IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 09:05)

  President. – The first item is the presentation of the Court of Auditors’ annual report for 2009.

  Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira, President of the Court of Auditors. – Mr President, it is an honour for me to be able to participate in the debate today on the European Court of Auditors’ annual report on the implementation of the 2009 budget, which I have already presented to you and to the Committee on Budgetary Control.

I would like to present to the House the four key messages contained in this year’s annual report. First, the Court concludes that the accounts of the European Union give a fair presentation, and a true and fair view, of the financial position and the result of operations and cash flows. This is the third consecutive year the Court has found the accounts to be free from material misstatements and reliable.

As regards legality and regularity, the Court gives an unqualified opinion on revenue and commitments, as in previous years. However, and this is the second key message of this year’s annual report, payments from the budget continue to be materially affected by error, except in two areas. Those exceptions are administrative expenditure and economic and financial affairs.

In all other areas of expenditure, the Court found material levels of error. I will focus on the two main areas of expenditure: agriculture and cohesion.

In the area of agriculture and natural resources, the Court estimates the level of errors to be somewhat higher than in 2008. However, the results are consistent with the Court’s assessment, in both years, that systems are only partially effective. The Court recommends reducing the risk of error by improving the quality of information in the databases used for establishing entitlements and calculating payments, and by clarifying and enforcing rules on land usage and maintenance.

In the area of cohesion, which represents almost a third of the budget, the situation remains that this is the only budgetary area where the estimated error is over 5%. Most of the errors found relate to serious failures by national authorities to apply rules on public procurement and to the reimbursement of ineligible costs. Many errors could, and should, have been detected and corrected by Member States before certifying expenditure to the Commission, as the audit shows they had the information to do so.

If we analyse this year’s results and compare them to last year, we see that the most significant change is in cohesion. That brings me to the Court’s third key message. The estimate for the most likely error in cohesion spending was significantly lower than in previous years, and for the budget as a whole, the Court’s estimate of errors has fallen over recent years.

However, a degree of caution is necessary before drawing any conclusions about the trend in this area; due to variations in spending patterns, the population of payments can change considerably from one year to the other – 2009 being notably different from 2008. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the overall fall in the estimated error rate over recent years will continue, so long as the systems covering the vast majority of disbursements remain only partially effective.

That brings me to the last key message. The information provided by the Commission on recoveries and other corrections is not yet completely reliable and cannot be meaningfully compared with the Court’s estimated error rate.

There are a number of initiatives before us which provide an important opportunity to improve the financial management of the European Union. This year’s annual report confirms the conclusions and the recommendations set out in the Court opinion on the risks and challenges for improving the financial management of the European Union. Improving the quality of spending should be a high priority. Simplifying the legislative framework and introducing more cost-effective control systems to reduce the risk of errors should contribute to this goal.

Earlier this year, the Commission presented a draft recast Financial Regulation. In its recent opinion on this, the Court concludes that it contains a number of proposals that provide opportunities for the Commission to improve transparency and financial management. Simplification of sectoral legislation remains, however, an important route to a significant improvement in the quality of spending.

Next year, the Commission will present legislative proposals for policies and programmes covering the main areas of expenditure in the next programming produced. When revising expenditure programmes, the Court suggests applying a set of principles to ensure that European added value is likely, that the objectives are clear, that the schemes are as realistic and simple as is reasonably possible, and that accountability is also clear.

Ensuring the European funds are spent optimally places heavy responsibilities on all of us: on the Commission, when proposing legislation and implementing the budget; on the Member States in managing, day-to-day, some 80% of the European budget; on Parliament and on the Council as legislator and as the discharge authority; and on the Court as the Union’s external auditor.

The Court looks forward to playing its full part in efforts to ensure that the funds are spent correctly and are spent well.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, two days ago, President Caldeira and I already had the opportunity to exchange our views and to discuss the Court’s annual report with the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control. I would like here to outline the main points of the discussion and the very first conclusions.

Before entering the heart of the matter, I would like to recall the fruitful dialogue between the auditor, the Court and the audit team in the Commission and to thank President Caldeira for this excellent cooperation. I am pleased with the Court’s recognition of progress made; I see indeed many positive messages; I also see some criticism and it is the Commission’s commitment to closely follow up on all the Court’s recommendations.

The main messages of the Court’s report are key for the Commission’s own assessment of the way it assumes its responsibility in managing the EU budget.

Firstly, for the third year in a row, the annual accounts have received an unqualified positive opinion. The Court has evaluated the EU accounts as giving a true and fair view without any reservation. The Commission is, of course, very satisfied with this result as it confirms the lasting effects of our accounting reform. However, the Court rightly highlights certain weaknesses. While none of these affects the Court’s unqualified opinion, the Commission is determined to address these weaknesses and therefore continues to improve its day-to-day accounting practices. With regard to the legality and regularity of transactions, I am pleased that the positive trend in the reduction of the overall error rate continued in 2009.

Revenue and commitments for the entire budget are legal and regular in all material respects. More than 95% of payments made from the EU budget are free from error. This verdict is a positive sign that our efforts to further improve control are having a concrete impact. This has been achieved mainly thanks to a substantial reduction of the error rate in cohesion; this progress reflects the Commission’s enhanced supervisory role through the ex-ante assessment of management and control systems of the Member States. It also reflects the merits of a rigorous approach in either interrupting or suspending payments where problems were identified.

Finally, in its report, the Court recognises the higher quality of the information about recoveries provided by the Commission, as disclosed in the accounts. The increase in the value of funds recovered from projects where errors were found or from national authorities responsible is indeed another sign of this Commission’s determination. However, I share the Court’s view that the Member States’ reporting is not yet satisfactory and the Commission will pursue its efforts to remedy this situation for the existing programmes, and also for the next generation of programmes and the shared management.

I fully share the caution of President Caldeira when he warns of possible oscillations of the error rate, in particular in cohesion, in the future. I also agree with the Court when it points out the weaknesses of the Member States’ systems and some other issues in shared management. In my view, the way forward includes the design of cost-effective control mechanisms; the simplification of eligibility rules where their complexity is an obvious source of errors; and the improvement of the quality of the information provided by the Member States regarding financial corrections and recoveries.

But this list is not exhaustive. Our discussion on Tuesday showed that there are other challenges before us, for instance, a greater accountability for the key financial actors, in particular, the Member States, and a cost-effective control policy based on risk and performance. Moreover, in preparing the budget review, I have promoted the new focus on impact rather than input through the definition of clear and measurable objectives and key performance indicators. I presented last May my agenda on discharge, audit and anti-fraud for 2010-2014 in the Budgetary Control Committee of this House. This agenda outlined the key strategic objectives and concrete steps which the Commission will take to move further towards a positive Court statement of assurance. In the light of the Court’s 2009 annual report, this agenda remains fully relevant for our future actions.

To conclude, I am pleased that the 2009 annual report corroborates that our efforts bear results. It constitutes an important and timely input to our reflection on how to achieve a more effective and efficient financial management of the EU budget which should guide us in preparing the next generation of programmes.

  Ingeborg Gräßle, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Caldeira, Mr Šemeta, ladies and gentlemen, we have a very good day ahead of us, because for the first time, we can expect the Barroso II Commission to cross the 2% barrier. We do not really need the tolerable risk of error. This is why the Court of Auditors’ report that has been submitted to us definitely represents very good news, in particular, for all of those who are working in this area. It is clear that when the Commission makes a genuine and determined effort, it can come up with the results.

If we look at these results in more detail, it is obvious that they are in part due to the changes in the regulations. This is definitely the case and this is the route which we must take in future. If the Commission could bring itself to revise the directive concerning public procurement and genuinely make things simpler for public bodies in the Member States, this would certainly be the biggest step that we could take towards a positive statement of assurance.

I would like to say to everyone who constantly maintains that the European budget is exposed to major risks, it is true that European spending should certainly be subject to more consistent controls than national spending. European money is monitored more consistently and has to be accounted for more consistently than many areas of national budgets, as always becomes clear when we visit the Member States, because the national regulations have only been put in place as a result of the European regulations. Therefore, we simply need to encourage the Member States and call on them to subject their national spending to the same controls as European spending and vice versa.

I would like to thank the Court of Auditors, but I would also like to say that I am disappointed by this annual report. I have already mentioned that the annual report contains significantly less information than it did in the past. We need details of the error rates. We have always been given this information for the structural funds, but this year, for the first time, we have not received it. We are not at nursery school here. We in Parliament rely on having this information. When I look back at the hearing involving the members of the Court of Auditors, I recall that they promised to work closely together with Parliament. I do not believe that this promise is being kept.

  Georgios Stavrakakis, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like to welcome the annual report and congratulate President Caldeira and all the Members of the Court for their excellent work. Allow me especially to thank Mr O’Shea for the excellent cooperation we had concerning the agencies.

Our role as a parliament is accountability towards the citizens, so we have to make sure that taxpayers’ money is used properly, transparently and effectively. I expect that the findings of the annual reports concerning the agencies, to be published later, will follow the same trend as in recent years. The situation is getting better, but there are still control systems to be improved, problems to be tackled and solutions to be found.

In the current major economic and social crisis, the significance of monitoring has become more important than ever before, and we in Parliament and the Court of Auditors are together committed to dealing with, and solving, the problems in order to achieve even better results.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Šemeta, Mr Caldeira, I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for this report. Your organisation, Mr Caldeira, provides an essential service for European taxpayers. It is a good thing that the reduction in the error rate has continued this year. This is the result of the reform of the Commission which was pushed through by the liberal Commissioner, Mr Kallas. There are major improvements over the previous year in the area of cohesion and only a slight deterioration in agriculture. However, the Commission should not now simply sit back and do nothing. We must make it clear that the huge improvements are based on a very lucky choice of samples. Therefore, I am concerned that the positive trend will not continue next year. We should make use of the momentum from the first budget discharge under the Treaty of Lisbon to introduce a decisive paradigm shift.

I would like to make it clear once again that this year’s report from the Court of Auditors is the sixteenth in a row which does not have positive overall results. How can we finally bring an end to the inefficient and wasteful allocation of funding and to the political connivance in this area?

My proposals as rapporteur are as follows: Firstly, the Commission must intervene more strongly in the case of obvious errors and, where these errors are repeated, it must suspend the funding. How is it that a Member State of many years standing like Greece is not subjected to sanctions over a period of 10 years, despite the fact that it is in obvious breach of the provisions of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS)?

Secondly, we must no longer impose double penalties on taxpayers. The beneficiaries of EU funding which has been allocated illegally are only required to repay 10%. In accordance with the 50:50 rule, the Member States contribute half of the amount from their national budgets. This is an insult to taxpayers. Let me give you a few figures. Between 1994 and 2006, the Member States have been wrongly allocated a phenomenal EUR 7.7 billion in the area of cohesion policy. The Commission itself has just made this fact public. Only EUR 709 million has been paid back, which demonstrates very clearly the difference in these circumstances. This is probably correct, because the Member States are not in a position to come up with accurate calculations. The Court of Auditors has confirmed this.

Thirdly, all the Member States must finally sign and submit national management declarations. Fourthly, the Commission must be politically accountable. This is why we want signatures at least from Mr Barroso on the synthesis report on annual activities. We also want an evaluation report, which is provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon.

There are still some things that are in need of improvement. All in all, I would like to thank the Court of Auditors very much for this report.

  Bart Staes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when I read this annual report, I experienced a feeling of déjà lu, a feeling that I was once again reading something that I had been reading for many years. First of all, in particular, too many material errors are occurring in the areas of agriculture, the Cohesion Fund, research and development, external aid, development cooperation and education. Secondly, the supervisory and control systems have been only partially effective in preventing and correcting reimbursement of claims for excessive or ineligible costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are still faced with the fundamental problem that Member States are not doing what they ought to be doing, which is properly monitoring the money they pay out to beneficiaries. We are talking here about 80% of the European budget. Another fundamental problem that remains is that the Commission is not making sufficient efforts to monitor the activities of the Member States in this regard.

I therefore endorse the rapporteur’s strategy, which will entail, on the one hand, ensuring that we demand, above all, national management declarations signed by ministers of finance and, on the other, ensuring that the Commission finally takes action against any Member States that remain in breach and, if need be, imposes tough sanctions: of a financial kind, for instance – withholding subsidies. That is, in my view, the path we need to follow.

  Ryszard Czarnecki, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the Court of Auditors is a kind of great superintendent, we might say a policeman, a friendly policeman, although sometimes I have the impression that it turns a blind eye and is too good and too benevolent towards the institutions which it supervises. The conclusion of this report, the conclusion of the Court’s work is as follows: ‘good, but not perfect’.

I have the impression that many people in Europe are more pessimistic than the Court of Auditors. The Court must have a greater role, the Court must be credible, so that the European institutions will be credible in the eyes of the taxpayers and voters. However, for the Court to be credible, it must really be very scrupulous, because the Court is saying, today, that it is glad the glass is 95% full, while I think many taxpayers will ask: ‘but why is it 5% empty?’ All the more so, because there is a widespread belief that it is more than just 5% empty. I do agree with one conclusion – supervision at European level is sometimes more detailed, perhaps, than in Member States, and I call on the Court to exercise greater supervision in the Member States, where the money is quite simply frequently disappearing down the drain.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DA) Mr President, I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for an excellent report. As we have heard, overall, there has been a reduction in the number of errors being made. What should we make of this? In my opinion, this depends on two things: the starting point and our expectations. The starting point was horrendously poor. In 2008, billions of euro were paid out in contravention of the rules. Therefore, the expectations were that there should not only be improvements, but that there should be significant improvements in all areas.

So, has this happened? Yes, in the area of cohesion, there has been a definite reduction in erroneous payments, which is a good thing, even if their level is still unacceptably high. In other areas, however, there has actually been a rise, which is quite simply not good enough.

The other day in the Committee on Budgetary Control and again today, Commissioner Šemeta claimed that the overall reduction in the number of errors was a result of the Commission’s efforts. That is fine by me. I am happy to give the Commission the credit. In that case, however, it is also clear who will be responsible if the error rate increases next year. Please take that as an invitation.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, year after year over the last 16 years, the auditors have been refusing to clear 90% or more of the budget, and this year is no exception. They talk about errors, but the nature of the irregularities they find goes far beyond that of a mistake. Suffice to say that such a situation would cause the closure of a company in the private sector and the conviction of its directors.

The fact is that taxpayers’ money has been unlawfully spent. This year, the auditors claim that at least GBP 6 billion should not have been paid out. What is the essence of the problem? The lack of responsibility.

The Commission and the auditors will, as usual, blame the Member States, but the fact is that the failure resides within the Commission due to the lack of proper controls. The Commission is in the best position to establish the rules and to sanction those who breach them, but it has failed all along and this Parliament also bears responsibility, as it has approved the situation every year and keeps asking for an increase in the budget.

There is no hope any more that the EU budget will ever be cleared by the auditors. At this point, the only way to protect taxpayers’ money is to reduce the EU budget drastically.

Now I address the British Prime Minister. Mr Cameron, in accepting a 2.9% increase for the 2011 EU budget, you have failed dramatically. On behalf of British taxpayers, I hereby request that you lead the demand for a significant reduction of the 2011 budget.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). – (DE) Mr President, it is true that the error rate in the area of cohesion has fallen significantly from 54% in 2007 to 36% in 2009. That is correct. It is a fact, and even I have to acknowledge that. However, as the rapporteur has already said, if you look more closely at how these figures have been produced, it is obvious that they must be seen in relative terms. It is also a fact that, according to this report from the Court of Auditors, the control systems in the area of cohesion are not effective. In addition, it is a fact that at least 3% of the money should not have been paid out at all. This means that there is still a great deal for Mr Hahn to do, among others, to put this portfolio in order.

In my opinion, the increase in the error rates in the area of agriculture is obviously a retrograde step. Furthermore, wastefulness, in cases for example, where subsidies for miners are paid to billionaires, is not counted as an error.

I have already mentioned in the committee that I have not received an answer either from the Court of Auditors or from the Commission with regard to the social security benefits which have been paid twice. Once again, my question is: Who made the error in this case? Will the money be paid back and how big is the amount involved? Finally, I would like to say that it is important in future for the Court of Auditors not only to check that payments are being made legally, but also to ensure that they are cost-effective and efficient.

IN THE CHAIR: ISABELLE DURANT
Vice-President

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) First of all, I wish to thank Victor Caldeira for this clear report, which is relevant to the Commission’s activities and the implementation of the 2009 budget. Secondly, I want to clarify from the start something of vital importance to us: once every five years, we are elected and sent to the European Parliament by Europe’s citizens, the people who pay taxes and duties and who ultimately make this budget. From their point of view, based on the fact that we regularly go back home and meet with them, the implementation of the 2009 budget cannot be regarded as a success. Let me give you just two reasons for this.

Firstly, the national management declarations made are not supported politically. In other words, there is no signature either from the minister for finance or the prime minister. As a result, we do not know who is responsible for these national management declarations and to what extent they are comprehensible and accurate. In practical terms, this paves the way for false reporting and, if not false, then at least incomplete.

Secondly, where errors have been made in the management of European funds, every state must pay the money back to the Commission. In other words, Europe’s citizens pay money once to create the European budget and, on the other hand, as losers, they again cover the loss in the national budget. Therefore, the citizens of the European Union pay twice for the mistakes, errors or even fraudulent acts committed in the management of European funds.

Thirdly, I support the Commission and the European Court of Auditors. I, too, am in favour of closer ties between this institution and the national audit bodies in each Member State. I believe that if we want to have more money in the budget, we must spend better, in the first place, the money we have. To spend better the money we have, we must first of all know where problems are and how we can solve them.

  Luigi de Magistris (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that if we can now talk about a reduction in errors, we owe this to the skill, independence and professionalism of the Court of Auditors, and I should like President Caldeira to take note of this.

I believe that, as well as the Commission, Parliament played an important part in this improvement, in particular, the Committee on Budgetary Control, which sets great store by the subject of transparency and the effective and efficient use of public funds.

We must still see what we can do to improve, however, because there are still too many things that are not right, particularly in very sensitive sectors such as agriculture and cohesion, with often worrying error rates in sectors where fraud in areas such as contracts and over-invoicing is rife. I believe that it is necessary to lower the rate of bureaucracy and reduce pointless red tape and instead introduce a few clear rules to send out a very clear and determined ‘no’ to every form of fraud in sectors where corruption is endemic.

Another important factor is to step up the role of OLAF, the anti-fraud office, to combat all forms of fraud and corruption. Another aspect that we cannot fail to emphasise – we learned this also from a recent visit by the Committee on Budgetary control to Italy – is that there is also a risk of the forceful influence of organised crime and forms of corruption on public funds. The role of OLAF could therefore be essential from this viewpoint, together with greater cooperation between Member States, the Commission and Parliament.

Another absolutely essential point is that I believe the Commission must strengthen its independence from Member States. I believe that we must block funds to prevent repetition of this type of behaviour, particularly in states where serious errors – I am not talking about minor errors – and very substantial episodes of fraud have been going on for years.

