might mean having access to resources beyond the borders of their country of origin.

The benefits (for example, value added) associated with the mobility of students, lecturers and researchers must be promoted and publicised. Administrative and structural barriers must be removed. Scholarships and loans should be available to students and researchers, along with other incentive measures for both individuals and institutions.

The globalisation policy must take into account the following factors: the vital importance of researchers with international experience; real linguistic opportunities; the need to offer all students going to be future researchers the chance to obtain a number of foreign language credits, irrespective of their specialist field; good quality; and information telling them about the opportunities for study and research abroad.

in writing. - (EL) The report on a European partnership for researchers seeks to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU in relation to the other imperialist centres, limit the 'drain' of researchers and attract researchers from developing countries.

It promotes the free movement of researchers between states, the public and private sectors, companies, research centres and universities, greater cohesion between the private and public sectors in the field of research, the absolute subjugation of science to the market's temporary technological requirements and the orientation of researchers towards applied research, recognising previous experience as a corporate researcher as a formal qualification.

The introduction of 'research forms' in order to select researchers from a scientific institution or university in another Member State and the mobility of researchers and senior company executives will help big business to select the crème de la crème of researchers and staff its companies on terms which will boost its profitability (flexible terms of employment, unpaid work, exemption from insurance contributions). These arrangements also encompass PhD students, who carry out the lion's share of research activities.

We voted against the report, because researchers must work under stable terms of employment, in institutions which are not competing for 'predominance', but which cooperate in order to develop science and serve modern grassroots requirements, not the plutocracy and the profits of big business.

To help make up for the lack of research staff, it is necessary to facilitate the return of European scientists who work outside the European Union and also facilitate the entry of scientists from third countries who want to work in the EU.

Women continue to be under-represented in most areas of science and technology and in positions of responsibility. It is therefore important, in my view, to call on the Member States to ensure a better gender balance in the bodies responsible for hiring and promoting research staff. It is essential to make the selection and promotion processes open and transparent.

To create a single employment market for researchers, it is also important to define and establish a single European career model in the field of research, and also to introduce an integrated system for information on offers of employment and trainee contracts in the field of research throughout the EU.

With regard to improving mobility, I would like to point out that, to facilitate exchanges with men and women scientists from third countries, including those with which there is already substantial scientific cooperation, as may be the case with certain Latin American countries, it is crucial to introduce a special, faster and less bureaucratic visa policy.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mrs Locatelli's report on a European partnership for researchers. As a university lecturer, I understand that Europe needs more researchers in order to improve its productivity and competitiveness, especially in light of competition from other large economies at world level such as the United States and Japan, as well as other developing economies like India and China. For this reason, therefore, I agree with the rapporteur's call for Member States to ensure open, transparent, competition-based recruitment of researchers based on scientific merit.

Mr President, I voted in favour.

New technologies have now transformed our lives, and leisure activities are by no means excluded from this process.

Video games are now the favourite recreational activity of young people in Europe and beyond. Many video games are in fact aimed at adults, with content that is in many cases unsuitable for children.

Taking account, therefore, of the Commission Communication of 22 April 2008 on the protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games, there is an urgent need to regulate labelling and use measures such as providing a 'red button' or the PEGI online system, included in the European Safer Internet programme.

It is also important for Member States to continue to work in close collaboration to promote the protection of children and to help the industry to develop systems that serve this purpose.

We must not overlook the fact that to achieve this objective we also need to gain the support of manufacturers and above all parents, who are the primary instruments of control within the family.

in writing. - I voted in favour of the Manders report on the protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games. I did so with some slight reluctance. The danger is that a justifiable concern in some cases turns into a 'moral panic' that is wilfully disproportionate to the extent of the problem. I am not necessarily committed to moving further than we have done so already.

in writing. - (SV) This report contains a whole series of requirements on what Member States are to do to limit the harmful use of video games: schools should inform children and parents of the advantages and disadvantages of video games; parents should take measures to avoid negative consequences when their children play video games; Member States should explore the merit of introducing a 'red button' to install on game devices and computers to block access to certain games; national information campaigns for consumers should be conducted; owners of Internet cafes should prevent children from playing games that are intended for adults; a special pan-European code of conduct for retailers and producers of video games should be introduced; and Member States should introduce civil and criminal legislation on the retailing of violent television, video and computer games.

Video games for minors are associated with many disturbing cultural and social problems. However, it is precisely for this reason that Member States need to arrive at solutions that suit their own culture and values in order for them to have a democratic basis within the Member States' own populations. Lectures from EU institutions have almost the opposite effect.

Member States' ability to find different ways forward with regard to this issue is also important in order to broaden our experience and knowledge in this field.

For these reasons, I voted against this report in the final vote.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to talk about the video games industry, which has annual revenues of almost EUR 7.3 billion. As video games are becoming more popular both with children and adults, it is important to have a political debate about their regulatory framework. There are some video games which help to develop dexterity and to obtain knowledge essential to life in the 21st century. However, I would like to point out that video games with violent features which are intended for adults can have negative effects, particularly on children.

It is therefore our duty to protect consumers, especially children. Children should not be able to purchase video games that are not intended for their age group. The introduction of the Pan-European Information System on Games, which classifies age, has helped to increase transparency in the purchasing of games for children, but retailers still do not have enough information on the harmful effects of video games on children. At this point it is essential to raise awareness of these negative effects on children and it is necessary to have the cooperation of producers, retailers, consumer organisations, schools and families. Member States must introduce measures that will prevent children from buying video games intended for older age groups. At the same time I welcome the proposal of the European Commission and the Council concerning rules for labelling video games and the creation of a voluntary code of practice for interactive video games that are intended for children.

I voted in favour of Mr Manders's own-initiative report, which focuses particular attention on the topic of video games.

The video games market is a fast-growing global market. However, video games are no longer targeted only at children as an ever-increasing number of them are designed specially for adults. This is precisely why the content of many games is unsuitable and may even be harmful to our children.

It is true that video games can be used for educational purposes, but only on the condition that they are used according to their intended purpose for each age group. For this reason, we must pay particular attention to the PEGI system for rating games. The PEGI online version provides assistance to parents and minors, offering both tips on how to protect minors and miscellaneous information about online games.

The report also emphasises the need for Member States to ensure that adequate control measures are implemented with regard to online purchases of video games, thereby preventing minors from accessing games with content which is not appropriate for their age, intended for adults or another age group. The rapporteur also suggests developing a 'red button' which offers parents the opportunity to disable a game with content not appropriate for the child's age or restrict minors' access between certain hours.

Despite warnings from experts, parents underestimate the effect of computer games on the development of their children's personalities. Meanwhile children and young people are exposed for hours at a time to the effects of aggressive or sexual content in computer games. Children imitate the games which can lead to tragic results. The street criminals of the future will be just one outcome of the influence of aggressive games on behaviour, psychology and late-manifesting habits.

I am therefore promoting the creation of a code of ethics for retailers and producers of video games.

In contrast to the rapporteur, of course, I believe that we need not only voluntary but also binding common rules in the EU. Therefore, with this reservation, I have voted for the report.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Manders report on the protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games. I believe that playing video games is very important for educational reasons. There is, nonetheless, a huge amount of software that is aimed at adults and is characterised by an almost gratuitous use of violence. For this reason we must provide adequate protection for children, including by preventing them from gaining access to potentially harmful content that is aimed at a different age group. Lastly, I believe that standardising the labelling of video games will lead to a better understanding of labelling systems, while at the same time promoting the effective operation of the internal market.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour.

Israel is an important partner for the European Union in the Middle East and in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

A Community-level aviation agreement would establish a level playing field for all Community and Israeli air carriers and would allow passengers in all Member States to benefit from similar conditions and increased competition between air carriers. That may lead to more, cheaper and better air services between the EU and Israel.

It is for the EU to ensure the implementation of common standards compatible with European legislation in its relations with the Mediterranean partners. This is only possible through a comprehensive agreement negotiated at Community level which provides for regulatory cooperation or, as a minimum, mutual recognition of aviation standards and procedures.

I therefore regard the comprehensive negotiation with Israel as a fundamental step towards further development of EU-Israeli aviation relations and the extension of the Common Aviation Area in the Euromed Area. The conclusion of the agreement will result in increasing opportunities of economic and social development for the air carriers and passengers as well.

in writing. - I do not understand how a Parliament that has called for the lifting of Israel's economic blockade of Gaza can today have voted in favour of a report intended to increase our cooperation with that country.

Last Tuesday was a fairly typical day at the Gaza crossings. Israel allowed through a limited amount of food, some hygiene products, some cooking oil, and some heavy diesel fuel, in all a total of 110 truckloads - although UNRWA tells us that the Gaza Strip needs 500 truckloads of supplies each day.

No writing paper for the schools was allowed through, no clothing, no furniture, no electrical equipment, and no materials for reconstruction. Gaza has been bombed to bits and Israel is not allowing it to be rebuilt. The misery continues.

Our President has visited, Javier Solana has visited, national MPs have visited, MEPs have visited, even Tony Blair has visited. All have called for an end to the suffering, yet Israel has changed nothing.

This was not the time for us to give our support to this report.

in writing. - I voted against this Report which seeks to establish a common aviation area with Israel. Despite claims to the contrary, this is not simply a technical Report. Rather, the EU, as Israel's largest trading partner, entering into a Common Aviation Agreement will clearly yield rich commercial reward to Israel.

However, given recent events in Gaza; involving the brutal and indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, and, the levelling of Gazan infrastructure, effectively obliterating billions in European development aid; In the context of the decision by the European Parliament last December to defer the upgrading of EU relations with Israel; and considering the continuing disregard for UN resolutions and the extension of settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem; and further considering my own recent visit to Gaza where I saw first hand that Israel simply hasn't lifted the siege of Gaza to allow crucial humanitarian aid to pass;

I regard it as wholly inappropriate for Parliament to approve this agreement. The special trade agreement with Israel should be suspended until it complies with Human Rights norms and engages in constructive and substantive negotiations with its neighbours to implement the Two-State solution to the conflict.

in writing. - I abstained on the final vote on the EC-Israel aviation agreement as a mark of protest with regard to the ongoing crisis in Palestine. I believe that it is inappropriate to upgrade relations with Israel until such time as it displays concerted efforts to alleviate the suffering of Palestinian residents and engages in sustained political dialogue to reach a two-state solution to the region's problems.

in writing. - (EL) We consider it unacceptable to debate and for the European Parliament to propose agreement with Israel on the creation of a Common Aviation Area between the EU and Israel while the slaughter of the Palestinian people in the murderous war unleashed against it by the Israeli Government in the Gaza Strip is still fresh.

The proposal for such an agreement confirms the criminal responsibility of the EU which, with its hypocritical stance of sitting on the fence, is basically rewarding and strengthening Israel and the new war which it has unleashed and which has caused a huge humanitarian disaster among the Palestinian people, the death of more than 1 300 Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians, children and women, injury to over 5 000 people and the total destruction of civil infrastructures in Gaza, including schools and the UN premises.

It also supports Israel's intention to flatten dozens of houses in East Jerusalem, uprooting more than 1 000 Palestinians in yet another bid to evict the Palestinian people from Jerusalem and making it even harder to find a solution to the Middle East.

Actions such as this give overall support to the imperialist policy in the area, which forms part of the imperialist designs of the EU, the United States and NATO in the Middle East in general. However, the people are strengthening their solidarity and their fight at the side of the Palestinian people for an independent, territorially united Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I have voted in favour of my report on developing a Common Aviation Area with Israel. It would be superfluous for me to repeat here the reasons that led to my vote of approval. It goes without saying that these reasons are to be found in the report itself.

in writing. - I voted against because due to the precarious nature of the stocks there should be a ban on the fishing of bluefin tuna until the stocks recover.

in writing. - I strongly support this Resolution which calls for an immediate ceasefire by the Sri Lankan army and the LTTE in order to allow the civilian population to leave the combat zone. It condemns all acts of violence and intimidation which are preventing civilians from leaving the conflict area. It further condemns the attacks on civilians as documented by the International Crisis Group. Both sides must respect international humanitarian law and protect and assist the civilian population in the combat zone, as well as in the safe zone. The European Parliament is also concerned about reports of serious overcrowding and poor conditions in the refugee camps established by the Sri Lankan Government. We have demanded that international and national humanitarian organisations, as well as journalists, be granted full and unhindered access to the combat zone and to the refugee camps and we call on the Sri Lankan Government to cooperate with countries and aid organisations that are willing and able to evacuate civilians.

in writing. - I welcome today's resolution on Sri Lanka. What is happening in the north of the country is a tragedy, largely hidden from the eyes of the world, as humanitarian organisations and journalists have not been freely allowed in to see what is happening but have to rely largely on partisan information. Even before the Government's military action, it has been impossible for there to be an open debate, due to press and political harassment.

There can be no long-term military solution to the conflict but only a political solution which recognises the rights of all people on the island. There must be an immediate ceasefire on both sides to relieve the enormous human suffering. If the interests of the Tamil people come first, as both sides claim, why is this continuing suffering necessary? What purpose does it serve in finding a long-term solution? Peace talks must involve all parties. The channels will be open for dialogue, if that is what both parties want. But there must be an end to violence and oppression and active implementation of human rights instruments and the rule of law if people are to have any confidence in the outcome. The international community stands ready to assist, both in the relief of the immediate suffering and in the long term.

On 9 September 2006, 5 February 2009 and last night we held debates in this House about the permanent and hopeless conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese on the island of Sri Lanka. I participated in all these debates. In so doing, I have always called for us not to take sides in this conflict but for us, instead, to play our part in getting both sides to agree a peace treaty. Under all circumstances such a treaty must deliver a self-governing Tamil region in the north-east of the country.

Last night, Mr Tannock and Mr Van Orden argued for the complete opposite. They make reference to atrocities by the Tamil resistance movement and want to offer all possible support to the Sinhalese Government. This attitude overlooks the fact that both sides make use of unacceptable violence and that it was the government that broke off the peace process established by the Norwegians.

I am pleased that a resolution has been adopted today incorporating most of the amendments tabled by Mr Evans and calling for humanitarian aid, mediation and a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

in writing. - (DE) The Sri Lankan army is acting with the most brutal severity in its war against the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Ealam (LTTE) with absolutely no regard for civilians. Civilians are constantly being killed or wounded in attacks by this army. Hundreds of thousands are confined and many have no access to humanitarian aid. The International Committee of the Red Cross has described it as one of the most catastrophic situations they have ever experienced.

An immediate cessation of all fighting on both sides, that of the Sri Lankan army and that of the LTTE, is needed. All international organisations and governments should demand this.

In the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the British Conservative Mr Tannock, representing the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, gained acceptance for his demand for a 'temporary ceasefire'. This would have supported the brutal war policy of the Sri Lankan government and given clearance for attacks on civilians.

I voted in favour of the resolution, because, thankfully, the majority of the European Parliament, including the PPE-DE Group, did not ultimately follow the inhumane policy of Mr Tannock and the British Conservatives and voted in favour of the demand for an immediate ceasefire.

