IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 17.00.)

  President . − I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 13 September 2012.

  President . − Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin our deliberations, may I ask for your attention for a moment. I want to draw your attention to the tragic case of Malala Yousafzai. This 14-year-old Pakistani girl was shot in the head by a Taliban while she was sitting in the school bus. Her crime: supporting education for girls. Allow me, speaking on behalf of the entire House, to express my deep consternation and condemn that act of cowardice in the strongest terms.

(Applause)

We call on the Pakistani authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice and ensure that all children, and especially young girls, have safe access to school education. This young girl, Malala, stands as a symbol for more than 250 million young girls worldwide who live in poverty and have neither access to nor any prospect of elementary basic rights, such as education.

Less than a fortnight ago, on 11 October, we celebrated the first International Day of the Girl, aimed at raising awareness of how often girls’ human rights are violated worldwide. We have a moral responsibility to protect these girls and offer them a better future.

As someone who is also the father of a daughter, I feel personally affected by the Malala case. How can anyone want to shoot a 14-year-old girl who has done nothing more than wanting to go to school herself and championing the right of other girls in her country to be able to do the same, i.e. to claim a self-evident right, that of being allowed to go to school?

I wish this courageous child, this 14-year-old champion of girls’ rights, a full recovery and hope that her work will inspire a new generation of young women throughout the world with the same courage to fight for their rights.

(Applause)

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the Conference of Presidents has decided to cancel the plenary sitting in Brussels in November. Let me briefly take this opportunity to inform you of the facts and the situation. As you all know, the ceiling of the Brussels Chamber has become unstable. During the inspections that take place on a regular basis, we found cracks in three out of 21 ceiling beams. On 31 August, I was informed that this could be dangerous. I therefore had the Chamber closed immediately. Let me add that, according to the first report submitted to us, the place most at risk in the Chamber was the President’s seat. So you can understand why I immediately took steps. Further investigations have shown that there is, indeed, serious structural damage, which in fact is not attributable to use of poor material or to sloppy building work but is clearly a question of material wear and tear, of a nature that was not foreseeable.

I have asked the Secretary-General to pull out all the stops and bring in every available expert. The Belgian Government – as I have informed the President, Mr Di Rupo – has brought in specialists from the Belgian Régie des Bâtiments to assist Parliament in making all the necessary decisions.

We are assuming that the repair work will take quite some time. Let me add one thing: we had to support the ceiling from within. However, the supports themselves are so heavy that the scaffolding that was erected to prop up the ceiling has also proved too heavy for the floor – so much so, in fact, that we also have to prop up the rooms below it and cannot use them. That is why we have cleared a number of areas below the Chamber.

In the next two weeks, solutions will be suggested and two internationally renowned, state-recognised inspectorates will be drawing up a safety report on the proposed solutions. I do not know when we will be able to re-open the Chamber in Brussels. I can tell you, however, that experience shows that this kind of building work can take quite some time.

In spite of these difficult circumstances, we are carrying on with our activities. I have also invited the Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was after all billed to speak at the short part-session in November, to come to Parliament in spite of this, to attend an open Conference of Presidents. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has – what a surprise – happily agreed to make its meeting room available to Ms Merkel because it is the largest one apart from the Chamber. That is where we will be holding an open Conference of Presidents, at which basically the procedure will be the same as it would be for the Chancellor’s speech in plenary. I have agreed this with Ms Merkel.

Another brief reminder, ladies and gentlemen. I have written to you – I cannot remember how often over the past few months – and I hope you have all read the letters, about a photo session we will be holding here tomorrow morning at 12.30. A few minutes before the voting begins, there will be a 360-degree photo giving a panoramic 3D view of the Chamber with Members in their seats. You will remember that I have written to you about this several times and on several occasions. I was told, however, that some Members say they never received a letter from me. I do not believe this and think it more likely that they never read the letter. So, for all those who have not opened their mail, whether in real life or on their computer, tomorrow at 12.25 we will be setting up a 3D-360-degree camera here, which will photograph you all, and after that we will be putting the portraits of you in your seats on the internet so that every voter and every interested party will be able immediately to recognise the individual Members.

  President. − The next item is the debate on the report (A7-0311/2012) by Giovanni La Via and Derek Vaughan, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013 – all sections (12749/2012 – C7-0233/2012 – 2012/2092 (BUD)).

  Giovanni La Via, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Mavroyiannis, Commissioner Lewandowski, in tomorrow’s vote, by means of which we ask Parliament to gives its backing, with a large majority, to the budget as approved by the Commission, we mean to send a clear signal to the Council for the next conciliation.

Before going into the merits, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and all the committee members, as well as the officials and other contributors, for the work they have undertaken over the past months. As you know, the Council proposed a significant number of cuts, in stark contrast to the statements from the European Council of 28 and 29 June, at which the decision had been taken at the highest political level to invest in order to support growth and development across Europe. So, in our reading, we decided to reinstate the draft budget from the Commission and to make selective increases to resources in certain chapters of the budget which were closely related to the policies of growth and job creation, in particular for our young people.

As I have had occasion to point out before, this is not a feckless gesture, given today’s climate: we all know the fiscal difficulties confronting each Member State. But the answer to the crisis – as the European Council also pointed out – must be more Europe and not less Europe. I would characterise the position that we are to vote on tomorrow as responsible. But responsible does not mean defeatist: it means contributing to economic renewal by certain precise and selective increases, which are more limited than those in a normal reading at the European Parliament, especially in terms of commitments made, but taking account of the general climate of austerity and the sacrifices being imposed at national level.

However, I don’t believe that the Member States can accuse us of calling for increases which are not in line with today’s crisis, and I repeat that we are determined to maintain sufficient investment to bring about a new boost to the economy, responding to the pleas from our people who are suffering.

I would now like to address the question of payments. It will not have escaped anyone that this is the most delicate aspect of the negotiations, but I think we have to approach the topic from a technical rather than a political viewpoint. The level of payments set by the Commission in the draft budget has been established for each item on the basis of the Member States’ own estimates, revised downwards. So the motion for an increase of 6.8 % on 2012 is merely a realistic indication of the resources required to pay the claims from the Member States and to honour all the commitments we have made since 2007. We cannot now consider jeopardising the implementation of particular European programmes – as has happened in the past few days – and I find it inconceivable that the reading of the Council and the statements made by some ministers could be based on figures which are clearly insufficient to finance these programmes.

We have all agreed in our press statements that the answer to the crisis is Europe. It is a shame that, when we get down to specifics, these words are not followed by practical actions. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the problem we are faced with is one of the credibility and trustworthiness of the European Union. In fact, paying the Member States’ claims is a legal obligation, which we cannot simply ignore; and it is certainly not for Parliament to explain this to the Member States.

To conclude, I would remind you of the wording of the resolution accompanying tomorrow’s vote, in which Parliament gives its Conciliation Committee a mandate not to accept the level of payments, either for the draft amending budget No 6 or for the 2013 budget, if the latter does not sufficiently cover the needs for payment during 2012 and 2013 as estimated by the Commission.

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President

  Derek Vaughan, rapporteur. − Mr President, I will of course concentrate on the budget of the other sections, including Parliament’s own budget. Regarding the latter, it is always difficult to set your own budget, and this year it is even more difficult, as we face tough economic and financial times. Therefore, the European Parliament took very seriously the Commissioner’s letter earlier this year when he suggested to all the institutions that they limit the increase for 2013 to 1.9 %. Since the start of this year, the aim of this Parliament has been to keep our increase below 1.9 %, including the extra costs incurred because of Croatia.

We started with a figure of 2.4 % earlier this year, but straightaway we started to look for savings. We agreed to freeze all Members’ allowances – the daily and office allowances – and we agreed to cut our travel budget once again. We also set up a working group between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau to look at further savings. This working group, I am glad to say, has been able to identify more savings. We have been able to find a 5 % cut in the travel budget. We have decided to save EUR 5.3 million from the budget line for the House of European History, and we have found other ways of finding EUR 3.1 million to fund the expansion of wifi within the European Parliament buildings themselves. I am pleased to say that, at a recent conciliation meeting between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, we agreed a 1.9 % increase for Parliament’s budget – including the extra cost of Croatia – but also including the 1.7 % proposed salary increases. So when colleagues do the mathematics and look at the actual increase proposed for Parliament’s budget next year, they will see it is well below 1 % – indeed I believe what we are proposing is nearer 0.6 %.

At this stage I want to thank the members of the Budget Committee and the Bureau for their cooperation, but also all my shadows for their cooperation. We have worked extremely hard to get an increase at this level. I think that shows in the fact that there are no budget line amendments to be voted on tomorrow and that we are able, I believe, to stick to the agreement we reached with the Bureau some time ago. Therefore, this Parliament is able to say that we have set in place a responsible budget for 2013 and that we will continue to look for further savings.

As rapporteur, I have also been encouraging other institutions to set a responsible budget. I believe it was a mistake by the Council some time ago to propose a blanket freeze for all the budgets of all the institutions. All the institutions are different, with different needs and different pressures, and therefore we should be looking at their budgets individually. Certainly that is what I have done as rapporteur – I have sat down with each institution to look at their budgets in great detail. I am therefore proposing that we partially reinstate the budget of most of the other institutions to around the 1.9 % figure I mentioned earlier.

However, there are a few institutions which are likely to come in a little higher than that because of their own special circumstances. I believe the Ombudsman, the Court of Justice and the European External Action Service also have special circumstances and may warrant an increase of slightly above the 1.9 % figure. I hope that tomorrow, my colleagues will accept these proposals for Parliament’s budget and also for the budget of all the other institutions. It has been a tough budget, but I do believe we have achieved our aim – a 1.9 % increase – while at the same time making savings but also protecting the effectiveness of this Parliament and of individual Members of this Parliament.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, as President of the Council, it is a pleasure for me to attend Parliament’s debate on the draft budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013. On 11 September I also had the honour of presenting to you in detail the Council’s position on the draft budget for 2013, as adopted by the Council on 24 July.

Last week, at the budgetary trialogue, I had the opportunity of giving some initial reactions to the amendments which the European Parliament intends to vote on. I wish to recall that the Council reached an agreement on its position on the draft budget for 2013, following difficult negotiations, and accepted a limited increase in commitments and payment appropriations compared to 2012.

We are all aware of the considerable effort and budgetary constraints that Member States are currently facing at national level, and we have to take these into account. I believe that, as the Member States endeavour to consolidate their budgets, it is crucial to deliver the right message to European citizens. Today I will take note of the positions taken by the European Parliament.

Let me now focus on some issues to which the Council attaches particular importance. Firstly, the Council considers that the existing ceilings of the multiannual financial framework must be respected. It is also important to ensure adequate margins under the different ceilings in order to be able to cope with unforeseen situations. The Council is therefore concerned about the European Parliament’s amendments, which considerably reduce the margins in all headings, the only exception being heading 5. Moreover, the European Parliament proposes to go beyond the ceilings of subheading 1a, requiring the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument.

Secondly, the Council regrets the increasing payment appropriations that the European Parliament intends to vote on, especially when their level exceeds the Commission’s draft budget. The Council is aware of the European Parliament’s intentions to support and highlight several of its political priorities. However, the overall level of payment appropriations retained should be sufficient but not overestimated.

Thirdly, the Council wishes to find an agreement with the European Parliament on a reasonable level of payment appropriations for the current budgetary year, including draft amending budget No 5, the global transfer and the upcoming draft amending budget No 6.

Finally, I would like to remind you that the Council is opposed to the broad use of reserves that you intend to vote on, especially when their release is accompanied by conditions which are not in line with the provisions of the Financial Regulation. Appropriations should only be entered in the reserve in the absence of a basic act and in cases of serious doubt about the adequacy of the appropriations or their implementation.

To conclude, let me reiterate the Council’s hope and conviction that the existing excellent climate of cooperation will prevail during the rest of the budgetary procedure, leading to a mutually-satisfying agreement on the 2013 budget. We fully respect the European Parliament and your intentions, even when we are not in a position to entirely share the stance you adopt.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, Minister, we are discussing the budget for 2013, the last year of this financial perspective. However, we should draw on the experience of the tensions we have in this year’s budget; they should be kept very strongly in mind.

Therefore I welcome – not surprisingly – the reading of the proposal by the Committee on Budgets about the restoration of our draft proposal for next year. We share the same priorities. It is very clear to me that budgetary efforts nowadays should be undertaken in close conjunction with the growth, jobs and competitiveness agenda of the European Union. This should not be just an illusion of a growth strategy; it should be very well equipped with money.

We notice that Parliament is very restrained as to the level of commitments. That is why it is leaving some unallocated margins for unforeseen events, and it is easy to foresee that this will also be needed for next year.

Last Friday we adopted the amending budget for agriculture for next year that more or less confirms our early estimates, but as Mr La Via clearly stated, the main sensitive issue is the level of payments. We cannot endorse the Council’s decision to cut our proposal by more than EUR 5 billion, because this is simply contradicting earlier announcements on the growth and jobs agenda for Europe: they were made in June, and in July come cuts of that amount. This ignores the reality of what is really needed this year, and next, and we cannot simply continue with the systematic underfunding of the European budget, as it is hindering the implementation of so many programmes. This year we should also base our programming of the implementation of the budget – which is now more than EUR 10 billion bigger than last year (an indication of the maturity of many programmes) – on the need to cover this year all that should be paid this year in order to enter next year with a clear vision of what is really needed in 2013 and not carry forwards all the accumulated problems.

In some areas we are really running short of money. For example, for the Social Fund we have to stop payments in the area of competitiveness, as there are no more resources available. There is a very high level of implementation generally in cohesion funding. As for the research grants, they already needed to be reinforced back in July. So the tension this year indicates the need for an amending and correcting budget for this year in order to cover what is really needed in the remaining period of this year before we can discuss and agree on the 2013 level.

I think the position on administration that Mr Vaughan takes is the right one. We should be constrained, but of course there are limits to savings, given the new responsibilities of the European Union. So this should be below the level of inflation.

Our letter of executability is coming soon in order to complete the full picture. That is also about pilot projects and preparatory actions.

Of course we are not happy with the reserves, but I understand that we could end the conciliation after the written explanations without reserves. Our role is to submit everything that is needed as the basis for sound programming for 2013 so that Parliament has a full picture of what is really reasonable in the 2013 budget.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. − (FI) Mr President, I am speaking in my capacity as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on the committee’s behalf.

The budget of the common foreign and security policy should be more transparent and more detailed than hitherto. Crisis management operations and special representatives’ budgets should appear separately in their own budget lines. This would give the budgetary authority, Parliament, and citizens a better indication and more information about where money is used. It would also make it easier to request money for a specific item. Money is not the problem facing the European common foreign and security policy, rather the problem is that the EU does not have a common will, a common line. The priorities of the EU’s foreign policy have not been set, and, as a general rule, there are two lines.

I would again highlight the external action service budget in which a 6 % increase is proposed. That’s a large increase. I do appreciate that this is a new way of working, but here, too, consideration must be given to where savings can be made.

  Vicky Ford, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. − Mr President, in the Committee on Economic Affairs of this Parliament, MEPs for once made some sensible comments. They looked at the savings that every single Member State is having to make at local and national spending level and concluded that EU public spending must be subjected to the same discipline. The committee’s report says, and I quote, ‘Parliament must provide the Council with a clear budget that calls for a budgetary freeze, increasing spending where it matters and cutting it where it does not.’

Sadly, the MEPs said one thing in the report and then did another. They identified areas to increase spending but in nearly every area where they could have supported a cut they voted against it. I and my British Conservative colleagues will not be supporting Parliament’s proposed budget.

  Jutta Haug, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. − (DE) Mr President, President of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on the Environment would like to remind you that, although it is responsible only for an infinitesimal part of the European budget, we will certainly not achieve the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy if we do not commit sufficient appropriations to the programmes and measures relating to environment and climate action and biodiversity. That is why we have reinstated the totally incomprehensible cuts the Council made to the Commission proposal. After all, the Commission did also subscribe to the commitment to sustained growth. In any case, the Commission was already being very cautious when it drew up the budget. It provided for a rise of no more than 0.72 % for climate and environment policy. In plain words, that simply means a cut. For the inflation rate is in fact 2 %.

Even more dubious is what the Council is doing with the agencies. Let us make it quite clear: the Commission has already included the minus 1 % for staff in its proposal, and, moreover, it is as usual also reducing the appropriations the agencies regard as necessary. That means the available budget for the agencies is pretty low from the outset. And then the Council comes along and snips away at it even more. Soon we will be down to the bare bones! This most affects the agencies to which the legislator, i.e. the Council and the EP together, have transferred new tasks. They cannot fulfil them if they do not receive adequate funding.

We expect the Commission to produce a supplementary and rectifying budget as soon as possible in any case and at all events. We expect the Council to take on board our good arguments when it negotiates with Parliament. We know that the Council is incorruptible, but surely it can at least see reason!

  Reinhard Bütikofer, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President of the Council, you said on behalf of the Presidency that we should send out the right signal. The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has done so. We have examined the budget carefully, and in our proposal we have been very selective in restoring the amounts proposed by the Commission to their original level.

But sending out the right signal surely also means that there is no sense in making cuts in precisely those areas where there is a European added value, because that will make us not richer, but poorer! To promise growth and then to refuse the funding to give impetus to that growth is a nonsense. The Council’s proposals make such drastic cuts to the payments specifically intended for the competitiveness and innovation programme that is so crucial to small and medium-sized enterprises that, next year, the budget will not even suffice for six months. Come to your senses: that is simply a way to alienate the citizens from Europe even more, but not to resolve the problems!

  Philippe De Backer, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. − Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Transport Committee, which provided an opinion for the Budget Committee. The Committee on Transport and Tourism has underlined the importance of investments in transport. Investing in transport is important, especially in compliance with the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs. It creates economic growth and improves territorial cohesion, but it also helps in achieving safety targets. The Transport Committee carefully assessed the relevant budget lines and set its political priorities very clearly.

On the one hand we have investment supporting economic growth and job creation, which are essential for the Committee. It therefore voted in favour of a higher budget than that proposed by the Commission for the TEN-T programme. Unfortunately this was rejected by the Budget Committee, which supported the Commission’s draft proposal.

On the other hand, the Transport Committee also identified budgetary lines where it was possible to make savings. It therefore supported the Council’s cuts on two budgetary lines concerning administrative expenditures. In terms of the rest of the transport budget, the Committee supports the Commission’s draft proposal, and it clearly feels that investment in transport infrastructure is necessary for the correct functioning and achievement of the single market within Europe.

  Georgios Stavrakakis, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. − (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again Parliament’s Committee on Budgets has adopted a responsible position by rejecting the across-the-board cuts made by the Council. These cuts are not in keeping with the European Union’s real needs and run completely counter to the Compact for Growth and Jobs agreed by the 27 Heads of State or Government last June. If you permit, I will focus on Heading 1a.

We all agree that cohesion policy is the main and most suitable investment instrument for driving the European Union towards growth and job creation by accurately meeting the investment needs of the regions. It also makes a decisive contribution to a real reduction in regional inequalities and achieving social, economic and territorial cohesion.

We at the European Parliament must also ensure that the various policies of the European Union, and in particular those which result in growth, jobs and investment, are adequately funded.

  Morten Løkkegaard, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. − Mr President, as budget coordinator for the Committee on Culture and Education, I am obviously pleased that the Committee on Budgets has taken all our priorities on board, or in any case the vast majority of them. In line with the rapporteur, I am obviously fully in agreement, and can declare my agreement, that there is a need for more Europe and not less Europe. It is, therefore, obviously gratifying that the Committee on Budgets supports lifelong learning, the programme for 2013 that is at the heart of efforts towards achieving growth in the 2020 strategy. We obviously have to continue to ensure that students, teachers and academics have the necessary mobility. These programmes are crucial in ensuring the growth we all need. It is, therefore, obviously a matter of great concern that the Council has decided to cut the payments. This is close to being absurd, and is completely the wrong signal to give in the situation we are now in.

With regard to sport, we have a number of actions under way, and there continues to be broad support for us being able to test these areas before we obtain an actual sports programme in 2014, and that is obviously also really, really good. So thanks to the Committee on Budgets for this.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I support the views expressed by several Members who have spoken in favour of a tough budget to enable us to exit from the crisis, create employment and allow European citizens to get on with their daily lives.

However, as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I would like to highlight those areas for which we were especially keen to obtain funding. All of them concern our citizens: the launching of the European citizens’ initiative, the European Year of Citizens in 2013 and also communication with citizens.

We must bear in mind that 2014 is an election year and that European citizens will, once again, express their opinion about the kind of future that they want for Europe. We believe that all forms of communication should be strategic, not only with regard to constitutional affairs, but with regard to the Union as a whole.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. − (EL) Mr President, I would also like to thank Mr La Via and Mr Vaughan for their report on the draft general budget for the year 2013.

Our opinion within the Committee on Petitions relates mainly to the forecasts for expenses and the budget of the European Ombudsman for this financial year.

I should like to highlight the issues relating to the 3.89 % increase in this year’s budget for the European Ombudsman and to point out that this increase is due to technical reasons, such as the increase in rent in Strasbourg and the necessity of moving to new offices in Brussels because the European Parliament decided to convert the current offices into a museum. As a result, the cost is not flexible and it should not be thought that there is a real increase in the cost of the European Ombudsman’s procedures in relation to this move, which has a cost, at a time of crisis, for Parliament. Finally, I should like to note that the increase in credits for contract workers of approximately EUR 110 000 is, according to the information we have, completely natural and is subject to the general Staff Regulations.

  Monika Hohlmeier, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as the PPE member responsible for Parliament’s budget, I also want to offer warm thanks to my colleague Derek Vaughan for the close and very fruitful cooperation we have had with all the other shadow rapporteurs. Although Croatia is now also a Member, which has imposed extra costs on the European Parliament, we have managed to stand by a 1.9 % rise, i.e. one that is actually below the normal rate of inflation. To that end, we have also made clear savings in a very wide variety of sectors, which means that we have managed to adopt a draft budget for the European Parliament that is also agreed with the Commission or in line with the Commission’s views.