The credibility level of the European Parliament and the European institutions is determined greatly by the level of transparency and correctness with which public funds are spent. I therefore believe that we have room for improvement on this score.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Madam President, although the Court of Auditors states that the accountability of European expenditure has improved, it has failed to grant a full declaration of assurance for the expenditure. That is partly because, while some improvement has indeed been shown as regards the second largest item, cohesion, there are still errors in approximately 40% of the projects. Thus, out of a total budget of EUR 35 billion, there are EUR 2 billion for which no declaration of assurance could be granted. I find that unacceptable; the Commission, in particular, should therefore thoroughly investigate how these errors could have arisen and how they might be reduced. This is especially important in consideration of the discharge of the 2009 budget.

Yesterday, Mr Engwirda, a member of the Court, stated that the errors were primarily due to the complexity of the procedures. That again demonstrates that it is imperative that Europe become simpler and more transparent. If that does not happen, our citizens will continue to see Europe as complicated and overly remote.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Jens Geier (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to ask Mr van Dalen whether he is aware that the high percentages refer only to the percentage of the sample. In other words, it is not 36% of the payments that are in error, but 36% of the payments in the sample. If this is extrapolated up, the result is at least 5% in the case of the Cohesion Fund. Therefore, the billions that you referred to are not accurate amounts. Were you aware of this?

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Madam President, I fully understood that. The real issue for me is that no declaration of assurance can be given for billions of euro, which is why I have asked the Commission to investigate that thoroughly and also to examine how the situation might be improved. Fortunately, the Commissioner has already indicated in his speech a minute ago that he will initiate such an investigation and that he will take the matter seriously.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, estimates provided by the European Court of Auditors show that EUR 6 million disappeared from the European budget in 2009 as a result of carelessness, mismanagement, fraud, ignorance and a lack of checks. The Court of Auditors has revealed the scandalous fact that around 40% of EU officials are receiving double the normal amount of family benefits. Greece is once again causing problems. It has not only been bailed out by other Member States with a rescue package amounting to billions of euro, but is also the front-runner when it comes to subsidy fraud. You only need to look at the wooded areas for which Greece has claimed subsidies for green spaces to see the sheer audacity of its behaviour.

Of course, the situation is particularly bad when it comes to the regional subsidies. As the previous speaker has said, if 36% of the payments that were checked were made in error, that is bad enough. This is why we are calling on Mr Hahn to take drastic measures with regard to his very important portfolio. We do not have money to give away.

Finally, I would like to compliment the committed employees of the Court of Auditors. They are highly motivated and we politicians should be encouraging them to make even more careful checks. As politicians, we are in a position to draw up and implement guidelines.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, I think that in discussing this report, we must take care to be sufficiently precise in our statements, because we are very often also talking, here, about errors, irregularities or embezzlement. The report shows very clearly that in terms of the error rate found for cohesion policy, there has been a definite reduction. It is at a level of around 5%, in relation to which we cannot at the same time talk about errors at a level of 20, 30 or 40%, because this simply confuses the overall picture. We have, here, a clear improvement in what certainly is a very complicated policy, since it is managed jointly with the Member States. A problem for all of us is how to improve this policy, which has a structure which is simply very demanding and very complicated but which has huge added value. The situation is changing, and this should be noted with satisfaction and stated positively.

However, I would like to draw attention to a certain disturbing part of the report, and I quote: ‘Taking this into consideration, the Court concludes that it is not possible to make a meaningful comparison between its own estimate of error rates and the data for financial corrections and recoveries supplied by the Commission.’ I think this statement is very important and significant for the future, because we do not want a situation in which the Court concludes that it cannot reach agreement with the Commission about results. More work is needed, here, and this matter needs to be explained.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – (DA) Madam President, I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for once again providing us with an excellent tool for evaluating our use of money within the EU. Fortunately, we can confirm that we are moving in the right direction, even though there are still many problems. However, because things are moving in the right direction, I think we should use the time to take a closer look at what the next step should be. If we look at the situation with regard to administrative expenditure, for example, we can see that we have an effective control system and few errors. In my opinion, however, this is not enough. We also need to take time to examine whether we are actually using the money in the right way.

Administrative expenditure is our expenditure on salaries, buildings and such like. In this regard, we ought to ask ourselves whether we are really getting enough for the money that we spend on salaries. Are we using the money in the right way in respect of how we manage our buildings, etc.? I believe that we now need to take the debate a step further so that we discuss the question of whether it is efficient enough, and so that we also obtain a significantly greater degree of transparency with regard to this. I therefore call not only on the European Parliament, but on the Commission, too, to demonstrate a considerable willingness to provide greater transparency and to engage in this debate.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) It is now the second time in the current session that the annual accounts of the European Union have come up for discussion. In the first place, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr da Silva Caldeira and his team for the work they have done. On the other hand, I am surprised at the level of error that is again occurring in almost 92% of budget expenditure, counting all chapters with the exception of administrative expenditure and economic affairs. I would like to ask to what extent are the Member States responsible for these errors and to what extent is a lack of control on the part of the Commission responsible.

The answer indicated in the report is that there are many deficiencies in the actual control systems of the Member States. I believe that what we need most of all is greater cooperation and openness from the Member States, if such large-scale errors are to be prevented.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, the Court of Auditors have done an excellent job drafting the report auditing the EU budget for 2009, and Mr Caldeira and the members of the Court of Auditors deserve credit for their work. I agree with those speakers who have said that the report shows clearly and unambiguously that there is an improving trend as regards the use of EU funds and that the overall error rate is falling. Nevertheless, we need to draw clear and obvious consequences from the report as to what we have to do here in Parliament, in the Commission and in the other EU institutions.

The falling error rate, however, means nothing less than that, according to the Court of Auditors, several billion euro of EU funds have been used incorrectly or irregularly, which may even give rise to the suspicion of crime. This means that action has to be taken. There is one measure in particular which I would like to mention, namely, that it would be extremely important that the Court of Auditors prepare a breakdown by Member States in the next period to show the extent of the error rate in the use of EU funds and the standard of operation of the control mechanism in each state. This, too, may contribute to a further reduction in the error rate.

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, once again, we welcome the improvements introduced through the intense dialogue between the Court of Auditors, the Commission and, of course, Parliament. This year’s report, however, also shows that we cannot rest on our laurels, and that we need to remain vigilant.

I also think that Mr da Silva Caldeira’s proposal for the future regarding cooperation to improve and simplify the important aspects of the Financial Regulation is very positive, as are the new legislative proposals on which we could perhaps work together to achieve a successful result.

With regard to the other institutions, I will be paying very close attention to all the aspects related to the Council’s operating expenditure, especially the Secure European System for Applications in a Multi-vendor Environment system, in which there is a specific reference to the need for improvements in forecasting the Council’s budget, and also to isolated aspects relating to the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, whose budgets appear to be severely reduced. I am also interested, however, in the fact that we have had information that a case has been passed on to the European Anti-Fraud Office in relation to the Economic and Social Committee. In addition, I would like to know the opinion regarding the significant increase in staff in the Committee of the Regions between 2009 and 2010.

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE). – (BG) Ladies and gentlemen, it is vitally important that we emphasise the fact that the Court of Auditors’ conclusions acknowledge the progress which has been made by the Commission in controlling the absorption of European funds. However, at the same time, I hope that the recommendations and proposals made by the European Parliament in the discharge reports, reiterated for years on end, will actually be taken into consideration, especially in the areas where we still have a high level of irregularities. The quality of the information supplied to us by the Court of Auditors should be even better as well. I believe that we should really be given the precise figures and level of irregularities which we need to know.

The good news for 2009 is that the level of irregularities in the area of cohesion policy has fallen significantly compared to last year. However, the big question remains whether this reduction will be sustainable over time or is simply a fluke which may also be due to the specific countries chosen to be audited.

However, in any event, there are unresolved issues on the agenda, linked to irregularities in the areas of external aid, development and enlargement, agriculture, research, energy and transport, education and citizenship.

I want to assure the Court of Auditors, the Commission and Council that our work in the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control will be very extensively and essentially focused over the coming months on making the management of European funds more efficient.

We will continue to emphasise the responsibilities which need to be assumed in this regard by the European Commission and Member States and strictly adhered to, as well as the measures to be taken against offenders in order to achieve a real result in protecting the interests of the European taxpayer.

  Jens Geier (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Caldeira, Mr Šemeta, cohesion policy is the sick man of the EU budget. Last year, he was in intensive care and this year he is convalescing. However, he is far from making a full recovery and he could have a relapse at any time. More than 5% of all the cohesion policy payments were in error and 3% should not have been made at all. This amounts to around EUR 700 million. A large proportion of these erroneous payments could have been prevented by the Member States. The errors are occurring in public procurement and in the payment of cohesion funding, despite the existing control systems, which have been approved by the Commission. We need to take another careful look at these control systems. In my home country of Germany, the samples showed that all the control systems there which had been tested were only partially effective.

The responsibility for managing the budget lies with the Commission. We can discuss this contradiction – errors in the Member States which are the responsibility of the Commission – in our home countries, we can explain it to the media and we can tell our citizens about it. However, in political terms, it is the job of the Commission to resolve this problem in the Member States. Mr Šemeta, you need to take control in this area and you will have our support for doing so.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, representatives of the Commission and the Court of Auditors, I rise as coordinator for regional policy of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

Looking at the error rate, I see that a clear improvement has been made in terms of cohesion. We can now see the impact of the new regulations we adopted for the 2007-2013 period and of the action plans which were keenly advocated, not only by Parliament, but also by both the current and previous Commission. Most of the problems, or errors, are to be found in the public procurement dossier. Transposition of European legislation into the laws of a number of Member States and the associated implementation have driven up the error rate to its present very high level.

I therefore ask the Commissioners to come up with an action plan that would, amongst other things, put pressure on Member States or support them with regard to public procurement. Last week, I had the opportunity of heading a European Parliament delegation to Romania and we were able to see how they were struggling with this and what kind of difficulties they were up against. We could make a lot of progress here.

Finally, I, too, am very much in favour of national management declarations; that is, financial declarations that Member States would be required to submit, because Member State level is precisely where most of the faults lie.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). – Madam President, I want to be as positive as I possibly can about this report, because I always believe that we should use audits to improve things and to learn from our mistakes. There are many examples where this can be done by the Commission, by Member States and by beneficiaries in order to improve matters, for example, in agriculture. Constant changes in requirements by the Commission cause difficulties for Member States and beneficiaries; in Wales, they tell me that all the time. To reduce claims for ineligible land by farmers, the Commission could also provide legislation which clearly defines active farmers across the EU, which would then be used by all Member States, whereas at the moment, they have some discretion. Lastly, with CAP reform imminent, there is a golden opportunity to simplify the processes to ensure that in Europe, we have value for money for our spending, but also continue to provide benefits for individuals and communities.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, presentation of the results of the European Court of Auditors’ work always gives superb information which enables a comparison of what things were like in the past with what should be done in the future. What can the general conclusion be? It seems to be the case that wherever procedures are less complicated and it is easier to use money, we find fewer material errors. The more complicated the policy, the more the significance of errors, and sometimes also of irregularities, rises. One such example is cohesion policy, which is also very important for the European Union. This is why it has also been concluded, here, that the Union’s agricultural policy has a high error rate, but where procedures for the use of funds have been simplified, there are fewer errors than where it is more complicated.

I would like to draw attention to the significance of cooperation with national supervisory bodies, but also – and this has not been spoken about – the significance of cooperation with national parliaments and, in particular, with committees for European affairs, budgets and budgetary control. I personally was a member of the Polish national parliament at the time when we started working with information from the European Court of Auditors, and it was very well received by the members.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to offer my very sincere thanks to the Court of Auditors. This report is an impressive demonstration of the fact that the controls are constantly improving. I am not necessarily concerned by the error rates that have been highlighted, because I believe that the auditing process is a learning system. It involves looking more and more closely at the problems and, thank goodness, discovering an increasing number of errors. Our task is to work together to avoid these errors occurring in future. Therefore, I would like to draw everyone’s attention once again to the Fifth Cohesion Report which was presented yesterday. The Commission is inviting everyone involved to express their opinions about the questions raised in this document. This represents a major opportunity to lay the foundations for future subsidy arrangements which will ensure, on the one hand, that subsidies in this area are easier to obtain, that access is simplified and red tape reduced, and that, on the other, the necessary strict controls are in place to protect the taxpayers’ money which is being used.

Therefore, I am calling on everyone involved to comply with this request from the Commission. We in Parliament will, of course, do so.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the debate today demonstrates that further progress was achieved in 2009 in the management of the European budget. The clear opinion of the Court on the accounts and the lowest error rate ever for the whole budget, as disclosed by our external auditor, confirm that the Commission took the right decisions and proposed adequate measures to improve the performance of the programmes under the current financial period.

However, the Court also highlights the areas where further progress is needed by all financial actors. I refer, of course, to the Commission, and also to financial actors in the Member States whose obligations and responsibilities under shared management have been clearly reinforced under the new Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Many of you talked here about the application of sanctions to the Member States, and I have to say that the Commission applies sanctions very rigorously. Just now, we are in the process of the suspension or interruption of 40 cohesion programmes amounting to EUR 1.75 billion. That is a huge amount, and what is more important is that the number of actions in 2010 almost doubled compared with the number of actions in 2009. Just last Friday, we also made a decision to call back unduly spent money in agriculture to an amount of more than EUR 578 million; so we really apply these sanctions rigorously and we intend to do so in the future. You can also see from the report by the Court of Auditors that the level of recoveries and financial corrections has increased significantly over the years, amounting in 2009 to EUR 3.3 billion. That is also a very significant amount, and our intention is to continue this policy and apply sanctions very rigorously when this is needed.

The Court’s report, and the discharge procedures starting now, will be instrumental not only in addressing the weaknesses of the current programmes but also in drawing lessons for the next generation of programmes. The Court rightly pointed out the way forward, which is, of course, simplification and improvements in the procurement rules, because it is true that the vast majority of errors were made because of the violation of eligibility criteria or of procurement rules. We have to learn lessons from this, and the Commission is ready to do so. It will follow up on the Court’s recommendations and is looking forward to a fruitful discharge procedure.

  Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira, President of the Court of Auditors. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for all the kind comments that you have addressed to the Court on this occasion, as a tribute also to those who work in our institution each day addressing, with the highest professional standards, and in accordance with international audit standards, the concerns of this institution. We pay due attention to the recommendations of this House and let me just give you two examples of what we have done in this annual report for 2009 to address the request from this institution for more information.

We provide you with an overall assessment of the situation; for the first time, we say what the overall situation is. We conclude that it has improved over recent years; the most likely errors for the whole budget are decreasing. We have also provided you, in particular in the area of cohesion, with more information than last year, because last year we said that at least 11% of the funds should not have been paid; this year, we are able to say that the most likely error estimated is indeed over 5%, which we could not say last year, and that at least 3% of the funds should not have been reimbursed. This is the measure of the progress we have found. These are facts. Why? What are the reasons behind this? What progress have we achieved? We are not inventing facts; we are not being kind to the Commission or kind to the Member States. The Court is an independent audit institution governed by the treaty. We base our findings on the evidence and it is what we report to this institution, which we have the obligation to assist in this discharge procedure.

We are willing to assist you in this work and the main reason for this, as we said in our report, is that on the one hand, the systems put in place to manage the funds for this programme period 2007-2013 are performing better. The other reason is that the disbursement of funds for the programming period is only 25%, so the financial execution for the period is, in our evidence, lower than what should be expected. So the combination of these two factors – better performance of the systems on the one hand and lower execution, so fewer payments effectively made, on the other – has given us the situation where we now are. This is where we have this word of caution. We have to see how things evolve now with the systems behaving so well across all the 27 Member States and with all the funds to be disbursed in the future. So a word of caution.

But I said that we are willing to assist this House, and particularly the Committee on Budgetary Control, in its discharge. Our Members will assist you with that and provide you with all the information you need. But we are also assisting you through our special reports. You can find audits and other elements which look at the impact of the funding in real life, at how effectively they have been used, and I think that this is very valuable information for this institution also.

Clearly, the responsibility for implementing the budget lies primarily with the European Commission, but the Lisbon Treaty says also in cooperation with the Member States. If we have to look forward, I would say that we now have a unique opportunity to build a new momentum for a better management of the European Union budget. A new Financial Regulation is being discussed and will be adopted soon and that will be the basic line to decide and guide the management for future progress. If we have to have simple rules, if we want to have more efficient, cost-effective systems to manage them through the Member States and within the Commission, that is the moment to address those issues. The budget review is also on the table next year.

So the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament are therefore confronted now with a period for taking serious decisions to improve the situation in the future. If the European Court of Auditors can assist in that, I would suggest it should be by building on the recommendations that we have already put forward in our opinion on the key risks and challenges for improving the financial management of the Union.

When you look to the new generation of programmes for the period after 2013, I repeat, we have to ask: are the programmes of funding schemes likely to add value to the European Union? Are we putting forward schemes which are simple, with clear objectives, realistic to execute and whose accountability lines are clear? We want to avoid the uncertainty where we are sometimes claiming that there is no responsibility either on the side of the Commission or on the side of the Member States. We have the opportunity now and the Court of Auditors is looking forward to assisting you in this task.

  President. – The item is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) For the first time in 16 years, the European Court of Auditors has issued a positive statement of assurance with regard to both the reliability of the annual accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. This is the end of a cycle that began with the Santer Commission, which resigned in 1999. This situation is due to the determination of the European Parliament and of its Committee on Budgetary Control to force the Commission and also the Member States – in matters relating to shared management – to manage European public funds correctly. I welcome the Court’s work. I fail to understand why the Union does not enter into its accounts the EUR 37.2 billion that the Member States owe for staff pensions, since it has approximately EUR 44 billion negative own capital as a result. What an image to portray! I wonder how we are going to be able to borrow on the markets to raise the EUR 60 billion needed for the stability plan. Lastly, I believe that this report has come too late. In any serious organisation, the auditor’s report should be sent before 30 June in the year following the year audited. The quibbles about the complex issues and the many languages involved are not acceptable.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The European Court of Auditors is now submitting its sixteenth report, through which it issues the statement of assurance concerning the legality and regularity of the operations on which the annual accounts of the EU budget are based. I would like to stress that the level of error in some operations remains high. For example, the Court of Auditors states that, for projects in the area of cohesion, the level of error is higher than 5%, which, in my opinion, is too high, despite the fact that there has been an improvement in recent years. In my opinion, the European Commission should make every effort to reduce the error level to the maximum acceptable level of 2%. It has to be said, of course, that the error level does not always indicate incorrect handling of delegated resources, but is often down to accounting errors in the administration of individual projects.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In its annual report on the implementation of the 2009 budget, the Court observes in relation to the reliability of the accounts that some consolidated entities have not provided any statement in relation to their consolidated accounts, or have submitted an amended statement. The European Police College (CEPOL) is one of the entities for which the due information has been lacking for several years. This has important consequences, because, after an in-depth audit of CEPOL’s accounts in July 2010, corrections were made to the accounts. Indeed, the 2009 financial report for the agency went back over the accounting management of the financial years 2008 and earlier, estimating the budgetary impact of the corrections at approximately 13% of the agency’s current budget. Since the college became a community agency on 1 January 2006, the Court of Auditors has only issued reservations on the reliability of the accounts for the financial year 2007. That has not sufficed to put the accounts prior to 2010 back in order.