By placing the LTTE on the EU list of terrorist organisations, the EU positioned itself on one side and gave the LTTE de facto clearance for carrying on the shootings. As a result, the negotiations under way at the time under Norwegian mediation were blown out of the water and could only be continued with great difficulty outside the EU.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I agree with the motion for a resolution on the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka, and therefore voted in favour of its adoption. In my opinion, given the emergency situation of an estimated 170 000 civilians who are trapped in the battle zone between the Sri Lankan army and the forces of the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Ealam (LTTE) without access to the most basic aid, an immediate temporary ceasefire by the Sri Lankan army and the LTTE is needed, in order to allow the civilian population to leave the combat zone. I also believe that national and international humanitarian organisations should be granted access to the combat zone.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour. As the old Indian proverb says, we do not inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children. The agricultural lands of southern Europe are crying out in warning. They are suffering increasing environmental pressure with negative consequences such as disruption of the hydrogeological balance, rising sea levels and consequent soil salinisation, agricultural land loss, a reduction in biodiversity and greater vulnerability to fire, plant disease and animal disease.

It is thus clear that one of the priorities for agriculture must be to draw up a common plan of action, mainly through programmes aimed at preventing the deterioration of and protecting agricultural land.

Approaches to combating soil degradation must include a strategy for soil conservation by focusing greater attention on the maintenance of hydraulic systems used in agriculture and on afforestation programmes. Dryland farming techniques, crop rotation, the use of appropriate genotypes and controlling evapotranspiration are also particularly important.

We must also provide training and refresher programmes for those working in the sector and the general public, with the dual aim of seeking specific solutions and raising user awareness of the need for a more sustainable use of natural resources and the land.

Soil deterioration is a problem which cannot be ignored. I am therefore pleased with the initiative of drafting a report specially devoted to combating this problem. Agriculture offers the best method for halting this phenomenon as long, however, as the pedoclimatic features are respected in the process.

However, as I have also highlighted through the amendments tabled and accepted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I believe that this report must be applicable throughout the whole of the European Union. Unfortunately, climate change and soil deterioration are no longer isolated phenomena and our approach, therefore, must be consistent throughout the whole of the EU, based on the principle of solidarity.

As the rapporteur also emphasises, we not only need to recognise this problem of soil deterioration, but we also have to allocate the necessary financial resources to combat its adverse effects. I am pleased that through the European Economic Recovery Plan EUR 500 million are being earmarked for actions involving adaptation to the new challenges of climate change. However, these are short-term actions. I think that the European Union needs an integrated, financially supported action strategy to prevent and combat the effects of climate change, especially soil deterioration.

I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the challenge of deterioration of agricultural land in southern Europe, because I believe that the common agricultural policy guidelines must include instruments aimed at combating the effects of climate change and protecting the soil.

I must stress the importance of creating a European observatory on drought and reinforcing the EU's coordinated reaction to fires.

The approach taken by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats of rejecting various proposals in this report in order to get its alternative proposal accepted, which we reject, is regrettable. Despite various inadequacies, we agree with many aspects contained in the tabled report, in particular that agriculture is the best means of preventing soil deterioration and requires a reasoned strategy to maintain this activity. We also regard as vital the contribution made by the agricultural population to combating desertification and the pivotal role played by producers in preserving plant cover in regions affected by persistent drought. We also agree with the statement on the negative contribution of intensive agriculture, promoted to a large extent by agro-industry, to soil erosion, rendering it non-productive.

However, we believe that the report should have gone further in attributing responsibility to the EU's agricultural policies and governments, such as those in Portugal, because it is these policies that have encouraged over-exploitation of soil and water and caused environmental damage. We still believe that these problems can be overcome by breaking with these agricultural policies. We support the coupling of agricultural aid to production, allowing the agri-foodstuffs production of countries such as Portugal to grow and, in general, allowing its primary sector to modernise.

in writing. - (SV) This report, which does not form part of any legislative process, recommends, among other things, an EU forestry policy, a specific EU fund to finance preventive actions in connection with climate change and an EU-funded observatory for drought and the like.

We believe that the environmental responsibility for agricultural land must rest, first and foremost, with the Member States. There is no reason to declare the Member States to be incapacitated in this way in this area.

As usual, the June List observes that, in this situation, it is fortunate that the European Parliament does not have powers of codecision in respect of the EU's agricultural policy. Otherwise, the EU would fall into the trap of protectionism and of increasing subsidies to various special interests within agriculture.

I have voted against this report.

Climate change is accelerating the processes of soil deterioration and desertification, especially in the Member States in south-east Europe, including Romania. This is the reason why these phenomena must be dealt with in a coordinated manner, through consistently reviewing agricultural policies and exchanging experiences and good practice between Member States, under the coordination of the European Commission.

I firmly believe that there are numerous examples showing effective management of soil and water and the use of resistant crops which can regenerate the soil. There are specialist research institutes in this field, including one actually located in the county which I represent in Romania, Dolj. Sharing these experiences and extending their application to the areas affected by desertification can result in damaged lands being restored to agricultural use and, consequently, in stimulating production. The pilot project proposed for the 2009 Community budget is, in fact, an opportunity to do this. I support the rapporteur's proposal to set up a European Centre for Drought Monitoring.

I call on the European Commission to deal with this issue with the utmost responsibility as part of the CAP reform and to provide Member States with an effective set of financial instruments which support the fight against desertification in order to ensure sustainable agriculture and food security for Europe's citizens.

I welcome the report from our fellow Member, dealing with a subject which is extremely important from a social and economic perspective. Soil deterioration not only affects the lives of people living in the relevant regions, but also the potential for economic development. In Romania we have seen in recent years the damage which can be caused by this phenomenon: ruined houses and people left without the basic necessities to ensure their subsistence, a fall in agricultural production of up to 30-40% and a southern region at risk of desertification.

The economic impact of this phenomenon is indisputable: a fall in the incomes of citizens who live in the affected regions, along with a rise in food prices. This is the reason why the European Union has the obligation, based on the principle of solidarity, to contribute to the fight against this phenomenon and to supporting those affected by it. As I also suggested in written declaration 0021/2009, which I tabled with colleagues of mine, the EU needs a special financial mechanism to prevent and combat the effects of climate change. This must be a flexible financial mechanism to help release funds in the shortest time possible, supported by a medium- and long-term strategy and action plans which take account of the varied impact of climate change on the EU's regions.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I welcome Mr Aita's report on the challenge of deterioration of agricultural land in the EU and the response through EU agricultural policy instruments.

Indeed, I approve of the report's aim, which is to set out pointers, ideas and practical proposals for consideration in due course with a view to formulating a common strategy for the recovery, conservation and improvement of agricultural soils. Given the current crisis, it should be pointed out that soil protection is a means of safeguarding our production potential, which is of political and strategic importance, of maintaining an import-export balance and of ensuring a degree of autonomy and negotiating leeway in multilateral forums.

in writing. - It is important in this time of financial and economic crisis that we maintain and strengthen workers' rights to ensure that the costs of the crisis do not fall on those least able to bear it. It would be all too easy for this to happen unless we ensure that the balance of forces is not allowed to shift to favour employers over employees. I therefore support this resolution. I only wish it were stronger.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on employees' participation in companies with a European statute. We also need to facilitate constructive dialogue between institutions and employees in light of the recent rulings of the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, I agree with the point expressing the need for the Commission to assess crossborder problems with regard to corporate governance, tax law and employees' financial participation in shareholding programmes related to this consultation.

I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution because I support this initiative which calls on Member States to devise cooperation mechanisms aimed at preventing the detrimental effects on families, especially children, of living apart from their parents and of the distances between them.

in writing. - (FR) This text on migrant children left behind in the country of origin describes a poignant situation of children left to their own devices or with more or less well-intentioned third parties, threatened with ill-treatment or subject to psychological problems or problems with their education, socialisation and so on.

This proves that immigration is a human drama which creates inhuman situations.

Everything must be done to put this right, to promote the unity of families in familiar cultural and social environments.

In a word, and this is the only solution, everything must be done to reverse the immigration flows, to dissuade those who are tempted to leave their country, to promote development and ensure that families are reunited only in the countries of origin.

This is how you should use the resources that you have dedicated to 'importing' or acclimatising to Europe the people who are attracted by the mirages that you maintain.

in writing. - (FR) It is a known fact that Europe wants to take care of everything and be everywhere. With this resolution on migrant children left behind in the country of origin, the European Parliament has reached the height of madness with proposals which are not only demagogic, but also aim at turning the Member States into the guilty parties.

We are told that the Union has paid insufficient attention to the phenomenon of children left behind in their countries when their parents migrate. The Member States should implement measures aimed at improving the situation of these children left behind and guarantee them normal development, in terms of their education and social life. It is like being in a dream! After the measures encouraging the reuniting of families in the receiving countries and right of abode for the families themselves, now it is time for measures for the children who do not migrate.

The problem of immigration will not be solved like this. The logic is wrong. It is not the children who stay behind who should be helped; it is the families and the entire populations from these countries who should be helped and encouraged to stay at home.

in writing. - (SV) As the barriers across borders within the EU disappear, the opportunities to seek work in an EU Member State other than one's own increase. This is a very positive development, which gives people the chance to do something themselves to improve their own lives and those of their families.

The rapporteur admits this, but nevertheless chooses stubbornly to concentrate on the negative aspects that the absence of a parent seeking an income abroad can entail.

I feel that it is unreasonable for the European Parliament to direct the individual Member States' social and education policy in the intrusive way proposed. We need to show our respect for, and trust in, the Member States and their democratically elected assemblies to look after their people and their people's welfare by themselves.

I have therefore voted against this resolution.

I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution to improve the situation of children left behind in the country of origin by their parents who have gone to work abroad.

However, I would like to emphasise that it is not enough to make a commitment in this respect. We need concrete measures to ensure these children's normal development in terms of health, education and social life, and guarantee their successful integration into society and, later on, into the labour market.

For example, national authorities must develop a series of educational programs specifically to deal with this problem. Not only children should benefit from programmes of this type, but their migrant parents too. The latter must also be involved in information and empowerment programmes which tell them about the adverse effects that going to work abroad has on family life, especially on their children.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, following Mr Andersson's oral question, I will vote in favour of the motion for a resolution on migrant children. Indeed, labour migration has steadily increased over the past decades, and most of the world's migrants - 64 million - reside in Europe. Furthermore, I believe that migration can have a positive impact on households in the sending country, because through remittances and other channels it reduces poverty and increases investment in human capital. I therefore agree that we must ask Member States to take steps to improve the situation of the children left by their parents in the country of origin and ensure their normal development in terms of education and social life.

I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on migrant children left behind in the country of origin as I feel that the situation of these children must be significantly improved. Every child has the right to a complete family and an education so that they can develop harmoniously. I feel that we must support these children as they represent the future of Europe and the European Union.

in writing. - We have to do all we can to help children of immigrants fulfil their potential and flourish in their new environment.

in writing. - (SV) The June List is very positively disposed towards future enlargements of the European Union. However, it is of the utmost importance that the candidate countries de facto meet the requirements laid down and are thereby fully democratic states governed by the rule of law on accession. The Copenhagen criteria must be met, the legislation that we agree on must not only be introduced but also upheld in practice and legal certainty must be guaranteed.

The three countries that we have discussed today certainly have the potential to be Member States in the future, but it is important that we do not ease up on the requirements. Experience shows that progress is most rapid before membership negotiations are initiated and goes more slowly during the negotiations, particularly if these negotiations are perceived to be heading towards a successful outcome.

I voted for the resolution on the Croatia progress report for 2008 and I am delighted that this resolution has been adopted in the EP by a large majority.

The resolution praises the fine results achieved by Croatia in 2008 in passing laws and carrying out the reforms necessary for obtaining EU membership. These results must be constantly reinforced through the adoption and implementation of reforms.

I believe that the border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia will be successfully resolved thanks to the personal involvement of Commissioner Rehn, to the satisfaction of both sides, so that rapid progress can be made in the negotiation procedure for accession. Of course, for a successful result it is necessary to have a consensus and in particular the good will of the Governments of Slovenia and Croatia to find a satisfying and sustainable solution.

And we must not consider only Croatia in this resolution. We must not forget the pioneering role of Slovenia which to a significant extent started the pro-European process in the Balkans. Slovenia was the first Balkan country to join the EU and the Schengen area, it has become a member of the Eurozone and it is an example and an inspiration to other Balkan countries.

I believe that the accession talks with Croatia will be completed by the end of 2009.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I do not agree with the motion for a resolution on the progress made by Croatia, and have therefore voted against it. As I have said many times before this House, I do not believe that Croatia has made sufficient progress. Let them give back what they stole from our Istrian and Dalmatian refugees from 1947 onwards. Then, and only then, will we be able to discuss Croatia's accession to the European Union. The dispute over the property of those expelled from Istria, Rijeka and Dalmatia, if not definitively settled, will in fact make dialogue between the two peoples impossible.

I value all efforts, including action taken by both Croatia itself and by the European Union, to strengthen existing relations between the two partners. I would encourage further cooperation and the joint resolution of existing problems, particularly in view of the fact that the Croatian Government wants to address both the internal and bilateral problems it currently faces. In the spirit of European solidarity, without any differences or barriers, we should assist them in this endeavour.

I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on Turkey's progress report 2008. Given the slowdown in Turkey's reform process, the Turkish Government must prove its political will to continue the reform process to which it committed itself in 2005, towards a more democratic and pluralistic society.

in writing. - We favour the accession of Turkey to the European Union given that the country fulfils the Copenhagen criteria and that accession is supported by the Turkish population. We regret, however, that we were not able to vote in favour of the progress report on Turkey voted today. The report unfortunately comprises both serious lacks and misdirected demands. For example, in paragraph 20 unreasonable demands are made of a democratic party. In paragraph 29, Turkey is encouraged to cooperate closely with the IMF, and in paragraph 31 the country is said to be obliged to conclude FTAs with third countries. The report does not make sufficient reference to breaches of human rights or to the critical situation of national minorities, in particular the Kurds. The Armenian genocide is not mentioned at all, which differentiates this report from earlier resolutions from Parliament.

in writing. - (FR) Once again, Parliament, completely hypocritically, has passed a resolution asking the Turkish Government to show its political will to pursue its reforms.

The truth is that you want, at any price, and against the wishes of the peoples of Europe, to continue the negotiations for Turkey's accession to the European Union, despite Turkey's continuing refusal to recognise Cyprus and despite the fact that the democratic reforms are at a standstill.

You should have offered Turkey a privileged partnership, but to do so you would have had to admit that Turkey is not a European state and, thus, has no place in the European Union.

It was high time to respect the opinion of the peoples of Europe, most of whom are strongly opposed to your fateful project and to give up the accession negotiations with Turkey once and for all.

I solemnly remind you that, at a time when the European nations are fighting fundamentalist networks and when, in France, our principle of secularism is challenged by the rise of militant Islamism on our soil, it is particularly dangerous to continue accession negotiations with a nation which is, without doubt, respectable but whose government defends a radical Islam.

in writing. - (FR) Like the previous reports on Turkey, the one by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten does not question the Euro-Brussels dogma that 'Turkey must accede to the European Union'. Thus Mr Sarkozy, once again betraying his election promises, opened two chapters of the accession negotiations while he was presiding over the European institutions.