At the same time, however, I would ask those colleagues who may not mean any wrong but basically think we need more and more cuts to the European Parliament’s budget to remember that MEPs must be able to operate under proper working conditions and must also have the chance to review the documents presented by the Commission and proposals such as those put forward by the Member States at the European summit, and then in the end to be able to live with them. We need a competent Parliament, which is why we also need sensible, good and solid funding.

  Eider Gardiazábal Rubial, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, tomorrow this plenary session is going to vote on the European Parliament’s position on the 2013 budget, which is likely to receive the backing of a large majority of MEPs. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr La Via, as the rapporteur for this budget, for all his magnificent work.

I would like the Council to know that, for European socialists, this position is the very bottom line, because we are convinced that more can be done. We believe that there is room for manoeuvre within this budget and that there are many European programmes to which more resources can be allocated.

In January, the members of the European Council issued a statement in which they emphasised the need to invest in growth and jobs. In June, at another Council meeting, they decided on a ‘Compact for Growth and Jobs’, and yet they have done nothing to put this initiative in train.

We believe that the budget can help to do so, and, to that end, we have submitted amendments aimed at supporting all those programmes which reflect our priorities: SMEs, education, youth, research and innovation through the Seventh Framework Programme, and not forgetting development cooperation.

What measures has the Council put in train? What budgetary measures has it taken to ensure that those programmes come to fruition? None. Not only has it made no proposals, it has even proposed cutting the budget by EUR 1 billion. It is continuing to impose austerity as the sole recipe for tackling the crisis. We told them then that they were wrong, and they didn’t take any notice of us. Unfortunately, events are now proving us correct. They are not calming the markets; macroeconomic data are not improving; deficit figures continue to escalate and, what is worse, citizens are having a very bad time of it and many countries, as a result of that austerity, no longer have a welfare state to help them to survive the crisis.

How long is it going to take you to realise that we need to change course? Members of the Council, you carry on ploughing the same furrow – we saw it here today – not only are you cutting back on your commitments for the coming year, you are also cutting pay, just like you did last year and the year before.

Mr Mavroyiannis, cutting pay means failing to fulfil commitments; it means that you have decided not to pay your bills; it means that many programmes will have to be halted, such as the Erasmus grants; it means that many of our town councils and regions will not receive the money that they have already invested in projects which are financed by European funds. This Parliament is not going to allow that to happen.

Our position on this matter is unwavering and clear: if you fail to allocate the necessary money in order to prevent a recurrence of what is happening this year with regard to pay, Parliament is going to say no to your budget proposal.

  Jan Mulder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, a 6.8 % increase in the European Union budget will be difficult to justify to the public when savings are having to be made everywhere in Europe.

However, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe sees it as a consequence of commitments entered into earlier. Contracts simply have to be fulfilled. If payments really need to be reduced, there is one very simple solution: to cut back on commitments. That is what the ALDE Group has tried to do in this budget procedure. We have said that it should be possible to reduce commitments by 5 % for the countries that do not make good use of their Structural Funds. Unfortunately, that proposal could not count on a majority, and we did not present it again. But we firmly believe that commitments have to be met.

If the budget authority – the Council and Parliament – initially voted to implement certain projects and the contracts were signed, then you can’t say later, ‘I’m afraid we need to economise now’ and ‘we don’t have the money’. That’s not on! A self-respecting government has to honour its contracts.

Furthermore, every year, money is refunded to the Member States because the accounts that are now presented to us are not submitted early enough. In the opinion of the ALDE Group, if those accounts are submitted too late, that does not mean that they no longer need to be paid. We therefore find this 6.8 % increase in the budget very hard to justify. We are fully prepared to listen to the Council, we are always willing to let ourselves be convinced, but, at the moment, we find the Commission’s arguments stronger than the Council’s. I should also like to ask the Council whether it is true that the original estimates that were submitted by the Member States were even higher than the 6.8 % that the Council is now asking for? I should be grateful for an official answer from the Council. Were the original estimates by the Member States, where the Member States were asking individually and not collectively, higher than 6.8 % or not?

As things stand at the moment, we shall support the position of the Committee on Budgets.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, President of the Council, Commissioner Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, I am very disappointed by what we have heard from the representatives of the Cyprus Presidency of the Council today, by the restrictive approach it wants to take to the important instrument of the European Union’s budget for the 2013 financial year. I deeply regret the fact that the Council can still not find the right balance between austerity and the need to boost growth at European level. We need sustainable growth! We need to make progress in combating climate change! We have to bring forward the energy revolution. We have to invest in renewable energy because that creates new jobs. And, above all, we have to instil new confidence in the citizens of the European Union.

But how can you instil the hard-pressed people with new confidence when they find that, even now, in 2012, the Commission is no longer in a position to pay out the money for the European Social Fund? Surely you are sending absolutely the wrong signal here. And that is why I very strongly criticise the approach the Council is taking here, in now failing to make the necessary appropriations available for the agreements it subscribed to in the first place. Let me repeat that this undermines people’s confidence in the European project and in the European Council’s sense of responsibility. It is a wrong policy and that is why we must reject it.

We have just heard that there are now payment problems even with programmes such as Lifelong Learning – programmes that really are directed at individual citizens, at students and schoolchildren. This situation just cannot go on! Things must change next year. If you want to create more confidence in Europe’s ability to act at European level, then you cannot cut this budget in the way the Council is currently proposing to do.

The Greens take the view that of course we also have to propose savings: for instance in regard to the ITER nuclear fusion reactor, which unfortunately a majority here in Parliament and in the Council want to fund. We do not think that sets the right signal at a time when we need an energy revolution and we believe that instead we must focus more on wind energy, photovoltaics and other sustainable energy sources. A brief word to say that we are prepared, even where it affects us ourselves, to handle the resources in a very responsible and careful manner. As Mr Vaughan has said, we have only a 1.9 % increase in the European budget. We MEPs could in fact save even more if we were prepared to give up short-haul business flights. I hope Members will give that some thought!

  Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I congratulate both our rapporteurs; there is a great deal in their reports which we can support, and I acknowledge that they have shown restraint in many of their proposals. In particular I want to mention Derek Vaughan with Parliament’s budget.

However, in one vital area we cannot agree: notably the overall size of the budget. This is a critical time for financing in all the Member States’ national budgets, and in particular they have an urgent need to direct all possible resources to creating jobs and restoring growth within their economies. To that end there are two ways in which we in the European Parliament can help.

Firstly, we can control the size of our budgetary demands. If we do that, we reduce the burden of cost on the Member States. But secondly, we can set an example. Of course we support jobs and growth, but I consider that much of the money which we need to do that could be found from savings elsewhere in the budget – indeed, it must be found from savings. I also acknowledge the problems with payments caused by the ‘reste à liquider’ issue, and I would recommend that in the long term this Parliament, as a scrutinising body, needs to take steps to address this problem.

However, for the 2013 budget, I urge this House to show more ambition. I urge it to support the Council’s demand for restraint by freezing the size of the budget. By doing this, it could send a very clear message to the electorate.

  Alda Sousa, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, this plenary session will vote on Parliament’s position on the 2013 budget before negotiations with the governments begin.

The governments that announced their commitment to employment and growth at the June Summit are the same governments that have imposed unprecedented austerity on Europeans, and that have increased the number of unemployed. They also wish to make work permanently insecure and seek to withdraw all acquired rights.

It is therefore no surprise that their proposal on the EU budget fuels that unchecked austerity. Over the past four years, all they have been able to do is cut, and 2013 will be no different.

They want to make cuts in European research, education and training programmes and regional development and cohesion, as if the EUR 9 billion of cohesion funds and the European Social Fund in arrears, I repeat, in arrears, were not already enough for countries such as Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Italy, putting various programmes at risk, including Erasmus.

It is true that Parliament is trying, to a certain extent, to reverse some of the more swingeing government cuts, such as the Seventh Framework Programme, Erasmus Mundus and Intelligent Energy, by actually going beyond the Commission proposal. It also true that the proposal has raised the appropriation for aid to Palestine, and that the European Parliament has taken the initiative to cut almost EUR 9 million from its own expenses, which I personally regard as clearly insufficient. Unfortunately, however, these proposals are not enough to change the nature of the EU budget and to counter divisive and recessionary austerity policies when solidarity-based policies are needed. In any event, one thing we cannot accept is the fact that the only institution with direct democratic legitimacy, that is, Parliament, is excluded from negotiations with the governments. For that very reason, as we have seen, leaving decisions exclusively to the governments makes no sense at all.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, a 7 % increase for 2013 is outrageous. Does anybody in this House seriously believe that we will help recovery by funding space projects? Why is Galileo still getting EUR 160 million, almost three times more than last year? This is a badly-managed project producing technology that rivals already brought to the market years ago.

Why are projects like the Earth monitoring programme and the space research programme getting over EUR 300 million? I can assure you that none of these vanity projects will be putting food on the tables of Europe’s growing number of increasingly angry poor people. Then we have the famous supervisory bodies created a couple of years ago to avoid any more financial scandals. They have not done so. Their reward is EUR 20 million.

Would Europe fall apart if all these projects were not funded, along with the EEAS, worth EUR 430 million? Absolutely not. Forget a rise, President; forget a freeze, Mr Cameron. What this ridiculous budget really needs is a cut of at least 10 %.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, I arrived in Strasbourg yesterday, so in the afternoon I saw quite a few older men playing bowls and children skateboarding and playing football in the sun. I cannot help thinking of them today, when we are debating the 2013 budget. How do I explain to them that the Commission wants a 6.8 % increase in the 2013 budget? I can certainly tell them that subsequently the Council of national Ministers was angry about the increase and was not willing to approve it.

If I have to tell them, though, that the European Parliament wants an even bigger increase, as much as 7 %, that is impossible for me to explain! Mr President, I cannot explain that, nor do I wish to. We cannot saddle our parents, who have built our countries up, and our children, who should be able to go on living in hope in the future, with such a terrible proposal by the Commission and this Parliament. So the most sensible thing we can do today is to throw the Commission proposal straight in the wastepaper bin and ask for a different budget proposal, this time with substantial savings and a sizeable reduction in the 2013 budget. The PVV cannot settle for less, nor, I hope, can any other sensible Members of this Parliament.

The budget proposed for 2013 is a disgrace and I absolutely reject it on behalf of the people of the Netherlands, whom Mr Schulz accuses of navel-gazing.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the benefit of speaking towards the end is that one can hear what earlier speakers have to say.

There is a problem here, but it is a political one: there are some groups and individuals here who do not understand or do not subscribe to the concept of European added value as being the way in which the Union budget has an added effect and a very positive one on the economy of the Union.

It seems perfectly normal to me that some MEPs should not agree with it and want to reduce the budget by around 10 % or 20 %, or indeed end up without a Community budget, and why not? That would be the best saving that you could make… My concern, however, is that the Council itself has lost sight of what European added value is. Shall I tell you why? It is because the Union budget is managed by Finance Ministers, whereas the Union budget should be discussed by Ministers for European Affairs, who have an idea of what Europe is all about, not Finance Ministers.

This problem points to why we will never agree on the budget and why we will never reach agreement on the forthcoming financial perspectives. The 2013 budget illustrates this point perfectly: they gave us a few commitment appropriations to enable us to launch a few Community programmes, and yet they are denying us the possibility of obtaining enough payment appropriations to carry out those programmes. By acting in this way, all we are doing is increasing the frustration of European citizens and playing into the hands of those who feel that the Union budget is pointless. It is not pointless; it is the most useful instrument we have in Europe for promoting growth and jobs.

  Göran Färm (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, sincere thanks to the rapporteur and shadow rapporteur. They have done a very good job at an extremely difficult time. Very few citizens are aware that there is a trend for the EU budget actually to fall as a proportion of the Member States’ economies. Most people believe that it is merely growing and growing. That is not true. It is falling despite the EU having gained new tasks and new Member States.

Despite this, the European Parliament, in view of the economic crisis, is very cautious about 2013. Our proposal largely means a freeze in terms of new budget commitments. The reason why we nevertheless do not accept a cut in the budget is that we feel that it might worsen the crisis. The budget in fact consists of job-creating and growth-creating investments with a redistribution profile marked by solidarity to the benefit of the most vulnerable countries, regions, young unemployed and so on. In many of these countries, there would be no job-creating investments without EU support.

The most controversial issue appears to be the payment appropriations. This ought to be a technical issue. It ought to be self-evident that budget decisions that are taken must be implemented, that contracts must be paid for, that exchange students must receive remuneration and so on. It is simply not acceptable that important programmes such as Erasmus and the Social Fund are now finding it difficult to carry out their activities.

Our assessment is that the Commission’s proposals for payment appropriations for next year are not excessive but are exactly what is needed. It is very good that Mr Lewandowski, Member of the Commission, has now started talking seriously.

Finally, a few words about Parliament’s own budget. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has, for several years, advocated savings without jeopardising parliamentary work. We are now continuing with this line. We are in agreement on a rate of increase of 1.9 %, including the costs of Croatian accession. There is, in fact, a real slimming-down of the budget.

Finally, we would really need to make progress on the issue of Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg. The Committee on Budgets has now, partly on my suggestion, by a large majority adopted a more detailed proposal than previously, which requires a ‘roadmap’, an action plan, in order to tackle the issue in practice. There are ways of resolving this with respect for history, without harming the city of Strasbourg and its citizens. In the longer term, it is unreasonable to adopt a solution that results in high costs every year and, in addition, is a heavy burden both on the environment and on working conditions in Parliament.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, President of the Council, Commissioner, the top priorities for the forthcoming 2013 draft budget are support for sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment. Here, SMEs and young people once again have pride of place. In fact, however, we note with great surprise that most of the Council’s cuts are to the commitment authorisations under Heading I. That is the most important heading if we are to achieve the 2020 objectives at all. Precisely at a time of severe structural crisis, people must be offered every chance of qualifying for a job. For it is only well-qualified young people, as well as older people, who have a chance to find a sustainable job. Similarly, only healthy people will be able to make a contribution towards a functioning society. That is why the positive nature of programmes and measures such as Daphne and the European partnerships in the field of sport must be emphasised.

Let us go down the right road! This is our citizens’ money. It is them we should be looking at first – especially in these times of increasingly severe crisis. This is the final year of the current MFF. We have to strike the right balance between saving and investment!

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, another year has gone by, and again it is time for us to fight over the European Union budget. As in previous years, I would like to call for responsible behaviour. We must aim for compromise, so that the budget can be adopted on time and properly before the end of this year.

I am not an advocate of escalating the situation or of a budget war between institutions. Therefore, I do not support efforts to increase the European budget. As in previous years, the position of the Council, which represents our Member States, should be taken as a basis for compromise. These Member States are currently facing a difficult economic situation and cannot be forced to increase expenditure at EU level.

It is good that the European Parliament is also now making an effort to look for savings in its economic management. I think there is always room for that here.

Today, I read in the news that the European Commission is spending EUR 10 million on a project to track people in cyberspace. We are also aware that that we are financing tobacco-growing even though we know that smoking harms health. And we are also well aware that the European Parliament has two seats, which cost us EUR 200 million a year. We can save money in these areas – and also in many others, I am sure.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the Council’s proposal for the 2013 budget is shameful and unacceptable; it blatantly contradicts the discourse of solidarity and all the propaganda surrounding growth and cohesion. It should not be forgotten that the indiscriminate cuts proposed by the Council are based on pressure from countries which are some of the largest beneficiaries of the single market and common policies.

While it is true that the report is critical of the Council position, it is no less true that, in previous years when the Council adopted the same position, this Parliament ultimately always agreed and approved equally unacceptable budgets.

In the proposed amendments we submitted, both on the budget and on this report, we showed that alternatives do exist. The crisis we are going through calls for a substantial increase in the budget and an emphasis on its redistributive role: more funds to support production activity, particularly in the countries facing greater difficulties, the creation of employment with rights, the battle against poverty and exclusion, research and development and environmental protection, and fewer resources for external intervention, the elimination of immigration, militarism and institutional propaganda.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the past few years have made clear that we, too, must face up to the crisis. The coming year will be the final year of the current multiannual financial framework, which means that it is of the utmost importance in terms of balancing the books and ensuring that the commitments undertaken are honoured. The European Union’s credibility is at stake. I am firmly convinced that maintaining the budget at its current, planned level is in the interests not only of the beneficiaries but also of all Member States, and that it will have a huge impact on the future of our continent. The present crisis, which has hampered any real possibility of a budget increase, should not, however, be used as a convenient pretext for making cuts. With that in mind, we await the full outcome of the deliberations and believe that the planned amounts will be secured.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, we are tackling the 2013 budget with both a political objective and a methodological objective.

The political objective is to fund those commitments already made, and in particular to give positive follow-up to the growth pact which was adopted by the European Council in June. Last week, the European Council drew attention to the slowness of its implementation. From our point of view, its implementation presupposes a minimum budgetary amount, concentration on research and development programmes, university exchanges and innovation under Heading 1a.

We also have a methodological objective: to treat payment appropriations from the technical rather than the political point of view. The level of the payments has soured the budgetary debate for the past three years. It should never have become a political problem, and if it has become one, this is because the administrative machinery was badly designed. It is not working properly in the national capitals, between the national capitals and Brussels, and even in Brussels itself.

Here in Parliament we are making a specific proposal: to ask each country to centralise its requests for payment within a single authority. That central authority would verify the level of need, would certify it, make it public and convey it officially to Brussels. The Commissioner would not have to do anything more than make additions. Then the political authorities, Ministers on the one hand and Members of Parliament on the other, would negotiate again regarding the real political dimension of the budget, in other words the commitment appropriations.

As we sit here talking, programmes as important as the Social Fund, rural development, innovation, the framework research programme and Erasmus are having their payments stopped. As Commissioner Lewandowski said, we cannot leave the Union in a situation which no government wanted and which no citizen can understand.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we held an SME summit in Brussels last week, with approximately 600 small-business owners in the city at the invitation of the Commission. The week before that, several hundred innovative enterprises took part in various conferences held at the European Parliament. A week and a half ago, I had occasion to welcome 250 young entrepreneurs who had participated in the ‘Erasmus for All’ programme to a gala dinner. Some 5 000 small-business owners have already taken part in that programme. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, our words and deeds must point in the same direction! We on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy therefore consider it unacceptable that the Council and Commission have tabled a motion to curtail the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, the Research and Development Programme and the Digital Agenda.

This is not what we have promised, and this is not what our voters and entrepreneurs expect of us. We have promised to ensure growth and employment. I would therefore like to encourage you to adopt the motion by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Budgets to restore these lines to their original state. Commissioner, for the past two years – so we are now in the third year – we have been fighting a serious battle together to find sources of ITER funding. We consider this programme to be important, but we have also always emphasised, and would like to emphasise now, the fact that this cannot be to the detriment of other research and development programmes. I sincerely hope that we are nearing the end of this nightmare – which has been going on here for years on this point – and that this matter will be resolved in the next seven-year budget. I encourage you to think about young people, to think about the future and to invest resources in them. Thank you for listening.

  Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteurs for their good work and balanced proposals. The most important issue now is maintaining our credibility by remembering the reality outside these walls and keeping in mind agreed priorities. This means not cutting investments in action to promote growth and jobs, and sticking to the Europe 2020 strategy. We must therefore maintain spending in research, development and innovation.

I applaud the efforts of Mr La Via towards this goal. It is the right way. In Italian they would probably say ‘la via correta’. This does not mean ignoring the need for budgetary restraint; cuts must be made, but they must be made in areas which do not harm our priorities. Mr Vaughan has done a great job in this direction. At the same time we must not give in to Council pressure to limit the budget in preparation for the negotiations for the MFF.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, governments and citizens are having to make savings everywhere in Europe. But what do we see? The Committee on Budgets wants a budget increase of nearly 7 %. You wonder which planet this unbelievable decision was taken on.

My group has tabled amendments with a view to reducing the budget. We have to scrap the megalomaniac House of European History project. We also need to consider whether the European agencies and the European foreign service are, in fact, spending the budget wisely. Mr President, why does the European Rail Agency have two places of work 45 kilometres apart? Why does the European foreign service have nearly 50 staff on the tropical island of Barbados?

Transparency is at least as important. And that has to start with ourselves. I have proposed again that Members’ general expense allowances should be made transparent. If we include that in the resolution, the European Parliament will gain credibility, which I think is very important.

  Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union must have adequate financial resources to meet the commitments it has already undertaken: commitments in favour of local authorities, businesses and Erasmus participants. The European Union budget serves not only Member States but, first and foremost, citizens. That is why we are calling in our report for an increase in funds – funds for measures to boost growth and competitiveness and for actions that will help create jobs (with a special focus on employment for young people). That is why we wish, in particular, to increase funding for programmes such as the Lifelong Learning Programme, which finances the Erasmus sub-programme among others. That is why we are also opposed to all cuts to cohesion policy proposed by the Council. The Structural Funds are an instrument that serves, above all, to stimulate growth and competitiveness. They are the main pillar of European solidarity, a pillar that, in this context, is unfortunately frequently forgotten.

I would also like to stress that 2013 is the final year of the multiannual financial framework, a year in which the implementation of EU projects will be accelerated, which means a significant rise in the number of claims for the reimbursement of monies already spent by beneficiaries. The Member States should, therefore, take their cue from Parliament and agree to increase cohesion policy payments, in line with the rise proposed by the Commission. Ultimately, it is not the Member States themselves who will suffer as a result of their obstinacy, but their own citizens.

  Ioannis Kasoulides, on behalf of the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. − Mr President, on behalf of Mr Šťastný and the Committee on International Trade, I would like to start by highlighting that my committee’s budgetary amendments were very limited and reasonable in terms of their financial demands. There was no request for any new budget line, except for a project on monitoring trade negotiations for civil society.

