IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(The sitting was opened at 17:05)

  President. – I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 25 November 2010.

  President. – I would like to make some preliminary remarks before our sitting. I would like to remind you that last Thursday, the Conference of Presidents decided that tomorrow, on Tuesday at 16:00 hours, a debate will take place on the Jędrzejewska and Trüpel reports on the new draft 2011 budget. Voting on the reports is planned to take place on Wednesday. Secondly, there will also be a debate tomorrow on the outcomes of the COP 16 climate conference. The international community achieved a certain amount of progress in Cancún. Quite a large delegation from the European Parliament also took part in the negotiations, and those fellow Members are here today among us. Together with Commissioner Hedegaard, we will consider how satisfactory we find the agreement that was worked out, and what the next steps should be in connection with this matter before the conference in the Republic of South Africa.

Thirdly, on 21 October, we found out the winner of this year’s European Parliament Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought. As you will remember, the winner is the Cuban dissident Guillermo Fariñas. Unfortunately, it will be difficult for Mr Fariñas to travel and receive his prize in person next Wednesday, despite the fact that I intervened personally in this regard in a letter to the President of Cuba, Raul Castro. We anticipate that Mr Fariñas’ difficulties in travelling to Strasbourg will be noted by Lady Ashton, who will take this fact into consideration in further relations with Cuba. We still hope that our prize winner will manage to reach us. If he were to fly out from Cuba in the next few hours, he could still make it to our Wednesday sitting.

Fourthly, I would also like to remind you that 30 years ago, on 13 December 1981 to be exact, martial law was declared in Poland, as an attempt by the Communist authorities to suffocate the increasingly powerful Solidarity movement. Thousands of opposition activists were arrested and over 100 people lost their lives. Nearly three decades after those events, let us remember those who were brave enough to risk their lives to liberate Europe from the yoke of Communism. Finally, and fifthly, in connection with Mr Bloom’s behaviour at the plenary session of 24 November, and bearing in mind that he has not taken advantage of any of the three invitations extended to him to apologise for his words, I have decided, on the basis of Rules 9 and 153 of the Rules of Procedure, to place a sanction on him in the form of the loss of the right to receive any subsistence allowance for a period of seven days. I have already informed Mr Bloom of my decision.

Now for some announcements: the signature of legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. I hereby inform you that on Wednesday, the President of the Council and I will sign the next 10 legal acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 74 of the Rules of Procedure. The titles of these legislative acts will be published in the minutes of this sitting. Secondly, Mrs Gruny has informed me in writing that her mandate as a Member of the European Parliament has expired due to her election to the French National Assembly. Parliament takes note of this and, under Article 7(2) of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage and Rule 4(1) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure, confirms that there will be a vacant seat as of 14 December 2010. Finally, and thirdly: I have received a request from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe for Mr Cornelis van Baalen to be nominated to the Interparliamentary Delegation for relations with Afghanistan in place of Mr Haglund. Are there any comments? I do not see any. The nomination has been adopted.

  President. – The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of Thursday, 9 December 2010, pursuant to Rules 137 and 138 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed.

The following amendments have been proposed:

Wednesday

I have received a request from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) that Mr Szájer’s report concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commissions’ exercise of implementing powers be added to the order of business.

  József Szájer (PPE). – Mr President, as you rightly said, our group is asking for the regulation on implementing acts to be put on the agenda. I feel a little awkward doing this, because it is not only my group’s request; several other groups support this idea. We had a unanimous vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs on this report and on the various common understandings and statements that were annexed to it.

I would like to remind colleagues that the Lisbon Treaty entered into force a year ago. This regulation on implementing acts follows a year of very hard negotiations in an area where the new delegated and implementing acts are a very important issue for this Parliament. After one year, I think we can fully exercise this right. This is why it would be good to discuss and adopt this new regulation.

I would also like to inform you – as our colleagues know – that there was a very difficult situation in the Council with two blocking minorities. It is therefore a very delicate act, which is why I think that the right thing to do is to get through it as soon as possible. All Parliament’s rights are met in this report. I ask for the support of all the other groups.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Szájer. Is there support for this proposal?

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, we have no objection to this topic being placed on the agenda. However, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that members of some committees – and not just from our group, I think – still have concerns regarding the specific rules. Certainly we need a deadline for the submission of amendments, so that we can vote on Thursday at the latest. I would just like to say, however, that some discussions are still ongoing and I cannot say in advance whether or not our group will be voting in favour. The debates are yet to come. However, we have no objection to this topic being on the agenda.

  President. – I propose that we should proceed as follows. We will hold the debate on Wednesday and the sitting will close at 21:00. The deadline for tabling amendments will be 10:00 on Wednesday. The vote will take place on Thursday.

(Parliament agreed to the proposal)

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, my group, in fact, wishes to see the two oral questions concerning both the report of the Van Rompuy task force and the six Commission legislative packages on economic governance reinstated in the order of business.

Firstly, for an institutional reason, since Article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon gives us this prerogative and this authority to have applied the horizontal social clause and, in particular, the study on the social impact for the sweeping measures, the sweeping directives and decisions that have consequences for our citizens.

Mr John Monks, the General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, has just written about his concern at seeing austerity plans having a direct impact on the incomes of wage earners, their wages and also their pensions. The political reason for making this request, Mr President, on behalf of my group, is that we must show that, at a time when we are discussing market regulation, we are not only giving our verdict on the markets, but also voting and legislating in favour of our fellow citizens.

I should like to see this House feel able to support the reinstatement of these oral questions.

  President. – Who would like to speak in favour? Who will come forward to speak in favour?

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is precisely because of the relationship which must exist between the three Institutions – the Council, the Commission and Parliament – that I deem it appropriate to support the Member’s motion.

  President. – Does anyone want to speak against the proposal? I do not see anyone who wants to speak against. We shall therefore proceed to the vote.

(Parliament approved the proposal)

President. – These two oral questions will be added to the order of business on Wednesday afternoon. The sitting will continue until around 21:00.

(The order of business was adopted)

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

  Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, last month, I organised a hearing in this Parliament concerning the victims of terrorism, which was attended by the President of Parliament and various Members of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

The victims have turned to us, as their representatives in Europe, to guarantee them their right to justice which has been trampled on so many times in their own countries, such as Spain, where the Rodríguez Zapatero Government continues to lie to the Spanish people about a negotiation process with a terrorist group which has still not relinquished its arms.

It is because of this that such grave incidents as the Bar Faisán tip off, in which the terrorists were warned of the operation in progress to arrest them, have still not been thoroughly investigated.

Democratic governments cannot turn their backs on the victims of terrorism; they have already paid the highest price in the fight for liberty.

Parliament must push for a European Charter which recognises the legitimate demands of the victims, such as not negotiating with terrorists and ensuring that they serve their prison sentences in full.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the last working week of the year, I would like to give you a summary of my experience with the administration of the European Parliament. In agreement with the opinion of the European Ombudsman dated 6 December, I would like to say that the team and staff of the European Parliament deserve praise for their work in the advancement of equal opportunities and, in particular, in the improvement of the situation of persons with disabilities. I hope that in the future, there will be no going back on these issues. I would like to thank three people. First, by reason of the adaptation, I would like to thank Mrs Erica Landi and Mr Pierre Debaty, Heads of Unit for Training. I would like to thank Mrs Rosa Brignone, Head of Unit for Equal Opportunities and Diversity, for providing employment for 61 people with disabilities at the European Parliament. This programme can provide them with work while offering them appropriate assistance. I would like to ask Mr Buzek to continue to pay attention to these programmes for the sake of the future of the European Union.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, it fills me with satisfaction that the Romanian winner of the European Year Journalist Award 2010 awarded by the European Commission is a member of the Hungarian national community in Romania. The winner of the award earned the Commission’s recognition with a report written in Hungarian, her native language. Hungarian is not an official language in Romania, but for the Hungarian community of one and a half million living in that country, it represents the language in which they learn about events that are happening in the world around them. I am thankful that the Commission understood that it cannot be cause for disqualification if someone does not enter the competition with a publication written in the official language of their country. However, I also have a feeling that something is missing, as national communities that do not speak an official language of the EU – such as Catalans, Basques, Corsicans, and the list goes on – did not have the opportunity to enter the competition while informing their communities in their native language. It is time to take into account the European reality, multilingualism, and the coexistence of cultures in all Commission decisions.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, as can be seen from the terrorist arrests under Mr Rodríguez Zapatero’s Government, it goes without saying that the accusations that have been made today against the Spanish Government are clearly inconsistent.

However, moving on to my point, the centenary is being commemorated of the poet Miguel Hernández, an irreplaceable loss in the Spanish civil war and an extraordinary voice which springs purely from the heart of the people. A herder of ‘goats and sorrows’, he was a contemporary of Neruda and Aleixandre, winners of the Nobel Prize.

In this forum, which should be one of liberty, tolerance, peace and culture, I read: ‘I am an open window that listens, / through which to see the gloom of life. / But there is a ray of sun in the fight / that always leaves the shadow vanquished’.

In these gloomy times, let us continue in the hope of the poet’s ray of light, which will vanquish the darkness, the darkness of that time and for always. Paraphrasing Miguel Hernández, ‘We have to speak about many things’, or from the poetry of Vallejo, quoted in Stockholm this past week by Vargas Llosa, ‘Brothers, there is much to do’, in this Europe …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the European Commission published a report last week about the implementation of the 2007 strategy on nutrition and obesity. This report highlighted not only some of the specific actions taken in the battle against unhealthy diets and obesity in the European Union, but also the fact that many of the strategy’s stipulated objectives have not been achieved. The strategy envisaged undertakings to extend and support nutrition education among children. However, too little has been done at EU level to meet these undertakings. For example, the European School Fruit Scheme contains educational elements, but is targeted at only a limited number of children. Although it is still having a positive impact, we feel that it is fairly restricted.

Another major issue is food advertising aimed at children. In 2007, the Commission drew up codes of conduct for regulating the marketing of food products targeting children. Unfortunately, even now, some Member States have direct advertising of unhealthy foods aimed at children, as well as extremely different interpretations of the guidelines regarding the code of conduct.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). – (SL) Mr President, today, I would like us, here in this Chamber of the European Parliament, to pay attention to and, in a sense, heed the warning about the Middle Eastern peace process which 26 former top statesmen and women of the European Union have addressed to the global public.

I am talking about figures who each individually command international authority and who are therefore able to attract publicity. I think that it would be right for us, in this very House, to pay particular attention to the wording of this warning, which calls on us to work harder to strengthen the peace efforts in this region and, if necessary, take a tougher stance in bringing Israel to the negotiating table and ensuring peace, not only in the region, but also in the state of Israel and for its citizens.

  Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Mr President, the European support mechanism puts the Commission under additional obligations to defend the European rule of law. However, I was surprised to see that precisely the opposite is happening. I have in my possession a written reply from Commissioner Rehn concerning the Memorandum with Greece. He personally has co-signed this reply, which states that the initiative and responsibility for the terms rests solely with the Greek Government. I have in my possession another written reply from Commissioner Almunia, stating in no uncertain terms that he does not consider it necessary to provide information which we requested from him about the exercise of parliamentary control.

The Commission appears to be deliberately creating grey zones in the application of the European rule of law and European policies for a series of countries. Democratic control is being side-lined, inasmuch as national governments are hiding behind the Commission and the Troika on the most basic measures, while the Commission is referring these matters to the national governments. Thus, from guardian of the treaties, the Commission is turning into the guardian of an informal state of emergency which it personally has tacitly declared. At this difficult juncture, putting the support mechanism into action cannot mean taking the European rule of law out of action.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the anti-grassroots policy of the European Union, of the International Monetary Fund, and of the bourgeois governments in the Member States, has escalated into a war on fundamental wage, labour and social rights which the working class fought long and hard to win.

Mass unemployment, poverty, the abolition of national collective agreements, drastic wage and pension cuts, higher retirement ages, the abolition of heavy and unhealthy professions, higher VAT, grassroots incomes slashed by 25% in the private and public sectors, public corporations being sold off and an escalation in autocracy and the savage suppression of the working class and grassroots movement. Typical examples are the imposition of the repulsive measure of the policy of calling up unemployed seamen in Greece, the state of emergency at the expense of unemployed air traffic controllers in Spain, the beatings handed out to pupils and students in England and the questioning of fundamental grassroots freedoms in general.