  President. – The next item is the report by Mrs Van Brempt, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy (COM(2010)0283 – C7-0139/2010 – 2010/0150(COD)) (A7-0246/2010).

  Kathleen Van Brempt, rapporteur. – (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you see before you a very happy rapporteur, because I think that we – and I very much emphasise the we – have produced a report that will hopefully soon be adopted almost unanimously, as all political groups in Parliament have worked intensively on it and in close cooperation.

The report and the regulations it addresses have a lengthy history in this House. It had its origins, specifically, in the recovery plan launched in 2009 in the wake of the economic crisis. At the time, EUR 4 billion was freed up at European level, and these funds were earmarked specifically for economic recovery. The objective was that that money should also finance energy projects in particular: large-scale energy projects, devoted to carbon capture and storage, to infrastructure, and to a number of large offshore wind energy projects.

At that time, Parliament having of course approved these projects, there were quite a few objections from various quarters and from Parliament itself, especially vis-à-vis the large-scale nature of the undertaking and the question of whether this or that project would create enough jobs. However, the most important criticism regarded energy efficiency. This was followed by a political agreement and the current situation is the result of that agreement.

You would think that if Parliament, the Council and the Commission reach a political agreement about investing all surpluses in energy efficiency, that the report and the negotiations would be easy. That was not the case. We have been through some difficult negotiations, especially with the Council. However, I can say that we – and we did have to reach a compromise, let us be clear about that – were able to score a home run on most of the points. I would like to run through them briefly because they are crucial to a proper understanding of the current situation concerning the funds and how they should be implemented in the very near future.

First of all, this is about renewable energy projects but, in particular, those which focus on energy efficiency. That, Commissioner, is what lies at the heart of the energy debate these days. I am very much in favour of renewable energy, but we know that, if we want really rapid results, we have to invest all our efforts in energy efficiency: it is a good solution if you want to reduce consumption; it helps alleviate the major problem of energy supply and – a very important point – it ensures lower energy costs for our companies and families. That is incredibly important. We are also working on industrial policy and we will definitely get back to you on that.

Secondly, and this is very much linked to energy efficiency, the local level. Very often, Europe works almost exclusively with national Member States, and even the previous recovery plan focused primarily on major projects. Well, this one could not be more different. It focuses on the local level, on cities and municipalities, on small-scale projects which can be implemented immediately, delivering immediate results, and which can thereby have a major impact, not just on energy efficiency but also on jobs. That remains a very important consideration.

Thirdly, funding. The previous major recovery plan consisted of what we call upfront funding; simply subsidising major projects, whether by means of cofinancing or not, because that is specific to Europe. It is the typical way in which Europe works. However, that is not the case with this fund and, for that reason, it is very innovative. The way resources are used here is by providing support in order to get those projects funded through guarantees and other financial means. With the exception of technical assistance, which is still funded through upfront funding, this means that you will have major leveraging. You need to multiply those EUR 146 million by approximately eight in order to get an idea of what the impact could be.

I have now come to my last point, over which we have squabbled for a long time: the cap on money; that is, the money that is available to us. Parliament would have liked to see a different solution; which, indeed, was what we had agreed, let us be clear about that. Any remaining funds had to be invested in this project. We have reached a compromise: all the funds that are left over today have been registered and I firmly believe that this will mean that this project will be assured a long life – and I think that, if we carry on working together as we have done, we will also be able to ensure that it becomes incredibly successful for us.

Just one more second, Madam President. I know I have run out of time. I would once again like to expressly thank everyone who has worked on this, in particular, all the shadow rapporteurs. I was particularly pleased with our cooperation, and I am not saying that out of politeness, but simply because it was an example of very fine and effective cooperation. Thank you.

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today, we are discussing the interim review of a successful programme to aid economic recovery in the energy sector. Up to this point, as part of the implementation of the programme established for us by Parliament and the Council, we have made 43 financing decisions for gas projects, energy infrastructure projects, offshore energy and carbon capture and storage. This has allowed us to spend around 98% of the entire budget of EUR 3.98 billion and to ensure that the programme has, to a large extent, achieved its objectives. There were only a few projects which could not be implemented. We are introducing this amendment regulation with the aim of meeting Parliament’s requirements and initiating pilot projects for renewable energy, but importantly, also for energy efficiency. I regard these pilot projects as an opportunity to trial our activities in the field of energy efficiency, which will be one of the focal points of my work over the next year.

I would like to thank Mrs Van Brempt very warmly. I would also like to thank all the strident Members of this House and the Belgian Presidency, because we have worked hard in this area over recent weeks and we are able to present a document today which will definitely provide a stimulus in the area of energy efficiency.

In order to ensure that this amendment regulation, which is due to come into force now, takes effect quickly, our officials have already been making preparations for its implementation. In the next few days, EUR 146 million will be made available for projects which are important to all of you. Our partners in these projects, chosen by you, are municipal, local and regional authorities which have close links with the projects in question. These local partners will ensure that the funding is used in the best possible way, for public buildings, private buildings, combined heat and power facilities, district heating networks, decentralised renewable energy sources, more environmentally friendly urban transport systems and local infrastructures, such as intelligent networks, efficient street lighting and smart measurement systems. This means that we are doing something which will have an immediate local impact and which will act as a benchmark for my future activities relating to smart cities.

If you make the appropriate decision today, our offices will begin implementing the amendment regulation straight away. In March or April of next year, we will definitely be able to report that our economic recovery programme is having a very positive effect, in the form of both large projects and small, decentralised projects, and is allowing us to learn lessons which will be important in future financial years. I would like to thank everyone concerned once again.

  Jens Geier, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Oettinger, as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets concerning Mrs Van Brempt’s report, I can say that the members of the committee very much welcomed this report. We have looked at it not only from a budgetary perspective, but also, to certain extent, with regard to its content and we have raised one concern, which Mrs Van Brempt was kind enough to include. This instrument is aimed at municipalities and rightly so, because this is where the greatest increases in efficiency can be achieved.

However, I come from an area of Germany where the municipalities cannot take out any additional loans, because they are already too heavily in debt. This may be a problem specific to Germany, because of our local authority constitutions, but Mr Oettinger, as a former head of a Federal German state, will be only too familiar with this subject. Therefore, in Germany, we are in a position where those local authorities which should be making use of this programme are not allowed to, because the body responsible for supervising them has prevented them from taking on any further debt. We are very concerned about this. It could result in this programme being ineffective in these areas. We welcome this programme and would be pleased if it could be continued. We have called for the programme to have a separate budget line and we would like to transfer to it the EUR 15 million available in the agricultural policy area which cannot be accessed there because there is no legal basis for doing so. This is where the budget needs to be more flexible.

  Antonio Cancian, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the decision to use the few remaining funds in the Recovery Plan started in 2009 in a different way and to take advantage of this opportunity to introduce a new principle with the setting up of an ad hoc fund is far-sighted and in line with what we have been saying for some time in this Chamber but have never been able to act on.

We have seen a few timid signs, not yet brought up to date, in the Marguerite Fund. This represents, for us and for the PPE, a benchmark method to be followed for intelligent use of the European Union budget. The instrument is an ad hoc fund that deploys various methods such as loans, guarantees, equity shares or cofinancing, and will be governed by a special asset management company.

The fund was set up with an initial sum of EUR 147 million and we do not understand why the door cannot be left open for the other residues due to the Recovery Plan. A significant sum could be raised by applying significant leverage through the EIB, the KfW, the Deposit and Loan Banks and other financial institutions, and this could have a great impact on the start-up of projects considered valid and given economic and environmental priority.

From my point of view, the central aspect of the fund that will be set up by the end of this year is that it could become a kind of virtuous pilot project for the future organisation of a broader energy fund for appropriate inclusion in the next financial perspective 2014-2020. This principle could also be repeated for other sectors, such as TEN or eTEN networks. If you would allow me, some tangible sign at this critical time in the face of an employment crisis would make us all a little happier.

  Teresa Riera Madurell, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work, because far beyond the EUR 146 million that have been agreed, the impact of which we hope will be eight-fold, this initiative has important symbolic value.

As the rapporteur explained, we are going to allocate funds to sustainable energy micro-projects, which will not only enable the realisation of important objectives such as security of supply and reducing CO2 emissions, but will also achieve an objective that has a very direct impact on the population: reducing energy poverty.

The text that we are going to vote on is also important because it introduces an innovative financial instrument. This mechanism will help to overcome the resistance of financial entities to this type of project, as they will have the backing of international financial institutions.

Finally, we should once again be satisfied that we have been sufficiently flexible to respect the good practice created in the Member States in order to structure the deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

I hope that the implementation of this regulation will enable all the potential of those bodies to be developed, without the obstacles that tend to be imposed by excessive bureaucracy.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (GA) Madam President, I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur for the preparation of this report on energy projects and for the additional funds now provided by the Commission. EUR 146 million has been provided for projects which will be crucial for Europe and for the various countries and, in particular, as the Commissioner has said, for the local and regional authorities which will, I hope, be handling this money or these grants.

I first of all want to congratulate the rapporteur on the presentation of her report on financial assistance for energy projects.

I strongly welcome this initiative, which provides for the creation of a dedicated financial instrument to support the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The financing of projects in this area will help to stimulate economic recovery in Europe, and indeed in my own country, Ireland, and help to create new employment opportunities and also help in the fight against climate change.

In all parts of Europe now, and particularly in my own country with a very high rate of unemployment, we want to ensure that all funding can be diverted into areas where jobs can be created. The funding of EUR 146 million which is available under the amended proposal must be targeted towards projects that will have a rapid, a measurable and a real impact on economic recovery. EUR 146 million is the funding that is available, but there is a multiplier of at least six or seven times that amount, which will be the overall investment.

I believe that the establishment of a dedicated financial instrument will allow for this funding to be administered in the most efficient manner and the beneficiaries, as I said in my own native language, will include local and regional authorities. We all have a responsibility to bring this to the attention of those authorities, and our government will be making an individual application and then liaise with the regional authorities.

  Claude Turmes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, today we celebrate a victory, albeit small, for green energy policy and a more European energy policy. I firstly want to thank our excellent delegation from all parties, under the leadership of Kathleen. I think we did a good job.

(DE) I would also like to praise Mr Oettinger. Unfortunately, during the presentation of the energy agenda yesterday, we were obliged to be highly critical. However, this instrument has also come about because you have made a personal effort, in part in the face of opposition from the German Government and your partners in the Christian-Democratic Union in Germany, to ensure that it was able to happen.

Why is it a small and bitter victory? Because – and some have said this – this is EUR 150 million for the decentralised, the local, energy investments, where, on the other hand, we have billions – one billion for carbon sequestration, for example. I am still wondering if this one billion will be used. We are getting increasing indications that this project will not work. There is no balance between the decentralised, near-to-the-citizens, local-area projects and the big projects, some of which will, I think, fail.

Why are we, as Greens, nevertheless voting for this project today? It is because we are optimists. We are optimistic that this EUR 150 million, well managed, will create the base for a much bigger instrument which we will get under the next financial perspective. There are two conditions for that. The first condition is quality projects. I think that the EIB and KfW, which will manage it, will also look at deep renovation, and not only shallow renovation, projects. We need to leapfrog, especially when it comes to buildings and efficiency. The second condition is cutting the red tape for the local authorities that will apply for projects to get cofinancing.

These two issues are crucial. Therefore, my questions to you, Commissioner, are: what will the Commission do to make sure that this fund will finance or give credit to quality projects? And how will the Commission act to cut red tape so that local authorities have easy access to these funds?

  Zbigniew Ziobro, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, I will endorse every proposal to increase Union funds for supporting energy projects. Green energy should also be supported. However, it should be said honestly that the idea that green energy is the solution to all of Europe’s energy problems – a kind of thinking which is often expressed here – is an illusion. However, the Union does need large, and I stress large, investments. The basic purpose of these is to ensure diversification of fuel supply. Such a solution is possible, for example, by building the Nabucco gas pipeline to connect the huge gas deposits in the region of Central Asia with customers in Europe and by developing transmission networks and building new interconnectors in Central and Eastern Europe.

We do want to develop green energy, but at the same time, unfortunately, development of methods for extraction of shale gas is being completely overlooked and is not being appropriately funded. This is an unconventional gas which is already playing an enormous role in extraction in the United States and is giving America complete independence in terms of access to gas. Large amounts of this gas are found in France, Poland and Bulgaria. Here, in the face of the opportunity to use this great potential, complete passivity is to be seen. European solidarity requires that the Union support these projects as strategic for its future and as projects which guarantee the uniform development of all European states. It is a pity we are not talking, today, about great investments which will really solve our energy problems and unite and develop the European Union. While we are talking about important measures related to green energy, let us, however, remember that the idea that green energy will solve our energy problems is an illusion.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

  Marisa Matias, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) I, too, would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on the work that she has done on this subject. We are here to discuss a very specific programme to aid economic recovery, which is in the crucial area of energy in this case. In the current crisis situation that we are experiencing, proposals such as this one that help create jobs are essential. There is no chance of restructuring the economy if we do not make job creation our priority. This report sends a very positive message by drawing our attention to how to respond in this area at local level: how to respond specifically to local needs. We are in a period when we are debating, and will debate a great deal more, a series of legislative proposals in the field of energy, and we often tend to concentrate too much on the large-scale projects and networks, forgetting other causes in which intervention is absolutely essential.

That is why I believe that this report could help us not only to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy, which is very important, but also to provide concrete benefits for local communities, which naturally means concrete benefits for the European public as a whole. That is why, Madam President, I wish to conclude with two final points: it is important never to forget that energy efficiency is also achieved, to a large extent, by cutting energy use through microgeneration projects like those included in this report; and, finally, it was a great victory for this House to ensure that the amount of financing to be allocated to these projects would be specified. That was not what we were aiming for, because we needed much more. I would therefore ask the Commissioner what he is seeking to do and intends to do to guarantee these needs.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) The submitted proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 is a response to the repeated requests of the European Parliament to create a new, single-purpose financial instrument for supporting energy efficiency and initiatives in the area of renewables. The support for measures in the construction industry to increase the energy efficiency of buildings, which annually consume up to 40% of energy in the EU, shows the justification for, and good sense of, this initiative.

Funding to cover the activities of this financial instrument may be obtained by transferring unused resources from a number of programmes in which it is not objectively possible to use the allocated funding in time to the planned extent. An example of this would be the European Energy Programme for Recovery, which has a financial reserve of around EUR 150 million, as well as the multi-year GR programme for the climate sector, which was set up with a similar aim. I therefore think it would be very sensible to consider how we might best use the financial resources saved in order to extend the scope of the European Energy Programme for Recovery to include a new and, it would seem, necessary, single purpose financial instrument for supporting energy efficiency and initiatives in the area of renewables.

We can make it easier for public bodies at the local, municipal and regional levels to implement projects in the area of energy saving and renewables thanks to this effective new financial instrument.

  Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Madam President, I am pleased that the European Union has learned to kill two birds with one stone. The first ‘bird’ is aid for business. At a time when the Member States are forced to cut spending and the banks are wary of giving loans, the European Union has come forward with a specific solution in the form of a new financial instrument. The second ‘bird’ is Europe’s heavy dependence on imported energy. The aim of this new instrument is to reduce energy consumption and increasing usage of our own energy sources, such as wind, sun, water and biomass, thereby reducing our overall dependence on imported energy. Ladies and gentlemen, I call on you all to support the creation of this new financial instrument to assist projects in the field of energy. It will help both our businesses in hard times and reduce our overall dependence on imported energy resources. Thank you for your attention.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) First of all, I would like to congratulate my group colleague for her significant work negotiating this document and including it in the issues that are especially important for the energy market of the entire European Union. In the context of energy security, it is particularly important to promote energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, and secure the required financing for such projects. The successful implementation of such projects would directly contribute to achieving the energy objectives set by the European Union.

This additional money will help local and regional public authorities improve financing for sustainable energy projects and implement innovative financial incentive schemes, such as guarantees and soft loans. Thus far, plans to promote energy efficiency, such as building renovation, which has already been discussed, have not been fully implemented. Therefore, I believe that this additional financing will become a good incentive to step up sustainable energy initiatives and projects, especially at regional and local level.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to compliment Mrs Van Brempt and her shadow rapporteurs emphatically on this important legislative initiative. I think that this regulation has real potential to be a powerful incentive for projects relating to energy efficiency and the exploitation of renewable energy.

The regulation strikes a blow for sustainable energy and I welcome, in particular, a number of special areas of emphasis, such as: energy conservation, micro-cogeneration and integration of decentralised renewable energy sources embedded in local settings in electricity grids; and also micro-generation from renewable energy sources, and the use of renewable energy sources within the sector of public transport, electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles.

The stress which Mrs Van Brempt and her shadow rapporteurs have placed on efficient outdoor lighting for public infrastructure and, lastly, on the search for electricity storage solutions, is promising. Thank you for your efforts. I hope that this can be a new step towards a genuine Green New Deal.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, we are talking, at the moment, about something which is absolutely fundamental, not only when we are dealing with economic matters, but also when we are dealing in broader terms with the question of European solidarity. This is because energy is, in fact, the greatest challenge and the greatest test. Can that European solidarity work in practice or will it merely be a slogan or a catchword? Or again – and this is certainly something expected by European taxpayers and voters – will it be put into practice in specific projects which will build European unity and which will show that in Europe, the different countries help each other, work on projects together and do not accept situations in which certain states from outside the European Union make agreements with other states over the heads of the European Union? I think this should, at last, be said very clearly and directly.

  Jan Březina (PPE). – (CS) It is, without doubt, thanks to this Parliament that the volume of resources for projects in the area of energy efficiency and renewables has reached EUR 146 million. If it was up to the Member States, this figure would be substantially lower. Unfortunately, however, the legal form and structure of the fund remain uncertain, as does the question of what financial projects it will provide. In the interests of transparency, potential applicants should know who will decide on applications and how the selection committees will be appointed.

If we are to dispel the suspicion that the newly established fund is targeted mainly at those who have not used the resources allocated within the EUR 5 billion package of the economic recovery programme due to non-implementation of projects, representatives of the new Member States should also be included in the selection process. The fund may be primarily intended for local and regional authorities, but we should also consider whether it would not be appropriate to allow private entities to apply as well, and not just where they are acting on behalf of public bodies. Increasing energy efficiency and the share of renewables should be a shared responsibility of both the public and the private sector, and European funding should therefore be available to both sectors. I see great opportunities in the combined production of heat and electricity, and in clean urban transport.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is not easy to find so much unanimity in Parliament This means that the work was really outstanding and Mrs Van Brempt and all the other shadow rapporteurs should be made aware of this.