How do we reconcile a dozen negotiations for trade and investment – where trade is considered a major source of growth – with cuts in this area? The INTA Committee has proposed slight increases in the funding for macro-financial assistance, external trade relations, aid for trade and the DCI. It proposes that the ICI and cooperation with developing countries not be affected by budgetary cuts, and it proposes expansion of the internationalisation of European SMEs and of the ‘Euromed – innovative entrepreneurs for change’ initiative.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to speak about those paragraphs which refer to Parliament’s organisation and its seat.

Paragraph 86 [sic: 87] states that Parliament believes that, like every directly elected parliament, the European Parliament should have the right to decide on its own seat. This statement is an error, Mr President, and I should like to request that, in accordance with the appropriate procedures, this error should be removed.

Admittedly, the German Parliament, the Bundestag, decided, on its own account, to transfer its seat from Bonn to Berlin, but constitutional and political practices differ widely from one Member State to another. In the Member State to which I belong, the seats of the National Assembly and the Senate are determined by statute.

Then there are the paragraphs which call for studies regarding the savings to be made. From the carbon-footprint point of view, a seat in Strasbourg is exactly the same as a seat in Brussels. As for savings, I believe that it is necessary to include a study of all EU seats: the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, the European Medicines Agency in London, the European Banking Authority in London, the European Patent Office in Munich, etc.

If we are going to carry out a study, let us do it covering all the seats of the European Union rather than, as it were, deliberately singling out the European Parliament.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, as far as the 2013 budget is concerned, it must be emphasised that we are drafting this budget at a time of continuing crisis. This fact is fundamental, precisely because the EU budget is an exceptionally important instrument for overcoming the crisis. Insufficient resources in our budget framework threaten the financing of EU policies, including investment in the Member States most affected by the crisis, and of key EU programmes. There is currently already a threat to financing solidarity policies through the Cohesion Fund; a question also hangs over the resources of the European Social Fund and the Erasmus programme.

We must make absolutely certain that we guarantee sufficient funds to be able to continue these programmes, which are currently in jeopardy. We must make full use of the budget as an effective anti-crisis package. If we cut, we had better cut where doing so will not have negative consequences for the poorest people.

Ladies and gentlemen, here I mean freezing our allowances, limiting travel expenses or reorganising working methods in order to find areas of possible savings. Doing this would, from our side – in the European Parliament – be an expression not only of solidarity in relation to the budget but also of solidarity with citizens.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating my rapporteur colleagues for the budget on their realistic approach in dealing with this important subject.

I too would like to raise the question of the dangers of delaying payments in the rural development sector and other sectors mentioned earlier by other colleagues. I would also emphasise one item from the Opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on payments for rural development measures. In its Opinion, the Committee on Agriculture asked the Commission to grant Member States the flexibility required to move unspent funds between axes. This flexibility is needed, and can contribute to economic growth. I therefore revert to this request and would point out that very little time remains in which to make the necessary adjustments.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). – (NL) Mr President, since the Arab uprisings, there has been a disturbing increase in anti-Semitic statements in the Mediterranean countries, and action is needed to combat that poisonous trend. I have tabled two amendments on that point, aimed at combating anti-Semitism in financial cooperation with the Mediterranean countries.

I am really pleased that the Committee on Budgets has adopted those amendments. But, Mr President, this result must not be changed. The Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group has actually requested a split vote on combating anti-Semitism.

In view of the serious nature of anti-Semitism and the responsibility and credibility of the European Union in that respect, I urge those who are asking for a split vote to withdraw that request. This relates to amendments 1241 and 1192 to budget Headings 1908-01 and 1908-02.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President of the Council, I would be glad if we could also find clear signals from the Council in the proposal for 2013 that show how we in Europe can enhance the potential for growth and competitiveness and, above all, how we can give young people jobs again. Could it please inform us under which budget lines it intends to promote youth employment and entrepreneurialism and focus on small and medium-sized enterprises?

We know that a target programme is the basic precondition for this – all I see here is cuts by the Council. The same applies to the Erasmus programme for young entrepreneurs and to the media pluralism programme: there are only cuts here. Does it think the way to overcome the crisis in Europe is to make cuts in the very areas that guarantee growth and employment? I heard that the Council was going to put forward growth and employment packages. Where do we find them in the budget the Council has presented?

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the EU’s policies and budget should make a substantial contribution to revitalising sustainable growth in the EU and to dealing with the major problems facing society, such as lack of resources, climate change, delocalisation of Europe’s industry, inadequate investment in education, health and research, and the shortage of jobs.

The year 2013 is a very important financial year, because it covers preparations for the launch of the Connecting Europe Facility and so helps maintain the level of commitment and payment appropriations proposed in the draft budget. I consider that the need to develop transport infrastructure in the new Member States should be reflected appropriately both in the 2013 financial year and in the future multiannual financial framework.

Finally, the weakness of Romania’s previous governments should not lead to a reduction in the Structural Funds that Romania very much needs, and needs to use in the current financial period.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentleman, I would like to begin by thanking both rapporteurs for their work in drafting this report. The European Union budget is very specific in nature, being largely dedicated to initiatives and investment in areas of strategic importance for growth and employment. It should be borne in mind, therefore, that it cannot be subject to the same savings as national budgets. The creation of new jobs, so necessary in the present economic circumstances, is possible only if an adequate level of funding is guaranteed. I welcome the Council’s decision in June to maintain its position on the promotion of employment and growth, and I hope that this will also be reflected in the 2013 budget. I believe that it is essential to increase payments by 6.8 % in relation to the previous year, in particular to avoid jeopardising the provision of effective support for cohesion policy.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, a few remarks on various budget items. On buildings policy: the only reason why Parliament can still afford the luxury of two seats is quite simply that the citizens do not know enough about this silly custom. Just imagine the French Parliament meeting once a month in Marseille and, of course, charging travel and accommodation costs to the taxpayer. That would cause a huge scandal and the whole business – the travelling circus – would soon be brought to an end. Personally I would, of course, prefer Strasbourg to be the only seat because I think this Chamber seems to be a bit more stable than the one in Brussels.

The citizens know nothing about the European Parliament’s television. The idea may be a good one, as is the transparency it promotes; however, without effective funding for marketing, it is simply a waste of money. I also welcome the Council’s proposals to cut the budget for the agencies, although I would increase the European Return Fund rather than cutting it, and the same applies to the budget for Frontex.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, President of the Council, Commissioner, I am addressing my request first and foremost to the Council representatives. I am not a member of the Committee on Budgets, but I am a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development – which are, in principle, the areas responsible for most of the legislative acts, i.e. for most of the redistribution of European funding.

What I ask is for people to speak in plain terms. I know that, of course, the Council feels primarily responsible to its voters in the Member States. But I also know that the Council, together with Parliament and the Commission, has committed itself to implement a whole range of European programmes in the context of EU policy. And we can achieve that objective, that added value for Europe, only if adequate budget appropriations are made available.

May I ask you, therefore, with a view to creating a common Europe, a Europe of solidarity and a Europe of progress, not to economise in areas where we could promote precisely that – namely employment, social cohesion and social integration. With that in mind, I would like to see a European budget that takes account of the consolidation efforts of the individual national budgets.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission is submitting what is called the ‘draft budget’ as a basis for reading here in Parliament and in the Council. This is not our invention. To a large extent we are taking as a basis and verifying very critically what comes from 27 Member States, both net payers into and net beneficiaries of the budget. I think Jan Mulder has posed the right question: what if we take at face value what is coming from the Member States for next year? If we took at face value – without downward revision – what was coming from the 27 Member States for next year, we should submit a draft budget which was 15 % higher for next year and not 6, 7 or 8 % higher, because we have critically revised what is coming from the Member States. It would be more or less EUR 10 billion more in the draft proposal. Mr van Dalen – who is no longer here – was asking on what planet our proposal was born. The planet is populated by the governments in The Hague, in Stockholm, in Warsaw, in Sofia, everywhere, and we are critically revising what is coming from these governments as their request for decent financing for 2013.

As for the payments – the most sensitive issue in negotiations for next year – you can compare these to your monthly credit card bills. When the bills come in, it is too late to discuss them: you have to pay the bills, it is your contractual obligation to pay. That is why, especially now – at a time of austerity – we need to supplement the consolidation of public finances with a realistic growth and jobs agenda, as we have the tools in the budget, which is by nature an investment budget. However – and here it differs from national budgets – it also has macro-financing facilities for small- and medium-sized companies. Therefore we should exploit all the possibilities of the European budget rather than cut it, in clear contradiction of the announcements by the Member States in June 2013. I still remain hopeful for a decent budget for next year which will resolve the tensions of this year’s budget.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I have noted with interest the various points raised during this debate and will inform my colleagues in the Council accordingly. I know that one should never shoot the messenger. At the same time, as President of the Council and the personification of the institution I represent, I have to defend the position of the institution I represent, and I have to take some hits. All your comments, criticism and disagreements are welcome.

However, I would like to make a small clarification concerning the way the Council’s position on the 2013 budget was interpreted. The Council has indeed scaled back the Commission’s proposal, but it has accepted a 2.79 % increase on the current year. That is definitely not a decrease. The Council has not made horizontal cuts across the board. We have established priorities, as suggested by Mr Torvalds, and we have examined every heading, policy and institution carefully and individually. We do not intend to let the Union run out of money. For instance, we have kept the over 8 % increase for cohesion funding, as well as the full EUR 55 billion for the European Council’s Growth and Jobs Pact referred to by Mr Lamassoure.

This debate has certainly contributed to clarifying our respective positions. Let me assure you that the Council will do its utmost to find an agreement on the 2013 budget within the deadlines foreseen by the Treaty. Thank you very much for your attention. I hope I can count on your constructive cooperation in order to finalise the important task we have in front of us.

  Giovanni La Via, rapporteur. − (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this debate and for the helpful comments from the President-in-Office of the Council and the Member of the Commission.

It seems to me that most of the speeches made by MEPs clearly show that this Parliament intends to defend the EU budget as put forward by the Commission, because we are firmly convinced that the way out of the crisis will be found in particular headings and policies of the European Union: the research policies, policies on innovation and small and medium-sized enterprises, policies on employment – these are the priorities for this Parliament.

This is why we have proposed selective increases to Heading 1a; and if Mr Mavroyiannis criticises our going beyond the ceiling, he should bear in mind that, within that heading, we have made cuts and found huge savings while, at the same time, having to provide – still under this heading – for EUR 360 million in additional funding for ITER, which the Council had awarded and allowed for in the current fiscal period, using all the means available – including, obviously, flexibility.

On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, where commitments are concerned, this Parliament has not deviated from the Commission’s proposals but has made only selective increases; and where payments are concerned, we have enough to meet our obligations. As Mr Lamassoure said, this is a technical fact, not a political one. We have to honour the commitments made in previous years – including those made by the Council.

I therefore hope that, during this conciliation, we will be able to reach agreement with the Council on a satisfactory level of resources that can guarantee that the European budget has the necessary sums to invest in growth, development and job creation, and a sum for payments that is sufficient to honour all the commitments that have been made.

  Derek Vaughan, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would also like to thank my colleagues for their contributions and the Commission and the Council for their positive comments. Actually there were very few queries or questions on the other sections of the budget so I can perhaps be quite brief.

I was pleased that one colleague recognised and accepted the need for the small increase in the Ombudsman’s budget for 2013, due to accommodation and staffing pressures. Another colleague mentioned the House of European History. People will be aware that many Members of this House are quite sceptical about that particular project. I wanted to say that for next year we are proposing a EUR 5.3 million cut in the budget line for that particular project. Another colleague mentioned the issue of the single seat. Again I would say that there will be a vote tomorrow, therefore colleagues will have the opportunity to express their views and opinions on the issue of the single seat.

I also wanted to emphasise to colleagues that the joint working group I mentioned in my first contribution is still meeting. It is still looking at some of the issues raised by Helga Trüpel, on Members’ travel for example. It is also looking at a comparative study of the administrative expenditure of this House and that of the US Congress and Member States’ parliaments. That work is ongoing, and we hope to have the final report on that at the end of the year. When we get that report, hopefully we can make some further recommendations in terms of savings for the European Parliament.

The aim of that particular joint working group and of me myself has always been one thing, and I will say it again for colleagues: to find efficiency savings – because it is possible to find these in this Parliament – but also to protect the effectiveness of Members and of this Parliament.

So, although I know many Members think we should go further and find more savings, I also know that many Members feel that we have already gone too far and made too many savings. Hopefully, at the end of the day, we will reach a compromise which tomorrow will be acceptable to most Members.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, 23 October 2012, at 12.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the values demonstrated by the draft report before us, which, while rejecting the logic of cuts adopted by the European Council, focuses on a European budget for 2013 which has the capacity to support growth and jobs. In my view, to emerge from the crisis, we certainly need a policy of discipline, but equally we have to put the question of the nature of our expenses in the foreground as we make our choices; otherwise this will turn into indiscriminate cuts which can do nothing but stifle the already tentative signs of economic upturn in Europe. As the rapporteur has pointed out, 2013 is the last year of the current multiannual financial framework, and it is essential to respect the balance between the commitments that we have taken on up until now and the payments that these entail. Having said that, I am concerned about the data presented by the European Commissioner for the Budget, Janusz Lewandowski, on the shortfalls that are having an impact on every item in the European budget – in particular about the cuts to the Erasmus Programme. Although I am well aware that the general trend in politics in relation to the budget for 2013 largely reflects views on the negotiations for the next programming cycle of 2014-2020, I would point out the importance of continuity at a time when we are supporting investment in training programmes for our young people.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It seems essential to me, in the context of our current discussions on the EU budget and the budgetary framework for 2014-2020, that we should take into account the efforts being made by all Europeans to resolve the economic crisis which is affecting us all. It is important to give MEPs, the only members of parliament directly elected in the EU, the right to decide for themselves their working place arrangements. It seems to me even more logical to give them that right when any decision on a single seat would, according to the latest estimates, reduce the operating costs of the EP by EUR 200 million a year. In addition to this saving, doing away with the monthly shuttles between Brussels and Strasbourg would reduce Parliament’s carbon footprint by 20 000 tonnes of CO2 a year. I am therefore delighted with today’s vote, whereby a large majority of Members are asking Member States to re-examine the issue of the EP’s seat and workplaces at the next revision of the Treaty, by amending Protocol No 6. Once again, today’s vote gives a clear signal that MEPs are willing to play a full part in the budgetary and environmental efforts of EU Member States.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – The current economic reality requires us to demonstrate financial self-restraint and budgetary responsibility to our citizens. Simultaneously, 25 million unemployed people in Europe keep reminding us of the importance of restarting investment, boosting job creation and rebuilding confidence in our economy. In this respect the EU’s budget should be seen as an investment tool to support recovery and long-term development. The 2013 budget strikes a balance between austerity and growth by maintaining support to investments in programmes and initiatives for competitiveness and employment, while keeping the levels of increase for the institutions’ budgets below the forecast inflation rate of 1.9 %. In the light of this, I deplore the Council’s approach, which seeks to make horizontal cuts in payments, especially under Headings 1a and 1b, where most of the programmes and initiatives responsible for the Europe 2020 strategy are concentrated. Such an approach puts at risk the fulfilment of commitments previously undertaken, as well as the delivery of jointly-decided EU priorities. Instead I wish to remind the Council that real savings can be made elsewhere, for example by reducing the working places of the Parliament to one. Our budget must represent and address the need of our citizens to overcome the current crisis and restore growth.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I strongly believe that, in the current economic climate where resources are already limited, the EU budget is one of the strongest instruments we have for investment and solidarity. The quality of our budget will allow for a better development of the policies, taking full advantage of the opportunities they provide in terms of European value added, in particular in times of heavy constraint on the national budgets. Today, growth in Europe has been stunted because of the severe austerity measures many countries are facing. For this reason the EU budget must, more than ever, work to increase growth and jobs through research, development and innovation, and the better governance of the policies including certain conditionalities, flexibility, positive incentives, concentration of funds on growth-enhancing measures, emphasis on results, and simplification in delivery. Further to this it should aim to support long-term development and strategic European cooperation, and give additional support to Member States that are currently struggling to overcome the crisis. For this reason, I agree that further negotiation on EU financing must be reasonable and give due importance to programmes such as Erasmus, research and cohesion policy, and strive to make the EU budget a fairer, more transparent and more accountable mechanism.

  Romana Jordan (PPE), in writing. – (SL) The single market is a priority task for the EU. The single market connects Europe: it connects companies, people, policy. However, its establishment has its own price, which we must take into account when passing budgets. An example is the Energy Agency, which in 2013 has too low a budget for financial as well as for human resources to be able to implement REMIT Regulations. By implementing this regulation we will prevent the misuse of information and manipulation in the electricity and gas market. Limited financial funds move its implementation into the future. Who will be responsible if irregularities occur on the markets in the meantime? Will it be an error of European policy because we did not insist on a larger budget, or an error of national policy because they were making savings where they should not have? I wish to emphasise that I am against this type of budget cut.

  Algirdas Saudargas (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Today we will be voting on the European Parliament’s position on the budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013. Even though intensive discussions are taking place regarding next year’s EU budget, we must not forget that despite our differences of opinion, our common goal is the welfare of the Member States and their citizens. For this reason, I would like to draw attention to those positions proposed by the European Parliament that are important, balanced and ensure implementation of the most important EU priorities. First of all, it is very important to ensure the continuation of projects currently financed by the EU. We cannot stop something that the European Union itself encourages based on its priorities. I am glad that next year’s budget focuses on economic growth, competitiveness and youth employment. It is very important that the EU supports long-term investments in research, development and innovation (RDI), and financing the Member States’ recovery is just as much a priority. I understand the Member States’ objections to cost cutting in order to reduce their respective budget deficits, but we should not forget that EU budget funds are targeted towards future investment in our own countries. Economic growth is based on the development of energy, innovation, scientific research and education. Therefore, not only does the continuation of current programmes have to be ensured, but new programmes that have been clearly defined in the European Union’s priorities must also be created and financed.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) I am very sorry to see that, despite public criticism, the proposed EU budget still also includes a budget line for the House of European History. I fundamentally disagree with this project. It is not the role of the Parliament to set up and run museums. Moreover, given that there is also an inability to agree on a common interpretation of the recent past, it would be better to call this project the House of the Lowest Common Denominator.

The EUR 5 million cut in that budget line represents only a fraction of the expected expenditure and in no way lessens the absurdity of this project. It is precisely as a result of such downright waste that citizens are ceasing to see any sense in the European project.

And, just by the way, it would very much interest me to know why we no longer hear anything about the House of European History from those who use the need to make savings as an excuse for moving this Parliament entirely to Brussels.

  President. – The next item is the report (A7-0271/2012) by Antigoni Papadopoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Year of Citizens (2013) (COM(2011)0489 – C7-0217/2011 – 2011/0217(COD).

  Antigoni Papadopoulou, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Commissioner Reding for proposing 2013 as the European Year of Citizens and for launching the biggest ever web-based EU public consultation on citizens’ rights.

I thank the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent contributions, the Danish and Cyprus Presidencies for successfully concluding the trialogues and the administrators for their valuable assistance.

Colleagues, EU citizens today feel disappointed about the ongoing economic crisis, rising unemployment and the lack of effective solutions. Brussels seems far away; important decisions are taken for them without them; the lack of information and language problems remain persistent barriers preventing full enjoyment of Union citizenship within the EU and in cross-border situations.

Despite the great disappointment, it is, however, encouraging that the vast majority of European citizens have not turned their backs on the EU. They still consider EU membership to be a good thing, according to the latest Eurobarometer survey of August 2012. A better and deeper Europe is, however, required.

Further discussions on European integration require strong democratic support. EU political leaders and institutions must endorse the concerns of 500 million European citizens, fulfil their expectations and regain their trust. At a time of economic, political, and social crisis only twenty months before the next European elections, putting Union citizenship and participative democracy at the centre of the political agenda is absolutely essential.

This is exactly the aim of the European Year of Citizens 2013: to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Union citizenship by the Treaty of Maastricht and to give a new momentum to the debate on Union citizenship. All EU citizens must be informed and enjoy without discrimination all the rights granted to them by Union law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, i.e. the right to move and reside freely within the EU, to vote and to stand as candidates in European and municipal elections; to enjoy protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State in a third country; to petition the European Parliament; to apply to the European Ombudsman; to address the institutions of the Union; to enjoy the free movement of goods and services, consumer protection, public health, equal opportunities, equal treatment, access to employment and social protection; to enjoy the new right of the European Citizens Initiative granted by the Lisbon Treaty, and to strengthen participative democracy through access to documents, information, good governance and administration.

In conclusion, all the initiatives launched for the European Year of Citizens should enhance awareness of Union citizenship, improve understanding of European integration and enhance cooperation among Union citizens, institutions and Member States. As Members of the European Parliament – the only directly elected EU institution – we have a crucial role to play in promoting the aims of the European Year of Citizens 2013 by bridging the gap between Brussels and Member States, communicating the rights and benefits of EU citizenship, endorsing citizens’ concerns in formulating EU policies and promoting participative democracy.

In view of the forthcoming European elections, we must raise awareness of the legislative powers of the European Parliament and encourage citizens to vote so that their voice is heard clearly by EU decision-makers. A Union of growth, stability and solidarity can only be built with the active involvement of well-informed active citizens.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon by welcoming the agreement reached between the Council and Parliament on this important issue.

The designation of 2013 as the European Year of Citizens is an important signal that we want to increase public awareness of the rights and responsibilities of citizens across the European Union. We hope, in particular, that it will highlight the rights of citizens to move and reside freely within the European Union. These issues are all the more important in the run-up to the European elections of 2014.

It was this Parliament which first proposed this initiative at the end of 2010. At that time you highlighted the need to stimulate discussion on Union citizenship and to inform Union citizens of their rights, in particular those resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. We are happy that the idea was taken up and moved forward by Commissioner Reding.