At the same time, however, we have seen a package of subsidies and insulting tax breaks …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, a difficult year both for mankind and for Europe, a Europe tested on its common currency and cohesion, is coming to an end. New protection and support institutions have been designed and applied in order to defend the common currency and support two main countries with completely different economies: Greece and Ireland. I believe that all of us, especially the European leaders, have learned from this crisis and that there is now a greater feeling of solidarity between us. I trust that this is so. I believe, therefore, that the right moves will be made to maintain social cohesion in 2011, without the extremes caused by untempered budgetary austerity. I must stress that the opposite economic policy applies in the United States. We have to understand that measures need to be taken in the euro area to create conditions for smooth recovery on the markets in Greece, Ireland and Portugal and to avoid similar problems in Spain.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the two-thirds majority government in Hungary launched an offensive against democratic institutions in the past six months. In this process, they abolished the former parity-based media supervisory body, and set up in its place one consisting of delegates of the government party. The so-called media constitution recently adopted in Hungary also gives the government the possibility to censor certain websites if they so choose, even along the Chinese censorship model. The president of the media authority, Annamária Szalai, proudly boasted of this in an interview. As an example, she mentioned the most widely read right-wing news portal, www.kuruc.info, which, due to the anonymity offered by the Internet, was in the lead in exposing the infringements committed by the former government. I ask the European Parliament and the Commission to urge Fidesz to put an end to the anti-democratic processes currently taking place in Hungary as soon as possible. All that is left for the Hungarian opposition is the power of the public eye, and now they intend to deprive us even of that.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, more than a month has passed since Asia Bibi, a Catholic peasant woman from Pakistan, was convicted of blasphemy.

We cannot fail to remember the importance of protecting inviolable human rights, amongst which we count, in our Charter of Rights, freedom of expression.

In countries such as Pakistan, the charge of blasphemy has already led to the deaths of 46 people in the last 10 years, fuelling more and more religious intolerance and, hence, Islamic fundamentalism. These people were all killed outside prison following the charges of blasphemy, or were found dead in prison. Asia Bibi’s life is at risk, not only through the application of Pakistani law, but also at the hands of fanatics. Pakistani law therefore fuels this climate of persecution and unjust deaths.

To conclude, I urge the entire international community to make strong calls for the law on blasphemy to be abolished from the Pakistani criminal code and to ensure that anyone convicted of crimes which restrict freedom of expression is released as soon as possible.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today is the launch date of a declaration signed by myself and four colleagues calling for the equitable distribution of agricultural subsidies among the old and new Member States after 2013. Under the current common agricultural policy, all farmers in the European Union have to meet the same obligations, which entails costly investments. However, while their obligations are equal, their entitlements are not. I therefore believe that as from 2013, the direct payments system must guarantee the fair treatment of all farmers throughout the European Union. We must put an end to the historical model, define common criteria and take on board the specific needs of agriculture in individual regions. In addition, we need to build up a system allowing funds to be transferred from the second to the first pillar so that a greater proportion of agricultural producers in the new Member States can benefit from support measures and instruments. It is time to put an end to the way the CAP separates the old from the new Member States, and it is my sincere hope that you will all support this cause.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, the tornado that hit Portugal last Tuesday caused enormous damage in the region of Tomar. Unfortunately, this type of natural disaster is becoming increasingly frequent. It is important to make available emergency mechanisms that will enable rapid intervention to aid the affected populations.

The role of the EU is vitally important, as it has mechanisms and instruments at its disposal, such as the Solidarity Fund, that are intended to respond to this type of problem. However, it is absolutely crucial for these mechanisms to be activated and applied in a way that is quick, flexible and simple. I therefore call on the Commission and Council to make the Solidarity Fund more flexible so that it can be applied as quickly as it should be in this case and in other similar ones.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, in the period prior to Romania’s accession to the European Union, the European Commission closely monitored the situation regarding international adoptions and recommended a halt to these activities following the disclosure of abusive adoption practices. However, in 2009, in the context of the conference organised by the European Commission and Council of Europe on the subject of the challenges in adoption procedures in Europe, I sent a letter to Jacques Barrot which I wanted to use to draw attention to the repercussions of reopening the international adoption market. I also called for the European Commission to be consistent.

Following an investigation carried out by a Romanian newspaper, we are presented with the possibility that an abuse of power has been committed by the European Commission, demonstrated by it imposing the conclusion of the conference’s official report, which recommends setting up a European Adoption Agency. I think that the European Union’s image will suffer as a result of the guardian of the European treaties being involved in falsifying an official document. This is why I am waiting for a clear, reasoned response from the European Commission, which will remove this question mark hanging over its vertical structure.

  Gianni Pittella (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for more than a month, a group of 250 people, including 80 Eritreans, have been held hostage by traffickers in the Sinai Desert in Egypt. Part of this group had previously been turned away from the coasts of some European countries. The kidnappers are demanding USD 8 000 ransom for their release and, in the meantime, are subjecting them to the most atrocious forms of abuse and deprivation. Six people have already died, and rumours are also circulating about the removal of organs to be sold on the black market.

It is time for the international community and the European Union to say ‘Enough!’; it is time for some straight talking about the guarantee of the right to asylum everywhere; and it is time for some governments to reconsider their illusory return policies. The Pope has asked for this, and so too have foundations, associations and political figures.

We call on you, Mr President, together with Commissioner Ashton, to take immediate action to stop this ordeal.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, beginning with January, Hungary will be the third new Member State to take over the rotating Presidency of the EU. It will be a major test and a challenge for Hungary. It will take place simultaneously with the beginning of the EU’s economic governance, the first financial semester, and the amendment of the Treaty of Lisbon for the establishment of a permanent crisis management mechanism. We hope that the accession negotiations with Croatia will be completed, and that Romania and Bulgaria will become part of the Schengen area. The democratic parties of Hungary, with the exception of the far right, are in agreement and in cooperation to ensure the success of the Hungarian Presidency. However, this Parliament must also address the contradiction that while the Hungarian Presidency should be a guardian of the observance of fundamental freedoms in the EU, the current government in Hungary is imposing severe restrictions on democracy, the freedom of speech and the rights of the trade unions. I hope that the Hungarian Government will behave in a different way in Europe than it does at home.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). – Mr President, one of the issues addressed at the EU-Russia Summit last week in Brussels was the rule of law in the Russian Federation.

I would like to remind you that the verdict in Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s and Platon Lebedev’s second trial will be delivered on the morning of 15 December.

Members of the international community, including the EU, have been observing the trial very closely, and I am convinced that the outcome of the trial will allow us to draw some concrete conclusions about the rule of law in Russia. As the next meeting of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee is being held this week in Strasbourg, I would hope to raise this issue with colleagues from the Russian State Duma and Federation Council, and I would like to encourage my colleagues here in Parliament to do the same.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). – (GA) Mr President, the European Union has had an important role in the promotion of the peace and reconciliation process in Northern Ireland and in the country’s border regions. The European Union has invested a total of EUR 1.3 million in three PEACE programmes since 1994. Since 1989, the Union has invested EUR 349 million in the International Fund for Ireland. The International Fund for Ireland has given support to over 6 000 projects in Ireland.

EU support has enabled communities in Northern Ireland and the border region to take advantage of the opportunities arising from the peace process. Building peace and reconciliation is a long-term process and I strongly believe that there is still a need to continue with Peace III and International Fund for Ireland (IFI) support. I welcome recent moves by the US, supported by the UK and Irish authorities, to examine the possibility of continuing the IFI programme beyond 2010 in a limited and targeted way. In conclusion, continued support for the peace programme is absolutely essential.

  Oriol Junqueras Vies (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, the 1989 ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive established that Member States must not obstruct audio-visual broadcasts from other Member States.

Through the revision of this directive in 2007, this aim was reinforced and adapted to new technologies and the changes in the structure of the audio-visual market. However, the Northern Catalonian state border continues to act as a cultural and linguistic frontier, infringing these directives. More specifically, seeking protection in technical criteria, radio and television in Catalan is systematically excluded from the scope of regulated broadcasting.

Therefore, the European institutions should enforce their own directives and broadcasters with a cross-border remit should be able to offer their services to the whole of their linguistic and cultural community when it, as in the case of Catalonia, extends beyond more than one single state.

Thank you very much.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Mr President, I welcome what was agreed at COP 16 in Cancún. However, we should not delude ourselves that we are where we need to be. Targets need to be set now that are much firmer, clearer and binding.

The governments must build on the work of Cancún to achieve an ambitious, binding agreement in South Africa next year. We must also act at home.

There must be immediate agreement on a reduction of at least 30% in CO2 leakage in Europe – not only for the sake of international agreement but for our own sake also – so that we can be competitive from now on.

Europe must guarantee that we will be much more efficient as regards energy consumption. We failed to achieve that with the 20% energy efficiency target not being legally binding. That must be changed now.

  Slavi Binev (NI). – (BG) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to the problems facing Bulgaria’s road hauliers, who will be left seriously out of pocket if we allow additional air pollution, noise emissions and other charges to be imposed. The sector is in crisis, and increasing these charges risks not only intensifying the crisis but leaving the industry no scope for fleet renewal. As a Bulgarian citizen, I oppose the calculations made by the Commission, which has failed to take into consideration differences in the territorial locations of individual Member States. Bulgaria is on the periphery of the European Union, and Bulgarian hauliers will be hardest hit by these additional charges. If we look at the research, we will see that the Bulgarian economy will lose under all these scenarios.

Fellow Members, I hope that the European Parliament has the political will to prevent the problems with countries along the borders of the European Union from deteriorating.

  Nadezhda Neynsky (PPE). – (BG) Mr President, a few days ago, President Barroso warned that Europe is facing a rising wave of populism and nationalism. He appealed to political leaders to combat manipulation based on people’s fears and the irrational arguments which he believes have allowed populism to thrive in many countries. His statement gave me grounds to draw attention to the risks to democracy in the former communist countries. It is there, more than anywhere, that European leaders must be uncompromising in any attempt to undermine the right to private property. The partial nationalisation of the personal contributions into professional pension funds and their transfer to state social security is one example of this. Europe must also remain on guard as regards the right to free choice and prevent it from being undermined in any form whatsoever. Above all, European leaders have to be uncompromising towards attempts to manipulate public opinion and the widespread use of special surveillance equipment and the official revelation of secret information to put pressure on people and to undermine human rights.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, this is a very important question. Clearly there is a big difference between the profit being made by the farmers and the profit being made by the supermarket chains.

In my own country, there are about 22 000 people employed in the dairy sector. The dairy market in Ireland alone is worth EUR 1 billion annually. I do not think that the European Union is doing enough to help farmers; and I am not talking about the grants – the grants are good.

There are many things wrong with the market. For example, farmers ought to be paid for their produce within 30 days. This does not happen at all. In addition, the supermarket sells milk at a discount, but it is the farmer who loses money.

I am disappointed that those problems are not going to be dealt with. We must do a lot more to protect farmers against the power of the supermarkets.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, fundamental rights form the basic principles of the European Union. It is the main duty of all European institutions to monitor the observance of these rights.

In Romania, a Member State of the European Union, we are witnessing serious violations of fundamental rights. After bankrupting the country economically and socially, the current Romanian Government is now implementing ridiculous measures, amounting to a serious violation of the fundamental rights recognised in the European Union – the right to a pension, trade union rights, the right to a salary and the rights of young mothers. In addition to this, I wish to point out that preparations are also under way in Romania to amend the law on the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities. Approval of the bill being tabled by the Romanian Government will only serve to make life more difficult for people with disabilities, making them dependent on the state, instead of enhancing their protection and promoting their social inclusion. This will have a far-reaching detrimental impact on the interests and dignity of people with disabilities.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D). – (LV) Mr President, I should like to ask you what the expression ‘test pilot’ means? It means the pilot who tests the aircraft during flight. What is a ‘test passenger’? This concept was recently invented by the Latvian airline airBaltic. It is a pity, however, that airBaltic failed to inform passengers that they were participating in tests. For instance, airBaltic seats passengers in the aircraft and, later, while they are in the air, it turns out that the aircraft has technical problems, as a result of which it makes an emergency landing. In my opinion, an aircraft should be made ready pre-flight, not during the flight, especially when it contains passengers.