It has been said that the resulting instrument is very positive for several reasons. It is positive because its procedures and timeframes are fast; positive because it is aimed at highly qualified project categories; positive because it is aimed at urban contexts, in other words, at local authorities which, by making specific decisions, are able to bring about real change in the state of affairs and improve air quality, housing quality and urban transport quality; positive because it is aimed at profitable projects and can therefore yield a return of resources; and positive, lastly, because the strategy will bring many more resources into play.

In the face of all this, however, picking up on an objection raised by many Members, including Mr Geier, Mr Turmes and Mr Cancian, I wish to say to the Commissioner that the sticking point will be the implementation, the choice of financial intermediaries, the relationship with local authorities and how their financial difficulties are dealt with. Commissioner, this instrument raises the possibility of opening the way to other projects, to a stabilisation of this instrument and its extension to other sectors. The topic is crucial. The same thing must not happen that happened with the Recovery Plan and with the small and medium-sized enterprises that are still waiting for the EUR 30 billion approved by Parliament and the Commission at the end of 2008.

  Ioannis A. Tsoukalas (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, I, too, wish to take my turn in congratulating the rapporteur on her very efficient work on such an important report. The report provides an important instrument for financing and implementing projects in the energy sector that will aid economic recovery at difficult times and help to complete the internal energy market and attain the climate and energy targets set by the European Union for 2020.

The creation of a fund to support energy efficiency and renewable initiatives is especially important, even with a small initial endowment of EUR 146 million. I am delighted that the European Parliament has stood by its commitment to promote renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.

Finally, I should like to comment on the need for a balanced geographical distribution of future programmes, so that they can benefit all the Member States. Greece received just 1.5% of the programme for natural gas pipelines. I trust that we shall have a fairer distribution in future.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, it is such a massive achievement that Parliament’s rapporteur and the Commissioner have jointly managed to make the Council retain this money in the funds available. This is a very important and highly significant event from our point of view. We hope that later on, we will be able to extend this to other budget chapters as well. It is just as important that we managed to spend this money on the original purpose it was earmarked for and, above all, through small and medium-sized enterprises and local authorities, on projects affecting the public.

This is a truly important step forward. It is rare for the European institutional system to reach the public or small and medium-sized enterprises directly. This is why it is very important that we complete these projects successfully by 2014 and it would be of similar importance to examine efficiency in 2014 in order to improve the efficiency of this institutional system as well. I congratulate the rapporteur and wish for every success in spending the money.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, funding has been available, which should have been invested in the energy sector, among other areas. We have discussed this in great detail in the committee and we were not sure whether all the money could be spent. At that time, the Commissioner promised us that he would guarantee that none of the money would be left over or returned to where it came from. The most important thing for me is that the Commissioner has kept his word. He submitted a document to us fairly quickly which allowed us to ensure that the funding that otherwise would have been lost could be used for the energy sector. This was the first step.

The second step was that Mrs Van Brempt managed to guide the members of the committee towards a solution and a compromise. She deserves our thanks for this. This was not easy, because it is simpler just to push through your own view, rather than finding a solution. This ultimately ensured, since we were also under time pressure, that the funding could be made available and could be used.

Last but not least, we finally succeeded, with the help of the Council, and we must admit this in all honesty, in finding a compromise that allowed us to secure all the funding for the energy sector down almost to the last euro within the specified time and, as a result, to make sure that the funding was not lost. That was the most important thing for me and the most productive outcome and, therefore, I would like to thank everyone involved.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) I wish to remind you that in 2009, when the European Union’s economic recovery plan was debated for the first time, the Commission made the undertaking that it would allocate EUR 1 billion to energy efficiency in homes. Unfortunately, this action has not been taken at the right time. Indeed, the ‘smart cities’ initiative has only had a small amount of money allocated to it due to the fact that, ultimately, if any funds remain unused, the Commission must allocate this money to the ‘smart cities’ initiative, which is happening via this regulation.

I tabled an amendment calling for the level of management expenses and costs linked to creating and implementing the instrument not to exceed 5% of the value of each use so that the largest share of the money does not end up with financial intermediaries, but goes into investments for projects linked to energy efficiency in homes and the use of renewable energy resources.

I also called for greater transparency and for the site www.buildup.eu to be used, not to mention for the applied model, whenever this instrument is used, to be made available free of charge to anyone who is interested so that we can benefit from best practices.

I wish to congratulate Mrs Van Brempt for her report. I believe that energy efficiency must feature at the top of the European Union’s energy strategy priorities.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) The Energy 2020 strategy launched yesterday by the European Commission marks an important step towards a secure, competitive energy market in Europe. It offers solutions to major issues such as how to diversify supply routes and sources, reduce energy consumption or coordinate operations with third countries. However, there are obvious shortcomings in terms of funding. The main aim of the European Energy Programme for Recovery is precisely to facilitate the funding of investments in this area. Its efficient implementation requires compliance with all environmental legislation and project promoters must keep to their funding commitments. In my view, active cooperation between national, regional and local authorities would facilitate the issuing of the required permits.

Finally, I would like to stress the importance of public-private partnerships, which are a key element in the implementation of solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Van Brempt, for her excellent work and for an agreement that will at last make it possible to free up significant resources for the development of renewable energies and energy efficiency in the context of the challenge for green growth.

The programme includes priorities that the Member States should take into account, particularly in achieving the objective of competitive modernisation of our energy infrastructures. Lastly, I wish to emphasise what I considered to be the qualifying points of the criteria for access by public authorities to finance, in particular, the commitment to work on multiannual strategies through a system of multi-level governance from territories to local authorities up to regional institutions and the institutions of the European Union, even in the context of rationalising the available financial instruments. This is an important result for the public and for small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Madam President, financial assistance for energy efficiency and renewable energy with the objective of economic recovery represents sensible and worthwhile investment.

I totally agree with those who said that investment support for sustainable energy can be very effective and very beneficial, particularly when focused on the local level. By this means, we can provide a more sustainable future economically, socially and environmentally speaking. We must seize this opportunity to move towards a low carbon economy and facilitate the change for those who wish to change. Decentralisation is very important for sustainable energy.

Therefore, this is a sensible, functional use of the unspent funds of the European Energy Programme for Recovery, if the opportunity is provided of facilitating the funding of investment projects related to energy efficiency and renewable energy through local and regional authorities. I thank the rapporteur for her extremely important work.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Assistance for energy infrastructure projects from money earmarked to stimulate the European Union economy was debated and allocated a year ago. At that time, the money was intended for just two types of projects, which aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, i.e. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and wind farms in the North Sea.

As far as this assistance and assistance for renewable energy in general is concerned, we generally cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach for the whole European Union. We must take into account the situation of each Member State, in particular, as regards energy independence. I therefore welcome the European Commission’s proposal to review the procedures for the allocation of money according to the programme mentioned, taking into account the promotion of energy efficiency.

However, I feel that we should not talk about this purely in the context of the financial crisis, because even once a normal economic cycle has been restored, the issue of energy efficiency will remain. The Member States should have the opportunity to react with more flexibility to changing circumstances and thus promote energy efficiency, energy diversification and an increase in energy independence.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the current difficult economic and financial scenario, Europe must continue to support projects in the sector of energy efficiency and renewable energy for a sustainable and social competitive economy.

The means of operating the financial instrument must be improved in order to invest in decentralised projects to ensure geographical balance and promote even recovery. This financial instrument must be set up immediately and directed toward projects with a local dimension in order to impact on employment in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 663/2009. Credit lines that are able to complement worthy local initiatives are needed. Our preference must be for the financing of projects that also guarantee technological innovation to raise the competitiveness of industry. Unused finance within the framework of DG Climate Action’s multiannual programme could be earmarked for the instrument and then directed towards projects within the sustainable energy field. I would like to thank Mrs Van Brempt for her excellent work.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) In January 2009, in response to the financial crisis, the European Commission proposed the reallocation of EUR 5 billion from unspent European Union funds, mostly to support energy projects which would contribute to economic recovery in the European Union. The European Energy Programme for Recovery, which is now being proposed, should be welcomed. Priority issues in this project are, in my opinion, support for cross-border gas and electricity infrastructure projects, including inter-connectors, and also support for Carbon Capture and Storage projects. I also consider it necessary to insist that the draft resolution also include projects in the area of electrical efficiency and renewable energy sources, which stimulate economic development by creating opportunities for additional jobs and help in the fight against climate change.

Investments made in projects of this kind are most efficient when they are undertaken on site at district, regional and local level. Local projects involve a large amount of work, and this contributes to the creation of large numbers of new jobs.

  Günther Oettinger, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with this EUR 146 million, we are entering an experimental laboratory together. Firstly, I would like to say thank you, because you have fought to ensure that it was not EUR 114 million, but EUR 146 million, and that the Member States were prepared to go slightly beyond their rather restrictive limit.

As far as the experimental laboratory is concerned, we have four interesting questions to resolve. The first question is how we can achieve success in the field of energy efficiency. I believe that, of the three requirements relating to CO2, renewable energy and energy efficiency, the 20% increase in energy efficiency presents us with the most difficult and complex challenge. This is not just about mandatory national requirements, but about specific projects. Basically, we are using this manageable programme to evaluate which projects, such as building renovation projects and those relating to the field of energy in general, will be feasible. I hope that in two or three years, the first assessment of these projects for the next budget period will show that we have had some useful positive and negative experiences with regard to energy efficiency. I would like to make it clear that in two to three years, we will definitely be more knowledgeable than we are today and that we will have had some good experiences and made some mistakes. If this is the case, we will have invested the money wisely.

Secondly, this programme allows the European Union to enter into a direct partnership with the municipalities. This is something which does not happen every day. It is clear that the energy requirements and consumption in public buildings and in private buildings that can be renovated, in other words, a smart city approach, can only be influenced by the EU via the municipalities. This means having direct contact with what is actually happening.

Thirdly, I hope that we will be able to demonstrate with this programme that there is European added value for everyone. If we were only to obtain money from the Member States without providing any added value, we would be unnecessary. We must offer added value in the form of experience, effectiveness and competence. In this case, within two years, this programme will give us good arguments that we can use in the budget debates – a poker game involving the Commission, Parliament and the Member States – to obtain more money from the Member States in the interests of all the citizens of the European Union. This means that this is also an experimental laboratory for more budget funding. This controversial issue will affect every one of us over the next two years.

Fourthly, we need an experimental laboratory for our partnership with the structural banks – the European Investment Bank (EIB) and KfW Bankengruppe – and with external private investors and funds. This means a partnership that goes beyond the Commission’s offices with companies which have a close relationship with us, but which must demonstrate that they can do more than just manage public money.

This may seem like a large amount of funding, but in fact, it is very little. This is not about the EUR 146 million. It is about a four-way test of our partnership with the municipalities, with the EIB and KfW, with the subject of energy efficiency at a local level, and with the proof that at a European level, this is the right area for more budget funding.

With this in mind, I would like to thank you very much. Let us stay in contact. I am sure that in two years, we will all know much more than we do now.

(Applause)

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Madam President, I note with gratitude that today is a public holiday in Belgium to commemorate the millions that died in two world wars. I am somewhat dismayed that this Chamber is not following suit and commemorating those millions, so I respectfully call for a moment of silence to commemorate all those who died in war in the name of democracy.

  President. – Ms Sinclaire, you should know that the President is scheduled to make an announcement before the House votes today and then the time will be respected, as it should be.

  Kathleen Van Brempt, rapporteur. – (NL) Madam President, as a Belgian Member of this House, it was a real pleasure for me to come here to work on a public holiday. As a result, I was able to reach the European Parliament from my home town in just 50 minutes, but that is entirely by the by.

As rapporteur, I will be brief. Let me thank everyone, without exception, who has contributed to the debate today. We have heard some comments and very many good examples have been given. However, the connecting thread here is the enthusiasm over what we have achieved. Not without criticism, because I could very easily criticise the cap on money that has been set.

There is a great deal of enthusiasm because this a good fund, because the money is available, because this is about energy efficiency and renewable energy and because this gives us, as Members of the European Parliament, the opportunity to take local action, too, through this project. That is what is needed.

What is our common responsibility? In the first instance, of course, responsibility lies with the Commission, the European Investment Bank and other partners in this story. However, Parliament and us politicians are also responsible for ensuring that this project becomes a success, that it has a canvassing effect, and that involvement at local level becomes so large that the EUR 146 million multiplies not by eight but by 80, so to speak, because we have set many things in motion. In that regard, I have a lot of confidence in the Commission and the Commissioner. I know that this is a project which is close to the Commissioner’s heart. He also has very good staff – as I have seen for myself over the past few months – and that will be very important for the outcome of this project.

To conclude – I forgot to say it earlier, which is really remiss of me, particularly as a Belgian – I would make the point that the Belgian Presidency has given an exceptional account of itself here. To begin with, from the outset, a large majority in the Council was actually against this project. It is thanks to the major efforts of Minister Paul Magnette and his team that we now have a very good compromise and one that we will soon, I think, also adopt with a great deal of enthusiasm.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In January 2009, the European Commission proposed reallocating a portion of unused European finance to support projects in the energy sector in response to the economic and financial crisis. Our discussion today on the report amending Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 is of particular importance: the proposal to use otherwise unused financial resources to support sector projects represents an opportunity in these times of difficult access to funding. In my opinion, the European Energy Programme for Recovery, which aims to finance initiatives and projects in the sector of energy efficiency, energy saving and renewable energies, supporting the investment of European public authorities, in particular, in urban settings, can give a tangible stimulus to the recovery of the European economy and the creation of job opportunities for young people. I am encouraged by measures on energy efficiency in the building sector, which uses 40% of EU energy, and that would represent a support to small and medium-sized enterprises at local and regional level. This assistance would also favour the development of promising initiatives in the energy efficiency sector at the level of local authorities which, due to the recent crisis, have suffered a drastic reduction in revenue.

  András Gyürk (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Ladies and gentlemen, last year I, too, welcomed the allocation of almost EUR 4 billion for projects in the field of energy as part of the Union’s economic stimulus package. I also pointed out that the aid package neglected the Central and Eastern European region, which is most threatened from the aspect of energy security, and that energy efficiency projects did not benefit from the aid either. However, it would have been precisely through energy efficiency projects that the main objective of the package, namely rapid and effective job creation, could have been achieved. I am pleased that the new proposal allocates as yet unused funds to this very field. Renewable energy and energy efficiency projects are not only among the main means of achieving the 20/20/20 targets, but also increase supply security and competitiveness. These projects bring impressive results in the short term as well. They create new jobs in a geographically diverse manner and effectively dynamise economic actors. Spending the EUR 146 million fund on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects is a good start but we must admit that this amount is insignificant even at Member State level. We are very pleased that the Energy 2020 strategy unveiled by the Commission yesterday sets out the creation of an energy-efficient Europe as one of its main priorities. We trust that the strategic commitment to energy efficiency will also be reflected in the distribution of other funds.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Energy Programme for Recovery provides a financial package amounting to EUR 3.98 billion for 2009 and 2010. It was absolutely imperative to create a financial instrument specially intended for using the funds in this energy programme, which could not be committed until the end of 2010, so as not to lose the remainder of the financial package. One particularly important aspect mentioned in the European Energy Programme Regulation is the geographical balance of the projects. This is a key element enabling the impact of this regulation on the economic recovery to be guaranteed across the whole of the European Union. It also acknowledges that there were projects in some Member States which were either not financed at all or only partially financed. Last but not least, I want to emphasise how important it is to renew these types of financial instruments aimed at promoting long-term energy efficiency in the EU. I call on the Commission to assess carefully the effectiveness of renewing these types of instruments and to examine the potential of using a similar approach in the future when dealing with other unspent funds from the EU budget.

  Algirdas Saudargas (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The opportunity to direct funds not spent according to the directive towards the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects was already set out in the regulation, but I welcome the fact that it was possible to find consensus as regards its specific implementation. Energy efficiency and renewable energy have frequently been named as EU priorities helping to implement the 2020 strategy and ensure energy security. Investments in this sector during the economic downturn are very important, as they will create a possibility for new jobs and will promote competitiveness, the spread of innovations and economic stability. Furthermore, the financial instrument planned – like the setting-up of a fund for European financial institutions – will increase the amount available several times over, thus increasing opportunities to finance projects. It is only regrettable that the financial instrument planned is not continuous, but hopefully it will establish a suitable incentive for further energy efficiency and the promotion of renewable energy.

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Esther Herranz García, Albert Deß, Mairead McGuinness, Giovanni La Via, Michel Dantin, Véronique Mathieu, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Herbert Dorfmann, Georgios Papastamkos, Mariya Nedelcheva, Filip Kaczmarek, Jarosław Kalinowski, Béla Glattfelder, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Rareş-Lucian Niculescu, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Elisabeth Köstinger, Milan Zver, Peter Jahr and Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), James Nicholson, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists, and Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Paolo De Castro, Stéphane Le Foll and Iratxe García Pérez, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the crisis in the EU livestock sector (O-0141/2010/rév. 1) – B7-0559/2010).

  Esther Herranz García, author. – (ES) Commissioner, thank you very much for being here and for having shown so much sensitivity regarding this very important parliamentary initiative that is so necessary for the European livestock sector.

The sector is particularly vulnerable to the crises affecting EU agriculture as a whole, due to multiple factors: the high costs of inputs, the fall in market prices, imbalances of power in the food chain and the current increase in cereal prices.

The European livestock industry has to deal with these problems just like other agricultural sectors, but with an aggravating factor: the large investments that are particular to this type of production.

As the European Commission is on the verge of presenting its communication on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), I think this is a very good time to send a message of solidarity and concern to this group of producers. In my country, Spain, as in other EU countries, we are talking about a structural crisis, and the cereal price rises have just aggravated a situation that has been dragging on for several years now.

The statistics show that a growing number of farms are being abandoned. However, this should not be the case in the context of global demand that will grow in the next few years thanks to the supposed improvement in people’s standard of living.

With a view to the forthcoming CAP reform, what measures is the Commissioner, or the European Commission, planning, taking into account the specific nature of the livestock sector? I am talking about market measures, and other initiatives to prevent the models of intensive production that respect EU environmental standards being penalised by the future aid system, among other detrimental effects. Common-sense measures should be implemented that guarantee greater security of supply of livestock feed, the establishment of sufficient cereal reserves and the speeding up of the release of those reserves.

Finally, to conclude, I would like to welcome the fact that this motion for a resolution makes special mention of pork and poultry, sectors that do not receive direct EU aid, but for which market and trade measures could also be established to alleviate their situation.

  James Nicholson, author. – Madam President, first of all, I welcome the fact that this issue is being discussed here today. I think it is very timely. At present, the EU livestock sector is experiencing difficulties caused by a range of factors, including rising production costs, competition from imports from third countries, and, of course, various issues which contribute to the rising cost of feed.

Although we have no control over droughts in Australia or severe weather conditions that affect the grain harvest in Russia, I do believe that Europe urgently needs to tackle its lack of self-sufficiency regarding protein crops. We are far too dependent on third countries for our feed and need to begin cultivating more ourselves. However, the situation at present is that we are forced to import a lot of our feed and I have said many times before that I strongly believe that the process of approving new types of GMO grain for import is taking far too long, and feedstuff from soya urgently requires to be speeded up. If this does not happen, livestock producers across the European Union will have to cope with rising prices, volatility and uncertainty for a long time to come.