The Treaty on European Union first introduced the concept of citizenship of the Union, so next year will mark the 20th anniversary. It is therefore particularly appropriate that 2013 will be designated as the Year of Citizens. The Cyprus Presidency, building on the work of the Danish Presidency, was able to conclude negotiations on this proposal in the first few weeks of its term in office. I would like to thank in particular the rapporteur, Mrs Papadopoulou, for her enthusiasm for this initiative and for her willingness to negotiate in such a cooperative manner with the Council. I welcome the vote that will be taking place this week on this proposal and have no doubt that the initiative will be strongly endorsed by this Parliament.

The general objective of the European Year of Citizens in 2013 is to enhance awareness and knowledge of the rights – but also of the responsibilities – attached to Union citizenship. As is clear from the legal basis chosen by the Commission, the proposal aimed first and foremost to help citizens to make full use of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

However, in the context of free movement, the European Year will also provide an opportunity to promote other rights. The free movement of persons is one of the four basic freedoms, but at the same time there is clearly also a way to bridge the gap between what the rules state and how they operate in practice. Citizens still encounter difficulties when moving to another Member State, whether as workers, students, entrepreneurs, job seekers or consumers. It is therefore essential that all citizens are fully aware of their legal rights.

This initiative will also provide an opportunity to raise awareness of other rights related to free movement, such as the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in local elections in the Member State of residence, the right to petition the European Parliament, the right to apply to the European Ombudsman and the right to address EU institutions, as well as a wide range of other rights, such as the free movement of goods and services, consumer protection and public health, equal opportunities and equal treatment.

We very much hope that this proposal will play an important role in encouraging and empowering citizens to uphold their right to engage actively at European level, not least in view of the 2014 European elections.

Of course, the European Year of Citizens is not a one-off event. It now needs to seek the launch of a longer-term process of building awareness and encouraging participation. I know this Parliament has a pivotal role in ensuring that this is the case. We also look forward to the 2013 European Union citizenship report, which will assess progress in this area and propose further initiatives to remove the obstacles which prevent citizens from fully enjoying their rights.

This is an important decision which serves the interest of all our citizens. All of us – this Parliament as well as our own national governments and parliaments – have a role in helping to increase awareness of what it means to be a citizen of the European Union. We are ready to play our role. I have no doubt that the European Parliament will be very active, not just in 2013 but also beyond, in highlighting this message.

Thank you for your attention.

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of the Commission I wish to thank very much the rapporteur, Mrs Papadopoulou, and the members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and all the committees involved in shaping what is now, finally, a solid basis for compromise in this area that should suit all parties.

The European Year of Citizens 2013 will take place in a very special context, as next year also marks the 20th anniversary of EU citizenship, as introduced by the Maastricht Treaty. This is an opportunity to illustrate, with concrete examples, the benefits of EU citizenship in the daily lives of students, residents, tourists, workers, private individuals and businesses.

The Commission is ready to provide the second so-called ‘citizenship report’ on how to remove the remaining obstacles and barriers which make it difficult, in daily life, for European citizens to move around Europe.

The year also falls on the eve of the European elections. Therefore, it is a good opportunity to remind people that participation is legally possible wherever citizens may reside in the European Union. As mentioned already, this is a matter of raising awareness of the real value of citizenship, going beyond participation in the democratic life of the European Union, as already described on many occasions, to the rights to consular protection and to petition the European Parliament, address the Institutions and apply to the Ombudsman.

Last but not least, this is an opportunity to highlight the prerogatives of this assembly, which is an assembly of people elected by the people. I am happy now that we have a solid basis between the institutions, and I am sure that together we can make the European Year of Citizens a real success.

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ SURJÁN
Vice-President

  Inês Cristina Zuber, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. − (PT) Mr President, commemorating the European Year of Citizens in 2013 is yet another means the European Union has found to try to legitimise the notion of the European Union as an area of democracy, equality, solidarity and citizens’ participation. Nowadays, however, the fact remains that public opinion and the workers of various countries increasingly perceive the EU as an area of inequality, exploitation and wage slavery, in which the rights that people have conquered over centuries of struggle are being eroded.

Let’s be honest: rather than an area of free movement of persons, the European Union is, in fact, an area of free movement of capital and goods for the benefit of international monopolies. To talk about the free movement of persons nowadays is to talk primarily about the reality of millions of workers who are unable to remain in their own country and are forced to seek a livelihood for their families by emigrating.

In this very difficult context, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs draws attention to the need to defend workers’ social security and trade union rights without discrimination of any kind.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. − (FR) Mr President, I should like to thank our rapporteur in particular, but also our shadow rapporteurs, especially those from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Culture.

I would like to say, ‘What a long way we have come!’, not least because our discussions with the Council, under the Danish Presidency, did not get off to a very good start. It has to be said that the initial proposal was unacceptable to Parliament. We could not allow a European Year of Citizens with no reference to citizenship, to the way in which citizens can become more involved in the operation of our institutions and in the definition of the EU policies which given them all their place. Moreover, we are aware that we still have a lot of work to do.

We could not allow people to say that, if a gulf was opening up between the European institutions and their citizens, it was only because those citizens failed to appreciate their rights as regards freedom of movement. We know how things stand.

European citizens cannot be regarded simply as consumers who fail to appreciate their rights, and who are given a chance to vote in the European elections every five years. Education and culture also have their place in this debate.

I hope that we are blazing a trail here, making a start on the great integration project that is European citizenship, at the same time, of course, respecting the competencies of each Member State. I have only one regret, and that is that we have not given ourselves the resources to enable us to do the job.

Thanks to the Cyprus Presidency for being there and for including this priority in …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. − (EL) Mr President, I congratulate Ms Papadopoulou on the excellent work she has done and the extremely important report she has tabled on the European Citizen.

I hope that this initiative will become a reality and not remain mere rhetoric. As the Committee on Petitions, which I represent here, we are making proposals, and specifically stressing the right of every EU citizen and every natural and legal person to bring a petition before the European Parliament; this right contributes to the thorough examination of democratic institutions. We lay particular stress on the right of citizens to free movement, partly as a means of attaining the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and as such we believe that the movement of young people, particularly students, is of vital importance for the European Union. It is also important for citizens to be informed about their rights, specifically through the European e-Justice portal. However, Mr President, I would like to send a message, because we emphasise these major ideas, we applaud them, but in reality we undermine them. The economic crisis we are going through has ruptured relations with citizens. I hope that the European Union will be given the opportunity to rebuild these relations. The crisis will pass.

  Marietta Giannakou, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Mr President, my congratulations to Ms Papadopoulou on her report.

In 2013 we will be celebrating the European Year of Citizens, 20 years after the concept of European citizenship arose, when it was accepted by the European Union. This is linked not only to the free movement of goods, services, people and capital, and mainly people, not only to cross-border relations and cooperation, but also to citizens’ rights as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, for instance the citizens’ initiative and the right of consultation, which have enormous significance.

If today there is a drawback in the EU, it is precisely that many of its citizens only have a general and limited picture of the EU, but do not know who does what, what their responsibilities are and at what level they act. Since governments usually believe or say that anything good comes from national governments and, by contrast, anything unpleasant comes from Brussels, the European Year of Citizens could provide the opportunity for us to understand things better, for us to raise awareness among European citizens so that they perceive that it is possible to have both access to information and also participation. Of course, Mr President, the new report that is being prepared on the European political parties deals with providing access to and direct participation in the European political parties, and this will give great flexibility, help the national political parties and in general give citizens a better understanding of what the European Union is and where it is going.

  Kinga Göncz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (HU) Mr President, the aim for 2013 is to draw attention to the rights of European citizens, the rights to which they are entitled. However, this year will be truly successful if European citizens see that they actually can assert their rights, and that the institutions of the European Union take their own fundamental principles and values seriously. Can citizens actually exercise the right to work in another country and have their qualifications recognised? Does the right to non-discrimination actually apply to everyone, for example those who seek their fortune in another Member State as Roma? Does the European Union take the guarantee of democratic rights seriously, and will it speak out if democracy is violated in any Member State and people cannot enjoy their democratic rights?

They are curious to know whether they can enjoy their social rights, and whether the fundamental principle of solidarity works. Will those who have been hit hardest by the crisis receive help? Will solidarity also manifest itself in the budget after 2014? If we can make progress in these areas, I think this year will be a successful one.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 2013 is to be the European Year of Citizens, the year of European citizenship, 20 years after the creation of European citizenship and, as has been said several times this evening, one year before the renewal of the European Parliament. It is therefore a very symbolic year, even a very serious year, particularly in the present context.

In fact, the latest surveys show that, since autumn 2009, there has been a very worrying and very noticeable trend towards a serious and very substantial loss of confidence in Community actions and the Community acquis, even, when it comes to rights and freedoms, within the European Union itself.

Faced with this situation, the essential question has always been, and still is, the need to consolidate a European identity, to succeed in creating a common feeling of belonging, to make a real success of defining the shape of this European citizenship, a shape which will be applicable to all Europeans. There is no doubt that this objective which has been announced can be achieved in 2013, but only by means of more information, more dialogue, more meetings, more exchanges and more sharing.

Although I am delighted with the excellent quality of the text, I wish that our institutions, when making their choices and decisions, would show enough determination to give themselves the means of achieving their objectives, and would thereby demonstrate a strong political willingness to practice what they preach. Moreover, though of course I am happy about the results obtained in the negotiations, in particular by Ms Papadopoulou, who showed great determination, especially regarding the broadening of the scope of this European Year of Citizens in the decision-making process, the European civil dialogue, etc., I have strong reservations about the ridiculous budget allocated to this European Year, the smallest ever given to a European Year.

Since the task is so enormous, I am sorry that the Council and certain members of the Committee on Budgets have refused to grant resources for this Year, which is, without doubt, one of the most important and one which, in my opinion, should be regarded as the Union’s first priority, because without European citizens we have no Europe and we cannot integrate Europe.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, my thanks as well to the rapporteur, not least for trying to push through a wider vision of what the European Year of Citizens should be about, rather than just focusing on the rights to free movement.

These rights do need to be better understood. We know that they are crucially important and that for many citizens they are seen as the key indicator of equality within an EU setting, along with coordination of social security rights – maybe this is why certain governments and parties feel that to help make the European Union less acceptable they have to call those rights into question at the moment.

As our rapporteur says, the EU needs to be able to answer the bigger questions about what role citizens are playing in decision-making in the European Union. The current crisis certainly makes many feel that they are on the receiving end of decisions made elsewhere, and that decisions are being made to suit unaccountable markets rather than individuals and families living with the consequences. Maybe one of the outcomes we should be looking at for this European Year is to have a real citizens’ charter.

  Emma McClarkin, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, well, here we are discussing the proposed European Year of Citizens, making 2013 the year the EU tries to sell its benefits to its citizens. I have always said that if there are such great benefits, they should be felt by the man in the street and not have to be read about or pushed down on them. That is the true test of them.

It is described as a timely opportunity, given that it is one year before the European elections, and it has a budget request of EUR 5 million.

This European Year is not for the citizens but is for the EU itself to promote the EU project.

Colleagues, we are in the midst of the most severe economic crisis in living memory. If this was truly to be a year for European citizens, we would do better to listen to them, cut red tape and barmy laws, create more jobs and growth and stop spending their money on pointless buildings, monuments and programmes and show some real solidarity with the people who are struggling and who we are supposed to represent.

As a proud British citizen, I also find it impossible to support a report which seeks to place EU citizen status above my national citizenship. It is therefore easy for me to say that I will oppose this report.

  Roger Helmer, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, we are here tonight to talk about European citizenship – but what is this European citizenship? I never wanted it, I never asked for it, I never voted for it, I never accepted it. I absolutely reject and repudiate your European citizenship. I was born a British citizen and a subject of the Queen, and I intend to remain that way. This whole exercise is merely a propaganda project, spending the taxpayers’ money to try and convince the taxpayer – in a futile attempt – that he loves the European Union. But with the EU teetering between failure and disaster, with the euro creating grinding deflation, poverty, hunger and unemployment across southern Europe, the citizen does not love the European Union. We in my country have had enough of it: we want out.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, at a time of crisis, it is especially important to discuss and to develop a European identity. We talk about a banking union, a monetary union, a political union, but none of that can become an enduring reality if we do not strengthen the identity associated with it. I believe that this is one of the purposes served by the year we have been discussing.

However, we have talked only about rights. In my opinion, it is time to begin discussing citizens’ responsibilities too. It is not just a question of freedom of movement; citizenship of any country carries with it responsibilities. One of these responsibilities – and also a privilege – is the duty to vote. In some countries, it is not uncommon for the turnout in parliamentary elections to be 20 to 25 % or 30 % of the electorate. I think that we need to focus on this issue, as there are people – I have met some of them – who are not even aware that they are entitled to vote in European Parliament elections.

Our budget for this year is obviously limited, but I think that we MEPs need to start thinking about how and what to communicate. We must begin to exchange best practice. It is here that we must forge the European identity that we will promote. This is not an issue that can be addressed for us by the institution or through programmes. It is we who, in our conversations with people, must deliver the message. I therefore call on Members to use their time here to exchange best practice.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, just at this time of crisis, with its dramatic impacts, European Union citizens are gradually ceasing to believe in the European Union. Therefore, I am convinced that increasing their awareness of the rights which they derive from European citizenship may renew their trust in the EU.

EU citizenship encompasses such significant rights as the right to freedom of movement, the right to protection from diplomatic or consular authorities, the right to petition the European Parliament and many others. Citizens of the EU can now enjoy safer, cheaper air travel, better, cheaper telephone calls, consumer protection, food safety and access to healthcare systems all over the EU. Thanks to the Single Market, they can live, work, study and travel in the European Union.

However, it is precisely lack of information and awareness of their rights that is one of the most common problems encountered by citizens living, studying or working in other countries. These barriers are even increasing as a result of the adverse effects of the crisis, including growth in unemployment rates and social unrest.

  Sandrine Bélier (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot go on creating Europe without its citizens. The year 2013 will be the European Year of Citizens. This is good news. There is a lot at stake here, and we shall have to give ourselves the resources to enable us, in the difficult situation which the European Union is experiencing, faced with disaffection and lack of confidence, to turn the European Year of Citizens into Year One of European citizenship in everyday life.

Our citizens are the reason for our presence here, and we must send them the message that Parliament and the European Union do not take citizens’ rights lightly, that they are at the heart of all the decisions that we take on a day-to-day basis. We need a campaign which matches the level of what is at stake. Savings in the budget must not be made on this aspect if we do not want the gulf between the Union and its citizens to become even wider.

The action programme will have to be ambitious. The tools of participative democracy must be developed and distributed: petitions, access to the Ombudsman, European citizens’ initiatives, citizens’ forums, consultations, etc.

I am sorry to say that our citizens fail to appreciate the rights and tools of participative democracy. In 2013, let us put our citizens back into the heart of our institutions and, in so doing, put Europe back into the heart of its Member States.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 20 years after the establishment of Union citizenship – on 1 November 1993, with the Treaty of Maastricht – the European Commission has proposed that 2013 be designated the European Year of Citizens.

All European citizens can take an active part in the decision-making process by petitioning the European Parliament or applying to the European Ombudsman. It is essential that we give a higher profile to the web portals ‘Europe direct’ and ‘Your Europe’ as part of a one-stop-shop system for information on the rights of citizens of the Union, and to the existence and role of problem-solving tools such as SOLVIT or the protection provided by consulates, which we shall be discussing this very week.

Support for research and innovation are objectives to be met in connection with the Europe 2020 strategy. However, the text does not pay enough attention to the unfair competition which can result from the free movement of persons and the mobility of workers and undertakings between Member States with different tax systems and administrative regulations. For this reason, I shall abstain.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the European Year of Citizens is being organised again, and it is cheaper than ever! In 2010, it still cost EUR 27 million, in 2011 it was EUR 11 million and now it can be done for as little as EUR 1 million!

But what is the Commission trying to achieve with one million that is not achieved with a multiple of that amount? The Commission wants to spend the money on translating and distributing propaganda for the European project. Does that give citizens an understanding of the Union and its institutions? No, of course not! As long as the Union restricts freedom and wreaks havoc on the economy, citizens will not understand the decisions taken in Brussels.

The creation of a European identity, then. Well, ask the Greeks about that; they have been given hundreds of billions. The Commission has come up with a proposal that no citizen has asked for and not even the Commission itself believes in. That is clear from this budget. And, Mr President, even that EUR 1 million is money wasted.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, citizenship is quite different from nationality. Whereas the latter is inherited and felt intuitively, the former, if not based on nationality, is a legal relationship which is artificial and contrived. European citizenship is artificial because it is not based on a European nationality.

Now, there is a European identity, but it is not based on common values; it is not a campaigning group. It is based on overlapping but not conterminous ancestries and, to varying degrees, engrained similarities of behaviour and ability. Moreover, the European people share a common civilisation. However, Europeans are not a demos and cannot be the foundation of a European democracy.

European citizenship has been closely associated with freedom of movement of labour. However, movement of workers at the behest of capital is simply a sanitised version of human trafficking.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the report on the European Year of Citizens mentions the most significant stages in the 20-year development of Union citizenship. In 1993 the Treaty of Maastricht introduced the concept of Union citizenship, and the Treaty of Amsterdam and then the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 reinforced the rights associated with Union citizenship. The Union-related rights of citizens have expanded, but this is still not enough, in my view. What is needed above all for Union identity to become a reality is the trust of Union citizens. They must assert these rights, which are enshrined in the Treaties, in practice too. The institutions, chiefly the Commission and Parliament, must strive to engage in dialogue with citizens. We must ensure equal opportunities and rights for all citizens.

I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that not all Union citizens will be able to exercise their rights properly until discriminatory legal provisions are erased from the legal systems of the Member States, without exception. As an example of this, I would like to mention the Slovak nationality law and the discriminatory parts of the Beneš Decrees.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, 2013, the European Year of Citizens, should continue the work of raising citizens’ awareness of their rights stemming from their status as EU citizens, when they exercise their right to move and reside freely in another Member State, for instance as students, workers, job seekers, volunteers, consumers, young entrepreneurs or pensioners. I urge that those obstacles still preventing people from exercising their rights as EU citizens should be removed.

In this context, I would stress the importance of eliminating the barriers that stand in the way of the free movement of Romanian and Bulgarian workers. We cannot truly speak of European citizenship while barriers and differences exist between the citizens of Member States. That is why I ask that, no later than the first quarter of 2013, all barriers imposed by some Member States against Romanian and Bulgarian workers should be lifted. Facilitating the freedom of movement of persons and enhancing workers’ mobility are important means by which to address the consequences of demographic changes in the labour market.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, to announce 2013 as the European Year of Citizens sounds like a bad joke! For it is those same citizens that the EU is expropriating – without asking them. In the end, thanks to the ESM, the taxpayers will be liable for debts for which they are not responsible, without even being consulted. Under any civil law contract, such a serious change – and let me remind you that the Treaties actually include a bail-out clause – would require the assent of all parties concerned. In this case, the parties most concerned are, without doubt, the citizens and taxpayers, not the governments, nor the Commission. Citizens must have an opportunity to vote directly in their country on whether they want a conversion, a transfer operation, or whether they want the EU converted into a federal state. Instead of flowery words about Union citizenship, we should use 2013 finally to give a hearing to the citizens!

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, it is necessary to establish one fact before this European Year of Citizens, particularly now after what we have just heard from our colleagues in the European Conservatives and Reformists Group.

When Member States talk about citizenship, they can quickly slide into nationalism. When Member States talk about Europe, they can also quickly slide into nationalism. This is why, for the European Year of Citizens, Europe should do more to base its discussions on subjects which differentiate it from Member States. Citizens are experiencing many difficulties, which often come to the attention of the Committee on Petitions.

The EU’s publicity campaign ought, I believe, to demonstrate the fact that Europe sometimes does just as much for its citizens in their day-to-day life as their own Member States do.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, the European Year of Citizens will be a great opportunity to raise awareness about how citizens can truly benefit from EU rights and policies. This is of crucial importance if we want to foster a genuine European debate on democratic participation. This year will also provide good momentum to take stock of the obstacles and barriers that too many European citizens – students, workers and families – are still facing.

I still regret that they did not call it the European Year of Citizenship, as suggested by the rapporteur and myself, because the future of the European Union will not be achieved without a truly European citizenship. The European Union is, and has to be, more than a single market, and this starts with the European citizens.

Finally, I would like to underline once again the necessity to provide sufficient funding in order to make this European Year of Citizens a success. I would also point out the necessity for the European Parliament and its Members to be closely involved in all the activities and communications that take place in this framework.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Papadopoulou has carried out valuable work and, as she herself has said, we must admit that the Commissioner has made a choice we might even call courageous in these times.

The crisis has highlighted the existence of negative views in some States, in many areas of institutional or political representation, which is that those who want to solve the problems of the crisis bring up the question of people’s rights – as though restricting rights would automatically give us a way out of the difficulties. These rights are variously those of the person as such, of workers, of women or men who have an occupation, and often they are rights denied to citizens.

I believe that rebuilding this link between the person – the worker, that is the function of production – and citizenship is an indispensable political and cultural choice. And the Year of Citizens will help us in that respect too.

  Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Mr President, it is very important, in fact, to talk, in the context of the European Year of Citizens, about the problems of citizens, and 2013 is extremely crucial because it is one year before the European elections, so it will be possible to define the image that citizens will have of Europe and the European Parliament as well as what they will be voting for, while at the same time they will be casting a vote in favour of Europe, and not just in favour of a particular party.

On the other hand, it is a year which comes after several years of crisis, and we must say that Europe has solutions for citizens’ problems, not just solutions for the numbers. It is very important to have more Europe, to have European solutions to the crisis, but not connected to austerity, not just to the removal of citizens’ rights.