Recently, airBaltic has registered a very large number of emergencies. I should like to draw the attention of Members and the European Commission to the problem of air safety. A frivolous attitude can result in tragic consequences. Thank you.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I have now been told on two occasions that an oral question concerning the referendum on the future of South Sudan will not be reinstated in the order of business.

I should remind you that, according to the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005, South Sudan has the opportunity, at the end of a five-year period, of voting whether or not to remain as part of the Sudanese state.

The referendum is scheduled to take place on 9 January next. However, a number of unresolved issues, namely, the drawing up of electoral lists, the settlement of differences concerning the border between the North and the South, not to mention the security measures to be taken if the need arises, should have been the subject of an exchange of views in this House.

If we keep on endlessly postponing the debate, we shall deprive ourselves of our right to provide political momentum. That is my point of view. I persist in believing that it would be more judicious to try and prevent conflict situations than to stand by and wait for tragedies to erupt.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, recent Eurostat figures show that Portugal is one of the countries with the highest levels of job insecurity: 22% of workers are in precarious jobs, while the European Union average is 13.5%.

Women and young people are the worst hit. More than 23% of people under the age of 25 are unemployed and poverty has reached 18% in Portugal; this is also increasingly taking account of poor workers who do not earn enough to escape poverty.

How is it therefore possible to understand the unacceptable pressure that the European Commission is putting on the Portuguese Government to change labour legislation and render it even easier to make people redundant? What is needed is increased support for the creation of jobs with rights and decent wages.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, despite the austerity budgets, despite the International Monetary Fund, despite the Stabilisation Fund, and despite a penalty-based mechanism for economic coordination, the attack on the euro continues through the speculative attack on the sovereign debts of several countries.

It must be acknowledged that the error can only be in the political decisions that have been taken. Every time that Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy speculate in public, the speculators immediately thank them and speculate accordingly. It is clear that every time that they say ‘no’ to Eurobonds in particular, the speculators thank them because they are grateful for the price; the price of this speculation is division in Europe.

This is a Europe without solidarity and a Europe in which the peripheral countries are becoming increasingly peripheral. This must change, Mr President.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I have long been an advocate of the euro, but now its future is at stake. The Heads of Government in Europe do not have the courage to finally stop throwing good money after bad. It is time to stop saying: ‘Let’s put the problem off for a couple of years’. Instead, we need to finally be brave and responsible enough to take a debt haircut. Only then will the banks be able to be held accountable. It will hit people like us too – via our pension funds and life assurance. However, where this is concerned, we need to bite the bullet now, rather than prolonging the agony. This is where the great problem lies. In this connection, I should like to call on all my fellow Members to become involved in the initiatives from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, particularly as regards financewatch.org, so that in the future, we will actually be able to find ways of proceeding against the banks, against the lobbyists who are unfortunately still dictating matters here, and to get independent information.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area is of paramount importance to the stability of the EU’s eastern border. Secondly, what may be just as important is that this is a natural step after both countries received fully-fledged member status of the European Union in 2007.

However, this decision must be based on technical practicalities and not on sentiment or passion. There are some governing parties in the European Union which believe that they can win certain electoral arguments if they oppose this decision and lay the blame with Romania and Bulgaria for the fact that there are problems with Roma integration at EU level.

On the other hand, if the report concludes with a favourable outcome and the inspection carried out recently in both Member States indicates that both countries are prepared for joining the Schengen area, I would say that it is extremely important for us to continue supporting them, especially as we gave them a positive assessment not that long ago.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, following yet another conference on climate change, I think that, being honest with ourselves, the most that we can manage to say is that it was better than the Copenhagen conference because some results were achieved and some progress was made. It was better because a compromise was reached, once again under the umbrella of the United Nations. It was better because the European Union came out of the Cancún conference better off and it was a much more transparent process than the previous one. However, this alone cannot be seen as a consolation and we must recognise that it is still very little.

There is a basis for continued work, but we must also recognise that this basis, while positive, remains founded on promises. Governments need to go a great deal further to meet the public’s needs and to meet the needs of a real crisis with real victims. I am pleased that we will be discussing this in greater depth here tomorrow. Commemorating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will serve little purpose if we continue to neglect those rights. We should already know that the market does not solve everything and that it is time to put people first.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, a few days ago, in the US Congress, Representative Ron Paul asked a crucial question: when a war starts with a lie, is it more important to keep the secret or let the public know the truth? I share the concern of our fellow Member on the other side of the Atlantic regarding the WikiLeaks case. There are secrets that are justified and necessary. The problem arises when secrets become the rule rather than the exception and, in recent years, we have seen the growth of a culture of secrecy that is only deepening, circumventing democratic control, and which is now fiercely defending its privileges, as we have seen in the reactions of some governments and companies to the WikiLeaks case.

In the wake of political pressure, Amazon, Visa, MasterCard and even a Swiss bank that previously had deals with WikiLeaks have pulled out of them. A French minister has demanded that France should not allow this website to operate on French territory. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no legal basis for such pressure in the slightest. Trust is a two-way street and governments can only demand public trust when they are prepared to trust the public.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, it is exactly six months today since the federal parliamentary elections in Belgium took place. I need to point this out, because we have never before been in a situation where an EU Presidency has been held by a caretaker government for the full six months.

The Council is not politically represented here today. That is slightly unfortunate, because this surreal situation is worth mentioning. The artificial construct that is Belgium is still as ungovernable today as it was six months ago and there is nothing that can be done about that, because Flanders and Wallonia have evolved into two different countries with totally different political and socio-economic cultures.

Mr President, the situation in Belgium has reached a total impasse, so much so that the European Union had better prepare itself for the emergence of two new Member States: Flanders and Wallonia.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the recent amendments made to the Labour Code in Romania will exacerbate further the situation of employees, already hit hard by recession. The period of notice required from employees who have resigned and trial periods are going to be extended, which means that employment contracts can be terminated without notice during or at the end of this period, during which more than three people can be employed in succession for the same position. However, the most abusive measure, which blatantly flouts basic human rights, aims to suspend by law an employee’s individual employment contract while taking part in a strike.

I simply wish to protest against this attempt to turn employees into the bosses’ slaves. I would also like to call on Europe’s political forces and institutions to intervene and halt the decline in the status of employees in Romania.

  President. – That concludes the item.

IN THE CHAIR: LIBOR ROUČEK
Vice-President

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on

– the recommendation from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the draft Council decision concerning the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (11324/2010 – C7-0391/2010 – 2010/0106(NLE)) (Rapporteur: Nathalie Griesbeck) (A7-0345/2010),

– the recommendation from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (15507/2010 – C7-0392/2010 – 2010/0108(NLE)) (Rapporteur: Nathalie Griesbeck) (A7-0346/2010),

– the oral question to the Commission on implementation of the EU-Russia visa facilitation agreement by Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (O-0140/2010 – B7-0568/2010),

– the oral question to the Commission on implementation of the EU-Russia visa facilitation agreement by Manfred Weber, Simon Busuttil, Elmar Brok, Alojz Peterle, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (O-0172/2010 – B7-0656/2010),

– the oral question to the Commission on concerns about the correct application of the EU visa liberalisation scheme in Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, by Simon Busuttil, Manfred Weber, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Monika Hohlmeier, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (O-0181/2010 – B7-0654/2010).

  Nathalie Griesbeck, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to introduce these two reports this evening; reports, which I shall be presenting jointly, on the agreements between the Union and Georgia. The first concerns facilitation of the issuance of visas and the second the readmission of persons residing without authorisation.

By way of reminder, the first agreement on obligations relating to readmission provides for complete reciprocity to be applied to national citizens and nationals of third countries. It establishes readmission procedures – readmission requests, information, documents provided, proof, means of proof, deadlines, means of transfer, transport, transit, etc., unlike the case of the European Union-Pakistan readmission agreement, which you perhaps remember, and which I strongly opposed a few months ago. In this case, I should like to express my total satisfaction with this agreement, for the reason that it does indeed respect human rights and it should be possible to guarantee its application, since Georgia is a signatory to the Geneva Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. These are two prerequisites that are essential, in my view, for approval to be given to such an agreement.

The second agreement focusing on facilitation of the issuance of visas makes it possible for Georgian citizens, in particular, those who travel, such as students, journalists and so on, to obtain short-stay visas for travel to the European Union more easily, and thus to simplify significantly all the requirements for documents to be submitted in support of this type of application.

I should also like to remind you that, obviously, these two agreements go hand in hand, as, on the basis of the common approach, in principle, an agreement on facilitation of the issuance of visas can only be concluded if a readmission agreement exists.

There are therefore two important points to be raised. We have here an essential stage in the strengthening of relations between the Union and Georgia, which has, in recent years, demonstrated a clear desire for closer relations with us. These agreements are a first step in terms of privileged relations, a strong signal on the part of the Union towards Georgia.

Of course, these agreements are also of interest at the regional level. They will contribute to the efforts the Union has made to strengthen cooperation with other countries in the Southern Caucasus region as well. I certainly believe, as we all do, that this is also a way of encouraging Georgia to implement all the necessary reforms that the President, just a few days ago, reminded us were needed in the areas of liberty, security and justice. This will perhaps allow us to fight together still more effectively against clandestine immigration and to promote the development, in a nutshell, of democracy.

I therefore call upon you, ladies and gentlemen, to approve these two agreements concluded with Georgia. However, in conclusion, I should like to remind you, Commissioner, that although we cooperate very well with one another, a few months ago, when we were discussing the readmission agreement with Pakistan, you gave a solemn declaration to the effect that you would commit yourself to producing an evaluation of current readmission agreements and also a regular report to Parliament on these agreements, both those already concluded and those still under negotiation. I should like you to confirm once again, whether solemnly or otherwise, before this House, that we shall therefore not be kept on the sidelines, or too little involved or poorly informed, concerning the commencement and the progress of negotiations on agreements since your declaration. I believe that this is essential if we are to move forward together effectively in line with our values.

  Kristiina Ojuland, author. – Mr President, I must say that I am very happy that this debate on the EU-Russia visa waiver agreement is taking place today in this House, because this issue has been on the joint political agenda between the EU and the Russian Federation for so long now.

I welcome any political progress that was made in this regard at the summit last week. However, I will remain vigilant over the way it is put into practice.

Concerning the question to the Commission on the implementation of the EU-Russia visa facilitation agreement that I tabled on behalf of the ALDE Group, I wanted to learn what progress has been made so far and whether we are, at the moment, in a position to expect a breakthrough in tackling technical questions such as the requirement for EU citizens to register with the authorities within three days if staying in a private home in Russia.

I fully support the intended visa waiver agreement as a measure to enable Russian citizens to travel to the EU with minimum formalities, but I would expect the Russian side to apply the same stance to citizens of the European Union.

Another concern that one must address is security on the external borders of the Russian Federation, especially keeping in mind the illegal immigration flows from the south and elsewhere. The Russian side should secure full control over its borders, just as the European Union must exercise thorough border checks. The future visa waiver agreement must exclude any additional threats to the European Union.

Madam Commissioner, I very much look forward to your response.

  Manfred Weber, author. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) would also like to use today’s debate to take a general look at the visa policy of the European Union.

Firstly, it is important to emphasise, to make ourselves aware, of the great value of this visa policy to the European Union. Since we are a common Europe, a common space for people, we are able to create a common visa policy. Our visa policy is therefore also a sign of European unity – a very successful sign of European unity – and it is important to point that out, particularly in times of crisis.