However, our peoples reject the inclusion of this Asian country with a population that has become 99% Muslim since the Armenian genocide and the disappearance of the other Christian communities. This country is led by an Islamist party and its army is occupying the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the European Union. They also remember that, over the centuries, the Turks have been the main threat to Europe. It was only in the 19th century that the Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians and Serbs cast off the Ottoman yoke.

The stubbornness of the Eurocrats in trying to give Turkey entry to Europe, as with their stubbornness in imposing the Treaty of Lisbon, shows the anti-democratic and anti-European nature of the Europe of Brussels. On 7 June, our peoples will have the chance to express their will to build a new Europe: a Europe of European nations, free and sovereign.

Within this Parliament there are three points of view about the future accession of Turkey to the EU.

The first view, advocated by the former US president George W. Bush, is that accession is very desirable as Turkey can supply a lot of cheap labour and soldiers and is a loyal NATO member.

The second view is that the accession of Turkey will always be undesirable as the country is viewed as Asian, Islamic, too large and too dangerous.

We, and our group, have always supported a third view, which is that Turkey must be able to join the Union if desired. This is important for the many Europeans of Turkish origin.

Before we get to that stage, the country must become a complete democracy, without political prisoners, without a prohibited media and without proscribed political parties. The Kurdish language must be given equal rights in administration, education and the media, the high election threshold for the parliament of 10% must be abolished and the Kurdish south-east must be given autonomy in a decentralised state. The genocide of the Armenians in 1915 must no longer be denied, no more than the Germans can acceptably deny the genocide of the Jews between 1938 and 1945. Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report is much too weak in this regard. For that reason, we are sad to say that we feel we must vote 'no'.

Paragraph 45 of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report contends that the EU's accession negotiations with Turkey should be expanded. The Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has major objections to this. In the VVD's view, Turkey has made too little progress in recent years and there is therefore no reason to speed up negotiations.

The VVD believes, in fact, that Turkey must first adhere to a number of firm commitments. If Turkey has not complied with these by the end of this year, the VVD is of the opinion that the accession negotiations must be put on hold. It is our belief that this is not the time to be sending Turkey positive signals. Instead, it is time for Turkey to send positive signals to the EU.

Despite our major opposition to paragraph 45, the VVD delegation has decided to vote 'yes' on the report as a whole, given that we do agree with the rest of the text.

in writing. - (EL) I voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report as a whole. However, I would like to expressly state that I disagree with and I am not bound by and therefore voted against Amendment 9 to paragraph 40 of the text, which was tabled initially by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and supplemented by the rapporteur. The amendment is worded as follows: 'except for temporary transitional derogations' (referring to temporary transitional derogations from the four fundamental freedoms of the EU) and is attached to the final text. In explaining my vote, I would clarify that it is in no way binding on me and, as such, I do not endorse the amendment in question, because I consider that it is disrupting to the process of finding a democratic and European solution to the Cyprus problem.

I have supported this report, which describes in detail Turkey's relations with the EU and the process required to obtain membership status.

Both I and those I represent strongly support Turkey's candidature for the EU and not only because of the good relations between our countries. We sincerely believe that the EU has a tremendous potential to effect change. As citizens from East European Member States can confirm, acquiring a definite European perspective triggers a radical change in both internal public debate and in a country's foreign policy options.

I strongly believe that once Turkey's membership status becomes a question of 'when' rather than 'if', it may be easier to resolve the tensions which are fuelling the current social polarisation. This is precisely why the EU must give Turkey a clear signal regarding the completion of its accession procedure within a reasonable timeframe, which will provide the fillip required for the reform process and for cooperation on matters of common interest.

On the other hand, this reality does not alter the fact that, until then, the EU expects the Turkish authorities to assume continuously and without hesitation the role of partner and future EU member, including in its relations with relevant players in the Middle East and Eurasia.

As a social democrat, I voted in favour of this report in order to support Turkey in the accession process. I urge the EU Commission and Council to accelerate the negotiation process, which includes opening an Energy chapter, especially in the current climate of the economic crisis and bearing in mind the important role which Turkey can play through its contribution to Europe's energy security.

I also welcome the adoption in May 2008 by the Turkish parliament of the package of employment measures intended to promote employment opportunities for women, young people and the disabled. However, I would like to express concern about the unfavourable state of the labour market, which offers jobs to only 43% of the working population and, especially, about the fall in the general employment rate among women.

I support the requests made to the Turkish Government to continue to implement tangible measures aimed at consolidating the role of women in the political, economic and financial sectors, for example, through using temporary measures to ensure their active involvement in politics.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I have voted against the 2008 progress report on Turkey. The fact is that there are too many unresolved issues for us to claim that significant progress has been made on the accession negotiations, which began almost four years ago. I refer to the situation of the Kurdish population, to capital punishment, which is still in force in Turkey, and to the cultural and religious issues that need to be addressed. Under no circumstances can these be dealt with superficially or lightly.

I welcome the clear majority in favour of the resolution on Turkey. We need to make it clear to the Turkish Government that the standstill in the reform process that has lasted for years has consequences.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press, in particular, have suffered severe setbacks. This is especially evident in the current behaviour of the Turkish Government towards the Doğan Media Group. The ruinous fines being demanded on account of alleged tax evasion are disproportionate and are tantamount to censorship of the media.

No progress has been made with regard to religious freedom, despite the new Law on Foundations. Religious minorities continue to be discriminated against and harassed. I am pleased that my proposal to call on Turkey to retract its plans for the expropriation of the Monastery of St. Gabriel in Tur Abdin has been included in the motion for a resolution.

We are also demanding that Turkey complies with the EU's ecological and environmental standards and respects the rights of the people affected in connection with the dams in the South-East Anatolia Project.

Rather than being on its way to meeting the Copenhagen criteria, Turkey is moving ever further away from our fundamental values. Does the Turkish Government really want to set the Republic on a new democratic foundation? The court procedure against the AK Party and the mysterious Ergenekon proceedings present a picture of a deeply divided society that is neither willing nor able to meet the challenges presented by the European Union. It is therefore time we finally started talking specifically about a privileged partnership between the EU and Turkey.

in writing. - While I support the main thrust of this report, I oppose the lack of balance on the particular question of Cyprus. I strongly oppose Amendments 14 and 15, which are directed exclusively against Turkey on several questions, including the fulfilment of international obligations, and make no equivalent calls for action or engagement on the part of the Greek or Greek Cypriot authorities. During the Committee stage, my amendment rejecting the idea that resolution of the Cyprus question is to be achieved through unilateral action by Turkey was not accepted. I called on the Council - as a preliminary step - to give practical effect to its commitment of 26 April 2004 to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community. Nevertheless, without abandoning my reservations, I voted in favour of the report.

in writing. - (EL) The Greek Communist Party voted against the motion for a resolution on the FYROM. It has repeatedly voted against the integration of the FYROM and other countries into the EU for the same reasons that it is opposed to the integration of Greece.

The motion for a resolution calls for the integration of the FYROM into the EU to be speeded up so that it can be turned from a US/NATO protectorate into a Euro/US/NATO protectorate and quickly annexed to the EU. The New Democracy, PASOK, SYRIZA and LAOS parties agree with this general line, focusing their 'differences' on the question of the name of the FYROM, and have voted on this count against the report, which really is negative as far as the Greek positions are concerned, as it calls on them not to obstruct the integration of the FYROM into the EU.

The Greek Communist Party has voted against all the relevant reports, because it considers that the question of the name comes under the more general imperialist interventions in the Balkans and infighting between the imperialist powers. That is why it has taken a stand on the inviolability of borders and the fact that there are no unredeemed or other claims. There is no Macedonian ethnic minority. The word Macedonia is a geographical term. The New Democracy, PASOK, SYRIZA and LAOS parties, subscribing to the philosophy of the European one-way street, are concealing from the peoples of the Balkans the political expediencies of the EU, which deals with minorities on the basis of its interests.

The Greek Communist Party supports the united, anti-imperialist fight of the peoples of the Balkans and opposition to the US/NATO/EU policy.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I have voted against the motion for a resolution on the progress made by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2008. We have come to the point at which we must decide whether to create a large common market, for which we must of course establish clear rules, or whether we want to create a Europe that is an expression of a single strong and sovereign identity. For this reason, on the basis of the elements listed in the motion for a resolution, which I believe to be insufficient, I oppose the report.

I think that the EU institutions must continue to support the International Criminal Court in The Hague. This court has tried many war criminals but, at the same time, we must also bear in mind the broader significance of its decisions, such as its contribution to the process of reconciliation between the peoples of the Western Balkans.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that some of the indictments or verdicts issued by the ICC in The Hague have been regarded as controversial in different regions of the Western Balkans. Lessons can be drawn from these reactions, which form part of the ICC's legacy. These reactions highlight at the same time the need for an Appeals Chamber as well as an outreach programme.

Let us not forget, however, that many other war criminals have not yet been tried. The EU institutions must support the investigations conducted at national level in the Western Balkan states. The EU Council must set out clear norms for evaluating the performance of the judiciary in the countries in the region after the International Court's term comes to an end.

Those responsible must be duly tried and punished, individually, based on their actions.

Justice must be applied in the same way for everyone.

in writing. - I voted in favour of this report which will ensure that all those who committed War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia will not escape justice. I support this report because it will extend the temporary ICTY which prosecutes those who committed war crimes in the former Yugoslavia by two years, ensuring enough time for the completion of ongoing trials.

I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on water in the light of the Fifth World Water Forum as I believe that we urgently need to devise global policies on water supply and management in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). These provide for the halving by 2015 of the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water.

However, the global financial crisis means that the Member States need to step up their support for the least developed countries, through public development aid and cooperation in adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change.

Not even water can escape the privatising and liberalising zeal of the majority of the European Parliament. The resolution is right when it says, albeit in the conditional, that 'water is a shared resource of mankind and that access to water should constitute a fundamental and universal right' and that 'water is assumed as a public good and should be under public control'. However, what follows is serious and unacceptable. It declares that, while water may be under public control, its management can be handed over 'partly or totally' to the private sector. This means keeping under public control the role of investment in collection and supply infrastructures, while giving the private sector the profitable role, namely the charging of consumers. These experiments have already been conducted in several countries, particularly in Latin America, where prices have grown exponentially and quality has deteriorated.

We also do not agree with agriculture being held responsible, with agro-industry and small farmers being treated equally so that the latter suffer from high water prices. As the capitalist crisis grows, water seems to be a tempting asset which can generate the profit that capital so greatly needs. We continue to believe that water must be kept exclusively as a public good, in terms of both collection and supply.

in writing. - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Berman's resolution for the Fifth World Water Forum. The World Water Forum meets every three years and takes place next week in Istanbul. It is an opportunity to discuss global policy solutions for managing water and water resources and preparing the groundwork for them.

Two years ago, I myself drafted a report on water management in the developing countries for the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. As is evident from Mr Berman's resolution too, poor management is largely the reason why the world's water situation is bad. Support is needed, mainly to increase regional decision making and cooperation.

It is also obvious that the public sector cannot alone come up with the World Bank's estimated USD 49 billion a year (up until 2015) to develop water infrastructures. To address the problems of water supply, a solution could be found to establish the funds needed by means of a partnership agreement between the public and private sectors, especially as state-owned companies are suffering from a dearth of funds and there is no chance of privatisation.

Nor should the importance of research be underestimated in finding a solution to water problems. Adequate monitoring of, and investment in, subterranean water resources are also vital. Like energy, water is becoming more and more a political issue, and there is going to be a massive struggle to ensure access to it. There is an obvious need to make it a political priority before it is too late.

I voted against this resolution in the final vote. I did so not because the report, overall, is not good, but because one element in it was so important, in my view, that I just could not bring myself to vote 'yes'. Water is not a tradable commodity; it is a basic necessity of life, and something that everyone has a right to.

The use of water is not a choice for human beings, it is essential in order to stay alive and, for that reason alone, it is not appropriate to regard it as a commercial or economic commodity. The provision of water must be, and remain, in public hands. Past positions taken by the European Parliament have already made it clear that water is a right, and the wording of this report would weaken that stance.

in writing. - (SV) Water is a prerequisite for all life on Earth. However, the responsibility for safeguarding access to this necessity does not rest on the EU's shoulders. It is through international cooperation within the framework of UN cooperation that the countries of the world should seek solutions to the problem of how to improve access to water.

Since the rapporteur's proposal leads in a completely different direction, I have chosen to vote against the resolution.

Sustainable development cannot be imagined without the protection and proper management of the vital resource of WATER. I wholeheartedly back points 15 and 16 of the resolution aimed at supporting local public authorities in their efforts to implement a democratic water management policy that is efficient, transparent, regulated and respectful of sustainable development objectives in order to meet the needs of the population.

I would like to join with the requests submitted to the Commission and Council to recognise the fundamental role played by local authorities in the protection and management of water, in order to make them accountable with regard to managing the water sector. I regret the fact that the competences of local authorities are not utilised more by European cofinancing programmes.

In the case of Romania, which has been granted a transition period in this area until 2018, it is vital that investments are speeded up, especially now when poor populations are the most vulnerable to climate change, as well as the least able to adapt to it.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the Fifth World Water Forum, to be held in Istanbul. I firmly believe that water is one of humanity's common resources and that it should be regarded as a fundamental and universal right. Furthermore, I would argue that water should be proclaimed public property and placed under public control, regardless of the fact that it is managed wholly or partly by the private sector. Lastly, I hope that systems of general water distribution subsidies, which undermine incentives for efficient water management by creating overuse, will be scrapped in order to free up funds for targeted subsidies in particular for poor and rural populations, aiming at affordable access for all.

in writing. - Water is a precious resource, and access to clean drinking water across the world has to be a key priority. Too many people, in 2009, in the developing world have no access to clean drinking water. We have to focus our efforts in helping countries and communities in the poorest parts of the world have access to this resource.

in writing. - History is littered with wars over access to land and oil, but I fear they will pale into insignificance when compared to likely future conflicts over access to water.

Water is the most vital of all resources: life is impossible without it. Yet even in developed countries we are seeing serious water shortages. The consequences for less developed countries are catastrophic.

The international community must take access to water much more seriously before it is too late. As we have seen in Copenhagen this week, climate change is accelerating at an alarming rate, which will further exacerbate water shortages. Access to clean water is a basic human right, so let us make it a major campaign.

in writing. - I support this Resolution which brings forward specific recommendations for the European Commission to strengthen its support for health services in sub-Saharan Africa and to review the balance of the European Community funding with a view to prioritising health system support.

Half the population of sub-Saharan Africa is still living in poverty. Indeed, Africa is the only continent that is not progressing towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially the three health-related MDGs - on infant mortality, maternal mortality and the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria - which are crucial to addressing poverty but at current progress are the least likely to be achieved by 2015. Basic healthcare infrastructure needs stable, long-term financial support if the health-related MDGs are to be delivered. Indeed, this must include access to sexual and reproductive health services.