In order for Europe to win back citizens it must have policies that are compatible with its values at the social level, at the democratic level, and at the political level. We want more Europe, we want European citizenship and we want citizens to participate in politics and for us to listen to them.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, given the majority position in this House, we do not need to convince ourselves that the European Year of Citizens is a good opportunity to bring our complex institutions a little bit closer to the citizens of Europe and perhaps to rediscover, as in the message from the Nobel Prize Academy in Oslo, the beauty of this project that I admired for many years from behind the Iron Curtain. I do not have to be convinced of the beauty of this European project.

Several pieces of information on the practical steps for next year’s celebrations: the EU media launch and kick-off event for the European Year 2013 will take place on 28 November 2012, in parallel with a general assembly of the Committee of the Regions. On the same date, the Commission is to launch the website that is a central hub of the year, with all the relevant information and the events calendar. This is an umbrella calendar, with any organisation or individual initiative allowed to advertise in the European Year of Citizens calendar.

This is about interaction with the citizens, but there are also high-level Presidency plans: understandably an opening ceremony in Ireland, as it is the Irish Presidency that is coming up at the beginning of the year, and a closing event in Lithuania in December 2013.

Nathalie Griesbeck is right that the budget for the whole year is rather modest. It is EUR 1 million, with additional money for this year’s preparations. It is not about EUR 5 million, as was mentioned in this discussion for unknown reasons.

I do not want to enter into a discussion on what is meant by nationality and citizenship. My understanding is that after 50 years of European integration the French do not feel less French or the Dutch less Dutch. I think that one can be a proud citizen of Tuscany, a proud Italian national, and also see Europe as the common destiny of all Europeans.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament very warmly for the constructive spirit that has prevailed in this debate. Let me assure you that we have, of course, full respect for dissenting opinions.

I am really grateful to all the honourable Members who have expressed a call for better information, awareness-raising and involvement of citizens. The Cyprus Presidency fully shares these objectives. Citizens are at the heart of the EU in all policy areas.

Therefore, an initiative such as the European Year of Citizens is particularly welcome. Following this, and as a first step, all institutions and stakeholders should cooperate in order to make the European Year of Citizens a success. Furthermore, the European Year should be the cornerstone, launching a long-term and interactive debate on European citizenship.

A distinguished speaker – I think it was Mr Helmer – mentioned that the European Union is not a demos. Maybe not yet, but let us think. Would it not be better if it were to become a demos through participation and appropriation by all? I could not agree more with what Mrs Vergiat said about the importance of this chantier which is only just starting and needs to cover all fields of life, in an interactive manner and in constant osmosis, thus contributing to bridging the gap between the institutions and the citizens, making the Union more relevant and the European space a more friendly space for citizens and for their quality of life to thrive in. This is essential, now more than ever, given the dire times we are going through, with negative consequences in the daily lives of people and where we need to prove through effectiveness and deeds that the European Union is part of the solution.

We need to provide hope, and to work towards a better Europe for all. I would like, once again, to express my gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Antigoni Papadopoulou, for her comprehensive, visionary and far-reaching approach.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou, rapporteur. − (EL) Mr President, I will not comment on what the euro-sceptics have said, because we often hear that they want to leave Europe. We will comment on what the majority said, what the shadow rapporteurs said, what the Cypriot Presidency said, what we struggled to achieve. We want a better Europe, and since, as a Cypriot, I feel that I am deprived of my right to free movement in my own country, because I cannot move freely from one end to the other as a result of the Turkish occupation of European territory (37 % of Cypriot territory), I believe in particular that Europe must be an area of freedom, and of free movement, not just of ideas and commodities, but of citizens.

Therefore, all the shadow rapporteurs and I, as rapporteur, worked hard, and with special interest, on this issue. I welcome the fact that the Cypriot Presidency was very positive in receiving our messages and in fact did a very good job in bringing this dossier to completion. I trust that we will soon have available to us the second report on European citizenship, which will contain specific actions to overcome the barriers faced by the 500 million European citizens, and I trust that the citizens’ charter will also be created, because we need it.

We believe in a better Europe, we will work to ensure that this year is a successful year, and I regret the fact that EUR 1 million is not enough. I trust that there will be second thoughts and that the amount will be increased, because we requested EUR 5 million and in the end I heard that only EUR 2 million would be approved. Other European years had EUR 11 million, and even more, available to them. I understand that this is a time of crisis, but nevertheless, if we want citizens to be at the heart of our policies and if we want more Europe and better Europe, then the right actions and good provision of information to citizens are needed. We believe in participatory democracy and this is the road towards a better future in the European family to which we belong.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 23 October 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) On the occasion of the coming year, 2013, which is a Year of active citizenship, the European Union should direct more attention than it has done to date towards the development of civil society. Among the fundamental aims that the EU wants to achieve is an increase in European citizens’ awareness of their rights, freedoms and opportunities for political participation. I welcome this impulse and will support it through my activities in the European Parliament. I shall also highlight other areas covered by this Year of Citizens: access to information for all EU citizens, support of equal opportunities for women and development of citizens’ mutual respect and European awareness. Therefore, I consider it vital to support the education of citizens – both the younger and the older generations – in areas which help to strengthen European awareness and identity.

Initiatives in the regions of the individual Member States are very important, because it is precisely in the local sphere that political and civic activities originate. Citizens’ initiatives represent active citizens, and so require maximum support from the countries of the EU. Citizen participation is the key to preserving, further developing and building democracy.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the European Year of Citizens taking place in 2013. I belong to a political party founded by citizens conscious of their rights and objectives. Our sense of citizenship was so important to us that we named our party ‘Civic Platform’ [Platforma Obywatelska] (PO). I believe that citizens are aware of and appreciate the work accomplished by PO politicians. It is worth always bearing in mind that good politics must stem from judicious concern for the common good. It was in that spirit that we founded Civic Platform and we continue to be guided by it. In addition to being Polish citizens, we also feel and are European. As Europeans, too, we should show awareness and commitment. I am certain that, as a result of the European Year of Citizens, awareness of the rights associated with European citizenship will improve. Campaigns will be organised to explain the rights enjoyed by those who study, work, set up businesses or spend their retirement in other Member States. The year 2013 will mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of EU citizenship. The rights of every citizen are guaranteed by the European Treaties, including the right to move and settle within another Member State, to vote and stand in European and local elections and to petition the European Parliament. It is important to know about and exercise these rights.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – The European Year of Citizens might be just another year Europe is proposing, but this time it is essential that all the institutions and Member States take this year seriously and bring Europe to all levels and all levels to Europe. Citizens are more and more facing fatigue from Europe and feeling politics at European level distancing itself from the people. In these crucial times in which we seek to deepen European integration, it is essential that our citizens understand and support the efforts of politicians and institutions. Citizens are the backbone of the EU and if we want to achieve true political and economic integration, we cannot bypass the people who would actually make it happen. We have to engage in meaningful dialogue and consultation with our citizens on European issues. Also, one year before the European elections, we need to step up our efforts to explain European-level politics and political parties. For the first time, European parties will be able to campaign, and this provides an excellent opportunity to have a real European debate at all levels across Europe. Our citizens need to feel that their opinion counts, that European elections matter and that Europe is our common home.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report so that 2013 would be declared the European Year of Citizens. Since its creation 20 years ago, European citizenship has enabled us to benefit from a large number of rights: the right to vote in local elections, consular protection abroad, compensation in the case of flight delays or cancellations, the right to an interpreter during a trial abroad, freedom of movement, etc. However, these rights remain insufficiently appreciated. This European Year will enable the spotlight to be trained on the rights of European citizens so that everyone knows their rights and can then assert them anywhere in Europe.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The year 2013 has been declared the European Year of Citizens in order to strengthen the links between citizens and the European institutions and, above all, in order to explain properly to everyone what it means to have European citizenship and what rights are enjoyed by students, workers, jobseekers, volunteers, consumers, businesspeople or indeed pensioners when they choose to move to and remain freely in another Member State. It is important to raise the awareness of citizens – and also of national and European institutions – but too often the talk is of rights which then prove difficult to apply because of red tape and obstacles that interfere with implementing them. Our commitment must be to ensuring that, today, it is really possible for a young person – or even a not so young person – to study or work in any of the 27 Member States without feeling like an outsider, without having to jump through endless hoops, and that they are able to make use of the qualifications they already have from study in their country of origin and, indeed, to benefit from social security.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The European Union now stands at a crossroads in its further development. It cannot be denied that there has been progress on free market issues and the free movement of persons. However, for further progress to be made on European integration, it is vital to find a basis for European civic identity. This must be based on EU citizens’ sense of belonging and solidarity and on strengthening the democratic elements of its decision-making. As a matter of principle, the European Union must, in the framework of the European Year of Citizens (EYC 2013), strengthen knowledge about the existing rights of EU citizens. Awareness of EU citizens’ rights will create a generalised pressure on the representatives of Member States, facilitating a more intensive integration process. Therefore EYC 2013 is a very important initiative. All the European institutions, in co-operation with civil society, should try to improve the general level of knowledge about such fundamental matters. One especially important, responsible task is to create new stimuli for the section of European civil society that supports a more profound integration process. As the sole EU body elected by citizens, the European Parliament must play a leading role in that regard.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – One of the crucial aims of the European Year of Citizens is to make EU citizens aware of their rights. As direct representatives of our citizens we have an obligation to inform them to the best of our abilities of the work and legislation that is handled by us. I feel strongly that the dedicated year of 2013 should only be used as a springboard for our future efforts to incorporate the citizens of this Union. I consider this undertaking to be crucial in educating society and bring it together to learn more about EU integration, values and policies, about the impact that EU legislation has on their lives and to help make them a part of this legislation by taking greater roles in the development of the EU. The EU uses the Year of 2013 as an opportunity to involve citizens in constructing and developing the programme. It will use all possible information and dissemination tools to raise awareness of the EU and attract public and media attention all across Europe. These occasions will develop a greater sense of belonging to a European community among EU citizens. Only with great communication between the EU and ordinary citizens can we contribute to Europe’s success and its standing in the world.

  President. − The next item is a joint debate on Union development policy: the report (A7-0234/2012) by Charles Goerens, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the proposal for an Agenda for Change: the future of EU development policy (2012/2002(INI), and on the question submitted for an oral response by Charles Goerens, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, by Philippe Boulland, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), and by Thijs Berman, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, addressed to the Commission, on 2015 – European Year for Development (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=OQ&reference=O-2012-000167&language=HU" \t "_blank" – B7-0363/2012).

  Charles Goerens, rapporteur and author. − (FR) Mr President, why does the European Union’s policy on development need to change?

It cannot stay the same because the world has changed. These days, 7 out of 10 poor people in the world are living not in the least developed countries or the developing countries but in the emerging countries. Admittedly, globalisation is creating considerable wealth, but not all of it filters through to the least well off.

In addition to that, we have the explosive rate of population growth. Today, the planet has seven billion mouths to feed. In 20 years’ time, the figure will be nine billion. A country’s economic growth is only real when the economy is growing faster than the birth rate.

In the course of the 21st century, the European Union’s influence in the world will steadily fall away in what some call a ‘strategic decline’, in contrast to that of the emerging countries whose booming economies have already made them confident political players.

Even so, the European Union is far and away the world’s leading provider of public-sector development aid. It aspires not only to remain the leading player in this field, but also to be the best one.

To ensure that this remains the case in the future too, the Committee on Development envisages the following way forward. The European Union’s development policy pursues the noblest of all objectives, namely to promote human dignity by eradicating poverty, nothing more, nothing less. Public-sector aid to development must be tailored to the needs of our partners in the South, respecting the choices they make. Development policy must help the poor, with no hidden agenda, and must be consistent with the European Consensus on Development as reflected in the statement agreed by the Council, Commission and Parliament.

We would like to see Lady Ashton signing the relevant document too, so that there is not the slightest doubt as to the intentions of all the European institutions concerning development. We call on all those involved – private-sector players, wealthy nations, poor nations, multilateral organisations – to shoulder their development responsibilities.

For this reason, we endorse the wish of the European Commission to provide its aid on a differentiated basis and to strike the emerging countries, with their booming economies, off the list of beneficiaries. The alleviation of poverty in these countries must no longer be a matter for international solidarity but must now be a domestic policy concern. Our Committee would like this to come about through dialogue with these countries and a gradual withdrawal of the European Union from giving them aid.

Commissioner Piebalgs favours inclusive growth in the developing countries. We agree with that approach. With the proviso that the promotion of growth in the developing countries, as in Europe too, must bring about a real improvement in the lot of the poorest. Account must be taken of this in the programming of aid. So we believe that at least 20 % of EU aid must go towards basic social services as defined by the United Nations in its Millennium Development Goals.

European Union policy must be consistent, coherent. Coherence means that departments other than that concerned with development must be persuaded to abandon any action which might undermine what has been achieved in development cooperation. Our 27 Member States must be aware of this and must act accordingly so that, operating as 28, along with the Commission, the External Action Service, they fulfil the requirement of coordinated action stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty. Your rapporteur believes that the dialogue amongst the 28 is far from good enough, in terms of ministers’ attendance at Council meetings and the extremely limited time allocated to this dialogue.

So I think that, before we take decisions, there must be a meeting of minds on the main strategic issues which determine the European Union’s development policy. An independent think tank at European level, providing real added value, real added value over and above that provided by existing national bodies, might be better placed to guide us in our response to the major challenges of development. I will spare you the detail, which you can find in my written report.

As we are aware, this matter of development receives insufficient attention in public debate. To remedy that state of affairs, and this is the purpose of the oral question I added to my request for this report, we ask Parliament to approve our motion to have 2015 declared the European Year for Development. This request is supported by Thijs Berman, Philippe Boulland and Eva Joly.

Why do we need responsible development? Because the Millennium Development Goals will never be attained if the mid-income countries, where 7 out of 10 people are poor, do not shoulder their responsibilities. We need it because the imperative of policy coherence requires us too, in the European Union, to rethink a number of our methods. If we want to remain relevant here in 2015, it seems to me that 2015 is none too soon a date.

  Philippe Boulland, author. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I first of all thank Charles Goerens for his excellent report.

We are all aware that the European Union provides over half of the world’s public-sector development aid. Even so, as the 2015 deadline for achievement of the Millennium Development Goals draws near, whilst some of the goals do seem to have been achieved, we need to think about how we can improve our aid and make it more coherent with our trade policy, our agricultural policy and our foreign policy.

The future of European development policy must be built on specific, measurable commitments tied to a short- and medium-term timetable.

The economic crisis, climate change, the power of the emerging countries, land grabbing, all these things force us to set new priorities: guaranteeing food security, access to energy resources and access to health care. There is agreement in Europe on these things, yes, but we must rethink our European and international institutional systems for dealing with environmental and social issues, modelling ourselves on decision-making bodies like the WTO, for example.

Lastly, and above all, we must make it clear to our fellow citizens that development aid to third countries is more than charity and solidarity; it is also a source of development for us. We need only look at the markets opening up to Europeans in the emerging countries of China, Brazil and India.

The year 2015 will also be a time to look more closely at the geostrategic changes of recent years, because today’s emerging countries were still developing countries not all that long ago. As undeniable economic powers, these countries must now make their own contribution to the international aid effort.

The European Union must be a promoter of responsible development aid at European and at international level. The year 2015 will be more than a landmark date; it will be a unique opportunity for rethinking development aid, not merely as financial assistance, but as backing for responsible development projects in both the social and environmental field.

I thus join with members of the other groups and the members of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in calling for 2015 to be designated the European Year for Development and, above all, responsible development.

  Thijs Berman, rapporteur. − (NL) Mr President, following Mr Goerens’ excellent report, I should like to make three comments.

The Agenda for Change rightly says that there must be a closer link between emergency aid and development policy. In my Member State, the Netherlands, people are saying that we should simply confine ourselves to emergency aid, which is a ridiculous idea.

Now, in Mali, for instance, it is disastrous and not in our interests simply to offer emergency aid. Not to look beyond famine amongst the refugees in northern Mali only benefits the Muslim fanatics who are establishing Sharia law there, despite fierce opposition from the local population. That offers Al Qaeda a safe haven, so that northern Mali becomes a hotbed, an Afghanistan close to our borders.

If we look away from northern Mali, that is also to the advantage of Latin American criminals who are increasingly free to transport cocaine to Europe across the Sahara, via ports in Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau. Taking action, on the other hand, means supporting the peace initiative and working actively in Mali towards a future for the region, for the Tuareg as well.

In 2015, we need to have global talks about how to ensure from then on that everyone has the possibility of escaping poverty. That calls for a public debate. It would be a good idea for the European Union to declare 2015 the year of development cooperation. I should like to ask Commissioner Piebalgs whether he can support us in achieving that.

Finally, without open democracy, equal opportunities are an illusion. As long as the poorest have no voice in their capital cities, their interests are not taken into account there. It is, therefore, important to invest in making the voices of the poorest heard, in local and regional parliaments, in social organisations, such as NGOs for minorities and women. The European Commission is opting for that approach, with the backing of the European Parliament. I hope that the Council will also be able to support it.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I should start by thanking Charles Goerens for an excellent report and also for the debate we have started here. It definitely requires far more attention.

I am also grateful to the Committee on Development, in which we have the chance always to exchange views on development policy. Development cooperation is definitely one of the most complicated policies because it revolves not only around the development support that we give, but also around our action in other policy areas. It is also true, as Mr Boulland said, that we should see development policy not only from the perspective of solidarity. Solidarity is definitely part of our approach, but it is also an investment in the security and the well-being of our citizens. I believe it is very much a cross-cutting policy that strengthens the Union if properly addressed and weakens the Union if not properly addressed.

I believe that there have been substantial changes in the world for the better. We now have a chance, in our lifetime, not only to alleviate poverty but also, in many parts of the world, to eradicate it. The EU is a trusted partner because we always keep our promises. Sometimes, perhaps, we are slow, but we are honest in our approach, with no second thoughts. We just want to help countries get out of the circle of poverty.

In addressing this agenda of change, we really need to work more strategically, and when you work more strategically you definitely need to make some choices. Our point of departure is the human rights-based approach, which we do not separate from health policy, education policy or support for growth sectors. It is an over-arching element that we address in all policy elements in a coherent manner. I am very glad that Mr Goerens’s report looks positively on the movement towards inclusive and sustainable growth, because we can also see what our partners are looking for. They would like fast, immediate growth, and GDP growth of two figures, and if possible three figures, while not always understanding that GDP growth figures do not always result in satisfaction for the funded nation and that the elements of social inclusion and social protection are very important, and that the sustainability issue is also crucial. Does it help a country to have high growth, only to find it is devastating the environment? We are trying to build a coherent approach.

I believe two issues are crucial here. One is access to sustainable energy. We know that this is crucial not only in the fight against climate change, but also for economic growth. If we are not there, then it will most probably be coal-based power that is used in some parts of the country. The second issue is food security, agriculture and nutrition. What Mr Berman said is true: if you just take humanitarian aid, you will never have enough money to address matters, because calamities are happening more and more and this has a higher and higher cost. It does not help if you just save people’s lives in a time of calamity – they also need to rebuild their lives.

What we have done, together with my colleague Kristalina Georgieva, with regard to built resilience provides an answer. This is where you can save money and where you can move out, saying that, at a certain stage of development, our support will not be necessary, because the country is strong enough and has built resilience to address its food insecurity.

Mr Goerens touched upon dialogue with the Member States, and things have evolved in the Development Council. It is perhaps not the most important sign, but in May we will hold a whole-day Development Council under the chairmanship of the High Representative, Vice-President Ashton. Although she has a busy agenda, she has agreed to hold a whole-day event. This demonstrates that we have issues to discuss, and she feels confident that the Member States will be fully involved.

Another benchmark is joint programming. I am glad that there is a French initiative to hold an event on joint programming. It is not only a Commission-driven process. This is what we are looking for, so that Member States feel fully comfortable with the policy.

Last but not least, international engagement. We sometimes say that we are misunderstood, but I believe now that we have a real historic chance in the MDG process up to 2015 and after. The MDG Framework is the most developed and widely-recognised international global framework. That framework really has changed the lives of millions of people, and 2015 is the year in which we conclude the process of the MDGs and, from another point of view, we also start a new framework.

I believe the EU should be fully engaged in this major event and consider this the most important year for development cooperation; it is really a landmark year for us. So, for this reason, I believe that organising a European Year for Development in 2015 could be both timely and appropriate. At EU level it could help catalyse and mobilise the attention both of public opinion and of the decision-makers on development issues, in particular on the post-2015 development framework.

I am also pleased to note the support of the Committee of the Regions and of the President of this House on this issue. The Commission is now looking at the implications of the organisation of this European Year. We need also to mobilise significant human resources to ensure the full success of such a large-scale campaign. We are looking at it positively, but we need to be absolutely sure that we, as Europe, can deliver on this Year before we start it. The Commission will come back to Parliament with detailed proposals, in line with the proper procedure for the designation of a European Year.

I would also call the attention of this House, as a component of the budgetary authority, to the need to ensure sufficient financial resources in order to secure the successful organisation of such a European Year.

  Filip Kaczmarek, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Mr President, the Committee on Development decided to draft a report on the communication ‘Agenda for Change’, as the plans the Commission sets out in this document concern key issues of European development policy. I would like to thank Charles Goerens for drafting this important report. I share the Commission’s eagerness to pay particular attention to improving the quality of assistance. It is clear that, at times of crisis, we must be exceptionally careful about how we spend taxpayers’ money. Nor is there any doubt that our development policy itself needs to be modernised. If the world is changing, and changing very quickly, then our response to the world’s problems and ills should keep pace with those changes. The Agenda for Change is an attempt to do just that, and I hope that it will be successful. The concept of inclusive growth, which the Commissioner referred to just now, involves reconciling economic growth with progress in meeting social needs. This concept actually builds on a very European and long-established model – the social market economy. It prevents us from losing sight of the basic aim of economic development, which is to reduce poverty. Our desire is for a development policy that is coherent, effective, balanced and well coordinated. I believe that the Agenda for Change, our report and the European Year for Development will bring us closer to achieving that.