Secondly, we are calling for clear rules of play when it comes to visa facilitation. The technical standards that are to be maintained – at external borders and when issuing passports and identity papers – are clearly set out. We cannot make any political concessions as regards the upholding of these standards. In 2010, we found that in the Balkans, there was initially a focus on technical standards, but political arguments were then advanced with increasing vigour. When it comes to visa facilitation, however, one cannot stop at one country; we have to view the area as a whole. Yes, it is always difficult for us to weigh things up in an individual case. However, the core of the issue is that the technical standards must be upheld; the criteria must remain. I therefore also support our Commissioner when she says that these standards that we are demanding must also be implemented in reality. That is an important task of the Commission, because only then will our visa policy be accepted by our citizens.

Thirdly, I would like to mention that we welcome the fact that the last European Justice and Home Affairs Council discussed enabling visa facilitation to be rapidly lifted or withdrawn from individual states if they fail to implement the standards. The example of Serbia showed us that the result was a great influx of asylum seekers.

Moving on to my final point, for the time being – when talking about Ukraine and Russia – our group is highly sceptical as regards opening the doors quickly, because we have just seen in the case of Serbia that there will also be negative effects. We should therefore proceed with great caution when it comes to visa policy.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I will address all the questions. Thank you for placing this very important debate on the agenda.

Let me start by thanking Mrs Griesbeck for her support and her work in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the EU-Georgia agreement with the adoption of a favourable opinion. Following the crisis in Georgia in the summer of 2008, it was decided at an extraordinary meeting of the Council of the European Union to step up relations with Georgia, including visa facilitation measures.

As you mention, Mrs Griesbeck, it is standard EU policy that a visa facilitation agreement cannot be offered to a third country without a readmission agreement, so the European Council’s decision implied that the two should be negotiated and concluded in parallel.

I am very grateful to Mrs Griesbeck for having also noted the important step forward in relations between Georgia and the EU that these two agreements represent. The agreement is very much along the lines of a standard EU readmission agreement, covering nationals as well as third country nationals, and also safeguarding – as was said – respect for human rights through a ‘non-effective’ clause and an article on data protection.

The agreement also provides for the establishment of a joint readmission committee, tasked with monitoring implementation of the agreement. This is an important step towards smoother mobility between the people of Georgia and the European Union.

Georgia has already waived the visa requirement for EU citizens, and this agreement will facilitate mobility for Georgian citizens. The agreement will indeed make it easier, cheaper and quicker for Georgian citizens – more than 60 000 per year – to obtain a Schengen visa.

It will bring other concrete benefits: a 10-day deadline will be set for the processing of applications and the visa fee will be reduced from EUR 60 to EUR 35. There will be certain categories of applicants who will be free of charge: students, journalists, children, pensioners, the disabled, etc. They can also benefit from a simplified supporting documents requirement and a multi-entry visa if they need to travel. Also, holders of diplomatic passports will be entirely exempted from visa obligations, which will further strengthen official contacts between the EU and Georgia.

Mrs Griesbeck mentioned the evaluation. This has been slightly delayed, but I will present it by the beginning of next year – I hope no later than February. I will be happy to discuss it with the Civil Liberties Committee and Parliament. You also made reference to the programme for Pakistan. This has only been operational for 13 days so it is a little early to evaluate it, but we will, of course, be happy to keep you updated.

Concerning the issue raised by Mrs Ojuland of the visa facilitation agreement between the EU and Russia, this has been in force since 1 January 2007. It is one of the eight visa facilitation agreements that we have concluded. Particularly important elements are that it applies on a reciprocal basis to EU citizens also, as they are currently under a visa obligation for travelling to Russia.

It is also an important agreement in quantitative terms. According to statistics provided by Russia, more than 1.5 million visas were issued to EU citizens in 2008 and the same year, Member State consulates issued 3.5 million visas to Russian citizens. That is more than a quarter of all Schengen visas issued worldwide.

All EU and Russian citizens benefit from the general facilitation provided by this facilitation agreement, such as a reduced fee of EUR 35. Certain categories are also exempted under specific facilitation; there is a visa-free waiver and also a multi-entry visa.

The Commission has evaluated this facilitation and has found that it works quite well. However, there are some shortcomings, as were referred to. To address these, we adopted a month ago a recommendation for directives for the renegotiation of the visa facilitation with Russia. This relates entirely to further facilitation with regard to documentary evidence and the length of the visa application procedure, the extension of the provisions for the issuing of multiple-entry visas and a visa-free waiver for a number of well-defined categories of applicants.

As regards the specific issue of the implementation of Article 10 of the visa facilitation agreement, which provides for the simplification of the registration procedure, we noted in our evaluation that Russia had adopted some simplification; it is now possible to register by post, for example. The registration fee will be abolished by next year, but some of the other measures, such as the translation of the registrations into English and the possibility to register online, have not yet materialised. We are raising this issue with our Russian counterparts and in different fora, and we hope that this will take place very soon.

Concerning the other Eastern Partnership countries, there have been other steps as well. This was also in your question. We have visa facilitation with Moldova and Ukraine as from 1 January 2008, but we are also renegotiating these agreements.

Regarding Belarus, draft negotiating directives for visa facilitation were adopted by the Commission a month ago, and we will recommend multiple-entry visas with a long period of validity for bona fide travellers and set deadlines for processing visa applications, as well as possible exemptions for visa obligations for holders of diplomatic passports.

We will also adopt draft negotiating directives for a visa facilitation agreement with Azerbaijan and Armenia next year.

On the correct application of the visa liberalisation scheme that Mr Weber referred to, namely, that applicable to Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Council decided, as was also said, to grant visa-free travel to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia in 2009. The decision came following intensive dialogue and substantial progress by these countries on the main matters covered by the visa liberalisation dialogues. The dialogues have proved effective in implementing a lot of important reforms but, as was also pointed out, the visa-free regime comes with responsibilities and the countries concerned should take the appropriate measures to make sure that there is no abuse of the visa waiver.

Some Member States have experienced an increased number of asylum applications from these countries – notably Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These have to be assessed on an individual basis according to our legislation. We have taken a number of steps to address this situation: we have had high-level meetings with the Ministers of the Interior on the two questions, and there was a high-level visit to the two capitals by the Belgian Presidency and the Commission.

The authorities of these two countries have taken some steps. There have been new information campaigns organised to inform the citizens. There are instructions to the border police to deliver and to perform increased controls on people exiting the country and to inform travellers about the risk of unfounded applications for asylum.

When, earlier this autumn, we proposed lifting the visa requirement for the citizens of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, both countries committed themselves to setting up information campaigns for their citizens on the rights and obligations arising from the visa waiver, and this has been done. These are very ambitious campaigns. In addition, after approval by the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission made a commitment to intensify post-visa liberalisation monitoring for all the Western Balkan countries.

There will be two parts to this. On the one hand, we will continue to assess the sustainable implementation of reforms by the countries concerned through the stabilisation and association process – in particular, in the area of justice, freedom and security. On the other hand, we will also act as a prevention mechanism against new situations of high in-flow of persons from the region. The collection of the necessary operational information that could help to prevent these situations was done early this year, and we will have active participation from Frontex, Europol, immigration liaison officers, Western Balkan police liaison officers and the secretariat of the Police Corporation Convention for South-East Europe, supported by the incoming presidencies – Hungary and Poland.

All the information exchanged and collected will be shared by EU Member States and, of course, when appropriate, with the countries of the Western Balkans. Such information will also feed into the Commission assessment to be carried out in the first semester of next year on post-visa liberalisation monitoring. I consider that these measures should contribute to avoiding the misuse of the visa-free travel regime, and I am confident that close cooperation between the countries of origin and EU destination countries, supported by the Commission, offers an effective response. We will, of course, continue to report regularly to the European Parliament and to the Council on the results of this monitoring mechanism, for the first time in June 2011.

  Krzysztof Lisek, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – (PL) Mr President, as the permanent rapporteur of the European Parliament for the European Union’s cooperation with Georgia, as well as the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Mrs Griesbeck’s reports, I would like to say a few words about these two agreements – the agreement on readmission and the agreement on visa facilitation between the European Union and Georgia. I feel duty-bound to say that these agreements were adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs by an overwhelming majority of votes.

I would like to add that at the previous parliamentary session, here in Strasbourg, we listened to a speech given by President Saakashvili; a speech which even in the eyes of those who would not consider themselves to be his fans was described as being matter-of-fact, balanced and rational. President Saakashvili, during his speech, not only declared his renunciation of the use of force and willingness to hold talks with Russia on difficult matters, but also declared that the main goal of Georgia’s foreign policy would, of course, be European integration and NATO membership.

In my opinion, we have to remember that Georgia and the Georgians are today the most pro-European country and nation out of those countries that are included in the Eastern Partnership programme, although we must not, of course, talk about any deadlines, because talking about deadlines today would be a sure sign of madness. The European Union should give a positive and matter-of-fact response to Georgians’ ambitions. We should be open to cooperation with Georgia.

These agreements that we are talking about today obviously do not constitute a revolution, but we all regard them as a step in the right direction. The key thing is to bring them into effect as soon as possible, because in my opinion, it would be wrong if people living in Abkhazia or South Ossetia, regions which have broken away from Georgia and whose residents hold Russian passports, had it easier today in terms of visas than people living in Georgia.

  Monica Luisa Macovei, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the EPP Group is in favour of the two proposals for EU-Georgia agreements: the readmission agreement and the visa facilitation agreement. I would like to refer to the last one, the visa facilitation agreement.

It simplifies the visa application for Georgians. Member States will apply uniform and simplified procedures. A visa will cost EUR 35, less than at present, and will allow a stay of up to 90 days every six months. Visa applications will be processed in 10 days, or in three days for some categories, or less in cases of emergencies. No visas will be required on diplomatic passports.

Free movement is one road to learning democracy and seeing it at work. The people-to-people direct contact means sharing values and realities. It creates trust. This is why I hope that more EU citizens will travel to Georgia and more Georgians will travel to the European Union.

  Kinga Göncz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (HU) Mr President, we would like to thank Commissioner Malmström for the information she has provided. Visa policy is a very important tool in our hands in that it can help us facilitate contacts between people, and bring the countries concerned closer to the European Union. From this point of view, this agreement between the European Union and Georgia is a very important one. I would like to say a few words about visa liberalisation in the countries of the Western Balkans, mainly about the problems that have arisen in connection with Serbia and Macedonia. We supported this agreement with an overwhelming majority in Parliament, and we consider it very important for the aforementioned reasons.

These countries undertook serious efforts to meet expectations, even though we often see that their political lives are divided. We have seen cooperation in these countries in this area. It is satisfying to see that the number of people travelling to the European Union has increased. We have the impression that the problems in Serbia and Macedonia are largely due to human trafficking, and that this definitely affects a smaller number of people, even if it causes serious problems. I believe that we have a shared responsibility. We have a shared responsibility to ensure that these countries, too, do everything in their power, both in respect of informing their citizens and taking decisive action. Serbia, by the way, has done so very quickly and efficiently.

I believe, however, that our own responsibility in this is also quite considerable. It is the responsibility of the Commission both to assist these countries in combating human trafficking and to provide information, monitor the events that take place in the area and truly increase the effectiveness of this otherwise very important tool, which we intend to continue to use in the future, both in connection with the countries of the Western Balkans and other countries. Furthermore, please allow me to state in a few words that we are very pleased that, although somewhat later and with a one-year delay, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina will also be joining the group of visa-exempt countries this year.

  Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I agree with Mr Weber of the EPP that EU visa policy is extremely valuable and that technical standards and conditions of visa facilitation and visa waiver must be met.

However, I do not believe that, in the case of the Balkan visa waiver, political considerations have overridden these technical standards. The Commission worked very hard to get document integrity, law enforcement and border controls up to scratch. We would devalue our own stance if we thought that the technical standards had not been met, because we voted to support that visa waiver.

Of course, it is of concern if concessions are abused, but there must be measured and proportionate responses. The countries concerned – as Commissioner Malmström said – have responsibilities and they must be reminded of them. The Commissioner has explained to us that there has been quite intense work, with high-level meetings with interior ministers, visits to capitals, encouragement to run information campaigns – and there is a specific commitment by Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania to inform their citizens. Of course, if there are problems with one visa waiver agreement, this undermines the others, so there is a certain onus for responsibility and solidarity and for all citizens to be aware that they could harm other people’s chances of free travel.