May I also briefly mention how the situation is affecting the pig and poultry industry. Farmers in this sector are feeling the crisis quite acutely, as their costs are rising and the price of pigmeat is falling. I would like to ask the Commission to monitor the situation closely and utilise all the tools that it has at its disposal to rectify matters.

Beef producers, sheep producers, pig producers, poultry producers are all in a situation where they are making a loss. Need I go on telling the House that all these areas are actually suffering? But I have to say that ultimately, it will be the consumer who will pay because, if all the farmers stop producing, you are going to have to import this food from abroad, with all the problems this entails. So we have got to have security of our own food supply within Europe. If we do not do that, it will be at our own peril.

  Iratxe García Pérez , author. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, the profitability of livestock production is directly linked to feed costs. In the growing context of volatile raw materials prices, decision making is becoming very complex for feed manufacturers and livestock breeders, as we saw at the start of the political year.

The meat sector that is having the most difficult time is currently the pork sector. Therefore, I will focus my speech on the serious problems it is facing: the increase in the cost of animal feed, which represents 60% of production costs, and is therefore crucially important in terms of profitability for producers.

In two months, cereal prices have risen by 50%, not due to an imbalance between supply and demand, as there is sufficient production, but due to speculation from outside the sector.

Action must therefore be taken against speculation, along with a policy encouraging the holding of sufficient strategic stock to avoid speculation.

We welcome the fact that grain intervention stocks are being put on the market. We just have to hope that their final destination will be the EU market, otherwise they will not help the livestock sector. A tax on exporting European cereal, as in the case of wheat in 1994, would be a possible solution.

Another problem is the pressure of mass distribution with falling prices, which means that increases in production costs cannot be regained from the sale price.

Producers’ organisations need to be promoted that are capable of positioning themselves in the market, concentrating supply. The Commission is very much aware of the problem, but there is a lack of specific measures, which we hope will materialise in the future common agricultural policy, through efficient and flexible market management mechanisms to combat and act against the problems. This means combating speculation and using specific measures to promote the competitiveness of the sector in the market and increase its weight in the value chain.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask for the activation of the market measures applicable to pork, export refunds and private storage. The Commission does not think that the situation in the sector justifies this. However, in recent months, there has been a continuous decline in prices, and the prices received by breeders are below the average for the last five years.

I believe it is justifiable for the Commission to trigger the existing market management measures, as some Member States have requested in the Council.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, my answer will be in two parts, because the problem in the livestock sector relates primarily to the food situation and, hence, to the situation in the cereals market, and then I will also refer to the mechanisms at our disposal for the livestock sector.

The Commission is following the situation in the cereals markets and its repercussions for farmers very closely. Cereal prices increased sharply over the summer due to supply shortages, particularly in the Black Sea countries. Thus, we have seen the price of barley and oats rise to as much as EUR 200 per tonne. At present, even though prices are very volatile, they are still well below the record prices of 2008. The strength of the euro against the dollar, which makes EU exports less competitive right now, is also a disruptive factor in the European market.

Globally, despite the shortage recorded in Russia and Ukraine, the level of cereals harvested is normal, and stocks have been replenished thanks to the last two record harvests. In the European Union, average cereal production is estimated at 276 million tonnes, and if we add to that the stock from the start of the harvest, we have almost 60 million tonnes more than we are expected to use.

The grain intervention stocks, which mainly consist of barley, currently stand at 5.6 million tonnes. A 2.8 million tonne batch has just been set aside for the implementation of the 2011 programme to help the poorest citizens, and the rest will be sold on the internal market shortly. The decision has, in fact, already been taken, and the cereals will be placed on the market at the end of this month.

The pressure on the market has eased somewhat since the Commission announced this measure, which I recently announced to the Council. With regard to the situation in the cereals market, then, no emergency measure can be justified because, as I explained to you, the problem is not one of supplying the European market with cereals, since the high price of cereals on the European market is not due to a lack of market supply.

The Commission is paying very close attention to market developments in the livestock sector, and more particularly in the pigmeat and poultry production sectors. The margins in this sector are, in fact, highly dependent on the costs of foodstuffs. Prices in the poultry sector are above the long-term average and appear to be at least partially offsetting the increased food costs. The price of slaughter pig is following the seasonal downwards trend. It is very slightly below last year’s level. Production is currently well absorbed by the internal market and exports. Between June and August 2010, pigmeat exports were up by 10% and poultry exports by 21% compared with the same period last year. Consequently, despite these price issues, pigmeat and poultry producers have still been able to export for some time.

The Commission will obviously continue to monitor developments in the market and will use the means at its disposal to intervene in the market if this proves necessary and useful. Indeed, two measures are currently available for the livestock sector: export refunds and private storage.

With regard to export refunds, this measure would not be effective at present because the world price is rather high; therefore, an export subsidy cannot be justified. The relationship between the dollar and the euro means that export problems and a lack of competitiveness are possible, but this problem is not exclusive to the agricultural sector. We shall see how the rate between the dollar and the euro changes, and depending on that change, if we have surpluses in the internal market, we can then discuss private storage measures. For the moment, there are no meat surpluses in the internal market, and that is why private storage measures cannot be justified at present. However, I am willing to consider the possibility of resorting to these measures depending on how the markets evolve.

On the issue of volatility, this will be addressed in the common agricultural policy reform for 2013. It is envisaged that this reform will include proposals for as yet non-existent mechanisms to address the issue of income volatility. As for the issue of transparency in the food chain, I am currently examining it with Commissioner Tajani to see how more information in this area could help clarify the way in which added value is shared out. Those are the answers I am able to give at this stage.

  Albert Deß, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, today’s motion for a resolution will help to set the European livestock sector on the right course. I would like to thank Mrs García for this initiative. The objective of the motion is not to cut Europe off from the rest of the world or to override the rules of the market. Its aim is to put in place fair market conditions for the European livestock industry, which will help to ensure food security for more than 500 million people in future. We must ensure that the European agricultural sector is not confronted with new and highly detailed production regulations on a daily basis and that farmers are not required to provide one certificate of competence after another, while maintaining high animal welfare and environmental standards. Rules of this kind apparently do not apply to imported agricultural products.

Therefore, I am grateful to all the 534 Members of this House who voted in Strasbourg in favour of requiring agricultural imports to comply with European consumer protection, animal welfare and environmental protection standards in future. Mr Cioloş, Parliament is ready to give you its full support. These standards must be applied to imports and this is why my group welcomes and supports this motion.

  Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to call on the Commission to implement suitable efficient and flexible market instruments to combat the crisis into which the European livestock sector has plunged.

We hope that the proposal that the Commission will shortly present on market instruments for the milk and dairy sector will also include proposals to limit the impact of price volatility on the agricultural sector as a whole.

Many actions can still be deployed to send out a strong signal to European livestock breeders. We believe, for example, that it would be very useful to the livestock sector to review the current ban on the use of animal meal for non-ruminants, for example, for the avian and fisheries sectors. As you know, this ban was introduced following cases of BSE but now, a few years on, the scientific community agrees in stating that the ban can only be justified for ruminants. In the case of non-ruminants, conversely, there is no danger to human health and the environment and we therefore hope that this ban may be overturned with the aim of offering these animals a greater possibility of higher-energy diets.

  Liam Aylward, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, the livestock sector is an important traditional farming industry which represents the livelihood of thousands of producers across the EU. This sector is central to the socio-economic contribution made by agriculture to the rural areas of the European Union. It is a key agri-industry in Europe and even more so in Ireland, as Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world.

In particular, the high cereal prices exacerbate the problems for profitability amongst winter beef finishers, who have a higher dependency on cereal-based feed imports. There are three issues in particular that I wish to highlight: firstly, the necessity that the Commission put in place efficient and flexible markers and measures to curb extreme market price volatility. Action is also needed to close the gap between prices paid by consumers and prices received by producers.

Secondly, it is essential that the Commission steps up measures to support the livestock sector in less-favoured areas, in particular. The next CAP reform must focus on the special vulnerability of certain livestock sectors and the significant production costs that farmers undertake. Under the next CAP, the excessive bureaucratic burden on livestock farmers must be addressed and reduced.

Lastly, European producers comply with the most stringent regulations in the world in terms of food safety and quality, the environment, and animal health and welfare. These high standards must not put them at a disadvantage in comparison to third country competitors. It is crucial for the long term viability of the livestock sector overall that the Commission ensure that their actions on trade and agriculture do not compromise European farmers, but support the sustainability and viability of the European livestock sector into the future.

  José Bové, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, just as in 2007, world cereal prices are soaring, and farmers are seeing a sharp rise in their production costs as they did two years ago. Cattle feed accounts for 60-80% of their costs, and their revenues are plummeting: they survive on an average of EUR 700 per month. Must we wait for successive crises to destroy Europe’s small-scale agriculture before we act? Consumers pay EUR 17 per kilo of rib steak in the supermarkets, while producers receive EUR 3 per kilo – is that right?

On 7 September, Parliament gave its verdict by voting for the report on fair revenues for farmers. It urged the Commission to act swiftly and prohibit selling below purchase price. The MEPs took a stand, in Strasbourg, so as to strengthen producers’ organisations, to stop speculation on the international markets and to control the influence of businesses in the processing and distribution sectors.

Farmers expect even more: they want to see common market organisations established or strengthened, since they are the only means of stabilising costs and providing long-term economic visibility. Next week, Commissioner Cioloş will present his proposal to reform the common agricultural policy; he will have to give some clear answers to farmers. Europe’s credibility is at stake. Europe needs every single one of its farmers.

  Janusz Wojciechowski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, I very much welcome the fact that we are dealing with the situation in the livestock sector, because it is a serious one. I would like to draw attention to the problem which is the subject of paragraph 15 of the motion, namely, the problem of animal welfare.

Standards of animal welfare should be obligatory and should be improved. I am emphatically in favour of ensuring that livestock have the best living conditions possible. However, the welfare of animals involves costs, and those costs are borne by the farmers, and there is a problem with unfair competition where meat products are imported into Europe from markets and third countries where no standards of animal welfare are maintained at all. This has to change. We should introduce these standards here, but we should also resolutely demand high standards – the same as we have in the Union – from all those who export their meat and livestock products to the European market.

  Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, lessons really must be learnt from the policies currently in force. The decision must be taken to stop this wholesale liberalisation of agricultural markets, which results in farmers earning, as someone mentioned just now, between EUR 700 and EUR 800 per month – EUR 700 and EUR 800 per month! – while the retail price of meat has risen by 40%.

Make the decision to stop these excessive imports and stop the negotiations on that dreadful agreement to import 400 000 tonnes of beef from the Mercosur countries, as it would destroy entire regions. Have the courage, instead, to protect European agriculture and stop letting the World Trade Organisation decide the fate of our farms.

Implement new tools for regulating production. Say ‘no’ to lethal competition within the European Union itself and introduce fair, stable basic prices, by promoting farming based on grazing. Take action to stop this appalling speculation on cereals. Commissioner, this is urgent; the situation is starting to take a tragic turn in our rural areas. A laissez-faire policy discredits the European project itself.

  Giancarlo Scottà, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, cereal price volatility is having severe repercussions on all livestock sectors but also on consumers.

Cereal exporting is blocked due to the effect of the heat, fires, drought and floods – as is happening now in Italy. To aggravate the situation, Canada has reduced production following heavy rainfall this summer. Prices have been influenced not only by climate change but also by speculation on international markets. Cereal producers who are awaiting a price increase wait before selling their produce and put it in store, with the result that these agricultural products deteriorate. Speculation and severe climate change have led to a great increase in the prices of cereals used as animal feed and a knock-on increase in meat prices.

I believe it is essential for the Commission to ensure timely, targeted action to deal with the volatility in agricultural-product prices through innovative market interventions under the new CAP. The Commission must prevent speculative practices in agriculture to preserve the businesses of farmers and stock breeders and guarantee consumers genuine quality products at fair prices.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I would urge the House to support this extremely important motion before us this morning. It is apparent to those of us who are from rural constituencies, and those who sit on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, that the current position that many livestock farmers find themselves in is simply unsustainable.

This is not an attempt to cry wolf, but if we do not rectify the problems identified within the motion, we will, as a consequence, face higher food prices and be more reliant on third country imports. Countries like China and the United States are all increasingly aware of the importance of food supply security and, as a result, are continuing to increase the support which they provide to agriculture.

In Northern Ireland, the beef price is well below the cost of production. As long as the cost of inputs keeps rising, and extra-regulatory requirements continue to increase, then many farmers will exit the industry, resulting in land abandonment, lack of economic activity in rural areas and a reduction in food production across the EU. It is high time we recognised the importance of food security and the value of the work carried out by farmers across Europe.

Finally, the current trade talks with the Mercosur bloc are having a destabilising effect within the industry. Coupled with difficult market conditionings and increasing costs, the livestock sector has been burdened with the further uncertainty created by reopening of the talks.

The Commission is carrying on the negotiations and, regardless of the utterances of the Trade Commissioner, producers in Northern Ireland so far believe that the results can only be negative for European farmers and the quality of food being provided to the citizens of Europe.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) I think that we need to say right from the start that it is consumers who are the main victims of the crisis we are debating today, and not farmers. It is a known fact that in farming, cereal prices affect approximately 80% of the price of animal feed. This, in turn, affects roughly 70% of production costs. It is impossible to increase proportionally the sale price of meat to the producer. Livestock farmers have no contact with the end consumer, but deal with the processors who always have the option to import. At the same time, processors pass on their large profit margin which they have been accustomed to hitherto in the sale price. Unfortunately, this period is coinciding with a general economic crisis and the decline in the population’s purchasing power is also affecting livestock production.

There is another factor to consider. At a time when farmers will find it difficult to provide feed for their animals during winter, a huge number of them will choose to slaughter their animals, which will help prolong the crisis for more years in the future. In order to maintain domestic prices at a reasonable level and ensure animals receive the feed they require, intervention stocks need to be released. I am therefore pleased by the announcement made by Commissioner Cioloş today. I share the view of my fellow Members who stressed the importance of growing new genetically modified organisms to provide cheap feed for animals and reduce the dependency on imports.

Last but not least, today’s debate is closely linked to the future of the common agricultural policy. We need a strong common agricultural policy which is well financed and well managed, and which can accommodate both structural development and modernisation measures, as well as market and direct support measures.

  Luís Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D). – (PT) We are all aware of the enormous difficulties that the European livestock sector is undergoing, the pig-farming sector in particular. This situation has a number of causes that are very clearly spelt out in the text of the resolution that we are debating today, the most important of which is high cereal costs.

The European Parliament cannot remain indifferent to this situation. It is therefore necessary to act immediately using the available mechanisms, and on this issue, I welcome the Commission’s decision to release 2.8 million tonnes of cereals, a measure that is positive but manifestly insufficient. New instruments must be found in the short and medium terms, for combating speculation in particular; in fact, the Commissioner has just said that that is the crux of the problem. Long-term solutions will need to be found in the context of the debate that we are about to begin on the new common agricultural policy. I therefore call on the Commission to take into account the recommendations made in the resolution signed by several political groups, including my own, because action is needed, in fact, and needed very quickly, Commissioner.

  Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, there is no question that the crisis must be resolved. However, this motion proposes solutions which we cannot support. Making the import of GM soya easier will not help to resolve the crisis in the livestock sector. On the contrary, we must begin to redevelop our own source of plant protein in Europe. Around 75% of our plant protein is imported. This is not acceptable and we need to introduce urgent changes.

I also do not understand why many people are questioning the compromise which has been negotiated by all the groups and why they want to open the door to GM soya imports. That is not a solution. We also need to discuss what type of livestock farming we want in Europe. Once again, the small farms have been hit hardest by the crisis. On the other hand, industrial-scale livestock farming is developing in Europe which is not livestock friendly and which is not fair in agricultural terms. We ultimately need to do something in this area as well.

My final point is that I am very surprised that EUR 450 million from the agriculture budget is being transferred to the ITER nuclear fusion project. I would like Mr Cioloş to explain what we should think about this.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Madam President, the result of the substantial increase in the costs relating to animal feed is instability within the European agricultural industry. The fluctuation of prices has an adverse effect on an already vulnerable livestock industry. The increase in costs of compound feed is pushing up production costs for the livestock sector, and more flexibility is needed in respect of assistance to this sector.

It is time for the Commission to propose measures for reducing price instability and stabilising the price of feed. I am glad to hear from the Commissioner that he is considering a new instrument to deal with price volatility post-2013. Appropriate measures and instruments are needed now too.

  John Stuart Agnew (EFD). – Madam President, I support Mr De Castro’s remarks about meat and bone meal; deregulation in this area is highly necessary. The British livestock sector is struggling with high feed costs at present, and this is not helped by impediments which are placed in our way by the Commission. Top of the list is the individual electronic identification of sheep – a rule which is not applied to many other Member States, and nor is it a requirement for imports of sheepmeat from third countries.

The impending ban on battery cages is producing huge distortions in our egg market, as caged eggs from non-compliant Member States can undercut our more expensively produced colony eggs. We have producers in this area running the two systems side-by-side before the deadline to try to recoup some of the GBP 400 million pounds we have spent complying with your rules which, of course, is putting more eggs on the market.

Overhanging the entire British livestock sector like a lead balloon is the spectre of the EU opening bilateral trade talks with Mercosur. The British livestock farmer will be the sacrificial lamb in this deal and we are not happy about it.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE). – (HU) There are many reasons for the crisis in the livestock sector. Those who say that one reason is the unfair competition caused by imports and mention the dangers of the Mercosur negotiations are right. I wish to raise the issue of the surge in grain prices. It was foreseeable that grain prices would rise, and I have said this several times here in the European Parliament too. The European Commission has done nothing to prevent this. One reason for this problem is the reduction in intervention, which was a serious mistake. We must wake up to the fact that global grain trade is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer companies. Incidentally, the same thing is happening in many of the EU Member States. The European Union decided not to keep emergency stocks, a decision which will further increase speculation in the future.

The fluctuation of grain prices causes losses not only to grain producers but also to livestock breeders and consumers. In addition to this, the costs are also borne by European taxpayers. Remember that the European Union sold the 2004/2005 intervention stocks at an enormous profit. Grain prices were low in the past period. If the European Union had intervened then, a huge profit could now be realised from the sale of grains, which would also help livestock breeders. However, we have no such stocks, and this is not only bad for producers and consumers, but it also means that the European Union is deprived of the opportunity of providing aid to countries afflicted by famine, such as Pakistan.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Firstly, Commissioner Cioloş’s efforts for the European Union to establish, at last, an appropriate protective mechanism against the global volatility of food prices deserve full support. Secondly, the high grain and animal feed prices point to the emergence of a shortage of protein in the European Union, on which Mr Häusling will draft a report. Thirdly, the fact that the common agricultural policy system is distorted, it over-subsidises grain farmers, and supports neither pig nor poultry farmers or livestock farmers in general, is another factor contributing to the current livestock crisis. Fourthly, livestock keepers are at a disadvantage in the supply chain compared to processors and traders. Fifthly, livestock keepers are forced to make disproportionately large environmental protection investments. This is particularly serious in the new Member States. This, too, should be addressed and remedied.

  Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs García very much for this initiative and I would also like to refer specifically to the situation of livestock farming in mountain areas. In many regions of the European Union, there are agricultural alternatives to livestock farming, but this is generally not the case in mountain regions. If there were to be no grazing stock in the mountains, then many of the agricultural areas there would simply be useless and would be abandoned. This would not only restrict the business opportunities in mountain regions, but would also change the landscape and eventually reduce biodiversity.

The dairy sector plays a special role in this respect, because it creates jobs and generates income in mountain regions and in other areas. This is why I believe that we must focus specifically on three issues in the reform of agricultural policy. We need a common agricultural policy (CAP) which takes into account livestock farming in mountain regions and provides subsidies to livestock farmers there. Secondly, we need a flexible second pillar of the CAP which makes it possible to provide special support for livestock farms in mountain areas. Thirdly, we need a quality policy which focuses, in particular, on products from mountain regions and which provides options for special labelling, so that added value can be obtained on the market for these products from the livestock sector in mountain areas.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) We are probably on the way to another commodities bubble. Prices on the international market have increased by more than 16% on average since June. Never has there been so much negotiating on the futures market, nor has there been so much money involved. Extremely low interest rates and too much money in search of good deals are leading to an increase in dealing and financial speculation on futures contracts, without any contact with the real economy. The figures for the largest cereals exchange in the world, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, are impressive, and transaction records are being broken in purchases of soya, maize and wheat. The practical result is the transfer of these increases to real market prices, even in a year when cereals are widely available. These increases in animal feed prices are causing terrible damage to the already difficult situation of many of our livestock farms, which will be unable to pass on the increases in what they sell because of the crisis and are unlikely to be able to absorb them. It is, therefore, time to take action and protect our food from financial speculation. I would like to know, then, what the Commission intends to do about this.

  Michel Dantin (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what a funny old world the agricultural world is! A year ago, in this Chamber, we were all bemoaning the general production situation. Today, one production sector, the cereal sector, is doing better than the others – and I think we should, all the same, welcome that. However, its success is unfortunately having very serious repercussions for another sector, the livestock sector.

The real issue today is the agricultural industry’s inability to pass on the costs it has to incur to consumers. Therefore, as has already been said this morning, we need to help organise producers so that they can make their presence felt in their dealings with their customers and, in particular, in their dealings with the large-scale distribution sector.

However, the chain, the functioning of the markets is more pernicious. How can we explain the fact that, for years, decades, we said that South American countries were placing a strain on production and bringing prices down? How can we explain that, although prices are today increasing again in those countries, we cannot pass on that increase to our producers because, yes, there has been an increase in costs, but – and this must also be said – there has been no increase in producer prices?

How can we fail to mention the cost differentials that exist between our countries? Admittedly, this is partly a question of national responsibilities. However, the dumping that goes on today between our various countries helps destabilise markets, and I believe that Europe should tackle this issue.

Yes, solutions must be found. European cereal producers are aware, I think, of the situation faced by their main customers – farmers. They are prepared to enter into a contractual agreement. Are you prepared, Commissioner, to support that agreement?

  Alan Kelly (S&D). – Madam President, again we are here having a debate about farmers’ incomes being destroyed by markets that are, to be quite frank, slightly dysfunctional in make-up and also cannot cope with major shocks like the grain price hike we are seeing. Surely it is time our farming and market system was stronger and I hope the Commission and the Commissioner notice yet again that the political groups in this House are further calling for an adequate CAP budget post-2013.

The costs of inputs and overbearing regulations are making EU farms uncompetitive and the viability of our farm sector is deteriorating. Our grassland system of quality and environmentally sustainable beef production is being undercut by third country imports. We must give our farmers a fair chance and, in my experience, that is all they want. The EU’s lack of self-sufficiency in grain is becoming a serious issue, not just for the beef but also for the pig and poultry industries. This motion is a statement of the seriousness with which this House takes ongoing developments in our agricultural markets. We as a Parliament must intervene when we feel the situation is urgent and, to be quite frank, Commissioner, our beef, poultry and pig sectors immediately need positive intervention. I look forward to your response.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, the situation this year is teaching us that an appropriate level of cereal reserves is essential to ensure food security and market stability. This security should be guaranteed by appropriate decisions at EU level.

Another very important matter is the search for new sources of protein – this is a very good route towards the independence of European agriculture. We must, therefore, promote the cultivation of protein-rich crops. Let us remember, however, that it is our unconditional obligation to guarantee farmers permanent access to feed. For this reason, I support the motion which calls on the European Commission to establish a minimum threshold for the level of unauthorised varieties of GMOs permissible in imports of soya. Continuation of the policy of zero tolerance constitutes a threat to the entire food production chain.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, there are currently two threats to global livestock farming and food. On the one hand, we have the seed monopolies, and we have seen the disastrous consequences of modified seed in this sector in India. On the other hand, we have the games played by financial organisations with the prices of basic products.

In 2008, we had the biggest global production of cereals. In 2008, and here lies the absurdity, unless it is explained by financial games, we had the biggest food crisis, a food crisis that caused social disruption and the loss of many human lives. We need to monitor these two issues. We need to increase local resources, ensure that farmers have free access to seed and that livestock farmers also pay lower prices, and regulate the operation of financial organisations.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, livestock farms are suffering the consequences of the crisis. Moreover, they have to comply with the strictest standards in the world, increasing their production prices, with the disadvantage that this gives them in comparison with third countries. I therefore think that the common agricultural policy firstly needs to guarantee sufficient funding after 2013 in order to ensure the viability of agricultural producers and breeders. Secondly, it needs to adopt specific measures for breeders that use sustainable protection measures. Thirdly, it needs to strengthen the measures to support the livestock sector in the most disadvantaged areas. Fourthly, it needs to stipulate that imports from third countries meet EU standards in order to prevent unfair competition.

Finally, I ask the Commission to defend the interests of European producers in all trade negotiations, in order not to endanger the production of the livestock sector. Failing to adopt these measures could mean that Europe becomes a region without a sector that is dependent on imports and third countries.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). – Madam President, the crisis in the EU’s livestock sector has hit farmers hard in Scotland and there are many things we could do to help. Firstly, we could reduce the regulatory burden. It is madness that we apply more stringent red tape and regulation to our own EU producers than we apply to our competitors outside the EU. Our farmers are bound hand and foot by red tape, and yet we import vast quantities of foodstuffs produced under welfare and hygiene conditions that would constitute a criminal offence in the EU.

The high cost of complying with all of this red tape is not reflected in the prices our beef farmers are getting for their cattle. British beef is now being sold well below the cost of production; lowland suckler-cow producers reckon they are losing around GBP 260 per cow; our dairy farmers have suffered a long spiral of decline. We have to stop the rot.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) The increase in cereal prices is another factor that is adding to and exacerbating the crisis in the livestock sector. The current common agricultural policy and the European Union’s trade policies do not ensure a fair income for farmers, particularly small and medium-sized producers, nor do they prevent the effects of the increasing costs of the factors of production and the volatility of agricultural product prices: they worsen them instead. This volatility has causes that are not only, or even mostly, natural: amongst these is speculation on foodstuffs. Any measures that are taken in this area will always be limited in scope if they do not include banning the instruments that make it profitable, specifically derivatives. Safeguarding production, the right to produce, and food sovereignty and security require an end to the subjugation of agriculture and food production to the market and competitiveness. It requires effective measures for regulating and intervening in the markets, without which price volatility will get worse and concentration processes will occur, only to be survived by a small number of large producers.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Madam President, I am very pleased to see the interest shown, including in the European Parliament, in a sector that is essential not only for market supply, but also for the stability of our regions: I am talking about the livestock sector.

The answers to many of the issues and problems raised will no doubt be found in the proposals that the Commission will shortly be presenting on the future of the common agricultural policy. Parliament will also be able to discuss these proposals as early as next week. We will doubtless also address in them the issue of the fair distribution of aid among the various sectors, including the livestock sector. We will also address the issues of support for the livestock sector in more specific and more difficult areas and of mechanisms for managing income volatility. However, some specific questions have been asked which I should like to answer. The first one concerns the problem of cereal prices and intervention stocks.

It is true that we no longer have the intervention stocks we had in the past, but this is because prices are higher now. Market intervention cannot be justified when prices are high. I believe that we must consider other kinds of mechanisms and, although stocks can play a part, we shall have to consider types of stock other than the intervention stock on the market that we had in the past. This issue should perhaps be dealt with at an even broader level than the European level alone, given that the market is now more open than in the past.

On ITER, Mr Häusling: just because part of the 2010 budget has not been used for agriculture and is going to ITER does not mean that we do not have the resources to intervene in the agricultural sector. I can assure you that these additional funds that are going to ITER have not been taken from any CAP mechanisms; this money is still available and has not been used, because there has been no need to use it. Even with this transfer, however, I can assure you that we have the budget we need to be able to apply the requisite measures.

I shall conclude by saying that the issue of volatility – and the impact that speculation on the market has on volatility – is one that the Commission is addressing more extensively, for derived products and commodities alike. I am working with my colleague, Mr Barnier, on this issue. The Commission will present some proposals.

As for the distribution of added value along the food chain, together with Commissioner Tajani, we will organise a first meeting of the High Level Group on this issue no later than next week.

  President. − I have received four motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE) , in writing. – (LV) These days, Europe’s livestock farmers are experiencing difficulties that we must all overcome together in order to enable the livestock sector to develop and generate enough revenue for farmers. In the last few months, there has been a significant increase in cereal prices, made more acute by extraordinary events, such as the floods in Pakistan and the forest fires in Russia, for example. Of course, we have no influence over these climatic disasters, but it is within our power to draw up legislative proposals that could help Europe’s farmers to overcome the consequences of these cataclysms. What is certain is that we can and must restrict speculation in cereals, which is also one of the causes of these difficulties. It is intolerable that such dishonest dealings cause losses for a sector that is one of the foundation stones of European agriculture. I should additionally like to remind you that it is essential for the Commission to defend the interests of European farmers in its discussions with the Mercosur nations on a new trade agreement and to ensure the conditions for fair competition. I call upon the Commission to begin working actively to help European farmers to overcome the existing difficulties in the livestock sector, as our support is vital for farmers.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The livestock sector presents a number of problems for European farmers, including the rising cost of inputs, competition from third country imports, major fluctuations in feed costs and relatively low prices for meat. If we are to put in place a lasting policy for the livestock sector, we must take into consideration all the stakeholders, including farmers, consumers and the animals themselves. The objective must be to move away from industrial-scale livestock farming and towards more natural, respectful treatment of animals on small farms. All of this must be combined with the highest possible levels of safety for consumers in the form of comprehensive animal health services and clear labelling of all food products from animals, in particular, with regard to their origin and the way in which the animals are reared. The EU must put in place the basic conditions needed to safeguard the future of our farmers so that they can stay competitive internationally and their businesses can remain economically viable, despite the fact that we have the strictest animal welfare standards in the world.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The increase in cereal prices is also a threat to the livestock sector in the EU on account of its dependence on feed imported from third countries. The situation is critical in the area of pork production, where feed accounts for 60% of production costs, but rising costs may gradually threaten all branches of livestock production in the EU. Europe should therefore reduce its dependence on the import of feed from third countries.

It is surely no solution to switch to genetically modified feeds imported from the US. In the EU, it takes almost two and a half years to approve such feeds, in Argentina around three years, in Brazil three to five years, and China is also adopting strict measures in this area. In the US, on the other hand, approval takes only 15 months. The crisis in the EU livestock sector must not be exploited for the commercial ends of US companies, which see significant export potential in the European market.

The European Union should aim to reduce production costs, to ensure that third countries comply with EU standards, and to ensure that producers get a decent price for their products. It is not acceptable for consumers to bear the consequences of higher prices, for producers to receive ever less money and for distributors to make ever greater profits.

I do not agree with the Commission’s view that no urgent measures are required, because we are facing a structural crisis which needs solving, and not only from the perspective of food security.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) European livestock farmers have been facing ever-growing difficulties recently. They are finding it difficult to cope with competition from third countries as the latter do not comply with the high standards which local producers comply with, and they are always victims of the European Union’s commercial negotiations. However, we hope that we will see a different attitude adopted by the European Commission in future because it is not normal for European farmers to always lose out as a result of commercial agreements. The Commission also needs to be more involved in strengthening producer organisations in all livestock sectors, in order to enable them to negotiate better prices for their products, while taking into account production costs. At the same time, I call on the Commission to release as quickly as possible cereals from the intervention stocks to support this sector which has been hit hard by the crisis.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, today is Armistice Day, when we commemorate hostilities coming to an end in the First World War. Therefore, in order to commemorate the armistice that brought an end to the First World War, we are going to observe a minute’s silence in memory of the millions of Europeans who lost their lives in that struggle.

(The House rose and observed a minute’s silence)

– Before the vote:

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the vote that you are going to cast concerns one of the key elements of Europe’s response to the financial crisis, namely, the regulation of alternative investment funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds.

This compromise document, this compromise text, has been long in the making. We have succeeded in reaching a broad agreement, and I should like to pay tribute here, before the ECOFIN President, to the Belgian Presidency, which has been directly and significantly involved in this matter, in particular, through the Minister’s active participation in key trialogues, and I should also like to thank Commissioner Barnier, whose work has been particularly useful.

Lastly, I should also like to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs, the Secretariat staff and the experts who assisted us. This work took more than 14 months, and there were 1 690 amendments. It was a lot of work, but I believe that today, we have come up with a text that, thanks to the Belgian Presidency, marks a significant step forward in the field of European financial regulation.

– Before the vote:

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to make an announcement to the House.

The Taiwanese Government has informed the Council, via the permanent representations, Parliament and the Commission, that from today, 11 November, it is establishing visa exemptions for Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania. Consequently, all 27 EU countries can enter Taiwanese territory without a visa.

When the House votes in a moment, Mr President, I will take the opportunity to congratulate all the political groups for the support that they have given to this matter, as well as the Taiwanese people, the Taiwanese authorities, and their extremely strong diplomatic team.

– Before the vote on paragraph 33:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, several groups are of the opinion that we should say something about coordinating currency policy measures, following the decision made by the US Federal Reserve concerning the USD 600 billion. We simply want to add:

Calls on the United States, in implementing its domestic monetary policies, not to exacerbate the problem of the global balance of exchange rates.

(DE) I believe that this would be a reasonable addition, because it will definitely play a role at the summit.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

– Before the vote on recital C:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, in addition to what I have just said, I would like to ask for currency policy to be included in the recitals. I believe that this is a sentence which could gain broad agreement here:

Whereas coordinated monetary policies should take a higher priority in the transatlantic partnership.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

– Before the vote:

  Esther Herranz García (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, I would just like to correct an error: in recital J, where it reads ‘70% of EU red meat’, it should read ‘60% of EU red meat’.

  President. – That concludes this item.

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0171/2010)

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, alternative investment funds are of very great significance to the Union’s economy. The managers of these funds have to keep to legislation and standards which enable the provision of services in the territory of Member States, and supervision of financial markets has to be accurate and effective. To this end, we must eliminate every lack of precision in the legal and administrative systems responsible for these funds. The proposals which have been submitted improve the transparency and efficiency of systems of supervision, and the greater effectiveness of legislation will bear fruit in an improvement in the stability and credibility of financial institutions, and, as a result, an improvement in the European economy.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, today’s vote represents a significant step forward by the European Union in the regulation of alternative investment funds. Under the directive, fund managers must be registered and authorised and respect stringent codes of conduct within the European Union. This is, in fact, the first time that this sector has been regulated, and I believe that the paper we have voted on has paved the way to achieving – soon, I hope – a true single market in financial products.

I should like to emphasise the important role of the European Parliament, which has insisted on strong rules for greater monitoring of the financial industry, which will therefore also become – I hope you do not mind my saying it – more ethical. The lessons of the recent past, of the financial crisis triggered by excessive speculation by investment funds, should lead us to welcome this directive, which offers greater guarantees of protection to the public.

I voted in favour of the compromise that was achieved and, finally, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Gauzès, on his mammoth task.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, when we looked at the initial proposal right at the beginning, 18 months ago, we saw what many would describe as a ‘wrinkly shirt’. This was clearly a proposal on which the industry had not been consulted – a proposal which would have shut markets, made it very difficult for European investors to invest in non-EU funds and led to a lower return for pension funds, affecting investment in developing countries. I was very concerned about those proposals.

Fortunately, after the work between the shadow rapporteurs and excellent cooperation, as well as the good work by the Commissioner and the Belgian Presidency, we came to an acceptable solution that now works and which keeps markets open, increases transparency and ensures that European investors can continue to invest in markets outside the EU. We have to keep a watchful eye on the role of ESMA to make sure it does not block access to non-EU funds, but overall, we have come up with a compromise that is acceptable across the House.

Report: Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (A7-0294/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – (LT) I voted for this very important document. Now that the European Parliament’s decision on the abolition of visas for citizens of the Republic of China (Taiwan) travelling to the European Union Member States and Schengen States has been adopted by such a huge and significant majority, I sincerely congratulate the people of Taiwan. From now on, they will be able to travel to EU Member States without a visa. Furthermore, from today, all citizens of EU Member States, including Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, will also be able to travel to Taiwan without a visa. I feel that Taiwan and its people deserve such a decision and I welcome this decision by the European Parliament.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I and my group welcome the fact that the citizens of Taiwan can now travel freely to the European Union. However, as far as I am aware, none of the EU Member States has recognised Taiwan. Nevertheless, I am not opposed to the visa liberalisation and I think it is a good thing that Taiwanese people can visit the EU without needing a visa. However, what is happening about Europe’s newest state, Kosovo? A total of 22 EU Member States have recognised Kosovo and only five have not done so, but the discussion on visas with Kosovo has not even started. The Commission has still not got under way with this. I hope that Mrs Malmström will finally begin a discussion on visas with Kosovo in order to make it clear that the citizens of Europe’s newest state can travel just as freely as the citizens of Taiwan.

Report: Kathleen Van Brempt (A7-0246/2010)

  Lena Ek (ALDE). – (SV) Mr President, the European Energy Programme for Recovery is an instrument used to finance investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Projects which can begin quickly and which will contribute directly to making the economy greener are worthwhile. The agreement, which ultimately released SEK 1.4 billion for the programme, represents a step towards a Europe that, with our combined efforts, will contribute to making it simpler and cheaper to be environmentally friendly.

The launching of energy efficiency projects will create new jobs, make the economy greener and also enable us to be less dependent on oil-producing countries, which is particularly important in these times of crisis. This is exactly how the EU should work. Money that is not used can be allocated to other beneficial projects by means of this type of revolving fund. It took time for the Council to realise this, however. The negotiations were very difficult and the Member States did everything they could to try and wriggle out of their earlier promises. Today, I am pleased that we MEPs did not give in.