  Ricardo Cortés Lastra, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate Charles Goerens on his report; this sets out a firm position which lays down the bases for the future of European development cooperation policy. His report comes at a time of Europe-wide cuts in official development aid, expiry of the time limit set for achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in 2015 and full negotiation of the next multiannual financial framework; specifically, the development cooperation instrument.

The message which Parliament is going to support tomorrow is a forceful one: times are changing, circumstances are changing, but we Europeans, even in difficult times, are in favour of solidarity and development, and we have a cooperation agenda which is in tune with those changes.

Parliament is therefore supportive of policies which favour sustainable development and promote the redistribution of wealth and social justice, whose financing is commensurate with global targets. It is also urging that the 70 % of poor people in the world who live in middle-income countries should not be denied our support. We are therefore asking that a roadmap be negotiated aimed at gradual reduction of official development aid, that their involvement in triangular cooperation agreements be actively promoted and that the differentiation criterion for granting or not granting our aid be based not just on gross national income but also on other indicators, such as current inequality or vulnerability.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are asking for a lot, even for revenue from the tax on European Union financial transactions to be used, inter alia, for development cooperation; but we are asking this advisedly, in the knowledge that European Union aid is effective and has a genuine added value and also that it continues to be necessary.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I thank Mr Goerens for his excellent report. But what always seems a problem to me is that, in times of economic crisis, we change our view of our development cooperation policy. That would be fine if we were to be clever and say that our starting point is a coherent policy and that now we are really going to exert pressure on trade and investment in development policy.

But if we don’t do that and if we actually look primarily at how we can use our official development aid funds, then I am still very much afraid, Commissioner, that we are taking over the arguments of the other side, that is to say, you can do it more efficiently and, therefore, with less money. I can see that in my own country, where the contribution to development cooperation has now fallen from 0.8 % to 0.7 % of gross national product, and I will see it again in other countries.

So my question to the Commissioner is, when are we going to be really clever about this? When are we going to act honestly and be honest in taking investment as our starting point?

  Younous Omarjee, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, of all the subjects we are discussing here, I would like to emphasise just one: Africa. It is on the continent of Africa that these various issues are the most acute. And it is Africa that has the greatest potential. The reality of demographic change is a two-edged sword.

In less than 40 years, the population of Africa will almost double. Shall we be able to make this dynamic a factor for progress and human development or, as a result of our inability to eradicate poverty, will it become an unbelievably powerful force that destabilises the world at every level?

Development aid is not, I sincerely believe, just a policy of charity or a miserabilist policy. No! True development policy must also be an investment in the future, underpinning great aspirations for Africa itself, aspirations for our continent too. The future growth of the European Union depends on this – as China has understood very well – and world peace depends on it too.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank Charles Goerens and the Commissioner for their presentations.

There are three brief points I want to make. The first is that we need to ensure that there is a favourable environment in which economies in developing countries can grow. This means getting public expenditure in order, making sure it is efficient, and creating a healthy private sector as well as removing excessive burdens on SMEs – small and medium-sized enterprises. We cannot do that on our own, but we can encourage that and we can talk about that and we can get involved with other politicians and try to get that on their agenda. In addition, we need to protect and further develop property rights in order to also serve that agenda. That is what we will give people: an ownership, and a sense of the future.

Secondly, we really do need to address the issue of policy coherence. The Commission itself pointed out that there could be up to EUR 6 billion per year saved if there was greater coherence in our development policy. There needs to be some way for this Parliament to speak with national parliaments, and I urge the Commissioner to use his influence to help us bring that about. We are trying to do that through the Committee on Development so we can bypass reluctant ministers in the Council of Ministers who want to keep all this power to themselves and are exacerbating the situation.

Thirdly, and very briefly, the Commissioner attended a launch on gendercide. I am the rapporteur on gendercide. There are up to 200 million women missing in the world because of gender-based abortion and infanticide. We can change that. We can challenge that. We can bring about a difference that makes it clear you do not need to favour men over women for economic reasons. We have got to make that an issue.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too must congratulate Mr Goerens on this excellent report.

In view of the current – difficult – economic and budgetary situation, it is all the more essential for us to make sure that aid is spent effectively and produces the best possible outcome. Resources must be directed more accurately to where they are most needed to reduce poverty. We must give more thought to a differentiated approach on how we give aid.

In its Agenda for Change, the Commission proposes to target its aid on agriculture, prioritising locally developed practices and concentrating on small farm holdings. So it is imperative that the Commission really does focus on aid to the agricultural sector and nutrition in its programming for the period 2014-2020.

Moreover, effective action against poverty also requires a strengthening of synergies and the strategic meshing of humanitarian aid with development aid. This is necessary in order to establish a robust system and launch a process of sustainable development. So 2015 must be the year of development – I would venture to say, sustainable development.

  Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to congratulate Mr Goerens on his excellent report.

The Agenda for Change is an important roadmap for redefining development cooperation and for striving for better quality and effectiveness of aid, particularly in view of current changes in the new world order, the emergence of new international actors and the necessary process of fiscal consolidation into which we are forced by our current economic situation.

We are pleased that the Commission is making poverty a core element of its differentiation policy. However, we deplore the fact that gross national income has been adopted as the key indicator for implementation of that policy.

Mr President, 70 % of the people in this world whose income is below the poverty threshold live in middle-income countries. If we want to have a real impact on reducing this poverty, we need to take into account, in addition to wealth, other criteria such as the vulnerability of some of those countries, the lack of internal cohesion or the human development indicator.

Many of these countries could also be key players today through triangular or South-South cooperation mechanisms, not to mention drivers of development for the future.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, I am also speaking on behalf of Michael Cashman, who is the shadow rapporteur for the S&D Group and who has been delayed. First of all, I want to thank the rapporteur for the excellent report and also to thank the Commission for its engagement in the compilation of the report.

We believe that this report has actually achieved a balanced and comprehensive approach to development. We very much welcome the stronger wording on a fairer distribution of wealth, and particularly welcome the emphasis on sustainable and inclusive growth for all.

In relation to differentiation, we do welcome the strong wording on political dialogue with emerging countries on the eradication of poverty through their own internal solidarity, together with appropriate funding from our own side. However, we cannot abruptly stop funding, especially for some of the so-called middle income countries, and particularly those in the Caribbean and the Pacific.

I believe that we must have a roadmap or an exit strategy, particularly in relation to smaller countries. Those countries can be more vulnerable, and that vulnerability needs to be taken into consideration when considering funding for middle income countries.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). – Mr President, the European Union development policy is essentially one of the most intertwined policy areas, with direct links to the foreign and security policy, human rights, climate and fisheries policies, the European Neighbourhood policy and so on.

Yet, as the rapporteur has rightly pointed out, the political dialogue between international actors, as well as the cooperation between Member States, the Commission and the EEAS, is still in a quite disorganised state. Securing consistency between the different policies, as well as the activities, of the actors of the EU and its Member States should be the responsibility of the Commission. I would therefore call on the Commissioner to make further efforts to implement Policy Coherence for Development.

I would also like to point out that when discussing development policy we should be thinking of a much wider range of recipients than the ACP countries only. The know-how of the Baltic Member States has been successfully used to encourage development in Ukraine and the South Caucasus, for example.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, EU development policy must be substantially altered. Firstly, it requires sufficient resources which are at least consistent with the commitments made and with the objectives laid down at international level, particularly in the framework of the UN. It must also be altered to allow developing countries to take greater ownership of aid that can foster their sovereign development.

It is with concern that we face trends and orientations such as a change in budget support and state subsidies for so-called blending mechanisms, which weaken and undermine aid and introduce uncertainty where predictability is required. It is with equal concern that we face the imposition, under the guise of ‘good governance’, of practices and policies in many fields, such as economic organisation, taxation, justice and others. These policies must arise out of developing country choices and options, in line with their situation and specific conditions, rather than being exported from Europe.

In conclusion, meanwhile, much deeper consideration must be given to whether sectoral policies are consistent with development objectives.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, the European Union can be justifiably proud of its contribution to development aid for many years now. I suppose this was recognised in the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize, not just for development aid outside the European Union but obviously, also, for peace within the European Union.

While some cynics ridiculed the award, most of us can be very proud of what has been achieved. It is an encouragement for us to continue doing what we can, both internally in trying to create and keep peace, and abroad in terms of development aid – and particularly as regards helping countries towards peace and sustainability through the development of their economies. That is a very important point.

Finally, the point made by my colleague, Mr Fisas Ayxela is important, which is that GDP should not be the only indicator for assessing the wealth of countries and where best we can invest.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the report refers to the impressive rise of China, India and Brazil. For ‘impressive’ I would substitute the word ‘threatening’ – threatening to the manufacturing sectors of Europe and particularly to that in my own country, the United Kingdom.

The report expresses surprise that their growth has failed to reduce their poverty, but of course it is on their poverty and sometimes slave labour conditions that their growth has been based. The Commission concedes that the emergent economies should be eliminated from development assistance, but only in the long term. In the meantime, they are destroying our manufacturing while we are relieving them of the burden of looking after their own poor.

Globalisation is applauded in the report on the doubtful ground that it reduces inequalities between countries, which is another way of saying that the emergent countries are becoming richer at the expense of some of our workers. However, inequalities within countries are becoming greater as workers in Member States are thrown on the unemployment scrapheap.

  Patrice Tirolien (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, to my mind, the Commission’s proposed Agenda for Change raises many questions, chief amongst them the matter of how exactly the principle of differentiation is to be applied. The Commission’s wish is that, from 2014, the countries receiving EU development aid should be chosen purely on the basis of the criterion of per capita wealth. As Baroness Ashton has said, this is not just a matter of money; it merits a proper policy debate on how we define our priorities for international cooperation. And I do not think this differentiated approach is consistent with the spirit of the Cotonou Agreement.

I firmly believe that those ACP countries that have recorded good economic performances should be encouraged in their transition towards more sustainable growth; they should not be improperly penalised for having managed to secure growth through discipline, good governance and prudent economic policy.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, there have been a lot of interesting points. I would like very rapidly to go through the main points and main answers.

To Mr Kaczmarek: I believe that what we are trying to do is to make aid a catalyst to achieve the results, plus with PCD – Policy Coherence for Development – where we could achieve definitely even more and stronger change. I would definitely say that our PHARE initiative is transparency in extractive industries, as was proposed by my colleague Mr Barnier. If we capitalise, we really can make a substantial change. I would very much like to thank him for his support for the agenda for change.

To Mr Cortés Lastra: we have discussed differentiation for a long time. Differentiation is not an ambition per se. Differentiation is just the realities of what is happening in the world. But we are keeping new instruments, like cooperation instruments, that we will continue to use with our partner countries. In a lot of countries, we should continue the poverty eradication strategy because the economic level and size of the countries definitely require other forms of cooperation.

To Mrs Sargentini: we are investing and changing our approach during this period’s financial framework, according to the agenda for change.

To Mr Younous: Africa is our absolute priority, because Africa is make or break. It could be a continent of prosperity and it could be a continent of complete disaster. So I believe that our engagement with Africa is crucial, because no one else will support the African nations in their quest for prosperity. In my contacts with African countries I believe that they are very much looking to Europe, not only for money but also very much for encouragement and their development. If we can capitalise on that, I believe Africa would be the driver of world growth, not the continent where there is currently the most insecurity.

Regarding what Mr Mitchell said, we also work with the private sector and others, because this also strengthens the human rights agenda. If you just speak about the human rights agenda without addressing small and medium-sized enterprises and property rights, it is always vulnerable, but if you have a broader discussion, then this helps. Also in regard to what he said about the gendercide issue, we have worked on this and we should continue to do so because it is clearly a human rights agenda but it really needs a push.

Mr Mitchell’s idea about the European Parliament and national parliaments is very interesting and we should reflect on this. I started by being too shy with national parliaments. I came to national parliaments to speak with them as if starting from scratch and discovered with pleasure that they are actually much more engaged than we usually suspect, because these are some of the policies that everybody wants. What type of world will we be living in? I think that is why I believe the debate is essential. It is not just a question of how much money we have to give. It is actually concerns the world we are living in now and the world we would like to live in in 15 or 20 years, and the debate is very much alive.

To Ms Striffler: agriculture, food security and nutrition will remain our priority area, and there we have a new initiative. We have put in place for the first time a nutrition obligation to reduce the number of children left stunted by seven million by 2025. For me, if there is a poverty phase – and actually this phase is a post-2015 development agenda – it is a malnourished child, because it is a shame that it has happened and we know how difficult it is to achieve. As long as there is one child in such a situation, we will not have done our duty. I believe it is very crucial that we focus on this.

Regarding Mr Fisas Ayxela and differentiation, it is true that there will be pockets of poverty in China, but I believe that if we have a definite global framework and China does what it is committing itself to – fighting poverty – then I believe that they are capable of eradicating poverty.

I believe this 2015 framework should be overarching, and if a country puts in a lot of effort inside the country, we should recognise that effort. But it is not for us to put in small things here and there to address some particular aspects. It is not sufficient, and I believe the agenda should be broader.

To Ms Costello, on middle-income countries: we need criteria. We should be objective. Mr Goerens himself started this process – and I fully agree – when we discussed the very difficult banana-accompanying measures. It was then that we started to ask what the criteria are that we are addressing, and for the first time it was very clear that Parliament now has criteria. If I come to the middle-income countries with a fair attitude, I need to base myself on criteria. Is the GDP good enough or not? Well, this is under debate, but I think we are achieving a consistent approach.

On Ms Ojuland’s point, the EEAS and the Commission are working well together. I would really say that we have definitely a much better situation than Louis Michel had with his colleagues and others. We are very coherent in our approach. We are improving on it and they are working very much on strategy.

Turning to Mr Ferreira, commitments need to be fulfilled, and I think the most important commitment we have made is that of 0.7 % of GNI for development causes in 2015. I believe the push from this House is crucial, especially when we come now to the multiannual financial framework. The part which we have put in the EU budget is exactly that part of our commitment of 0.7 %. It is not different, it is part of it and it is a crucial part that should be continued.

I would finish with Mr Kelly, on the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that this prize is very much justified. I am Latvian, and I think the EU has given us a lot of encouragement. If my country is in a situation of security, peace and relative prosperity, a lot of that is definitely due to the EU being there. It has made changes that would be impossible any other way. I believe the EU experience is definitely something that we need to promote in a lot of regions, and particularly in Africa where all the countries are rather small. Even South Africa, which is the biggest country of all, is actually small. So the only way Africa can evolve is by working together and for this the EU gives a good example and encouragement.

To Mr Brons I would say that we do not necessarily support countries. While we try to work through countries to strength things, we support people, and this should not be misunderstood. We know that the most sustainable way of addressing poverty is by supporting governments of countries with a credible strategy. But our support is always to the people of those countries, and sometimes we make this distinction. As regards differentiation of ACP countries, we have the Cotonou Agreement until 2020. We will be responsible towards that agreement. We have a dialogue, in particular, with ACP countries and we respond to requests from our ACP partner countries. We do not make unilateral moves that change the nature of the relationship. At the same time, we should also in this House encourage discussion on what should come after the Cotonou Agreement and on what comes after 2020.

  Charles Goerens, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, after all the plaudits heaped upon me, I shall endeavour to remain modest.

Thank you, first of all, to the House for its verdict on the work we have done in committee. I know that not everything has been accepted unconditionally, notably the concept of differentiation – in every language of the Union and in every respect. Of course there are pockets of poverty in the emerging countries – big ones, even. There are also 112 million poor people in Europe. That is not a reason to ignore the poverty that exists in the emerging countries and in Europe. Let us stop ranking our own poor against the poor in other countries! Different instruments exist, depending on the country where these poor people live.

Our cooperation policy must be neither saintly and perfect nor timid. It must be bold, coherent, selective and sustainable. This, in essence, is the conclusion I draw from the work we have just completed. I leave this debate with some questions, but also some reasons for satisfaction. The questions include that of whether or not we shall achieve 0.7 % of GNI by 2015. Times are hard. So we must not be complacent about the effort required of us. If we do not discharge our responsibilities for development, no one will do it for us.

And how can we inform our fellow citizens better? I see some cause for satisfaction here. It stems from the fact that, from the answers which Commissioner Piebalgs has given, it seems virtually certain that 2015 will be the European Year for (responsible) Development.

Another cause for satisfaction, if this idea is carried through – and I do not doubt for a moment that it will be – is that we shall be able to announce in 2015 what we regard as the essentials of development cooperation policy and what the best partnerships should be. We still have a little time to bring our full weight to bear. The rest of the world may be advancing at an extraordinary pace, but Europe is still the foremost player.

One of my chief causes for satisfaction is the great expertise we possess. We should try to demonstrate this expertise to our fellow citizens and to the rest of the world. I have visited so many developing countries where Europe is by far the biggest aid donor but where perceptions of the European Union, as a player, are inversely proportional to the efforts and the funds we invest.

I think 2015 will be a good time to put an end to this misplaced modesty.

IN THE CHAIR: RAINER WIELAND
Vice-President

  President. − The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 23 October 2012, at 18.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Alongside trade policy and political relations, EU development policy is a fundamental part of the European Union’s external action. Its main objective is to reduce poverty. To achieve this objective, the support given to developing countries to improve access to education is essential, when over a hundred million children worldwide are not in education. Without an education, these children have no chance of achieving the professional training they need to be able to enter the labour market later, and, at the same time, efforts to combat poverty in these countries are made more difficult.

I therefore consider the EU’s support essential so that as many children as possible, especially those living in rural areas, can take part in educational programmes – primary education and good quality training for work. Similarly, the EU should support the development of sectoral plans that also take into account the specific cultural factors of each region or country, with an emphasis on involving civil society in these countries as much as possible in implementing them.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although, according to the UN report, the number of hungry people has fallen worldwide, every eighth person still does not have enough to eat. And, in Africa, the trend is actually the reverse. A number of extremely serious mistakes have been made in development aid. We should be just as concerned by the fact that, according to an IMF study, more than 50 % of the public expenditure of 33 countries depends on international development aid as by the fact that the aid that is given – in Somalia for instance – is misused to finance war. It is equally worrying that development aid is being used to promote agricultural projects under which the local population is forcibly driven out, which further exacerbates hunger and poverty. The EU has promoted that development, for instance with its biofuel rules. It is just as unacceptable that, after giving them debt relief, China is now encouraging them to take on new debts in order to secure raw materials supplies. What is clear is that we need a number of changes and that more must be done to check the population explosion, as that would make a major contribution towards combating hunger and poverty. Nor is it acceptable for states to want development aid but not even be prepared to take back their own citizens.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The report addresses an important problem: development aid for middle-income countries. This is to be gradually reduced. At the same time, however, we should aim at cooperation directed specifically at the poorest regions in those countries. We need triangular cooperation: between the northern donor countries, the new emerging countries and the developing countries. The BRICS countries must take on more responsibility when they operate in the developing countries (e.g. China/Africa). The focus must always be on help for self-help, which can be achieved by, for instance, microcredits for SMEs. Granting development aid must also be tied to: (1) respect for human rights, especially the protection of religious or ethnic minorities, and respect for women’s and children’s rights, and (2) cooperation by the recipient countries in taking back illegal migrants!

  President. − The next item is one-minute speeches under Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, air traffic is of crucial importance for the economy of the European Union: on the one hand because of its role in connecting people and regions, and on the other because it employs more than three million people and contributes more than EUR 140 million to our GDP. At the same time, these airlines are engaged in a hard struggle, since they are exposed to unequal competition conditions created by rapidly expanding airlines in the Middle East. European airlines have been criticising the airlines of the Gulf States for years now, owing to the high level of state aid on the one hand and, on the other, the fact that these companies do not have to pay corporation tax either.

In contrast, European airlines may not receive state aid, they must pay corporation tax, and they may not even participate in European export-credit guarantees. These factors combine to create an unequal competition situation, and I would like to ask the European Commission to remedy this immediately.

  Mojca Kleva (S&D). – (SL) Mr President, I wish to ask a question about cohesion policy.

A system of national development factors mainly determines the level of European funds for less-developed regions and it is based on calculations of both the degree of development of regions and the Member State.

Within negotiations for the next long-term financial framework for the next seven years a cut in these factors is proposed and we, the Members of the European Parliament, never had the opportunity to discuss the cut in these factors, though I think this belongs in the area of joint decision-making which exists in the framework of European cohesion policy.

In essence, I am worried that the joint consequences of the proposed changes to these factors will have a disproportionate effect on regions within the European Union in different Member States. This may be felt especially in East Slovenia, which is less developed and may be affected by these changes, which in fact amount to a 40 % loss of cohesion funds.

In this time of crisis, I think that it is not particularly necessary to emphasise that, in order to implement solidarity and investment policy in the EU, it is simply impossible to allow something like that, and so I would like the Commission to reply to me in writing.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Mr President, five weeks ago there was a large demonstration in Barcelona. More than one million people demanding that Catalonia be the next EU Member State is exceptional. This is why the President of Catalonia, Artur Mas, has decided to initiate a political process calling for early Catalan elections next month. This process will enable Catalans to decide freely, peacefully and democratically if they want to become a new Member State of the European Union.

The will of the Catalans is to remain in the European project. We believe in Europe, and our objective is not to be an isolated country but to become a new partner in the construction of Europe. The example of the agreement on a Scottish referendum in 2014 is an enlightening one. I hope that in Catalonia a new era for European democracy is being opened.

Vice-President Vidal-Quadras’s statements calling for intervention by the Spanish armed forces in Catalonia are disgraceful. He should resign.

  Sandrine Bélier (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have just got back from Hyderabad, in India, and the Eleventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity. Parliament was represented there alongside the Commission and the Council.

The task facing this summit was an important one: to decide on financing for the biodiversity rescue plan 2010-2020 [sic: 2011-2020], adopted two years ago at Nagoya. It was a close-run thing; the talks were difficult, but definite progress was made on maritime and coastal waters, and a commitment was secured to double the funding for biodiversity by 2015.