I personally am reassured – and I think my group will be – that the Commission will intensify its monitoring of respect for the agreement conditions and have a mechanism for flagging up problems through close cooperation with our partners. I hope that all groups will find that reassuring and adequate. As my neighbour, Mrs Macovei of the EPP, has said, people-to-people direct contacts create trust. That is the bottom line. That is the reason we support visa facilitation and visa waiver.

There has been broad based cross-party support in Parliament for this proposal because it is based on our EU experience and values. So do not let us overreact. There have been problems, but the Commission is on the case. Let us make sure that we do not undermine either the right to asylum or the visa waiver agreements.

  Tatjana Ždanoka, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, our political group supports the visa facilitation agreement between the EU and Georgia.

However, we have some reservations on the agreement on readmission. We voted against it in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and submitted a written minority opinion, because the agreement contains numerous ambiguities which might be clarified in the Joint Readmission Committee. It does not include strict safeguards concerning the violation of fundamental rights and guaranteeing high standards of reception, which are poor in Georgia. It aims at returning people to a country where sexual and gender-based violence is rife and police ill-treatment tolerated. It applies also to those former residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia who do not have any de facto links to Georgia.

And now some words on the visa agreement with Russia. Three years ago, a report was adopted on visa facilitation with Russia, which passed my own amendment saying that the requirement of the mandatory registration procedure is a serious obstacle to travel within Russia and the EU. Unfortunately, nothing has changed since that time and this is crucially important for my electorate who travel to Russia for private visits.

  Paweł Robert Kowal, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, Georgia today is a country that, despite facing many problems, is undergoing very dynamic social and economic changes. We should unambiguously and gladly welcome any way of showing Georgian society that the strength of these changes is being reflected in our reactions as European Union institutions. When it comes to Russia, too, we should consider in what context we see the visa regime with Russia. My feeling is that it should not be treated as a point of prestige for the authorities – that if we abolish the visa requirement, then the Russian authorities will negotiate well with the European Union. We should take a different view of it, in the context of ensuring modernisation and in the context of our relations with ordinary Russians.

For this reason, it should be stated explicitly that the process of abolishing visas, of opening up on the basis of established conditions, is a very positive one, which makes a positive contribution to our relations with societies in the East. The myth that visas are some kind of crucial element for our security should be debunked, and it should be said, perhaps particularly clearly in the European Parliament, and repeated at every opportunity: visas build walls, unnecessary walls. Within the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee that I chair, we have examined a special report with non-governmental organisations in which we researched this issue. The report shows clearly that visas are, in fact, not an important security instrument; visas are a way of separating European Union societies from those in the East, whereas we should always be open. This is our duty as parliamentarians.

  Alfreds Rubiks, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (LV) Mr President, on behalf of my group, I can say that we support the facilitation of the issuance of visas, but at the same time, everything must be done to ensure compliance with the technical requirements prescribed in regulations. On behalf of my electors in Latvia, I also support those facilitations connected with travel from Russia to the European Union, for this is very important in circumstances such as a family’s ability to come together, as in Latvia there are many mixed families and relatives where some live in one country and some in the other. This is also essential for tourism, which is developing strongly recently. Moreover, there has already been positive feedback on what has already been achieved by way of visa facilitation. This is also essential for business. If we look at Latvia’s business relationships with Russia, these are seven times greater when it comes to imports, and eight times greater for exports. This is all very positive. I wish the Commission success in implementing it all.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, as we all know, the visa exemption has applied to biometric passport holders from FYROM, Serbia and Montenegro since 19 December 2009. Nonetheless, concerns are being voiced by Member States of the European Union – and were voiced today by Commissioner Malmström – about the increase in the number of asylum applications by Serbian and FYROM citizens and the possibility of a situation arising which will jeopardise the issuing of visas and the point of the measure.

My country, Greece, backed the prospect of abolishing visa requirements for citizens from all Western Balkan countries, as real proof of their European prospects. This was first formulated on the agenda in Thessaloniki in June 2003 and in the spirit of the Greek initiative for Agenda 2014. This notwithstanding, I must express my concern as to whether the criteria of the road map are being applied by these countries and as to whether immigration flows from these countries to Member States of the European Union are being controlled, especially now that the European family is being shaken by the financial crisis and cannot bear the weight of more immigrants. We have to understand that more visa facilitation agreements are designed to facilitate travel within the European Union, not immigration or other illegal activities, such as human trafficking.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Mr President, last month, the European Commission rightly sent the governments of Serbia and Macedonia a letter of warning concerning the alarming increase in asylum applications from these two countries. Mr President, it leaves a particularly sour taste in the mouth that in the very same month, this House decided to grant a visa waiver for Albania and Bosnia. Obviously, these two countries also immediately began behaving in a way similar to the conduct which led to that first letter of warning.

Mr President, that should never have been allowed to happen, but it is not yet too late. The waiving of the visa requirement also comes with a certain responsibility and, if this responsibility is not taken, then we have to act. The Commission must haul the Serbian and Macedonian ambassadors over the carpet and demand that they take action. If it were up to me, we would revoke that visa waiver today, but the Commission will probably not be in favour of that, so what I do want the Commission to say is that it will have the courage to penalise any continued misconduct on the part of these Balkan countries.

Serbia and Macedonia are the forerunners of Bosnia and Albania. It is time that we sent out a clear signal to these two Balkan countries and doing so would be a good thing.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the increase in asylum applications on behalf of citizens of Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia requires measures protecting the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001.

Visas are an instrument included in the framework of immigration policies; their purpose is to legalise the entry and temporary stay in a country where the applicant is neither a non-national nor a resident.

Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 provides for an evaluation mechanism for visa extension, in which certain requirements in relation to illegal immigration, public order and security, the Union’s external relations, territorial cohesion and the principle of reciprocity must be fulfilled. This mechanism could also function in the opposite direction.

Asylum, on the other hand, is an instrument of protection that cannot be used incorrectly. It should be pointed out that the purpose of the European Union’s common policy in this area is to preserve the integrity of asylum as an instrument of protection for the persecuted, prioritising the principles of the Geneva Convention and the New York Protocol, applying common criteria for the identification of people who genuinely require international protection and a guaranteed common minimum level of benefits in all Member States for the welfare of those people.

Asylum is therefore an instrument of humanitarianism and solidarity and, hence, exclusive in its purpose and nature. This is why it is important that the European Union reacts and helps the Serbian and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian authorities to adopt sufficient measures regarding the requirements that must be fulfilled to benefit from refugee status or subsidiary protection status, thereby avoiding improper or fraudulent use of them.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for the information which you have provided us with regarding the visa facilitation regulations, especially for Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, the timing of our debate coincides with the introduction of the visa waiver for citizens from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania, including the option to suspend the agreement quickly if problems arise, such as a deluge of asylum applications.

I believe that any attempt to turn the clock back on the European Union’s policy towards the Western Balkans would be a mistake. Lifting the barriers preventing free movement can make an important contribution to closing the wounds of the past. At the same time, I think that closer cooperation is required between the European Union and these states in order to discourage the flood of asylum applications, tighten border controls, provide correct information to local citizens and combat the organised crime networks involved in human trafficking and in exporting crime and prostitution. All these measures can help reduce the incidence of these activities.

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, we have a situation where a number of misguided Serbs and Macedonians have applied for asylum in Belgium, Sweden and Germany since the introduction of visa-free travel. I support the call of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) for us to ensure that the inhabitants of the Balkans are better informed, but there is something else important to bear in mind here.

First of all, there are other people, too, who do not understand what visa-free travel actually entails. I have heard Dutch members of this Parliament saying, in all seriousness, that we are now going to have hordes of asylum seekers coming to take our jobs, just like the Poles did, and I am not even talking about the delegation of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV). That suggestion is not only absolutely ridiculous, but could also do a great deal of harm. They are playing on the fear and ignorance of our citizens.

Secondly, those asylum seekers were almost exclusively members of ethnic minorities. If there is anything on which we need to call Serbia and Macedonia to account, it is that they have to do much more to improve the position of these ethnic minorities. So yes, let us ensure that the inhabitants of the Balkans are better informed, but let us also ensure that members of this House and citizens and ministers of the EU are better informed of what visa-free travel actually entails.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, we are considering whether the current agreement concluded between Russia and the European Union fulfils our expectations and whether the two-way movement of people matches their interest in travelling.

Commissioner, I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that the current visa regime is deficient and is particularly damaging to the EU. Russia has changed enormously since the time of the former Soviet Union. The middle class is solvent and is interested in learning about the world, travelling, relaxing and shopping. When my country acceded to the Schengen area, we had to impose restrictions on Russian citizens travelling to Slovakia, in accordance with EU rules. The financial impact was serious, with tour operators and shops losing many good customers. The European visa regime discourages respectable Russians from travelling to Slovakia, while not restricting the less respectable from migrating in the slightest. I therefore firmly believe that if we care at all about respectable Russians, we will try to open our economic space and make use of the potential that exists in Russia in order to expand and enhance cooperation between our countries.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, I am so glad that in two days, the people of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina can finally celebrate the granting of visa-free travel to the EU Schengen area – just before Christmas. Their happiness is my happiness. I have been fully committed to supporting and accelerating the visa liberalisation process for all countries of the Western Balkans and, finally, almost all of them will be able to enjoy the opportunity to visit and study in our countries for three months.

Our oral question to the Commission has to be seen in a positive spirit. It is to make sure that this new freedom is not put at risk. The visa-free regime is not about asylum for political or economic reasons. It is not about permanent residence. It is not about a work permit.

I would like to welcome the steps that Commissioner Malmström has already taken – in particular, with the authorities of Serbia and FYROM – showing the determination of the Commission to keep the process on track and to ensure correct application of the regime. Thank you for your response.

Now we have to continue working together to prevent and address any misinterpretation, misunderstanding or misuse. The responsibility continues to lie with the authorities of the region. We welcome the fact that Albania and FYROM have already successfully launched an information campaign, and we encourage all the countries in the region of the Western Balkans to do the same and to step up measures to prevent abuse.

We ask the Commission to continue monitoring, as it does already, and to report to us. Developing people-to-people contact, as you have already said, is essential for democracy and stability in the region. Let us not put that at stake in a European perspective. My commitment continues to be whole-hearted.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, one essential condition for a complete waiver of visas between the Russian Federation and the European Union is fulfilment of the commitments made through the 2007 agreement. The Russian authorities have repeatedly requested that the short-stay visa requirement be lifted. The EU, on the other hand, has preferred a gradual approach, reflected by a list of joint measures. I feel it is important for all the technical conditions to be met before implementing a decision on visa liberalisation, for example, improvements in border management standards, document security or the fight against corruption.

Russia must also confirm by deeds its intention to achieve tangible results in settling unresolved conflicts in the region. It has a firm responsibility in this regard. Resolving the conflict in Transnistria is a political priority for my country. We support the continuation of formal discussions as part of the 5+2 negotiations, with the aim of identifying a lasting solution. It must fully respect international law and the Republic of Moldova’s sovereignty.

I would also like to mention the situation of the Eastern Partnership countries, which include Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. They have been waiting a long time for visa liberalisation and have implemented numerous reforms with this in mind. I wish to point out that the Republic of Moldova is a great advocate of this measure within the Eastern Partnership. I want to stress that if Russia achieves a relaxation of the visa scheme before the EU’s close neighbours, the latter would find this demoralising. This would prove that the status of Partnership countries does not count for very much when strategic concessions from the Union are at stake.

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, we are supposed to speak about visas; we are supposed to speak about visas in terms of statistics and what the European Union has done. In this Chamber, there is widespread satisfaction. I would like all of you who have spoken with such satisfaction today to try and imagine having to stand for 10 or more hours in a queue, bear humiliation and discomfort and stand in the rain in terrible conditions in order to get a visa. People have to stand and they have to pay one third of their salary to get a visa. They also have to hear that diplomats in their country do not need visas, and finally, after trying to get a visa several times, because they need one, they get a single-entry visa, despite wanting a Schengen visa, but they did at least get a visa for the country in question.