I voted to adopt the Resolution on an approach to health services in sub-Saharan Africa. This part of Africa will not be able to develop without a real improvement in the health of its population. The list of threats to health in this region is exceptionally long and well known, and the fact that these threats are real is most emphatically confirmed by the estimated life expectancy of the population. Often, the average life expectancy in individual countries is similar to that in medieval Europe. This fact is painful, regrettable and frustrating, but it should also motivate developed and wealthy countries to provide more intensive and more effective aid. It is a good thing to be involved in projects that aim to save lives. There is nothing more human and, at the same time, European. Let us save those whose lives are threatened. That is the least we can do.

in writing. - (SV) The rapporteur's depiction of human suffering throughout sub-Saharan Africa is a terrible reminder of how important it is to continue, and to intensify, the fight against poverty.

The proposals presented by the rapporteur, however, are based entirely on the idea that the EU should play a leading role in the Member States' aid policy. We in the June List are opposed to this. The EU must not carry out aid operations, nor should it try to influence the Member States' activity in this area.

Aid is an area in which, unfortunately, our experiences are quite depressing. It is therefore important to be able to experiment with new forms of aid. Our own country, Sweden, is currently looking for new and interesting paths. At this historic time, to repeatedly take away the Member States' opportunities to think in new ways and to reform aid policy is utterly wrong. The responsibility for aid is, and should remain, a matter for the Member States.

International cooperation with a view to finding solutions for improving health care in sub-Saharan Africa should, first and foremost, be sought within the framework of the United Nations, not the EU.

I have therefore voted against this resolution.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on EC Development Assistance to Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa. EC aid to the health sector has not risen since 2000 in proportion to overall development assistance, despite the commitments made by the Commission on the Millennium Development Goals and the health crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, I believe it is right and necessary to make a joint commitment in order to see better results on health and to meet the health development targets agreed at international level.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on implementation of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA). I think it is extremely important to support the creation of the SEPA, which is subject to effective competition and where there is no distinction between cross-border and national payments in euro. Finally, I believe that the Commission, as stated in the proposal, should be called on to set a clear, appropriate and binding end-date, which date should not be later than 31 December 2012, for migrating to SEPA products, after which date all payments in euro would have to be made using the SEPA standards.

in writing. - The EPLP wishes to see the Single European Payment area a success. That is why we cannot support the amendments to this report which extend the life of the MIF (multilateral interchange fee). This fee is uncompetitive and raises costs for consumers. This would undermine the thrust of the report's objective of making sure the single market breaks down barriers and reduces costs. We could not support this resolution in the final vote because these amendments were accepted.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour. I support Mrs Koppa's report on the importance of the EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership, since the partners share the same world view on the basis of their historical, cultural and economic ties. Together they can encourage change and solutions at global level, for example by working closely to promote and implement the Development Goals in order to tackle poverty and economic and social inequalities at global level, by strengthening cooperation in the area of development aid, including triangular cooperation, and at the same time by working together to combat international terrorism, drug trafficking and crime.

Taking into account the central role played by Brazil in Latin American integration processes and the EU's interest in reinforcing dialogue with that region, and that the EU welcomes the initiatives taken by Brazil to promote political and economic integration between Latin American countries, we agree that Brazil deserves recognition as a main promoter of the recently established Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).

We must also acknowledge Brazil's role as mediator in the resolution of regional conflicts in Latin America and the Caribbean, on the basis of respect for the principles of national sovereignty, non-interference and neutrality, with a positive effect on political stability in the region.

I voted in favour of this report. Brazil was the last BRIC country to engage in a summit with the EU, which took place in July 2007 during the Portuguese Presidency. It was therefore a natural reflection of the relations that Portugal has always maintained with Brazil. As was said in this House in September 2007, Brazil is a country whose 200 million inhabitants speak one of the most common European languages in the world, Portuguese, and whose historical, civilising and cultural traditions have a close relationship with European traditions. This is proven by the various political agreements throughout history to the present day. This relationship will help to build other bridges with Latin America.

Given Brazil's recognised potential and its current economic and political performance at regional and global level, this Strategic Partnership must not be regarded as a future hindrance to other partnerships with Mercosur. It should in fact be acclaimed as an example, in which the EU has obtained the necessary consensus on the common commercial and political interests. It should be noted that both sides regard multilateral action as essential, based on the United Nations system and within the framework of the World Trade Organization.

Finally, I must say that I am somewhat curious about the future scope to be given to the cooperation protocols on education and culture.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I have voted in favour of Mrs Koppa's report on the European Union-Brazil Strategic Partnership. The role of the partnership is of prime importance; it should provide fresh impetus for the conclusion of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, which is itself an EU strategic objective for deepening economic and trade relations, as well as expanding political dialogue and cooperation, between the two regions. In addition, the strategic partnership should be a tool to promote democracy and human rights, the rule of law and good governance at global level.

I voted for the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the European Union-Brazil Strategic Partnership because I feel that this is beneficial to both sides and can contribute to the development of ties between these two entities with the aim of promoting the common good in both areas and throughout the whole world.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour. Given the fact that Mexico and the EU have maintained cooperation relations since the 1970s, I share the hope that this strategic partnership will represent a tool with which to strengthen cooperation between the partners in international forums such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the G20, the G8 and the G5, in order to seek solutions to the world financial crisis and to formulate a common response aimed at restoring confidence in financial institutions, in line with the San Salvador Declaration.

Mexico's geographical location gives it a strategic position as a 'bridge' between North and South America and between the Caribbean and the Pacific. It is hoped that this strategic partnership can institutionalise annual EU-Mexico summits and give fresh impetus to the EU-Mexico Global Agreement in various political spheres including human rights, security, anti-drug trafficking, the environment and technical and cultural cooperation.

In light of the Council resolution of 11 October 2007 on the murder of women (feminicide) in Mexico and Central America and the role of the European Union in fighting this phenomenon, we hope for more dialogue, more cooperation and the exchange of best practices.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I welcome the report by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra on an EU-Mexico Strategic Partnership. It is indeed crucial that this strategic partnership should mark a qualitative leap in EU-Mexico relations both multilaterally in terms of issues of world importance and in strengthening the development of bilateral relations.

For this reason I have every confidence that this agreement will lead to closer coordination of positions on crisis situations and issues of world importance, on the basis of shared interests and concerns. Lastly, I hope that it will be seen as an opportunity to debate how better to implement the clause on human rights and democracy, which are essential values in all the agreements and for both parties, and to evaluate compliance with it, including development of its positive dimension.

in writing. - The EU needs to take a greater interest in the increasing violence in Mexico created by drug wars. The doubling in murders related to drug violence is a worrying situation.

in writing. - (FR) The worthy sentiments propounded by the different political groups, with the notable exception of the Communists (and with just cause), is merely an echo of the political correctness spouted by the hippies of international show business. The cause of Tibet, the real liberation struggle, has been throttled by the stranglehold of trendy Europeans short on spirituality. It is a prime example of what not to do in internal and international policy.

The Members wish to condemn with the utmost politeness the exactions of the Chinese Communists whilst declaring themselves in favour of autonomy for a region which is not the historic Tibet. The idea of autonomy for Tibet, the 'Save Tibet' path, is just waving a leash in front of an impotent elite and a people which has been slaughtered, both spiritually and physically.

Tibet, like other oppressed nations, shows what happens when a Communist dictatorship is installed and the weapon of invasive immigration is used to prevent any going back, be it on a political, ethnic, cultural or spiritual level.

Tibet has without a doubt missed its chance of regaining its sovereignty by not keeping up the armed struggle following the exile of its leader. The road to follow now is one of a fight for independence, for 'Free Tibet', and not one of slavery perpetuated under the guise of a paper 'autonomy'.

in writing. - (IT) Mr President, I wholeheartedly support the motion for a resolution on the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. The abuse of power, wherever it might take place, must be condemned. On the other hand, it has to be said that the Chinese Government has a moral obligation, among others, to release immediately and unconditionally all those detained solely for engaging in peaceful protest and to account for all those who have been killed or have gone missing, and all those detained, indicating the nature of the charges against them.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

The Minutes for yesterday have been distributed.

Are there any comments?



(FR) Madam President, I ask the Members to allow me to take up a few minutes of their time.

I would like to speak on the subject of China. There was a motion for a resolution for today on China, on the case of Mr Gao Zhisheng, a well-known lawyer who is under arrest. There are fears that he will be tortured; his family has just been allowed entry to the United States and there are fears for his life.

Unfortunately, though, as only three subjects may be dealt with, the motion relating to Mr Gao Zhisheng could not be included. We did intend to move it in the March II session. Now, we have been told that there will be no urgent matters in March II because, according to the rules, when there are two plenary sessions in the same month, there can be no urgent matters in the second.

I question this interpretation. In fact, this interpretation refers to the double sessions in September and, prior to that, in October, during which the budget was discussed. The fact that there are two sessions in March is due to the elections; it is a totally exceptional case. This means that we can only deal with human rights issues at the end of April, which is too late.

I therefore ask the Presidency, first, to examine this question and, secondly, to express our immense concern about the case to the Chinese embassy - I can provide you with Mr Gao Zhisheng's case for this purpose - as nobody really knows his whereabouts and there are fears that he may be tortured and his life put in danger.

1. Guinea Bissau

The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on the situation in Guinea Bissau.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again, sadly, we are discussing in this House the situation of Guinea-Bissau, which is a truly painful situation. It is a country that has known chronic instability for many years and that tried to take the road towards democracy at the beginning of the 1990s. Nothing went right, there was a coup d'état and a minor civil war, and it has since been in a situation of major political and military instability, tensions and deep rivalries. Recently there has also been a very worrying presence of drug trafficking interests, which have become increasingly evident to all observers.

We strongly condemn the recent attacks: the bomb attack that killed the Chief of Staff, General Tagme Na Waie, and also the particularly barbaric, if not savage, assassination of President Nino Vieira. Regardless of their past, we express our solidarity with their families and with the people of Guinea-Bissau and we regret and strongly condemn these attacks.

We want to see a return to normality. The lesson that I have learnt and that I wanted to stress in this resolution was that impunity is not an answer. In the past, with regard to the assassination of Ansumane Mané and General Veríssimo Seabra, how could we have closed our eyes to the fact that the perpetrators were not found and brought to justice? It is clear that this is not the answer. We must therefore impress upon the government of Guinea-Bissau that those responsible must be found. The guilty parties must be brought to justice and we have to provide all the assistance that is needed.

Finally, I also want to draw attention to our concern at the presence of drug trafficking throughout the region, the risk that this also poses to the European Union and its shocking presence, which is clearly evident, in Guinea-Bissau. I also want to call for a closer relationship in this context with Cape Verde. We have established a special partnership with Cape Verde, which has very close relations with and extensive knowledge of Guinea-Bissau, but which is also very vulnerable. This is therefore also essential for our own European security. As a result, the intensification of this special partnership with Cape Verde is also very important in this context.

author. - (LT) The killings in Guinea Bissau are a major blow not just to democracy in a state impoverished by drug trafficking, but to the whole West African region. The assassination of the President and the army chief of staff pushed the country ever deeper into a quagmire of failing institutions, increasingly fragile democracy, growing corruption and personality cults. The state's inhabitants live in chaos and there is a shortage of water, medicine and schools. Drug trafficking knows no limits or borders and is becoming a threat to the entire region, even reaching European Union states.

Although until now the commanders of the armed forces have kept their promise not to interfere in the country's internal affairs, recent events may completely overwhelm what remains of democracy in Guinea Bissau. The new government must respect the constitutional order, deal with conflicts peacefully and thoroughly investigate the murders. With the assistance of the European Union's Security and Defence mission, we must reach a turning point in the country's development, offering stability and a decent life. We must hope that presidential elections will take place in a few months and that they will comply with international standards for organising elections. We call on European Union states and the entire international community to give Guinea Bissau the financial and expert assistance required to organise democratic elections. Guinea Bissau's opposing political forces should seek common ground and compromises at this difficult time for the state and urgently adopt decisions on the country's security, election procedures and public administration. We call on them to fight corruption more effectively and to consult with civil society and other organisations on internal reconciliation in the state.

Madam President, on 2 March of this year, the President of Guinea-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira, was shot dead in an attack carried out by soldiers loyal to the army's Chief of Staff. The previous day, General Batista Tagme Na Waie, the army's Chief of Staff, died after being injured in an explosion. Both deaths are linked to the political conflict in Guinea-Bissau, which has been going on for many years and has led to tragedy and a lack of stability in the country. Although the elections held in 2008 were peaceful, an initial assassination attempt took place shortly afterwards. The President survived that attack. Guinea-Bissau, a former Portuguese colony, is one of the poorest countries in the world. At the same time, a cocaine-smuggling route passes through the country.

We condemn attempts to resolve conflicts by means of a coup d'etat; we call for presidential elections to be held in Guinea-Bissau within two months; and we call for these elections to meet democratic standards and for constitutional order to be restored.

When the political situation in Guinea-Bissau is analysed, we should not forget that the people of this young African country were the victims of Portuguese colonialism, against which they in fact fought a very courageous struggle. With regard to what is happening there, which we regret, in particular the assassinations of the President and the Chief of Staff, we cannot forget that this is the result of all the difficulties and all the divisions that have existed for years, and that still exist, and that stem from its colonial past. We should also bear in mind that it is still one of the poorest countries in Africa, which means that the European Union must pay greater attention to cooperation in the areas of public health and education, in order to improve the living conditions of its population and overcome the difficulties that a large part of the Guinea-Bissau population still has to face, particularly women, mothers and children.

It is vital that the European Union reinforces its sympathetic support of these people. We also need to support education, the safe supply of drinking water and, in some cases, even agricultural production to ensure that the whole population has access to food. However, this support must be provided without external interference and with full respect for the sovereignty and choices of the people.

author. - Madam President, this poverty-stricken ex-colony has suffered decades of political instability and crisis, resulting in profound and prolonged suffering for its citizens.

Its transition to democratic rule and better times for its people appeared a promising prospect after the 2008 legislative elections were carried out in an apparently fair and peaceful manner. However, the dark clouds of divisive hate and violence appeared again over the country after the shooting of President Vieira by renegade soldiers on 2 March, the day after the killing of the chief of the army. We condemn both those murders, and we can only hope that the rival parties in Guinea-Bissau will find the necessary will and power to resolve their disputes through dialogue at the negotiating table for the sake of their citizens' well-being. In addition, as Guinea-Bissau has in recent years evolved into an important drug-trafficking country, we urge not only the country's authorities but also the international community to do their utmost in fighting effectively this deadly curse.

author. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance strongly condemns the assassination of the President of Guinea-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira, and the head of the armed forces, General Tagme Na Waie, on 1 and 2 March 2009.

We demand that a full investigation be carried out and that the perpetrators be prosecuted, and similarly for the killers of Generals Mané and Correia, killed in 2000 and 2004, who remain unidentified to this day.

As one of the poorest of the poor and noted for its low life expectancy, Guinea-Bissau is today faced with drug trafficking. As a bridgehead for the South American drug smugglers, Guinea-Bissau has become a country of transit for drugs which are destined for Europe, where we represent the biggest consumer. We also know only too well that this is affecting the entire sub-region as, in Mauritania, for example, large quantities of drugs have been discovered, even at the airport.

The European Union must help this country to turn its back on this trade by fighting it both here and there and by a return to development based on that country's own resources.

While the last elections were welcomed by the international community and the European Union has shown its support for the process of learning about and installing democracy in Guinea-Bissau, the events this country has just lived through can only reinforce this position of aid and assistance.