After the disappointment of the Rio Summit, this comes as a relief. The European Union and the international community are still capable of imposing their will when it comes to the environment. But the critical state of biodiversity requires us to intensify our efforts and deliver on our commitments to preserve our natural world, here and now, in the budget, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. And soon we shall be debating measures against biopiracy and ratification of the Nagoya Protocol. I urge you to show a solid front and prove, once again, that the European Parliament seeks and feels a responsibility for biojustice at European and world level.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, European leaders continue to place emphasis on budget discipline, so I say let’s get down to it, because what exactly do we mean by budget discipline? I believe budget discipline means respecting agreements with pensioners rather than abandoning state commitments in mid-stream. I believe budget discipline means respecting the contracts of working people rather than inventing extraordinary taxes or cuts in subsidies. Budget discipline means respecting commitments to health, education and culture rather than closing services or shutting down and cancelling projects in mid-stream. Discipline means sorting out the banks rather than robbing taxpayers to put money into the hands of speculators so that they can save their banks. This is the budget discipline I would like to see implemented in the European Union, instead of continued subservience to the markets. If an example were needed, the budget under discussion in Portugal on the orders of the Troika is the perfect one, since it goes against all the commitments any State must have towards its citizens of not breaching the agreements made behind closed doors which are ruining Europe and its Member States.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 11 September, the Catalan people demonstrated peacefully in Barcelona. One million people have called for Catalan independence from Spain. On 15 October, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, made a speech at the time of signing an agreement to allow a referendum for Scottish independence from London. In Veneto, my own region, over the past few weeks, thousands of people have signed a petition for a referendum on whether Veneto should have independence from Italy. Yesterday, hundreds and thousands of people in Veneto, Lombardy and across all the regions in Northern Italy signed a petition for more autonomy from Rome. And, in Flanders and the Basque Country, too, citizens are calling vigorously for autonomy and independence from the national States.

And what does our President, Martin Schulz, say to all this? He calls for a courageous commitment to give a clear rejection of all separatist tendencies. His Vice-President, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, even goes so far as to call for the use of force against Catalan citizens. These declarations are a matter of extreme seriousness, contrary to the principles of the democracy which we proclaim here and which we should defend. I would say to them that it is for the people to write the future of the new Europe, not for the bureaucrats in Brussels. We know what we must do.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I recently spent some time in Cyprus, taking part in anti-occupation events against the illegal Turkish occupation, which has now been going on for 38 years. Turks hold 38 % of Cypriot lands when Cyprus is actually part of the European Union.

It was while I was in Cyprus that I learned that the European Union had won the Nobel Peace Prize. That may be a joke, but not for the people of Cyprus. Part of that award was for dispute resolution, but what has the European Union done to help the people of Cyprus? There were 1 619 people missing after the Turkish invasion. Not enough work has been done. Yet Turkey is still a candidate country and does not even recognise the Republic of Cyprus, which is an EU Member State. It does not even recognise the Cyprus EU Presidency.

What is the European Union doing about this? It is an absolute joke. I call for justice for internal refugees in Cyprus and justice and human rights for the families of the missing people.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the main thrust and content of the speech by President Barroso opening this session were defined by ‘more Europe’. In this Union, it seems unthinkable that there could be any cherry-picking or ranking with regard to compliance with and enforcement of the fundamental principles according to some sort of hierarchical scale. At the same time, it is also unthinkable that the legal practices and legal systems of the Member States could create or review legislation that is contrary to the fundamental rights of the Union. However, ladies and gentlemen, believe it or not, this is what the National Council of the Slovak Republic did on 20 September 2007, through Decision 1483/2007. This decision reinforced the Beneš Decrees, and rendered them inviolable and irreversible.

In the light of this, however, it is particularly interesting to regard it as a Second World War document, since it was adopted not in 1945 but in 2007. Arguments that make reference to historical documents are unfounded and amateurish, since historical documents belong in archives and history books, not in the valid legal system in force. I do not know whether my colleagues understand that 13 of the Decrees demand implementation on the basis of racial segregation and discrimination, just like the Nuremberg Laws. Slovakia should therefore remove these rules from the statute books.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, a group of six Member States recently called on the European Commission to reintroduce compulsory visas for the Balkan countries, citing false applications for asylum as the reason.

I think that this request is unfounded and wrong from two points of view: firstly, abuse of the European asylum system is possible only because of the system’s internal weakness. Instead of limiting freedom of movement, we should speed up the adoption and implementation of the new asylum package. Secondly, this solution would be identical to that adopted by Canada three years ago, when it reimposed visas for citizens of the Czech Republic. At the time, all the EU countries criticised the Canadian Government, and now they are simply following its example. This duplicitous behaviour by the EU is shameful and contrary to European values. Citizens of the Balkan countries should be able to travel freely in the EU, just as citizens of the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria should be able to travel freely in Canada or the United States. The Commission should not comply with this request.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, various social organisations in several countries have addressed a letter to the European Commission complaining about and criticising the pressure it is bringing to bear on countries such as Portugal and Greece to privatise their water services. The Commission’s response clearly reveals the true face of those who control the destiny of the European Union.

Despite being aware of the catastrophe of privatisation in many countries in terms of soaring costs, deterioration in services and exclusion and inequality in the exercise of this basic human right – the right to water – the Commission openly defends the privatisation of this and other public services. Such an approach would contradict the assumed neutrality the Treaties provide for in this respect and would thus represent a bare-faced robbery perpetrated against these countries and their populations.

The people of Europe once again know what to expect from this European Union: the sacrificing of the rights of the many in favour of business for the few. They will get the response they deserve.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I am not going to talk about independence for Catalonia, I am going to talk about La Gomera, a small island which is part of the Canary Islands and which has experienced an appalling fire, a fire which began on 4 August and was not extinguished officially until last month, in September. Not only has the fire affected the Garajonay National Park, which has been a World Heritage site since 1986, it has also scorched around 11 % of the surface area of the island, and more than 4 000 people have had to be evacuated.

The damage caused to the environment, to the economy and to the living conditions of the islanders has been estimated at around EUR 60 million and is very difficult to rectify. So, what I would like to talk about today is solidarity, the solidarity of Europe with a very small but very important part of the Europe which unites us, about Europe’s solidarity with La Gomera and its inhabitants.

The Spanish Government has already requested the intervention of the Solidarity Fund. All that remains now is for it to become effective and for us to help La Gomera to move forward. We are talking about the future of the island and that future is something for which we are all responsible.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, in the United Kingdom a few days ago, Prime Minister Cameron and the Home Secretary said on separate occasions that they would request a review of legislation on the freedom of movement of EU citizens and migration in the UK.

The UK’s Conservative Government needs to clarify what they want: an active and effective single market, which implies free movement of people, or the opposite – constraints and obstacles placed on this market and the freedom of movement for people. The two cannot happen simultaneously. Britain is one of the countries that still apply restrictions on the movement of labour for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens, and, moreover, in recent months the procedures for obtaining a work permit have become even more complicated.

The 15 000 Bulgarians in the UK make up only 0.3 % of the 5 million foreign workers there. It is clear that there is no immigration pressure. I would like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, not to allow any country to jeopardise one of the most important achievements of the European Union – the free movement of people.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Mr President, why are so many people in Britain hostile to the European Union? Perhaps it is not surprising when you read in our newspapers ridiculous stories such as that the EU has banned the sale of homemade chutneys and jams in used jam jars. The deputy leader of the UK Independence Party, Paul Nuttall, who is a Member of this House, calls it interfering nonsense by meddling bureaucrats from Brussels.

There is only one thing wrong with comments like that: they are completely untrue – the story is a fabrication. There was no truth in it, it is simply UKIP cooking up lies again. You take a handful of distortion, add in some political bias, stir in doses of UKIP’s vilification, sprinkle with gullible journalists who do not check their facts – and what do you get? A poisonous concoction, an ill-informed British public ever more distrustful of Europe after being deceived by those who hate Europe, a United Kingdom betrayed by those who lay pretence to patriotism but in practice leave our country weak and with diminished influence.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to use this minute to mention the tragic consequences of the heavy rains which have fallen in southern and south-eastern Spain, particularly in the region of Valencia, Murcia and part of Andalusia.

There was torrential rainfall on 28 September 2012 which caused very considerable damage across the whole agricultural sector. Thousands of hectares of crops were flattened, and many farms were completely ruined. The livestock sector also suffered losses, and damage was caused to the municipal road network, to street lighting, homes, buildings, and to industrial and commercial premises. I would also like to stress the difficulties which were already being experienced in Lorca, a town which, as you know, suffered a powerful earthquake a year ago, along with Puerto Lumbreras.

Those two towns, those two Spanish municipalities in the region of Murcia, and all those in these and other regions, are seeking the solidarity of the European Union in order to be able to carry on.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I commend the agreement on banking supervision that was achieved at the recent European Summit.

Stricter supervision of banking activities is indispensable to avoid repeated banking crises, and also to ensure adequate protection for depositors. Nevertheless, the procedure by which Member States will be able to participate in the single supervisory mechanism needs to be clarified, especially regarding the status of those countries outside the euro area. We cannot ignore the gap between the cross-border dimension of banking activities and the way they are supervised at national level. In Romania, approximately 80 % of banking capital comes from the euro zone. Not least, we must ask ourselves how we can ensure the integrity of the single market if we divide the banking union into participating countries and non-participating countries. I therefore ask for equal rights for all Member States under the new supervisory structure, including where voting rights are concerned.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, last June the European Council agreed to break the link between bank and sovereign debt. Within weeks, Finnish, Dutch and German finance ministers said ‘no’. Last week’s Summit reaffirmed the June agreement, but within hours Chancellor Merkel announced it would not apply retrospectively. There was total shock and utter disbelief in Ireland.

Three years ago four million Irish citizens were overnight burdened down with socialised bank debt – the biggest bail-out in history. Yes, Irish banks were saved but so were French, German and British banks, and at the insistence of the ESM. The ESM which we voted for – the only EU citizens to do so – has been dangled in front of our noses only to be cruelly whipped away when it seemed as if it might be of some use to us.

Chancellor Merkel said last night that Ireland was a unique case, and so it is, but legacy debt, bank debt, must be dealt with in a European context. We want to succeed, but if the tools we need and the solidarity we have earned are not available to us, then we need to reappraise, because to play our part in helping to save the euro and then see our own economy and social solidarity destroyed as a consequence is simply not an option.

  András Gyürk (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, tomorrow will be the 56th anniversary of the start of the 1956 Revolution. The date of 23 October is a celebration not only for Hungarians but for all those who love freedom. This year, it will be a double celebration, since we will also be commemorating the 120th anniversary of the birth of József Mindszenty, the cardinal who was thrown into prison by both the fascist and communist dictatorships. The ideals from which Mindszenty drew strength – freedom, tradition, fellowship – were genuinely European ideas. These ideals have also been represented by the statesmen who worked in Western Europe at that time to lift a continent exhausted by war. De Gasperi, Schuman, Monnet and Adenauer believed in the same Christian Europe as did the Hungarian cardinal.

These ideals and this faith preserved the tortured priest’s strength of character and lifted Europe out of a situation that seemed hopeless. Today, hope seems to be disappearing from our continent again. As we seek a way out, it is sometimes worth looking back to our forebears, to those whose moral and public example has served as a base for a unified Europe.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, in the Greece of this crisis, the extreme right is taking on an increasingly nightmarish aspect. The Golden Dawn party is operating as a paramilitary body with assault battalions that attack citizens, and with members of parliament who threaten their colleagues and use vulgarity in parliament. I am afraid that, at that level, Greece will be just the beginning. The responsibilities of the political system as a whole are great, because it treated a neo-fascist party, where the party’s leader greets people with a Nazi salute, as if it were any other party. It is the government, however, that bears fundamental responsibility. When the Minister for Public Order does not punish police officers who allow a parliamentarian from the Golden Dawn party to release detainees at intervals, when the Minister for Home Affairs answers a parliamentary question from that party concerning the number of foreign children in crèches, while it is clear that nationality is not a criterion for registration there, then democracy is in danger. The Greek Government ought to show that there is a coordinated state and that Greek society is not unprotected; that what is at stake here is just as important as economic recovery. The European Union ought to do everything it can to combat the advance of fascism in Europe.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, on 10 October, the European Commission published progress reports about the individual countries with which it is negotiating on their membership of the EU. The whole tone of these reports showed that the process of expanding the EU in the Western Balkans is continuing. There are difficulties, problems and obstacles, but this development is going forward. Each country has its own specific issues on the European agenda, but efforts to make progress can be seen in all of them, and the prospect of Europe is still attractive to them. In this situation, the European Union must cooperate and become involved in those countries to the maximum extent, because doing so is a matter of our own credibility.

I would like to take one or two sentences to respond to what Mr Bagó from Hungary said. He can use some kind of quasi-legislative construction and juggle with words, but he cannot change history, because history cannot be changed.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the EU and Member States need to devise, fund and implement an industrialisation strategy. In the past 30 years, the EU has undergone a process that has destructured European industry. In chasing after high profits, large companies in the EU have delocalised their production to third countries, where labour and raw materials were cheaper. Today, most high-volume consumer goods used by EU citizens are imported from developing third countries. The difference between the sale price on the internal market and the low production costs in these countries creates huge profits for a small number of entrepreneurs, at the cost of millions of jobs lost across the EU.

The industrialisation of the EU ensures job creation within Europe, a decent standard of living for EU citizens, and investment in schools, hospitals and basic infrastructure, thanks to money coming into Member States’ budgets. It is by investing in the industrialisation of the EU, and not by austerity, that the EU will overcome the current economic, financial and social crisis.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the harsh social circumstances being experienced at the moment by Greece are unprecedented in the post-war period. Soaring unemployment, particularly among the young, increasing undernourishment among children, a previously unheard-of number of homeless people and suicides together make up a very dark picture. Violent behaviour, racist views and extremist forces with neo-Nazi characteristics had never before had the slightest effect in Greece. Now they do. Dangerous rifts are appearing in social cohesion.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the terrible situation in Greece poses a harsh question to us all: can Europe emerge from the crisis without losing its soul? The coming days and weeks are extremely crucial. Half-answers and half-solutions will be synonymous with political and ideological defeat of historic proportions for Europe, and this must not be allowed to happen.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to give some you some statistics. For using offensive language in a public place the punishment is as follows: in Germany it is three days in prison, in France a financial penalty and in Sweden corrective work. But if you speak in such a way in the Orthodox Church then the European Parliament can nominate you for the Sakharov Prize. Pussy Riot, who spoke offensively to Orthodox Church believers, have been nominated by the European Parliament for the Sakharov Prize.

If I have understood correctly, if Pussy Riot were to have sex in the European Parliament during the plenary sitting, some Members would probably nominate them for a Nobel Peace Prize. This is nonsense, but it is reality. Ordinary hooligans have the opportunity to get the Sakharov Prize, to the shame of the European Parliament.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, with regard to the situation of the banking sector in Poland, I would like to point out that cooperative banks represent Polish capital only and have links to the local community, which means that it is sensible and safe to use them. Faced with the financial crisis, they did not reduce their lending activity, but continued to provide funding for their customers.

As regards the proposed Capital Requirements Directive and Capital Requirements Regulation, I would like to underline the special circumstances of cooperative banks and their associate banks and propose that they should benefit from a lengthy transitional period in respect of the requirement to calculate the short-term liquidity coverage ratio referred to in both documents. The specific nature of their activities means that the vast majority of cooperative banks will not meet the strict individual capital and liquidity requirements. The introduction of this stipulation in the context of the proposed directive and regulation threatens the very existence of this sector.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, key to our relationship with developing countries is the progress made in democracy, human rights and fair elections. We often take tough resolutions against the transgressions of one regime or another. Our words have no value if we turn a blind eye to the issues in our own home. The citizens of Bulgaria have been dragged into a creeping restoration of authoritarianism.

I live in a country where elections are now won through fraud, pressure, vote buying, abuse of power structures and administrative resources. The government there has established full control over the media through pressure on media company owners or direct interference in the work of journalists. Small and medium-sized enterprises are deliberately being stifled; private monopolies are being encouraged over which the authorities have established full political control.

Business is being redistributed in a criminal fashion, in the best mafia traditions, disguised as political power. Tenders are not being won by the best bids, because the winner has already been decided by a phone call made by one individual.

A singer is being investigated for his song lyrics, which deride the new party state, and so on. Democracy will prevail, but we need solidarity and the European Union – specific mechanisms to stop travesties such as these.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, both the opportunities and the challenges that island regions face have to do with the particularities of islands: islands face extremely severe difficulties in relation to transport and fuel prices, which are worsening with the economic crisis, but, at the same time, they also represent convenient territories for the research and development of renewable sources of energy.

Nevertheless, the current European measures for islands do not spring from unified planning, nor are they based on an integrated evaluation of the situation of island regions. Despite the fact that three years have already passed since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 174 of which refers to island regions, we have not yet developed a fully integrated approach to islands. One step in this direction would relate to the adaptation of the energy mix. For example, in a written statement Parliament has since the beginning of the year been calling for support for sustainability in the islands, in order to achieve or exceed the Europe 2020 targets.

Unfortunately, however, to date there has been no corresponding reaction by the Commission.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, tuberculosis, especially drug-resistant tuberculosis, and the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a result of injectable drug use continue to pose serious health problems, worsened by the financial crisis our society is facing, and Romania is among those countries with a significant number of tuberculosis cases.

The financial help Romania has received through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria ended in September of this year, stranding a significant number of patients who will no longer be able to continue their treatment, have access to appropriate medication or benefit from any kind of support for these diseases. Given that the number of cases of multiresistant tuberculosis and HIV in Eastern European and Central Asian countries will rise due to inadequate funding, I consider that the EU should support the revision of the eligibility criteria for Global Fund finance, stress the importance of policies to reduce the harm caused by drug use in third countries and improve work on social integration for the vulnerable population groups affected.

  Matthias Groote (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, last Wednesday, the Nordseewerke shipyard in Emden had to file for bankruptcy because, to its surprise, a guarantee by the Lower Saxon Land Government was not extended. That undertaking, with 700 skilled jobs, is in the process of transforming from a shipyard to a supplier of offshore wind energy. And it is now thought that this undertaking can be saved by a large loan and that the jobs can also be saved, for the 700 SIAG and Nordseewerke workers have already had to accept substantial cuts in their pay. That is why I ask the Commission to take a favourable and also an early look at this procedure, to ensure that these 700 jobs are not put at risk, because they are needed in order to organise the energy revolution and sustainable energy on the seas of Europe. Please do not let the workers there suffer from the Land government’s poor crisis management.

  President. − The debate is closed.

  President. − The next item is the debate on the report (A7-0293/2012) by Paul Rübig, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs): competitiveness and business opportunities (COM(2011)0642 – 2012/2042(INI)).

  Paul Rübig, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we can see that there is strong interest in the Chamber in small and medium-sized enterprises. I am always glad to see the economic dynamism of this sector recognised. In particular, we know that 85 % of new jobs in Europe are generated by firms that are no more than five years old. That has nothing to do with the age of the entrepreneurs but relates to the age of the enterprises. That is why it is very important for us to concern ourselves with the creation of new firms and also to place more emphasis on training and further training. You cannot become an entrepreneur overnight; it begins in kindergarten where you learn to be independent. A majority of the population in Europe wants to be independent and make its own decisions, which is why it is also important for us to realise that these forms of business angel spin-off offer a genuine opportunity for the future, especially for women, young people and migrants.

Industrial policy is concerned, above all, with enhancing competitiveness. Here, the Commission has come up with a good initiative. Unfortunately, we in Europe are not very successful with our industrial policy. We have seen a 10 % decline since 2008. I believe it would be important to strengthen the SME test in the Member States accordingly. The Economic and Social Committee could play an important role here at European level, to check that the SME test is being conducted properly. The social partners would be in a particularly good position in terms of making positive proposals on how to simplify the system. It would also be important to have a multilingual online portal so that, when they export to or import from other countries, firms will know what the rules and problems are there. This information could be clustered in various areas. So here too, in the export sector, small firms facing a big world have entirely new opportunities, especially with the internet, with the international payment systems, with the parcel service, which is actually exploding thanks to information and communications technology.

But there, too, it is important to begin with people. That is why I am particularly interested in the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs programme, and that programme also needs to be hugely expanded in the period up to 2020. We can see, especially in countries facing cohesion problems, that the programme is extremely well accepted. We are even in favour of it becoming an Erasmus Mundus project, i.e. a project that can be set up worldwide, so that young entrepreneurs can approach their suppliers, their customers, get to know new markets, new people, which will improve business activity accordingly. Here we should support the Enterprise Europe Network, because it already includes a lot of expertise and is an area that can be rolled out worldwide in order to lead to even greater successes.

But competitiveness also means that we need to put a stop to bureaucracy. We have to address the need to reduce the administrative burden. The objective would be – at least up to 2015 – to reduce the administrative burden by 25 %. Here, too, I could imagine that, as a start, the Committee of the Regions could make a wide range of proposals that the Commission could then take on board. It is also important to have competitive SME taxation and a plan for business transfers.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, congratulations to Mr Rübig on having carried out, with others of course, an extremely important job in this time of crisis.

Important because it will be easier for us to answer the question as to what we shall do tomorrow, since this is a key challenge. What shall we do? The report gives many answers to this.

I would support him where he indicates the importance of education in entrepreneurial thinking starting in nursery schools. From nursery school onwards, young people should also be educated in courage, as without courage there is no entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, the Enterprise Europe Network should, in future, also report to Parliament on results, on actual results in the field. How many new start-ups have taken place thanks to the operation of the network?

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, all of us, regardless of group membership, want to offer medium-sized and micro-enterprises a good working environment. They are major providers of jobs in the European Union. We regard more growth and boosting productivity, together with excellent undertakings with good, skilled workers, as hugely important. That is why we also need healthy and satisfied workers.