The visa procedure should weigh heavily on our conscience. It is nothing short of a humiliation for millions of people – the people who stand in those queues. Let us remember this when expressing the satisfaction that is so widespread in this Chamber today. I understand that we use the visa procedure as a carrot and stick, but this should apply to governments, and we should sympathise with the people who stand in the queues.

Madam Commissioner, you are from Sweden. As you know, in the 1970s, your country, with Austria, was one of only two countries where there was a no-visa regime for the communist countries. As a citizen of Poland, I visited your country in 1976. Why? Because travelling to Sweden was visa-free. Of course I love your King, Swedish freedom and the economy, but please remember that, as long as we have visas, we should not feel comfortable.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – Mr President, speaking on behalf of the EPP Group, we look at visa facilitation and visa liberalisation policy very positively, because we think that this is a very positive instrument with which to deal with third countries, especially those countries that lie in our near neighbourhood. So our initial outlook is clearly positive.

Visa facilitation is the first step, and this week we are giving it to Georgia. It is a first step, but it is an important step in what my colleague, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, has called people-to-people contact. Visa facilitation normally goes together with readmission agreements. Madam Commissioner, we also attach a great deal of importance to readmission agreements because we want to make sure that people who are illegally staying in EU territory are asked to leave. This is the only way in which we can win public trust for visa facilitation and eventual visa liberalisation. The two go together, so we ask you to work harder to increase the network of readmission agreements that we have with third countries.

As for visa liberalisation, we did this last year for Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. It is good to see that our friends from Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina are now going to benefit from it, too. We wholeheartedly accept this and feel that this is a very good step towards further European integration and certainly to bring the citizens of these countries closer to us.

When we decide on these dossiers, we are always very careful to take a decision which is not political but is primarily taken on technical grounds – i.e. countries must first fulfil technical criteria before they get our positive decision. A decision would also, of course, be political, but it must rely primarily on technical assessments.

I emphasise this because it is mostly up to the Commission to come to us and say that a particular country has passed the technical criteria. Therefore, when we have cases of abuse with people coming from a visa liberalisation country, such as Serbia or Macedonia, and asking for asylum in EU countries, we have to ask whether the technical assessment has been carried out fully and correctly, because it is clearly not compatible with visa liberalisation to have someone coming to the European Union and asking for asylum. This tells us that something, somewhere, has gone wrong. It is legitimate for us to ask what went wrong and to get a reply.

Finally, we must take this opportunity to send a clear message to the countries involved – especially those such as Serbia and Macedonia involved in cases of abuse – that they should clearly tell their citizens what visa liberalisation is all about. It is not about going to EU countries to settle there or to find work, but it is a simple visa waiver for a limited period of time – simply for a visit. This applies to the European Commission too. It is important for the Commission to work hand-in-hand with these countries to make sure that this message gets through.

  Lara Comi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support my fellow Members’ request for the Commission to undertake an assessment concerning the implementation of the EU-Russia visa facilitation agreement.

This shows the common intention of the parties to strive for the complete abolition of visa requirements in the long term, in view of the impact that appropriate implementation of the objectives of facilitating and simplifying visa issuance procedures could have both on individuals and on the development of economic and trade relationships.

I believe, therefore, that it is important to monitor the implementation of this agreement; this would allow for considerable development of concrete personal, cultural, scientific and economic links between the European Union and its main Western European negotiating partner.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner Malmström’s response was reassuring in respect of Serbia and Macedonia in that we do not intend to throw the baby out with the bath water. It would be a serious mistake to reintroduce visa obligations for Serbia and Macedonia just because there have been problems in connection with these two countries. Mrs Malmström has indicated this, and I am convinced that the Hungarian Presidency will be a partner in this matter in the following term, since Hungary, as a neighbour of Serbia, has an important stake in the resolution of these problems for the sake of good neighbourly relations, as well as the community of 300 000 Hungarians living in Serbia. It is evident that the majority of tasks will have to be undertaken by the governments of Serbia and Macedonia and, as Mrs Malmström mentioned, it is they who must provide information to their citizens. However, I would still like to point out that the old Member States that are facing these asylum issues must also review whether their asylum policies are appropriate, as they are also granting asylum to applicants to whom it should not be granted.

IN THE CHAIR: SILVANA KOCH-MEHRIN
Vice-President

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, visa facilitation and visa liberalisation are undoubtedly intended to be favourable terms. They are always defended on the grounds that they have nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with education and tourism – two more favourable terms.

You can call me a cynic, but students do not always come to study and tourists do not always visit for a limited period. They sometimes come to the EU in order to work and to live. The idea that people are always truthful about their intentions is not borne out from experience.

In the present crisis, jobs are scarce – especially unskilled jobs – and the demand for housing accommodation always exceeds supply. The jobs that illegal migrants fill are often jobs that could be filled by citizens of Member States and the conditions and pay are frequently below the minimum. We must not even pretend that turning a blind eye to illegal migration is an act of generosity. It leads to poverty wage rates, unsafe conditions, exploitation and abuse.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, I, too, have taken the floor in order to endorse what has been said by my fellow Members as regards our acceptance in principle and the positive approach to visa exemptions. It goes without saying that we have seen abuse and bad examples, poorly worded texts which we have identified and hastened to rectify, ever since this exemption started. It is vital that the Commission and the Commissioner in person cooperate with the authorities in the countries from which problems have emanated; I refer, of course, both to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and to Serbia. It is precisely because we are moving towards exemptions for other countries – and that, I repeat, is a move in the right direction – that our guide should perhaps be this: closer cooperation with the authorities in these countries, possibly also specific action which can guide us in future, alongside the application of these control agreements.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the relations between Russia and the EU have always represented a special relationship, considering the respective positions of both parties as a major power. It is without doubt that, due to this status, there will be disagreements on certain issues, and several issues will be seen differently. However, we must not forget, and I actually need to emphasise this, that Russia does not only belong to Europe in a geopolitical sense, but also in respect of its culture and history. These ties make visa facilitation measures between the two parties indispensable, and the Jobbik Movement for a Better Hungary supports these. Similar to certain Member States of the EU, Russia can determine its administrative obligations relating to visas independently, and these need to be based on reciprocity. The situation of Serbia is far from being so unambiguous, as unfortunately, the Hungarian minorities and other minority groups still suffer several disadvantages to this day. The European Parliament and the European Union must investigate this matter in any case.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, at the same time as liberalising the visa regime, we should also send out clear signals regarding our values. This is not just about opening doors, because we should open them as wide as possible; it is also about promoting democracy in the countries neighbouring the European Union. We should, therefore, support those countries that are truly striving for democracy and the rule of law and which respect European values. However, it seems to me that, first and foremost, we should liberalise the visa regime for the post-Soviet countries, and only then for Russia.

Here, I agree with those who have said that if we liberalise the visa regime for Russia before doing so for the residents of Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries, it will send out a very bad signal. In Georgia, it may be the case that in areas occupied at present by Russia, many people will want to obtain Russian citizenship and have it approved, as this will mean a free pass for Russia. Let us treat the visa regime also as a tool to promote democracy.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for this debate. I fully agree with you that visa facilitation and visa liberalisation is a very strong tool for increasing people-to-people contact. Not only ordinary citizens, students, tourists; it also increases business possibilities and that is a very good thing.

We have decided in the European Union to move towards visa liberalisation with the Western Balkans. That in itself is a political decision. It shows political will, and that is very important, but the achievement of this goal can only be very technical and very strict. We cannot abolish visas unless we have very strict criteria.

These criteria are open. They are transparent. They are the same for everybody and they are bringing about important reforms in the countries that want to achieve visa facilitation and visa liberalisation. And yes, Mr Busuttil, the Commission does monitor this very closely and the expert missions are composed also of experts from Member States. All these reports and all this work is done in a very transparent way.

Having said that, there have been a few cases of abuse, notably in Serbia and in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Now, this should not overshadow that overwhelmingly; it works well, but there are abuses. The Commission has addressed that. We have been there. We have talked to our interlocutors. The Belgian Presidency has been very active.

We are trying to assess this problem. It is mainly a small group of criminal networks that encourage people in remote areas to travel to the European Union under false premises in the hope that they will receive asylum. We will, of course, examine all these applications on an individual basis, but very many of them are unfounded and this is why we need to address these networks. This is being done and we are in dialogue with the authorities from these countries.

I was personally in Tirana and in Sarajevo only a month ago, together with the Belgian Minister, in order to reinforce this message, that this is very important but beware of abuses. We said it to all the Ministers, to members of the parliament, members of civil society, the universities and, I think, all the TV channels that we could find in these countries, in order to make it very clear that this is a fantastic opportunity but please do not abuse it.

We have an evaluation and monitoring mechanism in place and I will be happy to report to you later this spring on how it is working.

On Russia, this has indeed led to a lot of good things, to increased mobility between our countries. According to all evaluations, confirmed by Member States, there are no signals that the visa facilitation has led to any increased security threats or to increased irregular immigration. We are now identifying a list of common steps for Russia and the European Union to take in order to open possibilities for further talks on moving towards visa liberalisation.

On Georgia, I just want to reiterate to my Green friends what the rapporteur has also said, that they have acceded to the Council of Europe and the European Convention of Human Rights on the readmission agreement. EU laws also require Member States to individually assess an asylum application and, should there be a need for international protection, they must, under EU law, respect that and also the principle of non-refoulement, that is, not to return a person to a country if there is a possibility that this person will be subjected to persecution or serious harm.

Overall, I think that this was a very good debate. I am looking forward to reporting to you on the evaluation of the readmission agreement. They are indeed very hard to negotiate, Mr Busuttil, but we are working on it. As I said earlier in this debate, there will be an evaluation at the beginning of next year and I will be happy to come to Parliament and to discuss its conclusions and how we can move further in facilitating these kinds of agreements with third countries.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I, too, am pleased, just like our Commissioner, at the quality of our debate, which has demonstrated the genuine responsibility of our institutions in general.

This responsibility has also been expressed through the replies made by the Commissioner, the commitments made and reiterated through the various evaluation meetings arranged for February and June 2011. Of course, I did not want one immediately as regards Pakistan. I was, in point of fact, reminding you of our fundamental positions. I also wanted to thank her for the willingness that she expressed in terms of reciprocal security, of replies to questions, of openness and cooperation, of adjustments and the fight against abuses and in terms of respect for these different legal circumstances.

Although these agreements rightly provide a legal framework for organising the facilitation of visas and readmission procedures, under exact and strict conditions, this must not be confused with the absolute necessity we also have of defining the terms and the parameters of a European right to asylum.

In conclusion, I believe that this policy is a little like the two-headed god, Janus Bifrons. We have spoken about policy and about procedure. As far as I am concerned, Janus represents two profiles, procedure and policy, of a single face. It has a technical face, that of procedures, that of conditions of law and of respect, but it also has a political face characterised, as certain fellow Members have said, by consolidation, by cooperation, by an opening of the Union towards third countries, a sign of our values, but it is also a case of registering a form of response to Europeans’ willingness to make this opening.

I should like to conclude by saying that we must balance these elements and do everything to make them clear to our citizens. We need to make it clear to them what a three-month visa really is and hence avoid ambiguities and other misunderstandings that could arise. I am counting on you, Commissioner.

  President. – The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 December.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Maintaining the exemption from visa obligations is not only a technical issue, but clearly a political matter as well. However, exemptions from visa obligations are always based on mutual trust and mutual commitments. Today’s debate conveys the message to the countries concerned that the long list of tasks that lies before them as a result of their commitment does not end after being granted visa exemption, and that they still need to provide their citizens with information about what visa-free travel entails in order to prevent abuses of this opportunity. The visa exemption granted to Serbia and Montenegro will provide an opportunity to acquire a European perspective primarily to the young people on whom the Europe of the future will be built. The exemption granted two years ago carried an important political message for these countries, and withdrawing it would have severe consequences. Of similar importance is the maintenance of visa exemption for the Hungarians living in Vojvodina, for those citizens who live on either side of the border, speak the same language, and cultivate close family and cultural ties. For countries rushing towards EU membership, the creation of the conditions of coexistence, regardless of borders, is of special importance.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Every liberalisation of visa requirements goes towards meeting the expectations of the people living in the countries affected by the liberalisation. I would like to stress that the agreement facilitating the issuing of visas between the EU and Georgia cannot be viewed separately from the agreement on the readmission of illegal immigrants. We have been talking about this for a long time in Europe, because visa policy is particularly important for the EU.