The army too, which did not intervene in the electoral process, must also continue with its strict observation of the constitutional order, as it has promised.

While the neighbouring West African countries have, after years of problems and chaos, rediscovered the road to democracy, respect for the institutions and human rights, Guinea-Bissau must not fall into the trap of reprehensible practices. The European Union must be present and use its influence and its example to help this country to stay on the road to democracy.

on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, in addition to what has already been said today on the situation in Guinea-Bissau, I would like to comment on two issues.

Firstly, the assassinations of the President of Guinea-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira, and the chief of the armed forces, General Tagme Na Waie, should be thoroughly investigated and those responsible should be brought to justice.

Secondly, in our resolution today, we express our hope that the presidential elections in the country will be held within 60 days. We should today call upon EU Member States and the international community to make sure that Guinea-Bissau receives the financial and technical support which is needed to conduct credible elections.

on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Madam President, it is very easy for destabilisation, which has tragic consequences, to occur in poor African countries, such as Guinea-Bissau. The assassinations of President João Bernardo Vieira and General Tagme Na Waie, the head of the armed forces, in March of this year, were certainly part of an attempt to destabilise the country, probably instigated by the drugs mafia. The lack of an effective security force in this country has meant that various kinds of homicide go virtually unpunished. We need to provide all the vital assistance that the government of this country needs, and this is an issue which the resolution addresses.

In addition to this, and in order to prevent these kinds of incidents, we need to declare a ruthless war on the drugs trade, which is a destabilising force in many poor countries in Africa, Asia and South America, supports terrorism and, through drug addiction, destroys the lives of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. If we cannot overcome this problem, we will pay an increasingly high price for our helplessness.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, let me first of all, on behalf of the European Commission, say that we deeply regret the assassination of His Excellency the President of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira. We condemn this assassination in the strongest possible terms and also the attacks that resulted in the deaths of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces, General Batista Tagme Na Waie and other soldiers. I would like also to send condolences to their families.

The presence of drug-dealers and so much crime are more than worrying today. Under the eighth EDF and other instruments, but in addition by contributing to EUR 2 million to the UN ODC, the Commission has signed up to a very ambitious plan in the counter narcotics field. We think this is really very important, as has been shown by what has happened.

We urgently call for calm and restraint, and urge the national authorities of Guinea-Bissau to fully investigate these events and bring to justice those responsible. There should be no impunity. Unfortunately, these violent acts follow the successful legislative elections, which paved the way for enhanced EU and international support for the country's peace-building efforts. These attacks also come at a time of increased international engagement, intended to build a democratic and a stable Guinea-Bissau.

Under these extremely difficult circumstances, the Commission remains fully committed to continuing its strong support to the national authorities, aiming to bring back stability but also to sustain development. I am thinking of education, the poorest of the poor, the necessity for basic needs and basic services, and also of economic growth in the country. We are now starting to deploy the wide range of instruments at our disposal, thus aiming to help Guinea-Bissau achieve sustainable peace and, hopefully, consolidate its democratic process.

An ambitious country strategy paper for an amount of EUR 100 million, covering the period 2008-2013, was approved last year. This will focus on security sector reform - including the fight against drugs that I mentioned earlier - and the enhancement of the national sovereign institutions.

Last year the Council also decided to establish an EU mission supporting security sector reform in the framework of the European security and defence policy. The forthcoming presidential elections - now expected 60 days after the nomination of the new President - will probably take place even before the summer break. Taking into account this extremely tight schedule, the feasibility of the deployment of the electoral observation mission is being carefully considered by the Commission. Nevertheless, the provision of post-electoral assistance to support the required reforms to the electoral framework, following the recommendations formulated by the EU-UN 2008, and the support given to observation of the forthcoming elections by regional organisations remain, among other things, our key priorities.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debates.

2. Philippines

The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on the situation in the Philippines.

Madam President, Commissioner, I have followed the situation in the Philippines ever since the unfortunate Marcos couple ruled that country. Since then, this great island republic has experienced a lot of ups and downs, the ups and downs of a dictatorship and of attempts to move towards freedom, of economic crises and of developments towards a market economy, which were then continually stifled in a quagmire of corruption, mismanagement and, unfortunately, constant authoritarian incursions.

If we look at the map we see that this island republic is of supreme strategic importance. Like Indonesia, it controls certain maritime routes that are central and vital to our economy, but also to that of Asia. Therefore, stability in the region matters a great deal, and that is why we need to make it clear to those in power that it is only through dialogue, only through the rule of law, only by strengthening democracy, infrastructure and small and medium-sized enterprises that this country will finally find long-term stability. Otherwise, it will continually be under the threat of collapse, and separatist movements, movements in individual island groups, religious and cultural movements that oppose each other will threaten the unity of the country. This is therefore an issue that is of central importance for the European Union.

Madam President, many states in other parts of the world came into being as a result of European intervention. They are the successor states to the colonies of the European countries, areas that were conquered in centuries past in order to get hold of raw materials cheaply. The mining of metals and the harvesting of tropical plants were the most important objective while, in some cases, human beings, too, were traded as slaves. People with completely different languages and cultures thus found themselves living in one of these colonies and separated from those with whom they had much more in common linguistically and culturally.

The Philippines were seized from Spain in 1898 by the United States, which then proceeded to govern the islands as its own colony until 1946. As an independent state, the country has since developed a reputation for poor government. The question is whether this is a coincidence. States like this one are not a product of the will of the people. They were not formed from the bottom up. They were constructed from the top down and by outside influences.

States like this are not the best breeding ground for a democratic state under the rule of law and for the peaceful resolution of societal conflicts. They are often held together by force, and the army's power is great. There is often a lot of scope for foreign companies to get involved, which then maltreat and exploit the environment and their employees to ruination. They get the chance to behave badly by providing the rulers of these countries with privileges and wealth.

Abuses of this nature bring into being counter-movements. If such movements are not regarded by the state as a legal opposition that can peacefully develop into a participant in government, the chances are that these movements will fall back on the use of force out of the need for self-preservation. The government will then respond with more state-sponsored violence, perhaps without even admitting that this violence is being perpetrated by the state.

Since 2001, hundreds of activists, trade unionists, journalists and religious leaders have been killed or abducted. Opposition members freed by court order are then locked up again by the state, regardless. Those guilty of murders and abductions are neither tracked down nor punished. Foreign attempts at mediation have been repudiated and eventually ended.

The resolution rightly calls for greater efforts in respect of mediation, compromises and peaceful solutions. Without the integration of opposition movements into the democratic state under the rule of law, the Philippines will remain a chaotic country where life is bad.

author. - Madam President, the situation in Mindanao is grave, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons living in desperate conditions. The long-standing insurgency is a factor in this sorry state of affairs, but so is the not-so-democratic status of successive Filipino governments with the latter being widely held responsible by international agencies, such as the UN Human Rights Council, for showing remarkable impunity from extrajudicial killings and the forced disappearances of hundreds of Filipino citizens whose activities were thought to have been in disagreement with official government policy.

Such impunity must be terminated. In addition, the Government of the Philippines must urgently resume peace negotiations with the MILF and both sides must renounce violence and solve their differences at the negotiating table.

Madam President, the Philippines are a country with a rich, albeit unfortunate, history. The country was conquered by the Spanish in 1521, after they had overcome the strong resistance of the local population by force. Following a rebellion against Spanish rule in 1916, the United States took control of the Philippines. The country gained full independence, following a period of temporary occupation by the Japanese, in 1946, and was ruled as a dictatorship for many years by President Marcos. In 1983, Benigno Aquino, the leader of the democratic opposition, was assassinated. In the Philippines, both the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and communist partisans are active. Abu Sayyaf hit squads want to separate the southern part of the islands from the rest of the Philippines. The country is plagued by corruption. People are dying in droves, the death penalty is widely applied and those whose existence is viewed as awkward by certain groups are being secretly murdered. Attempts to introduce and uphold human rights and democratic principles face serious obstacles in that country. The economic development of the Philippines and its membership of the Association of South-East Asian Nations are positive signs.

The resolution, which I support, is the European Union's contribution to taking specific measures to put an end to internal conflict in the Philippines, and to reintroduce the principles of the rule of law.

Madam President, the case of the Philippines indeed demonstrates that the peacemaking process sometimes requires us not to look in just one direction.

At the moment we are working on many fronts in the Philippines, and all of them need to be approached in a specific way in their context. It is therefore important to understand the multiplicity of responses. There is a humanitarian dimension in the Philippines case, but there is also a clearly political dimension, and they are both fundamental if we want to make progress in the frustrated peace talks. I say they are frustrated because what seemed to be a good way forward this summer was blocked by several incidents, and particularly because the Supreme Court considered that the memorandum of understanding was clearly unconstitutional.

This essentially brought the whole negotiation process to a halt, and it requires a response from the international community, I insist, at two levels.

The first is the humanitarian level. I think it is clear that the situation not just of the 300 000 displaced people but also, basically, of the now countless victims of disappearances, torture and even serial murders needs first to be investigated and then to receive a political response from the government, at the insistence of the international community.

Secondly, however, there is also a need for a political response. Norway has for some time been negotiating and establishing various frameworks to be able to reach agreements to resolve the situation. It is a kind of parallel diplomacy or silent diplomacy; it is not the kind of diplomacy to which we are accustomed, in terms of high-level officials, but it is necessary.

It is sometimes absolutely essential that there are actors to perform the role that Norway is performing, and I believe the European Union should not only develop this kind of activity, but it should also, basically, support any initiative that might encourage dialogue and help resolve the differences between the various groups currently involved in disputes in the Philippines.

Madam President, the conflict between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front from Mindanao has been going on for decades. It has been accompanied by terrorist attacks, carried out by the Abu Sayyaf organisation, as well as kidnappings and murders. In 2004, as many as 116 people died in an attack on a ferry in Manila Bay. According to the government in Manila, Abu Sayyaf is collaborating with al-Qaida. The kidnappings continue. Peace talks were suspended in August of last year. In the meantime, the separatist conflict has already claimed over 120 000 victims. Human rights are violated on a regular basis. We call on all parties to the conflict to begin negotiations aimed at achieving an agreement on economic, social and political matters. We support all action which intends to achieve a fair and lasting peace.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the Philippines, as many honourable Members have just said, still faces very strong challenges: on the one hand, the question of minorities in Mindanao, and on the other hand, many extrajudicial killings. We are well aware of that.

However, the Philippines has made considerable progress in its international obligations to ensure and to protect human rights, ratifying 12 international human rights treaties and abolishing the death penalty, largely thanks to the advocacy role played by the European Parliament, the Commission and the Member States. So there is a mixed picture, but we have to see both the positive and the negative sides.

But the human rights situation remains very difficult and we use the opportunity of our regular, senior official meeting to raise these issues. Human rights warrant particular attention for our relationship with the Philippines, also in the run-up to the presidential elections in 2010, and we are already going in this direction.

I would, therefore, like to focus on the long-standing issue, as I have already said, of the extrajudicial killings. These assassinations of journalists of human rights and land rights activists have certainly decreased significantly in number in the past two years. But, from time to time, they have flared up and there has been a flare-up very recently. Most unsettling is that the majority of the perpetrators remain at large. It has become a very sensitive political issue and it has eroded confidence in the Government.

We are about to launch an 'EU-Philippines Justice Assistance Mission' under the Instrument for Stability. What we have in mind is capacity-building for the Philippine judicial authorities, including police and military personnel, to help them investigate cases of extrajudicial killings and to prosecute those guilty of murder.

We have also ongoing projects at local level to promote respect for human rights, funded by the EU Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. These include monitoring the implementation of international commitments in the field of human rights, actions to support the ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC and electorate education.

We are currently in the process of reviewing our cooperation with all our partner countries in the framework of the Mid-Term Review and there are good reasons to step up our efforts in the area of good governance, justice and the rule of law in the Philippines.

As far as the Peace Process in Mindanao is concerned, the Government appears ready to re-launch talks and we encourage an early resumption of negotiations between the parties and, of course, every discreet mediation that might be there. Meanwhile, the civilian population has once again borne the brunt of the long-lasting conflict, and ECHO has supplied significant assistance.

Finally, current priorities of our relationship with the Philippines include the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) negotiations, which started last month in Manila. In this framework too, we are looking for common ground on human rights.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the end of the debates.

3. Expulsions of NGOs from Darfur

The next item is the debate on six motions for a resolution on expulsions of NGOs from Darfur.

author. - Madam President, it was entirely predictable that President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan would respond to his indictment by the ICC with a political gesture, but by expelling NGOs and aid agencies from his country he has reinforced the popular image of a brutal tyrant, without any concern for the plight of the long-suffering people he nominally governs.

A few people still argue that what has happened in Darfur is not genocide. Fewer still support Bashir openly, although China - regrettably - has been a lone voice in his defence because of the heavy Chinese involvement in Sudan's extractive industries.

Like most Members, I welcome the indictment of President Bashir by the ICC and the issue of an international arrest warrant. It may not succeed, but it is an important gesture to show the world's disgust at the horrors he has perpetrated in Darfur without any remorse.

I also think that the indictment strengthens the reputation of the ICC, which hitherto has been shunned by some, including the great powers such as the USA, for fear of politically motivated prosecutions. Indeed it is fascinating that the United States, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, has nonetheless used its position on the UN Security Council to facilitate the ICC indictment of Bashir.

One possible way out of the impasse that now exists is for the Security Council to strike down the indictment, as it has a right to do under the Rome Statute, on condition that Bashir goes into exile and the killings and repression stop, and in partial recognition that Sudan was never a signatory to the Rome Statute.

While this might seem to some like an unjust response to the killings in Darfur and effectively grants some form of partial immunity, it would remove the main protagonist and spare the long-suffering people of Darfur more bloodshed and enable Sudan as a country to move on. Of course, if Bashir refuses, then he should be prosecuted with the full force of international law. The AU, Arab League and China should make this clear to President Bashir before it is too late for him and his brutal regime.

author. - Madam President, the situation in Darfur is desperate. Can you imagine the human suffering behind the United Nations statistics? According to the UN, up to 4.7 million people - including 2.7 million internally displaced persons - are in need of assistance.

We cannot allow this situation to deteriorate even more, and I urge the Sudanese Government to step back from the decision to expel 13 leading non-governmental organisations from Darfur. The aid agencies in Darfur run the largest humanitarian operation in the world. Only today we have discovered, I believe, that three people who work for Médecins Sans Frontières are missing. The departure of the NGOs could lead to even more loss of life, due to the break in medical services and outbreaks of infectious diseases such as diarrhoea and respiratory infections. Children are greatly at risk.

The United Nations has said that kicking out the humanitarian groups puts more than one million lives at risk. I stress the overriding humanitarian need to allow the agencies to continue with their lifesaving work. As President Obama said, it is not acceptable to put that many people's lives at risk. We need to be able to get those humanitarian organisations back on the ground. I urge colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam President, Sudan has been ruled for many years now by regimes founded on a combination of military force, Arab national pride and a conservative interpretation of Islam. The primary objective of these regimes was and is to hold together the territory of this enormous state, which is inhabited by a range of completely different peoples. These different peoples are made subject, by all possible means, to the authority of the capital, Khartoum.