Your report, Mr Rübig, sends out the wrong signal to the Commission in that regard. It describes safety and health rules in the workplace as administrative burdens that must be subjected to the SME test. By definition, however, health and safety standards that are set as minimum standards at European level are not administrative burdens. You also say that Member States should not go in for what is called gold plating, i.e. must not be allowed to set higher health standards, and that the Commission should call for more harmonisation. Given, however, that the health and safety rules are all minimum standards, more far-reaching protection of the safety and health of workers is always permissible. And that should remain the case!

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, President of the Council, there are at present about 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises. They employ 75 million people, accounting for a total of 70 % of jobs in the European Union. Surely these basic facts are evidence enough of the importance of strengthening SMEs. In these times of increasingly severe crisis, they play a key role in the European economy and act as a motive force for growth and sustainability.

Let me conclude by thanking Mr Rübig for his really detailed report!

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, we might be able to agree with this report in relation to various measures concerning the provision of information, etc., but the fact remains that it misses the point with respect to the problems that small and medium-sized enterprises are now facing.

In my country, Portugal, dozens of companies are going to the wall every day because of the recessionary policies imposed by the Troika on a subservient government. This includes increased taxation on these enterprises, but also policies leading to reduced domestic consumption and the loss of workers’ purchasing power. No matter how things are dressed up, the fact remains that the continuation of so-called austerity policies, for which the European institutions are also responsible, leaves no hope whatsoever of building competitiveness and business prospects. Trying to disguise this is to live in a pseudo-reality that exists only in the corridors of these institutions, well away from the real, concrete world.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, SMEs, their competitiveness and business opportunities are a topical issue. Part of the whole solidarity policy is to achieve economic, social and territorial development for all EU regions, and to do so by increasing their competitiveness. Thanks to the Structural Funds, many SMEs have secured the resources they need for innovation and so have contributed significantly to job creation.

As far as transition to the so-called green economy is concerned, in my opinion we should be supporting those SMEs that bring solutions – often very ingenious ones – to the areas of effective resource use, energy efficiency and climate change, above all at regional level. Horizon 2020 programmes and Structural Funds programmes should therefore also allocate sufficient funds within the future multiannual financial framework, precisely to support SMEs.

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the figures tell us that 85 % of all new jobs are being created by SMEs – as the rapporteur said – but it should also be noted that one in every four SMEs fails to seize its single market potential and that one in every eight is not internationally active.

What can we do about this? In the words of the rapporteur: reduce regulation and administrative burdens, increase cross-border trade, invest in human capital, promote Erasmus programmes for young entrepreneurs, skills, social dialogue – a very important issue for my group – but another very important element is access to funding; in this area, we still have much to do.

We need to boost the public sector, Horizon 2020, the COSME programme and cohesion policies, but we also need to give SMEs access to the market, Commissioner, to ensure that SMEs have access to credit, because at present they don’t. Credit needs to flow to where the economy is most buoyant.

Therefore, we would advocate, as a basic criterion, that SMEs be given access to credit to enable them to develop their activity.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE). – Mr President, I would also like to start by congratulating our colleague, Mr Paul Rübig, for this report. As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on International Trade I worked on it myself, and I would like to thank him for his cooperation.

It has already been stressed by Mr Rübig that this report also has within its scope the aim of enhancing trade and business conditions for SMEs which are already engaged internationally, and of tackling some of the barriers that are deterring many SMEs from actually getting involved in international trade. Rationalising the support for SMEs supplied by public institutions and the business community is very important, as is giving individual support to those companies whose profile matches business opportunities in third markets. SMEs from the new Member States are at a disadvantage and should benefit from specific information delivered to them in a more accessible way. In conclusion, the internationalisation of SMEs is also very important for European SMEs.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, SMEs in the European Union employ approximately 75 million people and thus generate 70 % of all jobs. They also have enormous potential to create new jobs, especially when it comes to employing young people. It is evident from these facts that SMEs are the driving force of the European economy. These enterprises have an irreplaceable role to play in the battle against poverty and social exclusion and in achieving social stability, solidarity and integration.

However, it must be stated that they still face too great an administrative burden. There are still a large number of obstacles in the way of starting up and expanding SMEs. These relate, above all, to limited access to financing and loans, insufficient transparency in managing Structural Funds in some Member States, burdensome regulation and the fact that entrepreneurs, especially women, are frequently not offered the help they need. Therefore, we must support SME start-ups, we must strengthen their competitiveness and, most vitally, we must take measures to reduce the administrative burden they face.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I am delighted that we are now focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises. In particular, I congratulate Mr Rübig on the points he raised; if we manage to implement them, we will be successful.

Many of the points are totally relevant. I would like to highlight one or two of them. Firstly, Mr Rübig mentioned the importance of education, and this is something we have neglected.

I have often gone into schools and asked students what they would like to do when they have finished school. I have yet to come across a student who said that he or she would like to be an entrepreneur or to own their own business. Mr Rübig is right that we need to start at kindergarten and create that interest and culture. That certainly would make a difference. His point about red tape is also absolutely vital. Regarding the SME test, particularly in terms of legislation, we have to adopt the policy of thinking small first.

Finally, the online potential for SMEs is enormous, and we have to try to create that and encourage it.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, micro-businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are suffering in this time of economic crisis because of difficulty in accessing the funding they need to develop. A total of 85 % of new jobs in the EU in 2002-2010 were created by SMEs. Industry plays a key role in the European economy, creating 25 % of direct private-sector jobs in the EU, and representing 80 % of private research and development.

We are in favour of increasing and rationalising the support given to SMEs at EU, national and regional level to access the single market and third-country markets, especially in the areas of promotion and access to information, protection of intellectual property rights, participation in public tenders, information technology and communications, standardisation and regulatory matters.

I commend the new Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME) and ask that the various EU instruments for access to credit be simplified and rationalised.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission would like to thank Mr Rübig and also all the other MEPs who contributed to this report, which reflects the great commitment of this institution towards European SMEs. The Commission welcomes the support for its actions announced in the Communications on the internationalisation of SMEs, industrial policy and smart regulation.

You are right. SMEs are the backbone of the economy. They represent around two thirds of all private sector jobs and generate around 58 % of the value added. They have also created 85 % of new jobs in recent years. However, they have been seriously affected by the crisis and need help to face new challenges.

The Commission can assure you that the European strategy for SMEs will focus on the promotion of SME-friendly activities across the full range of EU policies and spending programmes. This includes in particular the simplification of procedures and the creation of one-stop shops. But we will also provide dedicated support and services reflecting the particular needs of the SME community at European level through the Programme for the Competiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (the ‘COSME’ programme).

The report by Mr Rübig calls for an internationalisation strategy for SMEs, and the Commission can only support this idea. Currently, only 13 % of SMEs export to countries outside the Union, and we all know where the future growth opportunities are: in the fast-growing economies in Asia, South America and Africa. The OECD has estimated that 90 % of world growth in 2012 is taking place outside Europe.

The Commission is currently identifying the gaps in the support to businesses abroad. The result of this mapping exercise will be presented in December. Next year we will present concrete action at European level to address the difficulties that SMEs face on the ground. However, I can assure you that we will continue the current successful initiatives such as the partnering services of the Enterprise Europe Network, the China SME IPR Helpdesk and the established SME business centres in third countries.

In this context I would also like to mention the Missions for Growth of Vice-President Tajani. In 2012 missions have taken place to Brazil, the United States, Mexico and Colombia. These missions have been a real success, judging from the positive feedback and the conclusion of political agreements in a number of sectors such as SME policy and industrial cooperation.

Concerning the reduction of the administrative burden, this is a concern for all of us. The Commission is strengthening the application of the SME test in our impact assessment procedure. But, as you know, SMEs still suffer from burdensome regulations. This is why the Commission is currently working in close cooperation with SMEs and SME organisations to identify the ‘top ten’ most burdensome pieces of legislation. An open public consultation is ongoing until Christmas. We have no time to lose, and the result of this consultation will allow us to go to the core of the problems. We will screen these problematic pieces of legislation and analyse where there is scope for introducing lighter regimes for SMEs while preserving the purpose of the legislation, such as health and security aspects.

But in addition, the future EU budget will also provide targeted financial support for SMEs. The COSME programme will cover actions in favour of the competitiveness of SMEs, such as improving access to finance and the Enterprise Europe Network. The COSME programme will also aim at improving the sustainability of EU businesses and improving access to markets within the EU and internationally – all priorities mentioned in your report, Mr Rübig.

COSME will also enhance the Erasmus for Entrepreneurs initiative specifically mentioned by Mr Rübig. Therefore, COSME is the programme to support the political priorities underlined by you. In these times of austerity, we also note the request in the report to significantly increase the budget of this important programme.

To sum up, Commission President Barroso has on several occasions underlined that SMEs are one of the priorities of his mandate, and I can assure you that he is determined to put that into practice using all the EU instruments at his disposal.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 23 October 2012, at 18.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Small and medium-sized enterprises form the backbone of the European Union economy and ensure more than two thirds of jobs in the private sector and more than half of the total turnover of the Union. However, SMEs are the sector of the economy that has been hit hardest by the economic crisis. Many small and medium-sized enterprises are struggling to survive. In my opinion, there are three areas that must be emphasised and which could, in my view, significantly improve the situation of SMEs in the Union market. The first area is facilitating access to financial instruments and reducing administrative burdens. These constitute the greatest burden for enterprises that have been hit by the crisis. We must proceed one step at a time in order to break down the barriers, so legislators must encourage the interests of SMEs to be taken into consideration right at the earliest stages of legislating. The second area is improving the attitudes of entrepreneurs. New businesses are a real alternative to unemployment and create an opportunity for unemployed young people to escape from the crisis. SMEs play an important role in appropriate training and education, which facilitate access to work. The third area is improving access to Union and global markets. Only a quarter of European SMEs are active within the single market outside their own country, and so it is particularly important to support the stimulation of both exports and imports.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Small and medium-sized enterprises currently employ 70 % of workers in the European Union and are responsible for 85 % of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2010. SMEs play a very important role in improving the European Union’s economic situation and contributing to Member States’ gross domestic product. For that reason, all measures aimed at supporting, developing and promoting SMEs are of the utmost importance. It is vital to remove inefficient and inconsistent legal and administrative provisions relating to the development of SMEs, to concentrate on resolving their difficulties, to promote and evaluate the effectiveness of support programmes and to assist the creation of a platform for cooperation between businesses.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In order for the EU to escape from the economic crisis, it is crucial for small and medium-sized enterprises to operate properly. Nothing proves this better than the fact that SMEs account for a significant proportion of enterprises and employ 75 million people. Incentives and opportunities have to be found for them, so that we can help them to operate and increase their competitiveness. Above all, there must be movement towards improvements in the regulation of product markets and towards innovative sectors. The participation of SMEs in continuing with work aiming to modernise and interconnect energy networks is almost indispensable from the perspectives of sustainability and resource efficiency. Since the social economy employs more than 11 million people in the European Union, the creation of benefits and support for social enterprises is also important. I agree that improving the commercial environment may be one way of promoting economic growth. Aid originating from the Structural Funds and the Connecting Europe Facility must be used to improve infrastructure, including investment in reconstruction and modernisation. Member States should strive for a consistent reduction in the administrative burdens for enterprises. I also think that the creation of tax systems that are favourable to small enterprises and of forms of business finance that are effective and easy to access will be of crucial importance for enterprises and for the citizens employed by them.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In Romania, the number of employees in the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector in 2008-2010 was still at the same level as before the crisis, while the number of employees in large companies fell by 6 %. So jobs created by SMEs are much more stable than those in large companies. This means that supporting SMEs is part of the solution needed to achieve the objective of healthy growth. Opening up external markets to SMEs, and particularly increasing the extent to which they can take part in trade between Member States, would bring important benefits for all employees in these companies.

Small rural businesses are a special case. Given the need to diversify the rural economy, the new common agricultural policy needs to allocate adequate funds to finance and develop these businesses. Rural SMEs can absorb a significant part of the excess workforce from agriculture, and, at the same time, they can offer rural workers the services they need. Not least, hundreds of successful businesses have started up in rural areas, by exploiting opportunities offered by rural development programmes. This is a further argument in support of an adequate budget for agriculture, as part of the future multiannual financial framework.

  President. − The next item is the debate on the report (A7-0285/2012) by Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case (2012/2142(INI)).

  Kristiina Ojuland, rapporteur. − Mr President, the name of Sergei Magnitsky is well known to the European Parliament. It was in December 2010 that we adopted the Annual Report on Human Rights, which called for justice for this courageous Russian lawyer, who died fighting corruption.

Although former president Dmitry Medvedev promised to cast light on this case, we still have not seen justice served. Last week the court hearing in Moscow again showed too little progress – of the 60 individuals implicated in his death, just two prison doctors have been charged with negligence.

Nearly three years have passed since the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky in custody, after torture and non-provision of medical assistance. His horrific treatment and torture resembles the case of another young lawyer, Vasily Alexanyan, who was legal counsellor to Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yukos and who died after unlawful imprisonment.

Instead of facing justice, these people are still in office. They are travelling in the EU, they spend their dirty money in the EU, they buy real estate in the EU and they educate their children here.

This recommendation suggests that the EU Member States should stop these practices. Visa bans and asset freezes are concrete reactions to such behaviour and demonstrate the EU’s value-based policy.

Colleagues, Putin’s regime has turned its back on liberal democratic values and the rule of law. Corruption has become a byword for governance in Russia. The Transparency International index shows Russia, together with Nigeria, to be at the bottom of the list. It is therefore especially arrogant of Putin to ask for visa liberalisation for the holders of the so-called ‘blue passports’ that are used by the representatives of the state administration. Does he really believe that the EU should welcome the masters of corruption?

Just two weeks ago, the monitoring report on Russia’s commitments was debated next door, at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Instead of showing goodwill and cooperation and respecting the rules of the Council of Europe, Russia’s representatives criticised the organisation for its so-called interference in Russian domestic issues. We also witnessed Russia’s threats to stop its financing of the Council of Europe.

It is not only cooperation between the EU and Russia that is being challenged; the Russia-NATO dialogue is being similarly affected. Russia’s attitude to its membership of the WTO demonstrates once again that the common rules of the club do not matter. Russia simply takes the WTO ‘à la carte’.

Let us be clear. The Magnitsky case is more than the tragedy of an individual fighting organised crime. His personal fate reflects the complexity of the transition that Russian society is going through. The degradation of political and institutional life has translated into epic corruption on the one hand and the reanimation of civil society, claiming its constitutional rights, on the other.

As Russia stands at the crossroads, with civil society struggling for the rule of law, we cannot let EU banks accept the fortunes of corrupt individuals, stealing from the Russian people. Standing, as we do, for the universality of human rights, and issuing resolutions in favour of democracy and the rule of law in Russia, we are obliged to live up to our declarations.

I would, of course, ask colleagues to vote in favour of this recommendation tomorrow.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, Sergei Magnitsky, a champion of human rights, was – in his fight against organised crime – actually engaged in the battle for freedom, for democracy, for human rights. This is something that we must support, something that this place, the European Parliament, must recognise; and I would like to say that we must send a clear signal to the Russian Federation that such an approach, such treatment of their citizens, is not acceptable. Is it a democratic country that does not provide medical treatment, when a person in that position – a prisoner – is beaten, tortured, mistreated and then denied medical treatment? I would like to conclude by saying that, in discussions with the Russian Federation, the European Union must also mention human rights.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I agree with everything Mr Mikolášik said, with one exception: Sergei Magnitsky was not a human rights activist. He was an ordinary, decent man who did not want to steal. It was only because he did not want to steal, because he wanted no involvement in corruption, that he was tortured and died in a Russian prison. Mr Mikolášik is absolutely right that it is our duty today, as Ms Ojuland also pointed out, to stand up for this ordinary man, this ordinary Russian, who did not want to steal, who did not want any part in the activity that is possibly Russia’s most profitable industry right now, namely corruption. It is our duty to do this very minimum, to do what Ms Ojuland’s report proposes, which is to introduce a visa ban and freeze the assets of those suspected of involvement in the killing of this innocent man, a man who, in a situation of wrongdoing, of the type we have seen in Russia, tried to do the right thing. That is our duty, our obligation. If we take seriously what we refer to as European values, if we take ourselves seriously, we should do everything we can to prevent the recurrence of what has happened and to speak out about it.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I shall begin on a personal note. I grew up in a town in which a Russian garrison was stationed. As a result, I met many ordinary Russians – very decent people. As an MEP, I have had the opportunity to meet Russian opposition leaders, but also people who may not be in the front line, but who are involved in helping to create a European, more democratic Russia. I would like to say one thing on their behalf: it is outrageous that a country situated in Europe, that wishes to be a European state and to be treated as an equal, as we treat each other in the European Union, should allow such practices. Firstly, the corruption that exists within the authorities and the judiciary, and, secondly, the methods of destroying people who, as Mr Migalski said, wish to behave honestly, to pursue truth and fairness. They are not necessarily prominent activists, but ordinary, decent people.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate on the Magnitsky case on behalf of the Vice-President/High Representative. The European Parliament’s recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case is a significant initiative.

Parliament has been vocal and consistent about this case in recent years, from the European Parliament resolution of 16 December 2010 to a number of hearings and debates and the recommendation the House will vote on tomorrow. All these initiatives testify to the great importance the European Parliament and the European public at large attach to the Magnitsky case. These initiatives lend much weight to our common efforts to prompt the authorities in Moscow to investigate the case swiftly and thoroughly. They give further legitimacy to the EU’s continuous pressure on the Russian Federation to bring the Magnitsky case to a thorough conclusion.

For our part, the Vice-President/High Representative has consistently called on Russia to ensure a proper investigation. We are raising this with the Russian authorities at all levels. Indeed, the Magnitsky case is consistently part of the agenda for our twice-yearly human rights consultations. Moreover, it is regularly brought up at ministerial level as well as at our summits.

Last month, Vice-President/High Representative Ashton addressed the Magnitsky case in this House. During the debate on the political use of justice she noted with great concern that the continuous lack of progress on the Magnitsky case was part of a general trend of worrisome legislative and judicial developments in activities in the Russian Federation. This trend is of serious concern to the European Union. The speech and the debate that followed were reported by the Russian press.

In April of this year, President Van Rompuy, in a very significant political gesture, wrote a letter to the then President, Medvedev, specifically on the Magnitsky case. President Van Rompuy made three important points in this letter. First, he urged the Russian Government to bring the case to a comprehensive conclusion. Second, he called on Russia to close the posthumous prosecution of Mr Magnitsky. Third, he called for an end to the intimidation of Mr Magnitsky’s mother and widow.

The European External Action Service keeps reminding the Russian side that a response to the letter remains outstanding. All these points, as well as the outstanding response to President Van Rompuy’s letter, were also reiterated most recently by Commissioner Malmström at the Permanent Partnership Council on Freedom, Security and Justice which took place on 2 October in Nicosia.

We have taken this matter very seriously and will continue to do so, for three very good reasons. First, because of the nature of the case itself. It is a case of a Russian citizen and a lawyer, a young father being arrested and mistreated by law enforcement officers for standing up against suspected fraud and abuse by government officials. As such it is a case of grave abuse of the law and of human rights.

The European Union is founded on the core values of human dignity, freedom, the rule of law and respect for human rights, and we are committed to defending these. The Magnitsky case has become one of the emblematic cases in this respect, not only for the Russian people but also for the EU.

The second reason why we continue to be active in the Magnitsky case is that we believe that Russia itself should have a great interest in solving it. The case has come to symbolise the state of the judiciary and the rule of law in the Russian Federation. Business people consider this a litmus test for the stability, predictability and safety of Russia as a destination for investment.

Particularly as this is a multifaceted case with a strong undercurrent of corruption, anti-corruption efforts are being woven into Russia’s modernisation efforts, on which we are working together with them. Solving this case would send a strong signal to partners and investors that Russia is serious in its anti-corruption efforts.

Thirdly, it is in the interest of the EU to have at its borders a stable, democratic, economically-viable Russia with a well-grounded rule of law. Steps like Russia’s recent accession to the WTO are important in integrating Russia into global rules-based systems. This is a step in the right direction to gaining global confidence in this marketplace. Cases such as Magnitsky’s, unfortunately, do exactly the opposite.

What is needed now is concrete action on the part of the Russian Government: a clear decision to properly and thoroughly investigate the Magnitsky case, bringing those responsible to justice. As has been said, we take very careful note of the recommendation Parliament addressed to the Council on restrictive measures on Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. It sends a clear and strong message. Acting on this recommendation would require unanimity from all the Member States. As those responsible for the overall relationship between the European Union and Russia, we must carefully balance our actions towards our neighbour. Restrictive measures by the EU are a very sensitive instrument. Such measures should only be considered in very specific situations and in accordance with existing EU guidelines.

Furthermore, restrictive measures should be used as part of an integrated and comprehensive policy approach involving political dialogue, complementary efforts and other instruments. Let me assure you that the Magnitsky case will remain on the bilateral agenda in our contacts with Russia. Sanctions should be used only as a last resort, otherwise we risk them becoming the only instrument in many of our relationships whenever such crimes are committed.

In conclusion, let me reiterate once again, on behalf of High Representative/Vice-President Ashton, that we will continue to pursue the Magnitsky case with the Russian Federation at every opportunity.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 23 October 2012, at 18.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Slavi Binev (NI), in writing. – (BG) I wholeheartedly support the visa restrictions for all individuals implicated in the Sergei Magnitsky case. I object to all forms of restrictions on the freedom of speech and the right of free expression, and to any human rights violations. Despite this, I am abstaining from the vote because many similar cases are being covered up in Europe. Everything that has been said on the Magnitsky case – abuse of power, lawsuits to remove political and economic rivals, arrests, torture, impunity of human rights abusers – applies to the current situation in Bulgaria. Despite numerous reports on my part, the European institutions remain silent, and no such measures or proposals have been made to the Council. I do not believe it is right for Europe to judge Russia while turning a blind eye when Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov misuses his power, particularly since such silence and lack of action give him that sense of ‘impunity’ which is being criticised so strongly in this report.