Visa liberalisation means that EU countries are opening up to the citizens of Balkan countries, thereby creating possibilities for participating in EU dialogue and learning about democracy. However, along with liberalisation, we have to take into account the fact that making it easier to cross borders may make life easier for illegal immigrants and criminal groups. The Member States should apply uniform procedures for issuing visas, because Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina are waiting their turn. The European Commission must abide by the conditions for visa liberalisation and monitor the situation so that good solutions do not give rise to difficulties within EU Member States. Additionally, it is important for countries to cooperate and to make use of experience gained to date with regard to the visa issuing procedure.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I believe that Serbia has made great efforts so far to meet the EU’s expectations and continue on its path towards integration. The following measures were achieved in 2009 and 2010: visa liberalisation, launch of the ratification process for the stabilisation and association agreement and the European Commission’s approval to draft the opinion on Serbia’s application to join the EU.

However, it is regrettable that the Serbian authorities have not publicised in the media and adequately explained what the establishment of the visa-free travel regime introduced in 2009 entails so that their citizens do not abuse this scheme. I hope that this alarming rise in the number of applications for asylum in the EU submitted by Serbian citizens will not harm Serbia’s integration process. I firmly believe that the Serbian authorities will respond promptly. I also should recall that the path to accession depends on the individual efforts made by Serbia to comply with the Copenhagen criteria and the stabilisation and association agreement.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) In connection with the general topic of this debate (visas), I would like to talk about two issues which are specific, but, in my opinion, of the highest importance. Both issues are very sensitive from the perspective of successfully implementing the European good neighbourhood policy. First, there is the matter of implementing the agreement on visa facilitation between the EU and Russia. In my opinion, it is not enough just to criticise – from the standpoint of an overall assessment of how the agreement is functioning – certain measures which Russia has unfortunately also had to apply against citizens travelling from EU countries. This is necessary because of the general security situation in the country, and the measures, such as, for example, the obligation to register, do not essentially complicate visa facilitation. The second issue is the apparent concern regarding the proper implementation of the system for relaxing the EU visa regime in Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. This concern has reportedly stemmed from an increase in the number of asylum applications from citizens of these countries, and measures against the relevant domestic bodies have been put forward as a solution. This is misleading and beside the point. The EU and NATO have long had a major influence on the overall political situation in the Balkans. These organisations should, first and foremost, pursue the sort of measures and the sort of policies in the Balkans that will not force people to leave this sorely tested region.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) We must not count our chickens before they are hatched. We will only believe in the agreement with Moscow to remove trade barriers once it has been ratified and implemented. In this context, we simply need to think of the Russian decision to withdraw from the signing of the Energy Charter. It will also become clear whether the Kremlin really intends to comply with EU calls for visa facilitation. Visa liberalisation for the Western Balkans, which is an area only a fraction the size of Russia, has resulted in a wave of asylum seekers, so what can we expect to happen when the visa restrictions for the seventh largest country in the world in terms of population are lifted? If a large number of Islamists from the Caucasus have Russian citizenship, will we be allowing potential terrorists into the country without visa requirements? Whether we are talking about Serbia, Georgia or Macedonia, we must take a close look at the situation and, if necessary, continue to work on appropriate readmission agreements. We must evaluate the experiences of lifting visa regulations for the Balkan countries, bring the Schengen Information System II (SIS II) up to date and monitor the implementation of the visa requirements in Moscow. We must also keep an eye on the increase in the number of refugees leaving the Caucasus and the central Asian countries for Russia, together with the growth in the number of asylum seekers from those countries which want visa restrictions to be removed.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) According to data held by Russia’s statistics agency, in 2008, more than 1.5 million Russian visas were issued to EU citizens, and 3.5 million EU visas were issued to Russian citizens. That is more than a quarter of all Schengen visas issued worldwide. EU-Russia visa policy is an important instrument for deepening interpersonal relations and enabling Russia to move closer to the EU. I would like to draw attention to the difficulties faced by the inhabitants of the Russian Federation’s Kaliningrad Region. The majority of the inhabitants of this Russian island surrounded by EU Member States receive single entry short-stay Schengen visas. Most Kaliningrad inhabitants travelling through neighbouring EU Member States have to pay a visa fee every time and stand in queues at the consulates of EU Member States. Recently, representatives from social organisations in Kaliningrad, picketing at the building of the European Commission in Brussels, called for the introduction of special conditions of travel to EU Member States for the enclave’s inhabitants, without tying this issue to EU-Russia talks on a visa-free regime.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The past few years have seen the start of favourable processes in Western Balkans states, which seem to efface the memory that fifteen years ago, the region was still a war zone within Europe. Undoubtedly, the EU’s exemplary assistance in the process of democratic development in the Western Balkans and the fact that it kept open the prospect of accession for the countries of this region contributed to these developments. The decision on visa liberalisation taken one year ago introduced the European practice of the freedom of movement to Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, a clear sign of care on the part of Europe. Without doubt, the matter of immigration is once again becoming a serious domestic policy issue in some of the Member States, and is exacerbated by the economic crisis. However, I believe that European solidarity must be exercised in spite of the crisis, if we wish to avoid a resurgence of nationalism and protectionism. Although the Western Balkans are not yet part of the EU, stability in South-East Europe can only be achieved through EU enlargement in the Balkans. The EU must strictly monitor compliance with the technical requirements related to border protection but, at the same time, it must offer assistance to ensure that the citizens of Western Balkan states see a realistic chance for their lives to improve, and that they consider EU accession an attainable goal. We must assist the region in its journey towards social and economic development through efficient information, even greater solidarity, and additional financial means, so that these citizens can find prosperity in their own home countries.

  President. – The next item is the report by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers’ network (COM(2009)0322 – C7-0055/2009 – 2009/0098(COD)) (A7-0342/2010).

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking my fellow Members, Mrs Guillaume, Mr Ilchev, Mrs Keller, Mrs Wikström and Mr Tavares. The support they have given me has improved this report.

I would specifically like to draw the Council’s and the Commission’s attention to the terminology. From my point of view, it would be more appropriate if we used the term ‘irregular immigration’. Up to now, clandestine immigration has been referred to as ‘illegal immigration’ in all the legislative instruments the EU has enacted.

Although it is true that in some Member States, an irregular entry or stay constitutes a crime and in others, the term ‘irregular’ has no legal or semantic significance, in many other Member States, an irregular entry or stay does not constitute an unlawful act, which is why we should not generally criminalise these activities.

For this reason, in the explanatory statement of the report, it is asked that the institutions revise the terminology that is used, insisting on the need to find a more precise and appropriate definition for the phenomenon of clandestine immigration.

Moving on to the substance of this issue, the immigration liaison officers’ network was created by Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004. This instrument states that the liaison officers will be representatives of a Member State posted abroad by the immigration service or other appropriate authority with the aim of establishing and maintaining contact with the authorities of the host country, aiming to contribute to the prevention and combat of clandestine immigration, the repatriation of irregular immigrants and the management of legal immigration.

Since the enactment of the regulation, the Frontex Agency has been established, whose mission is to coordinate operational cooperation between Member States in the area of external border management; assist the Member States in the training of national border guards; carry out risk analyses; monitor the development of external border control and surveillance research; assist Member States in circumstances that require increased technical and operational assistance at external borders and provide them with the necessary support in the organising of joint return operations.

It is evident that the important mission entrusted to Frontex could be achieved in a more efficient way if they could draw upon the knowledge and experience of the immigration liaison officers’ network, especially if we take into account the fact that the European Agency does not have offices or representatives outside EU territory.

The proposed amendment to Regulation (EC) No 337/2004 aims to harness the knowledge and experience of the immigration officials for Frontex and vice versa, which was not included in the original regulation.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment suggests accessing the information obtained by the liaison officers’ network through ICONet, which is a secure information and coordination network for the immigration management services of Member States, accessing the External Borders Fund to promote the creation of liaison officers’ networks and, finally, facilitating a mechanism for the presentation of reports on the activity of the network and the designation of named regions of interest in the area of immigration.

The relevant legal bases of the proposal are Article 63(3)(b) and Article 66 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

I will stop there, Madam President, and will make further observations in the second round.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would very much like to thank the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in general and, specifically, the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, and the shadow rapporteurs for the work done on this very important dossier and I welcome the agreement reached with the Council.

The suggested amendment will enable closer cooperation between Frontex and the immigration liaison officers’ network and that will improve the information exchange via a web-based secure IT platform and ensure that the Council and Parliament are properly informed about the activities of these networks.

Moreover, I am also pleased that, through the amendments put forward by Parliament, a human-rights based approach will be applied when reporting on the situation in matters related to irregular immigration in the selected third countries. Let me say that I fully agree with the rapporteur that we should use the word ‘irregular’ migration. Unfortunately, the Treaty in Article 79 refers to ‘illegal’ so that is why it is in there, but I myself also always use the term ‘irregular’ migration, so I fully agree with you.

Thanks to the amendments to the regulatory framework that you have introduced, and in accordance with the Stockholm Programme, the liaison officers’ networks will be adapted in a way that will improve their contribution to a better understanding of the root causes of migration movements with a view to addressing these phenomena properly. So I hope that when you vote tomorrow on the amended regulation, it will be adopted without any delay and thus enable us to exploit more efficiently this very important cooperation tool for migration management.

  Carlos Coelho, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we always support proposals in Parliament that aim to respond to the need for the adequate management of legal as well as illegal or clandestine flows of migrants. This proposal is also part of this dynamic and aims to introduce amendments – already outlined with great authority by Mr Díaz de Mera – to Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers’ network, in order to create the necessary synergies between this important instrument for cooperation and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), which was only created at a later stage.

As representatives of the Member States abroad, it falls to the liaison officers – currently posted in more than 130 third countries – to maintain the necessary contacts with the authorities of the host country, so as to contribute to preventing and combating illegal immigration for returning illegal immigrants and managing legal immigration. As Frontex does not have permanent representatives outside Union territory, there is no longer any doubt about how important such cooperation has become. Frontex must, on the basis of information gathered by the liaison officers, go ahead with the risk analyses and with strengthening operational cooperation between Member States and third countries.

The information obtained by these networks will then be transmitted using ICONet – a secure information network to coordinate the services responsible for the management of flows of migrants in Member States – and, at the same time, will enable these networks to benefit from the funds available from the European External Borders Fund.

As Mr Díaz de Mera must already be wondering why I have not yet mentioned it, I should like to stress that he has done an excellent job, not just in terms of the quality and effort he has put in, as he always does with these reports, but also because of the efforts he has made towards reaching agreement on this important issue at first reading.

  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, in taking this opportunity to speak on behalf of the S&D shadow, Ms Guillaume, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, for having actively consulted all the shadows in his usual way and successfully pushed forward the negotiations with the Council.

Whereas the Commission proposal consists of mostly technical modifications, this report has, in my view, allowed for a better understanding and consideration of the complexity and scope of the liaison officers’ activities. Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) are indeed engaged in quite complex and opaque activities. It is therefore absolutely necessary – for reasons of transparency – to further a better exchange of information with the European Parliament, on the one hand, and organisations such as the UNHCR and the Asylum Support Office, on the other. It is also fundamental to include and promote the human rights orientated approach to the mission of ILOs, which the Commissioner has just mentioned. It is surely needless to recall that, in the context of addressing mixed migratory movements, the posting of ILOs in third countries may raise several concerns from a fundamental rights perspective, in particular, regarding the right of individuals to leave a country, including their own, and the right of asylum seekers to flee and find protection from persecution.

Finally, on the heated debate concerning terminology, we have in the explanatory memorandum a satisfactory compromise for what seems to be an endless debate. I will finish by thanking Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra and saying that our group will fully support his report.

  Stanimir Ilchev, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (BG) Madam President, I would also like to join those who have expressed their appreciation of the efforts of the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera, as he created an atmosphere which allowed us to successfully discuss his proposed changes, to edit the most complex ones and to reach compromises which mean that we can now be pleased with our efforts.