During the negotiations, I endeavoured to introduce simpler rules and transparency in the application process. I am therefore very pleased that the agreement between the European Parliament and the Council is also clearly focused on keeping administrative costs down.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, yesterday, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, made an extraordinary speech in which he said that it was impossible to be outside the European Union in a globalised world. Of course, hence the lengthy dole queues snaking across Norway, or the food riots in Switzerland. But he went on to say something else: he said that the dangerous thing about eurosceptism today is that modern patriotism is based on a denigration of other countries, and here he could not be more wrong.

A true patriot cheers the freedom of all peoples and values the patriotism of other countries. When Mr Van Rompuy went on to make his second point, which is that eurosceptism equals nationalism equals war, he would perhaps have been well advised to look at the aims of the allied powers in the two wars whose end we commemorate today. They were fighting for the freedom of all nations, for the restoration of sovereignty of all European countries. It was thanks to their patriotism that Europe was not united in tyranny, that sovereignty and independence were restored and, indeed, that the European Union became possible. Today of all days, he ought to remember that.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0608/2010

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the decision of President Barack Obama to attend the EU-US summit this month in Lisbon and I voted in favour of the resolution today. There are so many important issues to be discussed. The EU-US agenda is full as ever, and both parties should use the opportunity to advance common positions on issues such as financial regulation, climate change, deepening of treaties and the fight against terrorism.

Economic recovery, however, has to be the number one issue on the agenda. Our economic partnership is a key driver of global economic prosperity. Together, our economies account for half of the global economy. Therefore, we need to devise common strategies for our further actions to ensure a stable recovery from the crisis, including regulating the financial markets, the stimulus packages and strategies to efficiently address currency manipulation by other major global players.

Report: Thomas Mann (A7-0268/2010)

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I have voted against the Mann report because it is an example of politically correct self-blindness. Despite the fact that the mass immigration over the past 20 years has had disastrous socio-economic, social and political consequences, Mr Mann wants to allow even more immigration from outside the European Union.

I found particularly cynical paragraph 110, which states that ‘the creation of a climate among the population of the host country which accepts immigrants depends directly on proper and comprehensive information’. What this really means, in plain language, is that we will have even more one-sided government propaganda coming our way for multiculturalism, which has been a complete failure, and mass immigration. After all, if you want proper and comprehensive information about immigration policy, you will ultimately have to make a cost-benefit analysis of it and that is precisely what the immigration lobby does not want.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0608/2010

  Peter Skinner (S&D). – Mr President, I have to say this resolution as a compromise was fine, but it seems to many in this House that it is too lengthy and it does not directly deal with the points we need to be making. It needs to be separated and shortened: the Transatlantic Economic Council issues could be shortened to maybe a 10-point plan, a three-point plan or whatever, so that we can actually use it when we finally go to speak to the Administration and our Congressional colleagues.

I believe we also need to discuss issues such as a zero-tariff game, where current trade between the US and the EU can be enhanced and competitiveness can be increased by engaging in such a process. This could involve agriculture, but anyway, it is going to enhance whatever we do.

Finally, Parliament must not wait for the Administration to determine what we do in TEC. We should set the agenda ourselves. It is all very fine voting for this – and I voted for it because I helped to negotiate it – but because of that, I realise that it also has its weaknesses. I think we should then look to the new Congress under John Boehner, who I am sure will be announced as Speaker, and Darrell Issa and his colleagues who we probably must welcome, in order to be able to do better business in the future on this issue.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, a point of order. I made a mistake about the report and I also had a written statement about the European Union-United States summit, so I would ask that you allow me to present it now.

Motion for a resolution B7-0604/2010

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because in my view, the European Parliament has to demonstrate that it takes seriously the issues of security, the fight against terrorism and organised and transnational crime. We are also serious in taking into account our relations with partners such as the United States, Canada and Australia.

After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now has to give its consent to the agreements between the EU and third countries on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, with a view to concluding those agreements. We must therefore use this power responsibly.

In the light of the fact that Parliament has already decided once, on 5 May this year, to postpone the vote on the request for consent for the agreements with the USA and Australia, and that the current EU-Canada agreement on the transfer of PNR is no longer valid, we should make sure that when the time comes, we give the green light to these important measures, which will enhance security in the transatlantic area and beyond.

Motion for a resolution B7-0602/2010

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the Innovation Union initiative is crucial for the future of Europe. In Poznań, in the region of Wielkopolska, where I live, the regional authorities have, for several years, held an annual event called World Innovation Days. This is a very valuable initiative, precisely because it is proper coordination at regional, national and European level that can make the Innovation Union project a success. Therefore, I endorsed the resolution on European Innovation Partnerships within the Innovation Union flagship initiative, and I think we should all be involved in action for innovation, because, as I have said, it is very important for the future.

Motion for a resolution B7-0603/2010

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – (LT) I voted for this very important resolution because I feel that the European Union’s role in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe is particularly important for achieving the objectives set by the OSCE. Furthermore, it must be stressed that although they are very different structures, both the European Union and the OSCE follow the same principles and values, that is to say, respect for human rights and democracy.

I agree with the resolution’s provision calling on Kazakhstan to take concrete steps prior to the High Level Meeting in order to safeguard and respect fundamental OSCE values – human rights and the principles of the rule of law and freedom of expression. A public forum is due at the same time as the OSCE summit, and I really want it to be a success, free from any obstacles. Once more, I would like to stress that the OSCE must be led by countries that respect human rights and defend human rights and democratic values. They should be an example to other OSCE Members.

Report: Thomas Mann (A7-0268/2010)

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that it makes useful and interesting proposals for facing future demographic challenges. Members States’ social policies must devote particular attention to young people, the true driving force behind development and growth. We must encourage the immediate inclusion of young people in the labour market and their ongoing training to promote professional growth.

The family must also be protected by means of more incisive and substantial measures because forgetting the family means overlooking one of the essential components of society. I therefore emphasise the importance of the paragraphs containing measures designed to promote the family.

Besides, if we are to be able to manage the effects of ageing in a better and more effective way, we must also support the updating of social protection systems and pension schemes in particular. As Altiero Spinelli said, ‘creating Europe depends on you as well’, and this is now a real possibility.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the demographic changes which have taken place in the European Union over the last few decades have drawn attention to the necessity of reforming the system of social and retirement care and developing an effective migration policy. Encouraging people to take early retirement has become a common practice, and this has caused a fall in professional activity among people between the ages of 55 and 64. At the same time, a very serious problem is the unemployment rate among young people, which is higher than in any other age group. In relation to this, we should strive both to include and to retain in the labour market a workforce comprising different age groups. In addition, a more open migration policy combined with effective assimilation and integration could mitigate the results of insufficient population growth. Of course, I endorsed the report.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I endorsed the Mann report on the demographic challenge and solidarity between generations. It is a very good report, on a subject which is, itself, extremely important. The question of the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age in access to goods and services is a key issue. If we are talking about solidarity, we should always remember, too, about this specific aspect of solidarity – solidarity between generations.

Older people must not suffer discrimination because of their age. They have full rights as members of the local, regional, national and European community. The European Union looks after its young people – they are, for example, one of the priorities of next year’s budget. This is good, because it is the young people, after all, who are going to decide the future of Europe, but, on the other hand, we should remember those who have already made their own very significant contribution to the building of Europe.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I fully support the Mann report. Indeed, I believe that solidarity between the generations is just as important as solidarity between Member States. I want to highlight three particular issues.

I fully agree with paragraph 24, which speaks about an end to a compulsory retirement age so that people can choose when they want to finish working, but, at the same time, seeks to maintain a pensionable age, so that people who want to retire can do so and receive their benefits.

I was particularly pleased to see that a number of my amendments on carers and family carers were taken into consideration, in particular, paragraph 125, which speaks about family carers, including the right for them to choose whether they wish to care or not, and also the ability to combine caring with paid work, and to ensure that they have full access to social security schemes and old age pensions.

I am, however, equally supportive of the European Youth Guarantee initiative, which proposes that any young people who have been unemployed for four months or longer will be offered a job, an apprenticeship or additional training, etc., all of this to support their reintegration, or integration, into the workplace. As I said at the beginning, solidarity between the generations is crucial, especially in the current economic situation.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) I voted for this document by Thomas Mann because it reflects the problems of intergenerational interaction. Usually, we talk of the European Union’s demographic problems from the point of view of young people. This document attempts to combine the specific characteristics of all the generations and related problems in health, education, labour and similar sectors, seeking balanced solutions to those problems.

As far as the older generation is concerned, we should be grateful for its contribution to the development of the European Union, both economically and culturally. We must ensure that these people can grow old with dignity. However, due to ageing Europe, it seems that it will be quite difficult to achieve this. We must therefore not only create conditions for the improvement of family policy, but bring up a young generation which would be able to create added value, i.e. through the education system and non-formal education. Of course, we must make efforts as regards the integration of young people into the labour market. So thank you for this report.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, demographers tell us that in order to sustain itself, a population needs a birth rate of 2.1 live births per woman. In the whole of Europe, the only country that is reproducing at sustainability level is Albania, or Turkey if you count Turkey as a European country – and nowhere else. According to one UN report, Europe, including European Russia, is scheduled to lose 100 million people over the next 40 years. Germany alone is going to see a shrinkage of its population by 20 million.

These are not projections about what might happen if we do not do something, as there is nothing we can do about it now since the decline in birth rates has already happened. The only question is how we deal with it. How did we get to this stage? What brought us to this pass? One does not want to oversimplify, as there are obviously a lot of things going on, to do with changing working patterns, the spread of contraception, the different role of women in society, and longevity.

However, I wonder whether one part of the problem is the way in which the state has expanded and squeezed out the private sphere, has annexed to itself jobs and duties that were traditionally discharged within a family – childcare, education and social security. The first generation raised with cradle to grave welfare or, in other words, to be excused the traditional responsibilities of adulthood, has also been the first to give up on parenthood.

We now face a choice between demographic collapse or importing 100 million people to sustain our numbers and pay our pensions. This should be the top issue in Europe and it is not one we can address by arguing about changes in employment regulation.

Report: Maria Da Graça Carvalho (A7-0274/2010)

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) I welcome the Commission’s proposal that our research framework programmes should go through a simplifying process. Over time, these programmes expanded due to good tender opportunities but, at the same time, the uncertainties related to administration and control increased. We need a new scheme that has greater confidence in tenderers and which, in addition to strengthening scientific and technical evaluation processes, also takes into account the simplification of financial and administrative processes.

Naturally, there is a degree of risk in any financial transaction, but the exaggerated administrative control of such risks also increases the total costs of the whole process. We must strive to ensure that our research is attractive and accessible for the world’s best researchers, European enterprises and universities. This also requires the harmonisation of rules and procedures as soon as possible, which should be done even during the Seventh Framework Programme, but certainly during the preparation of the eighth. For this reason, I, too, voted in favour of this proposal.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the foundation of Europe’s economic development is investment in education as a form of investment in human capital and innovations which contribute to the creation of modern methods and technologies. To invest in innovation, it is necessary to concentrate on subsidising research. An example, here, are the framework programmes we have debated, which are the largest international research programmes in the world. By subsidising this kind of research, Europe has the opportunity to improve competitiveness in the global arena, create jobs for thousands of people and improve the quality of life of all Europeans.

In order to maintain the highest standards in the framework programmes, the rapporteur has endorsed the maximum possible reductions in bureaucracy and simplification of administrative procedures. As a result, this would allow easier access to funding for this research in the European Union, and this, after all, is what we want. Needless to say, I endorsed the report.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, facilitating access to the support system envisaged in the framework research programme means giving great impetus to the competitive capacity of the entire European production system. I am convinced that with today’s vote, we have made a considerable contribution to achieving this essential aim, particularly for the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, which constitutes the backbone of the economy of every Member State. In fact, despite the high quality of their output, such businesses often do not succeed in gaining easy access to the resources that are necessary for boosting their production standards even higher.

It is also useful to point out, as the rapporteur did, that the voting was extremely timely because it followed immediately from the intermediate evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme and the preparation of the eighth. I thank the rapporteur for her work.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) I voted for the document on simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes in the European Union. Unfortunately, I should point out that I missed the broader discussions during the plenary session, but the document itself is really important, and I welcome its adoption.

It is important to establish a level playing field for scientists from all EU Member States, to provide equal payment for research activities, without dividing scientists according to their country’s standard of living, because scientific progress is a matter for the whole of the European Union, not just individual countries. At present, the prevailing attitude is that work by scientists from the new Member States is less valuable than that done by scientists from the old Member States. Such a discriminatory practice is wrong and unacceptable.

It is also important to ensure equal conditions for all research institutions, and not to divide them according to their size and financial capacity. This is particularly important for research institutions in the new EU Member States. It is not the size of organisations but scientific progress that creates value. Therefore, it is important to provide opportunities, not just for universities, but for non-profit research institutes and other scientific organisations, to submit applications and participate in research programmes. Therefore, I congratulate all scholars, and together with improved research mechanisms, we will move forward.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0605/2010

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, the Commissioner said he was willing to look at market supports where necessary and will intervene when necessary, but we need some kind of certainty for livestock farmers. They are being attacked on all sides; there is a huge increase in prices, partly due to speculation.

I am very pleased to see that we carried the amendment which asks the Commission to deal immediately with the issue of adventitious presence of GMOs in imported feeds. That is something we have control over and we should deal with it, and we have been sitting on our hands and refusing to deal with it.

We also heard about the high cost of compliance with EU regulations, so that we do not have a level playing field for third country imports. But perhaps one of the most crucial issues is the whole area of the food chain. Yesterday, the Court of Auditors issued a report on the sugar sector and one of their recommendations was that price formation be subject to regular monitoring by the Commission and that the Commission and the Member States ensure that competition law is correctly enforced in the sector, thus ensuring the treaty objective that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. It is not only in the sugar sector that we need to do that. We need to do it in the whole food chain.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution because for years in Europe, we have seen frequent crises affecting the livestock sector.

The causes are many, including a reduction in demand for mutton, lamb and goatmeat, partly due to the large-scale import of meat from third countries. The livestock sector has also been struck by indirect causes, however. I am referring to problems in the milk and dairy sector and the problem of cereal price volatility, which has seen severe speculation.

With a view to CAP reform after 2013, it will be necessary to tackle the matter with commitment and come up with measures necessary for limiting the impact of price volatility in the agricultural sector once and for all. I therefore call on the Commission to develop more rapid instruments that make it possible to face up to the crisis situations within each individual Common Market Organisation speedily.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report and I was happy with some of the points made by Commissioner Cioloş in his speech this morning.

However, I want to say a couple of things. Firstly, the Court of Auditors report yesterday was a damning indictment of the Commission, showing that after EUR 1.2 billion in compensation, the closure of many factories and the loss of thousands of jobs, we are now only 85% self-sufficient in sugar supply.

Secondly, during the week, I attended an agriculture seminar here and the same situation applied to fish coming into the European Union, particularly from Vietnam, some of which could even be polluted. In the livestock sector, the same applies, where third countries exporting commodities into the European Union can do so at an advantage compared to those within the European Union.

A sine qua non for the European Union in addressing all these issues is to ensure that the same standards of regulation, the same checks and balances, and the same stringent enforcement applies to products coming in from third countries as to our own producers within the European Union.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0297/2010)

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that Ireland has requested assistance for 850 cases of redundancy at SR Technics Ireland Ltd, operating in the air transport sector in the NUTS III Dublin region, I voted in favour of the resolution, as I agree with the Commission’s proposal, along with the respective amendments introduced by Parliament. I also agree with the request for the institutions involved in the process to make the necessary efforts to speed up the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and with Parliament’s position, deploring the Commission’s serious shortcomings in carrying out programmes for competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which greatly increases the need for such support.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I wholeheartedly welcome the approval of €7.45m in EU aid to help retrain 850 workers made redundant from SR Technics. The support provided by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is urgently needed by the workers, their families and the North Dublin community, deeply affected by the closure of this company, which brought the loss of more than a thousand skilled jobs. I led an SR Technics delegation to meet Commissioner Špidla in mid-2009, when the availability of this fund was confirmed to us. It then took the Irish Government six months to apply for the EGF, and seven more to answer to the Commission’s request for clarifications. The slow and ineffective handling of the Dell application risks a return of much of the allocation to Brussels, and this lesson was disregarded. The Irish Government must act more swiftly to ensure that this aid is granted directly to those who need it, that it is not used to replace government funding, and that the training and re-skilling programmes offered are suited to the workers’ needs. Astonishingly, the government is only now preparing to establish a coordinator for the fund, four years after its inception.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: SR Technics from Ireland, which will provide significant aid for the workers affected by the consequences of major changes to the structure of world trade. In order to better aid workers’ reintegration into the labour market, the procedure for making the fund available will have to be faster and simpler. It is therefore necessary to identify suitable budget headings for making these transfers.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Irish company SR Technics has particularly suffered from the impact of the current economic and financial crisis on the aviation industry: it has lost significant maintenance contracts, forcing it to make more than 1 000 workers redundant. The loss of contracts and competition from regions that can provide cheaper services give rise to fears about the viability of this company and others of its type. In addition to agreeing that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be mobilised to deal with this situation, I must express my concern about the way in which airlines are cutting back on aircraft maintenance and repair, and the effect that this could have on flight safety.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Another mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been approved, in this case for the application from IE/SR Technics from Ireland.

Regrettably, as Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs stressed, examination of this application was delayed by one year before being presented to the budgetary authority, as the workers were made redundant in April 2009.

However, the support measures for the redundant workers include occupational guidance and training for the acquisition of basic skills, on- and off-the-job training for redundant apprentices, vocational educational training, and support for entrepreneurship.