That is why there has been conflict for many years against the separatist movement in the south of the country, the region that is predominantly non-Arab and non-Islamic. It is still very far from certain whether the south will be allowed the freedom to actually utilise the right to secession that has been agreed for 2011.

In the western region of Darfur, the government seeks to prevent such a secession by all means. In that region there has always been a conflict of interests between nomadic herdsmen and settled farmers. The government has now taken an interest in this conflict. Depopulating the region by chasing the settled inhabitants to neighbouring Chad is an important tool in keeping the area under control. In this dirty work, the government can do without foreign observers, aid workers and mediators.

Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs called for European military intervention a number of years ago. Comments like this are popular with certain sections of domestic public opinion and give the impression that a rich and powerful Europe is able to impose its solutions on the rest of the world. In practice, that is not a solution that can be implemented. What is more, there is little clarity about what the objective of such an intervention would be.

Would it be about temporary humanitarian aid or establishing an independent state of Darfur? Either way, it would be seen in Africa as a new showing of colonial strength from Europe, primarily out of European self-interest. A less spectacular, but probably more effective, strategy is the issuing of an international arrest warrant for President Al-Bashir and the detection of war crimes. From outside, you must always offer to contribute to humanitarian aid and bringing about peaceful solutions. The affected population groups, who have largely fled, deserve our support in their struggle to survive.

author. - Madam President, this House is very concerned about the decision by the Sudanese Government to expel humanitarian organisations from Darfur, a move which could have catastrophic results for hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We understand that Commissioner Michel, the EU Presidency, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, President Obama and many others have involved themselves in trying to affect a reversal of this decision.

Since this is a very sensitive matter requiring very delicate handling, we consider that, before any resolution is passed by this House, every possible chance of success must be given to these efforts. Therefore, we will vote against this resolution, not because we disagree with its contents but because we must wait to see the outcome of the aforementioned efforts. This we consider to be the most sensible and wise thing to do at this point in time and under the present circumstances.

Madam President, as a result of brutal ethnic cleansing in Darfur, around 300 000 people have died and 2.5 million have become refugees. Humanitarian aid is needed by 4.7 million people. More than 10 000 have taken refuge in Chad, where the peace mission includes a contingent of the Polish Army. The population has been affected by one of the most serious humanitarian crises in the world. The representatives of human rights and humanitarian aid organisations, such as Polska Akcja Humanitarna or Médecins Sans Frontières, have been expelled from Darfur. The International Criminal Court in The Hague has accused the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for this situation, of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and has issued a warrant for his arrest. The court accuses him of authorising genocide, murder and displacements, as well as tolerating torture and rape. I fully support the International Criminal Court's decision. We call for humanitarian organisations to be allowed to return to Darfur, so that they may bring aid to the population.

Madam President, I think this resolution has come at a crucial moment for two reasons. The first is that - as has already been said, and I join in the congratulations and celebrations - the indictment of President Bashir demonstrates the importance of putting an end to this situation, especially in Darfur, although it relates to the whole context of Sudan. It also shows that the international community can and must act when such situations reach the extremes that the Sudanese situation has reached.

Ideally, of course, President Bashir should be forced to resign and be handed directly to the International Criminal Court. That is unlikely to happen, but the response by the international community has to be clearly along those lines, and there can be no misgivings about that kind of procedure.

Secondly, the humanitarian situation also requires us to adopt a clear position regarding what we have just learnt today, that three people working for Médecins Sans Frontières have been kidnapped and at the moment we do not know where they are or what condition they are in, and that 13 NGOs that have recently been providing basic assistance and addressing essential needs, amongst other things, have been expelled.

Their expulsion reveals that the response being given by the government is precisely the opposite of the kind of response that is needed and desirable and that should be acceptable to the European Union and, above all, the international community.

Not only is it unacceptable, but it requires a response; a response has to be given to this situation. That is why I believe this resolution is fundamental, and it is absolutely crucial that we adopt it today by the largest possible majority. I also urge my fellow Members to do so to ensure that we are not left behind in such matters.

Lastly, I want to make a very specific request to the United Nations Human Rights Office: it should start investigations to find out whether this expulsion of NGOs can be added to the long list of war crimes for which the Sudanese authorities must, of course, be held answerable.

Madam President, Commissioner, we find ourselves in a very complicated situation. What is going on in Sudan is neither so incomprehensible nor so surprising that we need to wait to see what happens. A war against the people of southern Sudan has been going on there for decades. This is a humanitarian disaster brought about by the genocidal policy of Mr al-Bashir. Millions of people have been displaced and are struggling to survive and they have been in this situation for months or years rather than for weeks. That is one side of the coin.

On the other side, it is true that we are involved in a situation in which we must not jeopardise the work of the humanitarian organisations. We must take their concerns and needs seriously. Which way should we go, then? We must be guided by the facts. The facts are that Mr al-Bashir is quite deliberately exerting this pressure on the humanitarian organisations. Anyone who has seen his demonstrative performance, his mocking dance in this action against the humanitarian organisations and in his demonstrations knows that he is quite intentionally being provocative.

We must not allow ourselves to be provoked. However, neither must we simply shut up, as many fellow Members would like. That would not impress the dictator either. I therefore suggest that we remove the three paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 from the resolution and adopt the remainder as proposed.

Madam President, I have here a letter, written by 28 women from Darfur who managed to escape from the conflict zone, which is addressed to the African Union and the League of Arab States. The women of Darfur, in the letter dated 4 March 2009, express their support for the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for the arrest of the Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir. For the first time in the seven years that the Court has been in operation, a warrant has been issued for a sitting head of state. In their letter, the women of Darfur describe the horrifying scenes of violence and rape which are part of daily life in the province, where rape is intentionally used as a weapon, in order to cause women suffering and to stigmatise them, as well as to destroy unity and demoralise the whole of society.

Omar al-Bashir responded to the international arrest warrant by expelling 13 foreign charitable organisations from Sudan. This means that, in the coming weeks, over a million people living in refugee camps in Sudan will have no access to basic aid, such as clean water, food or medical care. The shortage of clean water, which will begin to be felt in the coming days, will promote the spread of communicable diseases, especially in western Darfur. Witnesses have reported cases of diarrhoea in the Zam-Zam camp and cases of meningitis in the Kalma camp. The first, and the main, victims of the decision taken by the Sudanese Government will be the children. Omar al-Bashir's decision to expel charitable organisations from Darfur will result in further crimes.

The European Parliament resolution calls on the UN and the International Criminal Court to investigate whether the Sudanese President's latest decision constitutes a war crime under international law. Omar al-Bashir's Government does not guarantee Sudanese citizens the right to protection, and must be held to account by the international community for violating this right.

Madam President, one of the greatest human tragedies in the contemporary world is taking place in Darfur. The instigator is the Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Nearly five million people need urgent humanitarian aid. In the meantime, the Sudanese Government has decided to expel 13 of the leading non-governmental aid organisations from Darfur. The spread of disease which will occur once medical and food aid are cut off will, in the 21st century, result in genocide on a large scale. The resolution, which I support, does not go far enough, as in this case we should force the African Union and the UN to authorise a military intervention, in order to stop the genocide.

Madam President, the conflict in Sudan, which has racial, religious and economic roots, has been going on for over 50 years. It has already claimed over 3 million victims, and forced over 4.7 million people in the region to leave their homes. In spite of attempts to reach an agreement, and the UN peace missions, the conflict between the Arab and non-Arab inhabitants of Darfur has recently escalated.

The latest stage of the most serious humanitarian crisis in the world, which has once again come to the attention of the European Parliament, has involved the decision taken by the Sudanese Government, led by President al-Bashir, to expel 13 humanitarian organisations which are providing much-needed aid in the form of food, medication and medical care. The photographs and films emerging from Darfur, which have moved viewers around the world, cannot truly reflect the crisis facing people in this region, who are trying to emigrate to nearby Chad, as well as to other countries and continents, including Egypt, Israel, the United States, Canada and Europe.

However, it is not only the President of Sudan, who has been accused of war crimes, who is responsible for allowing human rights violations, involving mass rape, kidnappings, displacement, hunger, epidemics and torture, to take place. The blame also lies with the major world powers and their leaders, who are trying to lay the blame for supplying weapons or profiteering on each other. Even the intervention of the public prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who wanted to indict the Sudanese President and issue a warrant for his arrest, is to be a celebration marking the 10th anniversary of the Criminal Court. According to some people, this could prove catastrophic for Darfur and put an end to the UN mission there.

This is not the first time that we have protested and expressed our outrage at the human rights violations taking place in that region. However, the previous, comprehensive European Parliament resolution, which called on international bodies to impose sanctions and block the economic activities stoking the flames of the conflict, produced no results. I am sure that, by fuelling the conflict, those responsible aim to unify the people of Darfur before the referendum on secession from Sudan, due to take place in 2011.

Madam President, the truth is that we knew the order to expel the NGOs was coming, and that is why I reaffirm that my preference is for a firm and clear line that is also pragmatic. It is very easy to play the hero in the coffee shop, miles and miles away.

Those of us who visited Darfur in July 2007 and went to al-Geneina and al-Fashir, to Nyala and Kapkabia and to many IDP camps around those cities, are fully aware of the suffering of the people of Darfur and the tremendous job that NGOs do there. It is therefore essential to protect the remaining NGOs and to work by all means for them to stay, and also to fully support those that will continue, including religious charities.

I also support the exerting of more pressure on China, which, on the one hand, does not apply the needed pressure on the Khartoum authorities and, on the other hand, delays or blocks more effective measures at UN level.

I also support Mr Tannock's idea that 'any way out is a good way out'. If President Al-Bashir goes away and his regime is put out of the way, that would be a tremendous relief and help for the people of Darfur and Sudan. That is not impunity - impunity is to continue as you are for many years.

- (PL) Madam President, according to a variety of data, the war in Darfur has already claimed over 200 000 victims. It has frequently been called the greatest humanitarian crisis in history and has been compared to the genocide which took place in Rwanda in 1994. According to the UN, almost 5 million Sudanese people currently need urgent aid.

The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of the current President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Sudanese Government has responded by expelling 13 of the largest non-governmental organisations involved in the largest humanitarian aid effort in history. This decision may have catastrophic consequences for the people of Darfur, who will be left without access to much-needed medical aid. The uncontrolled spread of communicable diseases may lead to mass epidemics, contributing to an increase in the death rate, especially amongst children, who will be left without access to medical treatment or food aid and thereby lose all hope of survival in these exceptionally difficult conditions.

In view of the existing situation, we should unequivocally condemn the decision taken by the Sudanese Government to expel non-governmental organisations from the country, and call for this decision to be revoked. At the same time, we should call on the Commission and the Council to begin talks with the African Union, the League of Arab States and with China, with a view to convincing the Sudanese Government of the potentially catastrophic consequences of its actions. Moreover, we should strongly support the actions of the International Criminal Court and its indisputable contribution to promoting justice and humanitarian law at an international level, as well as its activities aimed at weeding out lawlessness.

In this respect, we should inform the Sudanese collaborating with President al-Bashir that a conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity is now inevitable, and force the Sudanese Government itself to stop discriminating against human rights activists who supported the Court's decision to arrest President al-Bashir. This action should be taken as soon as possible, in order to prevent a further humanitarian crisis, which inevitably threatens Darfur.

(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I personally was in Darfur and I was also in neighbouring Chad with Mr Ribeiro e Castro and I can therefore fully support what he has said.

It is a calamity, and this calamity is exacerbated by the fact that, due to the expulsion of non-governmental organisations, only around 60% of humanitarian aid is getting through. This disaster could escalate. Three million people depend on our help. Therefore, Madam President, Commissioner, I am of the opinion that paragraph 4 of our resolution, in which we call on the only great power in the world that can influence this region, the People's Republic of China, to make the Sudanese Government retract its expulsion of NGOs, is particularly important.

- (PL) Madam President, we are witnessing serious events taking place in the field of international politics. The Sudanese President, for whom an arrest warrant has been issued, is seeking to take revenge on the international community by expelling politically neutral organisations which seek to bring humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Darfur. International opinion cannot, of course, ignore the fact that the President of Sudan has banned the activities of non-governmental organisations such as Polska Akcja Humanitarna which, for the last five years, has been engaged in water projects in the Darfur region, in order to help the Sudanese people. The Fifth World Water Forum might provide a good opportunity to react to the Sudanese President's behaviour, as we mentioned yesterday in this Chamber. I hope that the issue of the expulsion of non-governmental organisations operating in Darfur will be raised, within a political context, in Istanbul. Ironically enough, the Forum aims to address the problem of the lack of access to water experienced by billions of people throughout the world. In the meantime, in Darfur, President al-Bashir is expelling organisations which are trying to resolve this key issue. We will need to react to such a move.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, very quickly, we are being blackmailed by a dictator who has taken millions of people in Darfur as victims and seeks to use these victims to avoid international sanctions. We must not therefore give in to this blackmail.

It is clear that we need an international coalition to put pressure on President al-Bashir to abandon this position. However we must not turn a blind eye to the fact that the real effect, the real cause of these things is this obsession with natural resources. It is no coincidence that the greatest breaches of human rights are in countries where there are great natural resources and in particular in China, which drives this pressure for natural resources. Therefore we cannot fail to consider how to tackle the root of this problem, that is to say by guaranteeing fair access to natural resources for everyone in the world - that is what we must do.

(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say very quickly that we deplore all the horrors of Darfur and that we all demand that everything be done to ensure that the associations and NGOs, who have a crucial role to play in these cases, can continue their work and are not expelled. I would, however, like to put a question to the Commissioner.

I would like to know what you are expecting, what the European Union is expecting, of the African Union. We have heard one Member demand armed intervention. In our resolution, we call on the Commission and the Council to intensify the efforts to influence the government via the African Union. In other countries, we delegate the resolution of conflicts to the African Union. We are aware of the African Union's position on the al-Bashir case. It appears that there are double standards here.

What strategy, then, will the Commission adopt in relation to the African Union, as we are talking about the African continent? Is it the case that here, too, we want to delegate the work and the resolution of this conflict to the African Union?

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the European Commission is deeply concerned - like you - by the Sudanese decision to expel 13 international, as well as to suspend three national, humanitarian NGOs and two national human rights NGOs, following the ICC indictment of President Bashir. Six of these international NGOs operate with EC humanitarian funding amounting to a total of EUR 10 million.

Those organisations provide essential services to millions of Sudanese in Darfur and in other areas of Sudan. The suspension of their activities is, therefore, not only highly regrettable but will also seriously affect the humanitarian situation, as many of you have said. In a statement, Commissioner Michel has already expressed our deepest concern and urged 'the Government of Sudan to reconsider the value of their decision and to urgently restore these NGOs to their full operational status'.

If the full impact of the Sudanese decision is still being assessed, it is clear that the lives of hundreds of thousands of people might be at risk in Darfur. Appropriate measures need to be taken urgently, as the approaching rainy season and the yearly hunger gap will soon exacerbate the humanitarian vulnerability of the 4.7 million people directly affected by the conflict.