Finally, it should be stressed that the Committee on Employment had to draw attention to the need to present the unions’ positions regarding these cases so as to guarantee that they can, if they wish, be involved in the application and in the implementation of the measures.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has recently demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is a useful tool for combating unemployment, which is one of the frequent side-effects of globalisation. The EGF can be used to finance job creation measures, retraining programmes and workshops to support business start-ups. For these and other reasons, I wholeheartedly support Mrs Matera’s report. To ensure that the money can also be used effectively, it must be carefully targeted and must reach its destination quickly. We must give priority to aid for European citizens and we must always keep this in mind.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am abstaining out of respect for the Irish workers ill-treated by globalisation. In the situation in which they are plunged as a result of the neoliberal policies advocated by the European Union, one could feel entitled to vote against the beggarly sum that the Eurocracy is reluctantly granting them. However, the little which is being given may relieve their hardship. This does not make the logic of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund any less despicable. It endorses the relocations that the owners of SR Technics have gone ahead with in order to increase their profits.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is an area of solidarity, and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a part of that. This support is essential for helping the unemployed and the victims of relocations that occur in the context of globalisation. An increasing number of companies are relocating, taking advantage of reduced labour costs in a number of countries, particularly China and India, with a damaging effect on countries that respect workers’ rights. The aim of the EGF is to help workers who are victims of the relocation of businesses, and it is crucial in facilitating access to new employment in the future. The EGF has already been used in the past by other EU countries, so we should now grant this aid to Ireland, which has requested assistance for 850 workers made redundant from the company SR Technics Ireland Ltd, operating in the air transport sector, in the NUTS III Dublin region.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) receives annual funding of EUR 500 million with the aim of providing financial support to workers affected by major structural changes in world trade patterns. Estimates indicate that between 35 000 and 50 000 employees could benefit from this support each year. The money can be used to pay for help in finding new jobs, tailor-made training, assistance in becoming self-employed or starting up a company, mobility and support for disadvantaged or older workers. In order for the employees of a company to receive this support, at least 500 workers must have been made redundant within a period of four months. Therefore, the Irish company SR Technics Ireland Ltd is fully entitled to funding, because it has made 1 135 people redundant. I am voting in favour of the report, because SR Technics Ireland meets all the requirements for receiving support.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in the case of the Irish air transport company SR Technics does apply to the 1 135 jobs and could help to save them. Therefore, I have voted in favour of this report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) My fellow Members, once again we find ourselves in this Chamber to approve an exceptional appropriation within our own borders. I say this with regret, as this measure implies crisis and a series of problems related to the economy, the labour market, workers and their families. However, we are fortunate to have such a resource available to us. This is exactly the type of situation in which the European Union shows its values and the reasons why it stands out from the crowd. European solidarity and the defence of European needs are values which must be defended and protected. This is the message that the European Parliament and the European Union wish to give out and I hope that there will be greater sensitivity in the transmission of this message, partly to combat lazy anti-European rhetoric and instead show just how essential support and assistance at the European level really is.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the context of Ireland’s request for assistance for 850 redundancies at SR Technics Ireland Ltd, operating in the air transport sector in the NUTS III Dublin region, I voted in favour of the resolution as I agree with the Commission’s proposal, along with the respective amendments introduced by Parliament.

I also agree with:

- asking the institutions involved in the process to make the necessary efforts to speed up the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), while emphasising that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor fund the restructuring of companies or sectors;

- the Commission’s proposal of an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund (ESF) resources, following Parliament’s frequent reminders that the EGF was created separately as a specific instrument, with its own objectives and deadlines, and that it is therefore necessary to identify appropriate budgetary headings for transfers;

- Parliament’s position regretting the severe shortcomings of the Commission in implementing programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which heightens the need for such support.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the rapporteur and with the Irish authorities, who maintain that the global economic and financial crisis has had severe repercussions on the aviation industry and that the number of passengers, of kilometres travelled and of aircraft in service has undergone a distinct decline. I therefore support European aid for a sector that is vital to the relaunch of the Irish and European economy.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Ireland’s request for the deployment of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for 850 redundancies at the company SR Technics Ireland Ltd meets all the eligibility criteria set in law. In effect, under Regulation (EC) No 546/2009 of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, the scope of the EGF was temporarily widened as it was expected to be able to intervene in situations like this, as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis, if there are ‘at least 500 redundancies over a period of four months in an enterprise in a Member State, including workers made redundant in its suppliers or downstream producers’. In view of this, I voted in favour of the resolution, as I agree with the Commission’s proposal, with the respective changes introduced by Parliament, and I welcome the fact that the Commission has identified an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund (ESF) funds, in line with earlier warnings made to that effect by Parliament.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – With the adoption of this report, the EP requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF and, overall, recalls the institutions’ commitment to ensuring a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation and the financial and economic crisis. It emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament Resolution on the mobilisation of the EGF for granting aid to redundant workers. In October 2009, Ireland submitted a request for assistance to use the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) in connection with the redundancies which were made in the company SR Technics, operating in the air transport sector in the Dublin region of Ireland. The global financial and economic crisis has reduced the level of air transport activity, which has resulted in a huge wave of redundancies in this sector too. In Ireland, 1 135 redundancies were recorded between April and August 2009, including 850 made at the company SR Technics Ireland Ltd. While acknowledging the important role played by the EGF in reintegrating redundant workers into the labour market, which is also corroborated by the 11 or so applications approved in 2010 alone, amounting to a total of more than EUR 30 million, I believe that this instrument is still not sufficiently well known and used by Member States. I also urge the European Commission to analyse the redundancies made during the economic crisis in the public sector and to develop a similar instrument to the EGF, which will support workers made redundant in the public sector in various Member States.

Report: Eva Lichtenberger (A7-0301/2010)

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Advocating the independence of an MEP’s mandate is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. In this case, the MEP is basically accused of offences relating to his management and accounting activities as chair of the board of the Polish Youth Card Association and Campus Sp. during a period prior to his election to Parliament. The offences of which he is accused have nothing to do with his activities as an MEP, and in this case, we should therefore proceed to waive his immunity. That is why I voted as I did.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Polish citizen and Member of the European Parliament, Krzysztof Lisek, has been accused of three crimes by the district prosecutor in Koszalin in Poland. These are financial offences which are illegal under Polish law. In order to allow the case against Mr Lisek to be investigated under Polish law, a request for a waiver of his immunity has been made. As current European Union law clearly states how the immunity of Members of the European Parliament and waivers of immunity are to be handled, there must be a vote. I vote in favour of lifting Mr Lisek’s immunity, firstly, because it will help him, and secondly, because this is the only way in which he can respond to the accusations made against him in his home country.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the proposed waiver of immunity because I believe that the tabled request should be granted – provided that it is reasoned, even if just on the basis of reasonable suspicion – for the sake of the dignity of the institutions and in what should also be the interests of those involved.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Whereas Krzysztof Lisek is essentially charged with offences in relation to his management and accounting activities as chairman of the board of the Polish Youth Card Association and Campus Sp. during a period prior to his election to the European Parliament, and whereas the offences with which Mr Lisek is charged have nothing to do with his activities as a Member of the European Parliament, and whereas no cogent evidence has been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis, the EP has decided today to waive the immunity of Mr Lisek.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0171/2010)

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the Gauzès report on the AIFM Directive because it disadvantages an important part of the United Kingdom’s most important industry – financial services. It has lumped all funds not already covered by the UCITS Directive, from investment trusts to hedge funds, in a single mixed bag of expensive legislation. It also has created burdens for European managers and investors in Europe that third countries do not place on their managers and investors. This will inevitably mean a loss of talent from London to countries outside the EU. As usual, EU legislation adds expensive costs to industry which disproportionately affects SMEs and therefore favours the big players. By punishing private equity funds, it will cause a loss of investment in the UK and Europe at a time that greater investment is needed to remain competitive in a globalised economy. It is applied at a low threshold which will particularly affect PE funds by bringing small funds quickly under the directive when they have made just a small number of investments. The capital requirements will be especially burdensome to PE and venture capital. Venture capital is needed to create new jobs in start-ups.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Given that alternative investment fund managers represent around USD 1 000 billion of assets and therefore play an important role in financing the European economy, and given that the financial crisis arose in the investments market, although these funds were not directly related to the origin of the crisis, it is considered necessary to regulate all actors involved in financial services, and especially so to regulate these high risk funds: this will protect investors and foster stability in the markets. Such regulation plays a crucial role, because it replaces regulation at national level with regulation at European level, and provides for conditions for taking into account the specificities of the various funds covered, on the basis of their systemic risk. The establishment of rules of conduct for all financial services is being considered at a time of crisis, as is promoting a truly single market by making a framework of common European rules possible. The rules proposed by this directive provide greater transparency on the management of the funds themselves, as well as on how they are marketed within the European Union – by means of a simple authorisation in various Member States – and in third countries.

  Marta Andreasen and Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the Gauzès report on the AIFM Directive because it disadvantages an important part of the United Kingdom’s most important industry – financial services.

It has lumped all funds not already covered by the UCITS Directive, from investment trusts to hedge funds, in a single mixed bag of expensive legislation. It also has created burdens for European managers and investors in Europe that third countries do not place on their managers and investors. This will inevitably mean a loss of talent from London to countries outside the EU. As usual, EU legislation adds expensive costs to industry which disproportionately affects SMEs and therefore favours the big players.

By punishing private equity funds, it will cause a loss of investment in the UK and Europe at a time that greater investment is needed to remain competitive in a globalised economy. It is applied at a low threshold which will particularly affect PE funds by bringing small funds quickly under the directive when they have made just a small number of investments. The capital requirements will be especially burdensome to PE and venture capital. Venture capital is needed to create new jobs in start-ups.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The financial crisis that has hit the European Union hard has its roots in the ‘unbridled’ activity of numerous investment funds, particularly those from the United States. Amongst these funds, the alternative funds, or hedge funds, are characterised by aggressive speculation. This appears to be one of the major causes of the disaster, the consequences of which we are suffering today. In order to protect the future of the European market from the excesses of these alternative funds, I voted for the report by my colleague, Mr Gauzès. This text represents a major step forward in financial regulation. With this vote, we reinforce the powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). This European authority for financial markets will be set up on 1 January 2011 and will deliver, under strict conditions, a ‘passport’ permitting the activity of managers of alternative funds located in the European Union. The directive requires them to be authorised or registered, to respect operational and organisational requirements, and observe rules of conduct and transparency. It will subject them to the supervisory powers and ability to apply sanctions of the competent authorities of the Member States and of ESMA. At a later date, managers of funds located outside the European Union will be subjected to the same rules as those applying to European funds.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to congratulate Mr Gauzès for his outstanding work. I voted in favour of this report because I feel it is necessary to provide European savers with clear and safe financial instruments. I am convinced that we can only attempt to avoid further market destabilisation through strict and specific regulation. The report we have voted on today is therefore part of the broader framework of economic and financial regulation that the European Union is implementing. In this sense, the justified regulation of investment funds is also an effective instrument for preventing malfunction of the system such as, for example, excessive exposure to risks for subjects of systemic importance. I also support the idea of a European ‘passport’, which is being implemented by means of the authorisation and supervision applied to all alternative fund managers established and operating within the Union. Lastly, I welcome the requirements as regards the information to be supplied to monitoring authorities with the aim of guaranteeing greater transparency.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recent difficulties in the financial markets have shown that many of the strategies deployed by managers of alternative investment funds are vulnerable to some or even many risks affecting investors, other market players and the markets themselves. I voted in favour of Parliament’s position as I agree that it is necessary to ensure that the actions of alternative investment fund managers should be subject to rigorous scrutiny in terms of governance. Alternative investment fund managers should be managed and organised in such a way as to minimise conflicts of interest. I agree that the organisational requirements established under the present directive should not affect the systems and controls imposed by national law for the registration of individuals working within or for investment firms. It is necessary to clarify the powers and duties of the competent authorities responsible for implementing this directive and to strengthen the mechanisms needed to ensure effective cross-border cooperation in the field of monitoring.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The overblown financial system and its speculative action and lack of transparency were what caused the financial crisis. The crisis – like all crises – needs to be addressed with structural changes, a different modus operandi and barriers to prevent toxic products from being channelled into the economy. Supervisory measures, which need to be mainstreamed, are also important. However, neither the Commission directive nor the European Parliament’s report guarantee real supervision and control of hedge funds and private equity. With its numerous exemptions and the terms laid down in the report for the purpose of supervision, speculation and a lack of transparency would appear to be here to stay. That is why I voted against the report.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Although growth in the European Union is still suffering the consequences of the 2008 economic crisis, I voted in favour of Mr Gauzès’ report because it helps rationalise the financial system through better control of investment funds. Indeed, speculative funds have been exposed as having helped exacerbate the crisis. By creating a ‘European passport’ system, the European Union is imposing a kind of ‘code of conduct’ on these financial bodies, which will now have to meet certain conditions within the European area. As a result, the single market will become more transparent and efficient.

  Harlem Désir (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Following Parliament’s vote, the Union is, at long last, going to regulate the activities of the most speculative investment funds. A long time has passed since Poul Rasmussen’s own-initiative report which, back in 2008, proposed that strict limits should be imposed on these ‘financial black holes’. It has taken the financial crisis to make the Member States and the majority of Parliament agree to adopt binding legislation on alternative funds. For the first time, these funds, whether or not they are based in Europe, will be subject to controls, restrictions on their activities and greater transparency; carving up businesses will no longer be possible, and the European Securities and Markets Authority’s supervisory powers will be extended. Much remains to be done to supervise finance effectively in Europe; ESMA, not the national authorities, should be the only authority with responsibility for this matter, and businesses should be protected even more from speculation. Had it not been for the reservations of the conservatives, the Union could have adopted more rigorous and more effective legislation. This is merely a first step. The text we have adopted will be revised in four years’ time. This will be an opportunity to go further, on the basis of an assessment, in order to protect the economy and jobs from the damage caused by speculation.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) New rules for better economic governance are still being implemented but this nonetheless remains insufficient. By adopting, by a large majority, the report on alternative funds and capital investment, Parliament continues to implement new rules for better economic governance. Managers of alternative investment funds, which account for nearly USD 1 000 billion in assets, play an important role in the financing of the European economy. Although these funds are not directly at the root of the financial crisis, their management must not escape the need to regulate all actors in the financial services. Parliament has obtained the inclusion of new chapters on asset stripping and pay and has done a great deal to influence the rules regulating the passport system, responsibility of the depositary, requirements for own funds and recourse to leveraging.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is the first European directive that will regulate high-risk investment funds – hedge funds – and is the culmination of a negotiation process that has lasted more than a year. As the document says, the new rules aim to control the activities of managers and ensure greater transparency in the management of these funds, to protect investors and promote the stability of the financial markets.

However, in truth, we have not got to the bottom of this issue: these speculative funds have not been abolished and there is still a derivatives market, meaning that the mechanisms allowing speculation still exist. An excellent opportunity to properly regulate the financial markets has been wasted. The Council and the majority of the European Parliament yielded in the face of enormous pressure from the financial lobby.

The financial crisis has shown that the origins of the global financial system’s dysfunctions are, firstly, excessive exposure to risk – these funds are an example of this – and, secondly, the weakness of the systems for managing this risk. The new European regulations establish common requirements for the authorisation and supervision of hedge funds, but they are far from preventing the continuation of serious systemic risk. We cannot, therefore, vote for this proposal.

However, new directives are being debated and negotiated, so it is still possible to get to the bottom of the issue, specifically to put an end to these speculative funds. We will see.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the compromise reached, after months of negotiations, on the regulation of alternative investment fund managers. I voted in favour of it because, even though it has its shortcomings, it would be unacceptable to allow certain investment funds to continue to act with complete impunity when we know that they have helped exacerbate and spread the crisis. I deplore, in particular, the weakness of the provisions on leverage, the weakness of the guarantees regarding offshore funds, which will be able to obtain a passport, and the weakness of the obligations incumbent on private equity funds, which are often experts in stripping the assets of unlisted companies. I deplore the fact that we have to tolerate these predators operating throughout the EU subject to registration and minimum checks. However, what more could we have expected from a text that is aimed at regulating not speculative funds but their managers, and which seeks to manage risk rather than to prevent this speculation?

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the text on managers of alternative funds because it is vital to legislate on this section of the financial markets, which implement strategies which are extremely risky and harmful to employment and the real economy. Many commendable advances have been made, such as, for example, the supervision of fund managers’ pay in order neither to encourage nor reward disproportionate risk taking, to give just one example. The directive is clearly going in the right direction, even though it does have some serious shortcomings. In particular, it is disappointing that supervision is left to national authorities and not to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) created recently at the time of the vote on the financial supervision package. We must remain vigilant and we need to be preparing right now the next steps towards putting the markets back at the service of the economy, and preventing new financial crises.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – This directive is one of the first legislative responses of the EU for the financial crisis. This directive is a move towards the new regulatory framework and supervisory framework of the financial markets. It is a first step in a good direction for the legislative process that will hopefully be completed in the not too distant future. It is important for these systems to be in place to prevent the regulatory crisis of 2008 from occurring again.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Alternative Investment Fund Managers, since I believe that fund managers must be registered and must respect certain basic rules of conduct. They, in fact, manage approximately USD 1 000 billion of business and therefore play a leading role in the financing of the European economy. This activity, as is ably described in the report, concerns entities and products that are very diverse, such as alternative and private equity investment funds, property funds and raw material funds. These characteristics make it a priority to take action at a European level which takes the form of a streamlined and specific regulation directed at all operators providing financial services. A regulation designed to guarantee greater stability of the financial system and better protection of investors; instruments that can be used to bring into being a true single market of European financial products.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The Gauzès report is, unfortunately, a lost opportunity when it comes to achieving the effective regulation of the speculative funds that are at the root of the crisis. Despite the destructive role they have played, and the risk that these funds bring to bear on current financial architecture, the Council and the Parliament have given in to the intense lobbying of the financial sector to retain these extremely remunerative tools which benefit a minority. I therefore voted against this report which allows alternative funds located outside the EU to be marketed within it without having to comply with new European rules. This is a gaping hole which destroys all the progress made by this new legislation.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote is an important advance in the area of legislation on alternative investment funds. This means, above all, an improvement in transparency, substantial rules for regulating the finance industry and legislation which is more effective. I think that at a time when all countries are struggling with financial difficulties, alternative investments, if they are properly understood and properly used, can have a beneficial effect and contribute to an improvement in the economic situation.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I should like to pay tribute to Mr Gauzès’ excellent report on the directive on alternative investment fund managers. Thanks to this report, it will be possible to introduce more transparency, supervision and codes of conduct into the regulation of financial markets. This is a first successful step that I hope will be followed by other initiatives designed to thoroughly and comprehensively reform the financial system.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this text and the European Parliament amendments that it contains. Contrary to its claims, this text regulates nothing. To vote for it would be to claim a victory for the financial lobbies over the general interest of the people.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial crisis which occurred in 2007 was led by major investment banks which had a series of alternative investment funds, or hedge funds, in their portfolio. These were not supervised and often consisted of assets of doubtful value. The crisis reflected this situation, and now it is necessary to take concrete measures to ensure that new crises do not recur in the future, caused by financial mechanisms that no one controls and that often cannot be quantified. This directive approves a series of standards which, in being met, will make these financial mechanisms more transparent and able to be controlled, and thus act as another source of funding for the European economy, rather than the reason for its collapse.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – (LV) With the negative consequences of the economic crisis throughout the world in mind, I consider that it is quite proper for the European Parliament to try and control the activity of alternative investment funds. Given the huge EUR 1 000 billion turnover of these funds, any mistake in their application could have an extremely negative effect on European financial stability. This directive is extremely important and timely, since financial and stock market speculators and dishonest investors will always try to exploit these funds for their personal enrichment. The directive provides for certain restrictions and offers the EU the possibility to prevent the vulgar exploitation of these funds. I hope that this represents only the first step in this direction.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Investment funds help to finance the European economy. However, the systemic risks involved in the different types of funds, such as private equity, real estate and commodity funds, are, of course, different. The stricter regulations which are being introduced in the financial sector as a result of the banking and financial crisis must cover all types of financial instruments. On the one hand, it is important to reduce the risk of losses and to minimise the potential for faulty decision making at a management level. On the other hand, this must not result in the introduction of unnecessary red tape. We also need regulations on short selling, because this played a role in the financial crisis. For this reason, I have voted in favour of this report.