We know that the Government is not going to reverse its decision under further international pressure calling into question its decision to expel the NGOs in question. If we cannot persuade the Government to reverse the expulsion orders, we have to engage the Sudanese authorities in order to put in place the appropriate delivery mechanisms. In this respect, we must certainly hold the Sudanese Government fully accountable for its assurances that it takes full responsibility for delivering humanitarian aid.

It is also our duty to take the necessary contingency measures with respect to our assistance. Sudan is the Commission's single largest humanitarian operation: EUR 110 million in 2009. The Commission, together with other donors, like the United Nations and the NGOs and other humanitarian partners, is currently looking into how best to redesign the humanitarian response in order to avoid dramatic consequences. It is not an easy task, as the expelled NGOs were among those very capable of working in such difficult and remote areas.

These contingency measures will clearly require some cooperation and agreement with the Sudanese authorities. In this respect, it is essential to insist on strict separation between the humanitarian activities and the political agenda.

On the political front, we will have to maintain maximum diplomatic pressure on the Sudanese authorities and the rebel movements alike to reach peace in Darfur. We will also have to press for the full implementation of the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The stakes are very high, and it is our responsibility not to let Sudan be engulfed in a nightmare scenario of country-wide instability.

The EU as a whole will respect the ICC's guidelines and maintain only essential contacts with Sudanese President Bashir. However - and here it is crucial that, as I said before, we maintain dialogue with Khartoum - we should ensure that the Government's reaction to the ICC indictment is as restrained as possible. If we cut off all relations, the hardliners among the Government may retaliate against civilians, humanitarian workers and UNMIS personnel. The recent decision to expel several NGOs is, we think, the first step, which could be followed by many more situations like the present one, and we have to monitor that carefully. A worst-case scenario of a halt in the implementation of the CPA and an attempt by the Government to find a military solution to the Darfur crisis must be avoided.

With regard to the African Union, I can just tell you that we are maintaining contact with them, but I cannot say any more at this stage.

The debate is closed.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law(debate) 

1. Guinea Bissau (vote) 

2. Philippines (vote) 

- Before the vote on paragraph 4:

author. - Madam President, I have two oral amendments. One is on recital B and the other is on paragraph 4.

Concerning paragraph 4 the amendment is in two parts. One is substituting 'Utrecht' with 'Oslo' - that is a technical point but it is important - and the other is adding, after 'bilateral agreements', the words 'for the GMC'. They are small things so that we better understand and everybody can agree.

author. - Madam President, my second oral amendment is very simple as well. It is simply to delete the word 'Communist' before 'insurgents', and to replace '120 000 lives' with '40 000 lives'.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

3. Expulsions of NGOs from Darfur (vote) 

- Before the vote on paragraph 1:

on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Madam President, I propose an oral amendment to be inserted after paragraph 1: 'Demands the immediate and unconditional release of all the aid workers of the Belgian section of Médecins Sans Frontières who were kidnapped yesterday from the offices of Médecins Sans Frontières Belgium in Saraf Umra, 200 kilometres to the west of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur'.

- (FR) Madam President, the word 'yesterday' should not be there because the resolution has to last longer than one day.

- (FR) Madam President, excuse me, but I do not understand why there should be a time limit. There is no time limit.

I repeat: 'Demands the immediate and unconditional release of all the aid workers' Is it 'immediate' that bothers you?

Mrs Roure, it is the word 'yesterday'. You said 'yesterday'.

- (FR) Madam President, I agree. Excuse me. Remove 'yesterday'. You are quite right.

author. - Madam President, my group proposes to delete paragraphs 2 and 6. This is not because we do not support the content but because we do not think it is necessary in this resolution and that, given the delicacy of the situation, it might help get Mr Al-Bashir to reverse his decision and allow the NGOs to go back. So we are calling for the deletion of paragraphs 2 and 6. I understand there will be a similar request from the Socialists and they will also be requesting the deletion of paragraph 5, which we also support for similar reasons.

I confirm what Mr Tannock has just said and, for the same reasons, we request that paragraph 5 be deleted.

(DE) Madam President, I have a request. Since we have elections on 7 June and we currently have a huge influx of visitors, I would ask if we could look into whether, during the April and May sessions here in Strasbourg, we could have all rooms, including plenary, open to visitors until midnight, so that we can cater properly for all visitors.

I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.

Voting time

The next item is the vote.

(For the outcome and other details of the vote: see Minutes)

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

Written declarations included in the register (Rule 116): see Minutes

Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes

Adjournment of the session

(The sitting was closed at 4.20 p.m.)

Resumption of the session

I declare resumed the session suspended on Thursday, 12 March 2009.



First, I would like to welcome the new Secretary-General of the European Parliament, Klaus Welle, who is sitting on my left, and to wish him all the best in his endeavours.

(Applause)

On my right is David Harley, the Deputy Secretary-General. He represents, so to speak, continuity within the Secretariat. I would also like to wish him all the best.

(Applause)

Statement by the President

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been asked to make the following statement. This week marks the 60th anniversary of the deportation of hundreds of thousands of citizens from the Baltic states. On the night of 24 March 1949, a wave of Soviet deportations began, during which tens of thousands of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians were forcibly expelled from their homelands. They were robbed of their civil and human rights, and perished as a result of the hard, inhuman conditions they faced in the Soviet prison camps.

Almost every family in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as well as in other former Soviet republics, suffered as a result of the horrific violence perpetrated by the totalitarian, Communist regime. Almost every family had relatives who went missing in Siberia, persecuted by the KGB or who were incarcerated and oppressed. The events we are talking about did not take place in some dark, distant past. They remain vivid memories for many people who, today, are EU citizens.

Thus, it is our duty, on the basis of our common values, and in order to commemorate the many victims of these deportations, to clearly and decisively condemn these abhorrent crimes perpetrated by the totalitarian, Communist regime in the Soviet Union. For we owe it to the victims to assess the past in an objective, in-depth and careful manner, as reconciliation can only ever be based on truth and remembrance.

Approval of the Minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

Welcome

Today, it is my honour to welcome a delegation of the Pan-African Parliament to our Parliament. As you all know, the Pan-African Parliament is to the African Union what the European Parliament is to the European Union.

I am particularly pleased to welcome Mr Khumalo and his parliamentary colleagues here today, as it gives me an opportunity to thank him and his colleagues, and thereby also the President of the Pan-African Parliament, Mrs Mongella, for the welcome I received in October 2008, during my visit to the Pan-African Parliament, as well as for the invitation to speak at the plenary session of the Pan-African Parliament.

Once again, I would like to sincerely bid you all welcome. I am very happy that you are here with us today.

(Applause)

Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes

Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes

Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

Petitions: see Minutes

Documents received: see Minutes

Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes

Order of business: see Minutes

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have a question for you concerning the European Council. We have heard that at the meeting of the European Council you said that Parliament agrees that the vote on the President of the Commission should take place on 15 July and the vote on the remainder of the Commission should be held once the Treaty of Lisbon has been adopted.

I would like to know whether or not this is true and, if it is true, on what authority you made these statements.

Mrs Frassoni, as you yourself were present, I am sure you will recall that we discussed this matter at the Conference of Presidents. There was only one objection with respect to 15 July, which came from you. All the other group chairmen shared the view expressed in my statement before the Council. In any case, you may read the exact wording I used in my speech. The speech is available to all MEPs and to the public.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance.

(FR) Mr President, I would like to draw the European Parliament's attention to the arrival of the President of Belarus, Mr Lukashenko, in Prague. Is President Lukashenko's arrival in accordance with the values that we stand for? Can the European Union have dealings with a president who holds all powers, without any time limit and without a mandate? What image will the European Union be giving by agreeing to accept the presence of a president who has had several of his political opponents eliminated and limits the rights of his citizens? What image will our Union be giving to the Obama administration, when a US citizen is languishing in a Belarusian jail and is likely to die unless something is done quickly? I think that this invitation should never have taken place.

(ES) Mr President, I would like to talk to you all about El Musel, the major port of my region, Asturias.

It is absolutely essential that the Commission frees up funding for the extra costs of this port. Commissioner Tajani has understood this, as did his predecessor, Mr Barrot; they have both recognised the great functional and environmental challenges of El Musel.

In the midst of the crisis, since works such as those at El Musel are vitally needed, it is time to move beyond drawn-out, excessively bureaucratic obstacles, and time to think big and press ahead with this funding, which is so important for Asturias, for the north of Spain and for European economic recovery, too. Let me say once again, for European economic recovery, in which Spain is so honoured to take part.

(BG) The outcome of the last European Council meeting serves as an example of how to put into practice one of the European Union's basic principles: solidarity.

The EUR 5.6 billion in aid will enable the peoples of the Old Continent to overcome the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. The EUR 105 million approved for Bulgaria, earmarked for safeguarding energy security, establishing broadband Internet, and for agriculture, reflect the support for and growing confidence in the government's programme for tackling the crisis.

It is vitally important for my country that the European Commission approves and the European Parliament supports the extension being sought for compensation until 2013 for the early closure of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant's third and fourth blocks. Bulgaria suffered the most in terms of losses resulting from the recent gas war between Russia and Ukraine. It is therefore important to observe the principle of treating all EU Member States equally.

I am counting on the thumbs up from the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, and I urge my fellow Members in the European Parliament to allow justice and solidarity in Europe to prevail.

Mr President, I wish to raise the issue of the sniping and remarks that are being made in some quarters about the Irish banking and financial system.

The Irish system works within a legal and regulatory policy directive framework dictated by the EU. The system in Ireland is as strong, or as weak, as that EU framework. As we all know, the regulatory system has failed globally. Ireland is no worse, or better, than any other place.

I object to hostile comments about Ireland emanating from London, New York and the German media. All these places have experienced regulatory and banking challenges and problems equal to and, in many cases, far worse than those we have faced in Ireland. The constant sniping from some of our EU neighbours has been based on prejudice rather than objective fact and does little for EU solidarity at a time when Europe is going through enormous financial and economic challenges.

(HU) The internationally-renowned Roşia Montană Gold Corporation, a Canadian-Romanian joint venture, is planning to develop Europe's largest open-pit gold mine in the Transylvanian town of Verespatak (Roşia Montană). The European Parliament, in its resolution of December 2004, expressed its deep concern regarding the threat of natural catastrophe posed by the project. The 2005 general assembly of ICOMOS, in turn, resolved to protect the historic heritage of the ancient settlement.

The venture, accompanied by a series of scandals, is meant to use the same cyanide technology-based processing method as the one that contaminated the entire length of the Tisza River in 2000. The built heritage of Verespatak (Roşia Montană) has also been destroyed and its population impoverished. It appears that the Romanian Government is preparing to lift its temporary ban on the investment.

I ask the European Parliament to intervene in order to save Verespatak and protect its natural environment. The European Commission, for its part, should contribute to the rehabilitation of the destroyed town and its environment.

(EL) Mr President, the next few days will mark:

10 years since the dirty war unleashed by ΝΑΤΟ and the governments of the European Union, both centre left and centre right, against the people of Yugoslavia;

6 years since the criminal war and occupation of Iraq by the USA and its willing allies, a war which has cost the lives of approximately 1.5 million Iraqis;

60 years since the establishment of ΝΑΤΟ, the imperialist war machine and threat to peace throughout the world which is preparing to mark its 60th anniversary with a celebratory summit in Strasbourg.

In Washington ten years ago, on 23 and 24 April 1999, the leaders of the ΝΑΤΟ member states signed a 50th anniversary declaration approving its new doctrine. Thus the new NATO strategy was adopted, which also officially overthrows the basic rules of international law. A series of other criminal interventions by NATO followed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the Middle East.

In the run-up to the NATO summit, the French authorities have turned the centre of Strasbourg into an off-limits zone and activated the facility provided for in the Schengen Convention in order to prevent peace demonstrators from entering France. They have mobilised considerable army and police forces to deal with demonstrators. These measures, which blatantly violate basic democratic rights, illustrate how much the imperialists and ΝΑΤΟ fear the people.

The people need to respond to the celebrations and 'fiestas' marking the 60th anniversary of criminal imperialist action by ΝΑΤΟ by reinforcing the anti-imperialist peace movement, strengthening the grassroots demand that ΝΑΤΟ be disbanded...

(The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, intergroups have a long and distinguished history in this Parliament. In intergroups, MEPs can unite across the political divide to deal with particular issues.

For example, the oldest intergroup - the one on disabilities - vets legislation that goes through this Parliament to be sure that it is disability-friendly and educates other parliamentarians about disability issues.

Despite the valuable work of intergroups they have been marginalised over the last year and, effectively, they are being shut down by in-house parliamentary rules that refuse intergroups meeting rooms and slots in the schedule of the Strasbourg sitting.

I think we need to sort this out quite urgently - before the next term - because, otherwise, intergroups will be a thing of the past; Parliament will be much poorer for their extinction and the people of Europe will not be as well served.

(Applause)

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, in recent years in Bulgaria a despicable practice has been observed known as 'vote buying'.

This is being carried out by every single political group, apart from the patriotic Attack party. Even parties describing themselves as an alternative to the ruling parties are paying voters, as indicated a few days ago by the information from the village of Brest near Pleven.

The forthcoming elections in our country look as if they are going to be the most rigged and underhand elections in Bulgaria's recent history. The ethnic Turkish and anti-constitutional party MRF has earmarked the huge sum of EUR 60 million to help it get the maximum possible number of members of parliament representing Turkey's interests into both the European Parliament and the Republic of Bulgaria's National Assembly.

There is an absolutely real danger that the next European Parliament will have representatives who have won their seats as a result of vote buying. Our message in Attack is: 'No Turkey in the EU', and we call on President Pöttering to urge the Bulgarian authorities to see to it that this move is foiled in the forthcoming elections through the adoption of election laws.

(HU) The story is obvious: a few hundred metres from the Hungarian border, in an Austrian village by the name of Heiligenkreuz, an Austrian company is calling for the construction of a high-capacity waste incinerator. On the Hungarian side, the city of Szentgotthárd considers the planned establishment unacceptable for reasons of environmental protection, among others.

Over the past two years, there have been frequent protests on the Hungarian side, but the Austrians refuse to acknowledge this. The result is that a growing anti-Austrian feeling is even beginning to affect the traditionally cordial relations between the two countries.

We ask the Austrian party to examine the plan, bearing in mind Hungary's considerations, and to put a stop to its development.

Mr President, in January the Commission attacked the Hungarian moratorium on genetically modified maize MON810. The moratorium is clearly supported by the whole Hungarian scientific community, all political parties and Hungarian society. At the European Council in March, Hungary and Austria obtained a huge majority to maintain this moratorium, despite the Commission decision. Twenty-three of the twenty-seven Member States supported Hungary against the Commission.

This shows that it is high time for us to rethink the method of authorisation of GMOs in the European Union. I think - and, from the Council vote, it is clear - that most Member States think the same way: that the Member States should have the competence to authorise a GMO or not. I hope that the next newly elected Parliament will create a new regulation on the authorisation of GMOs, based on the spirit of subsidiarity and transparency. The Commission should cooperate with Parliament and the Member States, not dictate to them.

(FR) Mr President, one of our fellow Members has just spoken about the issue of intergroups.

There are more than 20 intergroups within this Parliament and their work has been obvious throughout the course of this term of office, which is about to end. Countless dozens of texts have benefited from the work of our intergroups; there are tens of thousands of people, Mr President, and hundreds of institutions who have been received in Parliament thanks to the work of the intergroups. If we continue to oppress the intergroups by refusing to give them meeting rooms, there will be more demonstrations.

Mr President, you have a great deal of experience, a very great deal of experience of our Parliament. Do not allow more or less secret sub-groups to meet during the next parliamentary term. We are not afraid of transparency at intergroup level, which is why we are urging you to make an assessment, quite openly, of the intergroups during this term of office. In this way we will have proof of their usefulness.

Mr President, I beg you, do not remain deaf to the demands of the intergroups and to all the letters that have been addressed to you over recent years.

(PL) Mr President, there is no denying the demographic crisis taking place in Europe. The resulting shortage of labour poses a threat to the economic development of the EU Member States. The crisis is also undermining the efficiency of the pension systems, and is creating serious problems for European healthcare and social care systems.

In the meantime, the European Commission has failed to understand our efforts to alter negative demographic trends by promoting family development. In particular, there have been objections to the need to lower the VAT on products intended for very young children, such as nappies. The idea of punishing individual countries for adopting these kinds of solutions shows a lack of awareness of the dangers we are facing or, alternatively, it can be viewed as a sign of bad faith. In any case, it is unacceptable.

(PT) It is scandalous that the only wholly Portuguese-owned tyre factory has been at a standstill for several months, putting at risk nearly 300 direct jobs in the socially deprived area of Vale do Ave. This area has one of the highest levels of unemployment in the European Union following a series of business closures and job cuts in the textile sector.

The Camac workers in Santo Tirso and the trade union representing them have publicly exposed this serious situation, indicating that the company owes nothing to the banks or to the State, and is in fact in credit to the tune of tens of thousands of euros as a result of VAT withholding. The main creditors are the workers themselves whose salaries have not been paid because the company has failed to cope with the consequences of the falling value of the British pound, which is where almost all its production is exported, and the soaring cost of the raw materials used in the manufacturing process.

Following the company's insolvency application, they are waiting until 30 March for a solution. The Portuguese Government and the European Commission urgently need to respond to the warning and to the discontent voiced by the workers in order to prevent more unemployment and misery in an area where there are no alternative jobs.

Mr President, the revision and reform of parliamentary procedures is now heading up the agenda, and I am sure that this is a subject very much dear to your own personal heart.

Can I please underpin the comments already made by a few colleagues about the importance of intergroups? I am Co-President of the Intergroup on Ageing, and, as you may be aware, over 50% of voters this year - for the very first time - will be over 50 as opposed to under 50. So, ageing issues are not just something that are of interest to people in here but are of interest to people, right outside, amongst our constituents.

I would plead with you, Mr President, to use the qualities of clarity and fairness which are the hallmarks of your presidency to make sure that the work of intergroups can be facilitated and not hindered from here on. Have we got your promise, please?

It is always nice to see the British Conservatives fully on board the European boat, and totally at our side. Thank you so much, and I promise to be on my best behaviour.

- Mr President, I am rising on the issue of breaches of environmental law in Ireland, specifically relating to water quality. The new EU survey of water quality in Ireland indicates that almost two thirds of people say water quality is a serious problem, while half consider that the quality has deteriorated since 2004.

Eighty per cent of people consider that there has been no improvement in the quality of our rivers, lakes and coastal waters over the past five years. For seven years now the Commission has been investigating whether or not the Irish Government is complying with a 2002 European Court of Justice decision that Ireland was in breach of water-quality legislation.

We have to find ways to ensure that the laws that we pass in the interests of the citizens of Europe are in fact applied by the Member States. The Commission, who is the policeman and the policewoman of this Union, must act in a timely way to ensure this compliance.

(HU) In the new Member States, in times of stress the old reflexes of those in power, unacceptable under the rule of law, still operate. When it was our Hungarian national holiday, political rights were infringed to an unacceptable degree in Budapest. The area around the celebrations was completely closed off, as they were during the dictatorship. A few days ago, demands for a more responsible government and calls for the prime minister to step down were met by police action that included detentions and inhumane, humiliating treatment.

Since the weekend, we have seen that the authorities disregard democracy as well, since they are trying to prevent early elections from being held by shifting around top leadership positions. This is not the kind of democratic state governed by the rule of law of which we, the young generation of the end of the Communist regime, have been dreaming; rather, we feel that this is how soft dictatorships begin.

Similarly, the actions of the Romanian authorities put us in mind of the reflexes of the past when, against the recommendation of the Romanian authorities, the President of the Hungarian Republic travelled to take part in the celebrations of 15 March with the 1.5 million-strong Hungarian community in Romania but was able to do so only as a private person, by car. The reason for this was that the landing permit for the president's airplane was revoked by Romania, on the contrived grounds that the visit would damage the partnership between the two countries. This is happening in 2009 in two neighbouring EU Member States.

- (HU) Last week's EU Summit confirmed the basic principles which the European Parliament has also enunciated, namely that the European Union does not tolerate protectionism and does not allow the dismantling of the achievements of the common market. I congratulate the President, since he was present at the European Council meeting.

Very important decisions were taken, including decisions on the matter which Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány of Hungary recommended a year ago and which the Rasmussen report of the European Parliament supported, namely that a financial market and bank supervisory system be set up. A decision in principle was taken on this at the summit, which represents a very important step forward.

It is an important step forward for the entire European Union, but especially for Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, that banks cannot abandon their subsidiaries situated in that region but must forward the support they receive.

The fact that support to the balance of payments of Member States outside the euro area has been doubled from EUR 25 billion to EUR 50 billion is a very important expression of EU solidarity. This is in the common interest of all of us, and thankfully it is in the interest of the entire European Union.

(SL) At our last sitting we adopted an important maritime legislation package which has improved procedures to be followed in the event of maritime accidents.

As we know, the sea brings us many benefits, but it involves risks, as well. When a major accident happens, those who live along the coast pay the consequences. Therefore, the best course of action is prevention, in particular the kind of prevention that regulates the volume and nature of sea traffic according to the sensitivity of the area being transited.

For this reason, I would like to put the following question to the Commission and, in particular, Commissioner Tajani, who is in charge of transport and whom I shall address in his own mother tongue, Italian.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, (...) how the aims of this new law on safety at sea fit with the plans for two methane-producing regasifiers in the Gulf of Trieste, an area of heavy shipping and high urban concentration where the sea is shallow, not more than 20 metres deep, and the seabed must not be touched as it is steeped in mercury. The terminals would, if built, attract one methane tanker per week per installation. We know the risks that these ships bring in areas such as this.

(PL) Mr President, today I would specifically like to focus on the way in which the Israeli army is attempting to wipe out the Palestinian nation before our very eyes. We should not remain indifferent to this issue.

I listen to Israeli media reports with embarrassment, I listen to soldiers recounting that they were told to shoot at civilians, including old women. The newspaper Haarec has published the written command given by one of the military commanders to his subordinates. He ordered his men to shoot at people helping wounded Palestinians. Ultimately, the soldiers have also learnt to show utter disregard for Palestinian lives. Proof of this can be found in the form of macabre T-shirts worn by Israeli soldiers, which show a pregnant Arab woman and bear the slogan 'one shot, two kills'.

We must break the silence which exists in this Chamber regarding this matter. No nation is better or worse than any other. Today, the Palestinian people need our help and support. We should rise to the challenge and address this problem.

- (SK) Two weeks ago, Mr President, you brought us some very sad and horrific news. In Germany a young man killed 15 people and then killed himself. He committed murder and plunged many people, including his own family, into grief and despair. His family too have lost a child and their world too has been turned upside down.

Allow me to quote the words spoken by the German President at the funeral for the victims: 'We are all confronted with a very serious question. Are we doing enough to protect ourselves and our children? Are we doing enough to protect those who are at risk? Are we doing enough for peace in our own lands? We must ask ourselves what we can do better in the future and what lessons we can draw from this event. Let us also help both parents and their children to stay away from danger.'

I would therefore like to call on the European Parliament and the European Commission once again to support the Europe-wide campaign 'Do you know where your children are?' As I have already said in this house, let us do everything we can to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

(RO) The European Union is, first and foremost, a social Europe. We need economic development, but we equally need jobs, decent salaries and pensions, access to health and education services, and they must be of good quality to boot.

During an economic crisis many companies get into difficulties and employees lose their jobs.

In Romania at the Arcelor Mittal sites in Galaţi and Hunedoara, several thousand employees will be made technically unemployed in rotation, receiving just 75% of their salary or will just be made redundant. Similar situations are also going on in other countries and in other companies from different industrial sectors.

I call on the Commission to consider preparing a Council decision with the aim of reviewing the criteria for access to the European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This must be done at industry and company level, not only regionally and locally, so that the funds are mobilised quickly to help the workers in crisis.

I believe that Europe can and must do more for employees who are facing difficulties.

(HU) I would like to draw attention to the methods used by the Slovak Government to repress the linguistic rights of minorities, in violation of the latter's rights. Last week, the government accepted a legislative amendment concerning the national language which, according to the government, does not affect the minorities' language use; however, the bill itself suggests otherwise.

I would like to mention two examples. Paragraph 8(4) of the bill refers to health care and social institutions and states that there are two instances in which individuals belonging to a minority group may use their mother tongue in these institutions: if they do not know the national language, or if the institution is located in a settlement where the percentage of minorities exceeds 20%. So the doctor will first ask the patient what language he or she speaks, and only after that can he ask what is wrong with him or her, otherwise a breach of the law will, according to the bill, be punishable by a fine of between EUR 100 and 5000.

The situation is no better when it comes to information provision, for radio programmes - with the exception of public service radio - will have to be broadcast first in the minority language, and then once again in full in translation.

Mr President, I have only one question: can minorities count on support from Europe?

(SL) There has been a monument to the first anti-fascists in Europe in Bazovica, near Trieste, a short distance from the Italian border with Slovenia, since as far back as September 1945. Four Slovenian patriots, Bidovec, Marušič, Miloš and Valenčič, were sentenced to death by a special fascist tribunal in 1930, during the First Trieste Trial.

The monument has been damaged and daubed with paint sixteen times to date, most recently just over a week ago. This act of vandalism is one of a series of political, economic, cultural and educational efforts to exert pressure on the Slovenian ethnic community in Italy and on the Republic of Slovenia.

A whole host of acts, involving paint being daubed on Slovenian monuments, on the walls of Slovenian schools and on regional signs bearing names in Slovenian, have deeply hurt the feelings of Italian citizens of Slovenian descent and the Slovenian people of the Republic of Slovenia.

However, no one has yet been called to account for these criminal offences. I find it hard to believe that the Italian police have been so incompetent that they have failed to find the perpetrators, or that there is a lack of political will to find them. When, for the sixteenth time in a row, it seems impossible to track down the perpetrators, that really is too much.

(BG) Ladies and gentlemen, during the last part-session, in connection with the discussions on Turkey, there was talk of Turkey's failure to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. However, you are unaware of another unacknowledged genocide committed by the Turks over five hundred years: the Bulgarian genocide.

I will familiarise you with a small part of this, which took place over four days in April 1876, through the words written at the time by an American journalist by the name of MacGahan:

'It is all the same to me whether this information is impartial or not, once the terrible figure has been acknowledged of 15 000 people killed in four days. No rounding up of this figure can add further to its horror, which is of colossal magnitude when you take in fully all the pernicious, despicable details of this brutal slaughter. The French consul himself heard how the bashibazouks told their attentive audience with delight that, as they cut the heads off children, they watched with curiosity as their small bodies fell and rolled around like slaughtered chickens.'

These few lines describe just four days out of five centuries of outright genocide inflicted by Ottoman Turkey against the enslaved Bulgarians. We MEPs from Attack want acknowledgement and an apology before any kind of discussion at all is initiated about Turkey's membership of the European Union.

(EL) Mr President, in addition to being an agricultural policy and an economic policy, the common agricultural policy, as revised in the years 2003 to 2008, is now very much a social policy and, in my opinion, rightly so. For example, food aid programmes are being strengthened, initiatives are being taken on fruit and vegetables in schools, again in my opinion rightly so, and programmes are being implemented to introduce broadband and invigorate the countryside.

However, a robust common agricultural policy is needed in order to meet today's needs, because with the common agricultural policy farmers receive support and remain in the countryside. So let us unite in demanding that common agricultural policy resources stop being channelled to other policies. Resources for agricultural policy need to be increased:

if we want safe food, because only safe foods can and should be European foods;

if we want food adequacy, because only thus will we be able to deal with crises;

if we want a protected environment, in which case food will have to be grown in keeping with European practices;

if we want farmers to stay in the countryside, we need to help them;

if we want healthy consumers, we need to provide them with European foods.

To close, I should like to call on the European Union to increase its budget, because this will give our Europe a future. Also, if we want a robust farming sector, we need to increase the funds for the common agricultural policy.

Mr President, it is more than a month since you visited Gaza, but the latest figures from the Israeli Government show that nothing has changed: still no materials for reconstruction are being allowed through the checkpoints; no material for schools, no material for industry. The bombing has stopped, but the blockade continues.

Perhaps this would be a good time for this Parliament to try and influence opinion by hosting an exhibition of the T-shirts to which reference has been made by another Member - clothing produced to the design of soldiers, such as the sniper from the Givati Brigade, whose design incorporates a pregnant Palestinian woman and the slogan: 'One shot, two kills'. There are other reports in Israeli newspapers of other designs that are more racist, more extreme, more vile. Such an exhibition might encourage Members to question whether or not we should be continuing with the EU-Israel Association Agreement in the present circumstances.

Mr Davis, at its meeting last Wednesday, the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, which I myself chaired, adopted a resolution on the tragic situation in the Middle East. I would like to remind you of this fact. It is worth taking note of this resolution. Thank you for your comments.

(HU) This is not the first time I have been obliged to speak up in connection with the proposed enormous coal-fired power plant, with a 4-million-tonne annual carbon dioxide emission, being planned for the town of Tőketerebes (Trebišov) in Slovakia. This power plant has met with equally widespread protest on both the Slovak and the Hungarian side of the border, and in spite of this, the parties concerned have restarted the licensing process for the power plant.

On the other side of the border, the Hungarian Government issued a 'Crisis management and growth strategy', according to which, on the grounds of crisis management, Hungary is now seeking to expand by a new 440 megawatt lignite-based block the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the Mátra power plant, which emits more than 6 million tonnes of pollution per year. I need hardly say that neither power plant will be using CCS.

At the end of last year, the European Union adopted the climate package, and last weekend at the EU Summit it approved the financing for a climate compensation scheme for developing countries. Furthermore, we are preparing full steam ahead for the Copenhagen climate conference in December. Meanwhile, the leaders of two Member States, Slovakia and Hungary - although admittedly the latter just resigned - are going ahead as if nothing had happened, financing climate change out of taxpayers' money disregarding the latter's protests. I hope the European Union will give neither political nor material support to this.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while in East Jerusalem thousands of Palestinian homes continue to be demolished, even the Palestinian culture is a target of Israeli policy. Sadly, certain Israeli soldiers have made T-shirts with an image of a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bulls eye and the slogan: '1 shot, 2 kills'.