As a representative of the ALDE Group, I would first of all like to point out that the results achieved are largely due to the fact that on this occasion, the issue of human rights was integrated into the larger topic of immigration and the management of immigration processes. In this way, whilst observing human rights, we can guarantee an ongoing humane and fitting approach both by immigration officials and by Frontex staff.

Secondly, a great merit of our work is that cooperation will improve, both among communications officials and between them and Frontex. And finally, Frontex will use our combined efforts to establish a new know-how which will be larger in scope and more varied in its functions. This know-how will be in the hands of the institutions and persons responsible to allow them to control immigration processes more effectively. And what makes more effective management of immigration processes necessary? The fact that immigration processes will remain active and are likely to intensify in the near future.

  Franziska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I also would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, for his great work. The immigration liaison officers should not only be seen as ‘facilitators of deportations’ – which I would actually not like them to be seen as – they should closely monitor the human rights situation in the host countries and especially the protection offered to asylum seekers and returnees.

I am very happy that our rapporteur managed to include a reference to human rights and reporting on human rights several times in the report – an aspect that was missing completely from the original proposal.

I also welcome the greater role that is given to the European Parliament, being the only directly elected body at EU level and which has an even greater role now after the Lisbon Treaty – although not everybody seems to have realised that yet.

  Rui Tavares, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, I should first of all like, as has already been said several times, to congratulate Mr Díaz de Mera on his excellent work, and on his cooperation and dialogue with us throughout this process: in particular, on the thorny issue of knowing whether the references that we have in this text, and in others, are to ‘irregular immigrants’ or ‘illegal immigrants’. On this issue, the rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera, had a very constructive and dynamic attitude. It is also true that the treaties and the position of the Council itself did not allow him to go further on this issue and establish a definition that was more wide-ranging, as well as more technically correct, for cases of irregular and undocumented immigrants.

I believe that what is at stake here, and what has been at stake in many discussions that we have had on immigration in the European Parliament, is that we have a repressive policy on immigration that has been almost entirely completed, with nothing missing: the primary function of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), that of the Schengen Agreement, and even that of the liaison officers – which is currently being amended, as it has been before – is to control borders, which is a repressive function.

Moreover, we all know here in Parliament, on the left and increasingly on the right, that an immigration policy which only includes repressive measures is not an immigration policy whatsoever, because an immigration policy worthy of this name also requires a legal section for legal immigration channels.

I believe that if we were just voting on Mr Díaz de Mera’s report, as such, with the ideas that he has been putting forward, I would be fully in favour. However, we are instead voting on the compromise with the Council, at first reading, so I believe that we have not gone as far as we could have gone with this.

  Paul Nuttall, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, one of the totems of a sovereign state is that it controls who can and who cannot come into its own country. Unfortunately, several governments in the UK have given away this power to unelected, faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. What a disaster it has proven to be. We have a situation now where we have uncontrolled EU immigration into our country, which has resulted in wages being driven down and people – indigenous people – being put out of work. I do not believe that this EU immigration liaison officers’ network has any power to stop this happening at all.

We also have a two-tier immigration system in our country whereby if you are from Australia or New Zealand or anywhere else, you have a cap. However, if you are from Latvia or Poland or any of the EU countries, you can come to our country willy-nilly. This is fundamentally wrong. It is argued that this network will help control illegal immigration, but what happens if a country like Romania, for example, basically gives citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants? What it does is it makes a mockery of the whole system.

I support elected politicians in the UK having control over our own borders. What I do not support are unaccountable, unelected appointees. I believe that the strengthening of this network would not be necessary if each individual Member State had the power to control who does and who does not come onto its lands. I therefore implore everybody to reject this report.

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

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, my fellow Member from the UK spoke of the difficulties British employees are facing as a result of immigration in their country. I come from Hungary, a country where a large number of people are unfortunately forced to move to England to find work, for example, as nurses or doctors or other qualified healthcare workers, as salaries in Hungary are extremely low. These people were trained in Hungary, at a very high standard, and Hungary is seeing the collapse of …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Paul Nuttall (EFD). – Madam President, if doctors and dentists and people like that want to come to the UK to work – and we need their skills – then by all means they should come, but what we have at the moment is a situation where our market is saturated: we cannot control who comes from the EU and who does not. This is fundamentally wrong. It is bad and it is putting people out of work.

I shall give you an example. The taxi driver who drove me to the airport this morning was a bricklayer who has been laid off as a result of Polish people coming onto the site, undercutting British workers, and now he is driving a taxi. That cannot be right.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Madam President, it goes without saying that every agency working in the fight against illegal immigration can count on my support. If immigration liaison officers can make the work of, for example, Frontex more efficient, then that is a positive thing.

I would like to stress that we should not spend so much time staring at institutional and bureaucratic processes that we can no longer see the wood for the trees. The problem of illegal immigration is a political problem and one that requires political will if we are to come up with solutions to it.

Well, we have found out today that there are still Member States, such as Belgium, which reward illegal immigration, for political and ideological reasons. They are rewarding illegal immigrants by regularising their status or granting them residence permits. That way, illegal immigration is not combated, but actively encouraged. We can have as many immigration liaison officers and Frontex staff as we want but, in the meantime, the problem will just keep on getting worse.

What annoys me most about the present report is the recommendation that we should no longer speak of ‘illegal immigration’, but of ‘irregular immigration’, as it is now called. Well, I just cannot get my head around that: we seem to want to solve the problem by giving it another name or by pretending that the problem no longer exists. This is positively Orwellian. Let us just call a spade a spade; let us be clear and refer to illegal immigration and illegal immigrants.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, the mere fact that almost everyone today has congratulated our rapporteur, Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, and all the shadow rapporteurs who worked on this endeavour, illustrates the very serious effort made and the excellent results achieved and, of course, I too congratulate them all. Today’s debate is extremely important because it illustrates the effort we are making, at European level now, to manage legal, non-legal and illegal immigration flows, the effort we are making to coordinate and really demonstrate our solidarity between Member States and to make better use of all the instruments at our disposal.

We have created the immigration liaison officers’ network. As we have already heard, this network involves approximately 130 countries and allows us to obtain sound information. We created Frontex, we recently created the European asylum support office, we signed the readmission agreement, we are making use of all the European funds at our disposal and are strengthening them as much as we can year on year. The very fact that we have now arrived at a point where we make use of and combine these tools – in other words, we see what Frontex’s requirements are, link up with the network of liaison officers and combine all the means and instruments at our disposal even more closely – illustrates that we are moving forward more efficiently.

Of course, no one can say that we have reached our target level. When you see that, in Greece, we have 90% of illegal entries of immigrants into Europe, that alone shows that we have a great deal to do. However, this cooperation and the facilities that we have prove that we can move forward even more efficiently. They allow us to be optimistic, insofar as we can, that Europe has the facilities and that, with solidarity and close cooperation by one and all, we shall be able to achieve even better results in future. Rest assured, Commissioner, that we shall support all such efforts on the part of the Commission. Have no doubt that we shall support all such initiatives on your part.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, as we are aware, the officers of the Frontex border guard agency carry out important work as part of the operational cooperation between the Member States and third countries to combat illegal immigration. In my opinion, this needs to be effectively combated in the transit countries in particular. A dense network of immigration liaison officers and their close cooperation is therefore a sensible measure to enable us effectively to combat mass immigration into Europe with all its negative consequences for the peoples of Europe. It must be ensured, however, that the information and assessments provided by liaison officers are made available to Frontex and the national authorities as quickly as possible and without any red tape.

In general, we definitely need greater cooperation on immigration issues between all the actors. In my opinion, the powers of Frontex should be enhanced as quickly as possible – with the consent of the Member States – in order to be able to ensure that its work is uniform and effective, particularly at the external borders.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Madam President, as the rapporteur for the Frontex Regulation, I am happy to welcome the latest development that has been made to the law that we have before us, as it will help us throughout the process of strengthening the Frontex agency. My report on the agency and on the changes that need to be made to its remit was actually presented last month and the deadline by which the amendments need to be made expires this very week. Therefore, I augur that in the coming months – January and February – the LIBE Committee will adopt the amendments on the Frontex report, and that we will be able to conclude it within the Committee. I then hope that we would be able to initiate the process towards closing this dossier as swiftly as possible. Nonetheless, the fact that we are going to have these immigration liaison officers that will facilitate the communication of information to Frontex is an extremely positive development.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this report could have received a favourable vote, but unfortunately it has been modified by what we consider to be avoidable and unnecessary amendments, which have replaced the words ‘illegal’ and ‘clandestine’ with the word ‘irregular’, almost as if there were a fear of saying things as they really are.

On a positive note, however, the report provides for the creation of a network of immigration liaison officers posted to consular authorities and to international organisations, with responsibility for preventing illegal immigration and facilitating the repatriation of illegal immigrants.

Furthermore, the direct exchange of information on illegal migration flows between States, embassies and international organisations may prove useful in combating the activities of criminal networks. Too many lives have been destroyed. Preventing trafficking in human beings is one of the challenges that the EU must overcome.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the Member States send immigration liaison officers to third countries in order to combat illegal immigration in contact with the authorities in those countries. I therefore consider cooperation between these officers and Frontex to be urgently necessary. We need a meaningful exchange of information and best practice, and we also need to avoid having duplicate structures. I hope that such synergies will result in more efficient border controls – particularly since Frontex has no external officers of its own in third countries.

A key element of this cooperation must be the consistent processing of readmission agreements, whether in Eastern Europe or on the continent of Africa, because chaos reigns in the EU where the repatriation of illegal immigrants is concerned. Some Member States proceed with great vigour, while others are very sluggish. Naturally, this then has negative implications for all the Member States.

There is therefore an urgent need to act. Frontex needs to be bolstered, and the EU also needs to force authorities in the Member States to fulfil their responsibilities.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report and the proposal behind it clearly serve, and are intended to prepare, the promotion and facilitation of immigration, which we consider unacceptable. The creation of a network of immigration liaison officers is one more step towards a centralised measure controlled by the European Union that serves the spreading of immigrants and refugees. Furthermore, it is unacceptable that they intend to replace the term ‘illegal immigration’ with ‘irregular immigration,’ thereby attempting to further legitimise this otherwise illegal act. The peoples of Europe have had enough of the flood of immigrants, and we would welcome it if the elected Members sitting in this House also acknowledged this. Unfortunately, I can say no more about this report than that it is a caricature of itself. What is embodied in this report is a caricature of the European Parliament.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, the amendment to the regulation facilitates the exchange of information ‘to manage legal and illegal immigration’. I do not want to manage it: I want to stop it. Migration is based on the false assumption that we are the products of our culture and that exposure to European culture will transform non-Europeans into Europeans in the second generation, if not the first. Distinct peoples are not the product of distinct cultures: distinct cultures are the product of distinct peoples.

Bring the populations of the Third World into Europe and you will be bringing the Third World into Europe – not temporarily, but for all time. That is what we have been doing for the last six decades.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, now would be the time for us to finally try to find and remedy the root causes of the issue of immigration. For human reasons, I propose the introduction of everyone’s right to reside in their native land, in their home country, and appropriate economic and other conditions should be created in the world, including in countries considered second-rate EU Member States, to ensure that people can live in the country that is their homeland. To continue my previous train of thought, the healthcare system in Hungary has collapsed, or is on the brink of collapse, as Hungarian doctors, nurses and employees with healthcare qualifications are forced to migrate en masse within the EU, to England, for example, as well as to other countries, essentially becoming economic refugees. It would be time to investigate this phenomenon and take action to combat it, for example, by requiring Member States, where necessary, to ensure an appropriate livelihood for qualified doctors and nurses.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, even if the debate did not show it, I understand, Mr Díaz de Mera, that you have very strong support for your proposal. I would like to congratulate you on that because it shows that you have done very important work.

I also want to reiterate my joy that you have reinforced the human rights aspects in this through the amendments made by the committee. It will ensure that all relevant aspects, especially human rights, are taken into consideration when we look at a country or a region and when we report matters in relation to irregular migration in the given country or region. We know that there is a very clear correlation between the human rights situation and the number of migrants or asylum seekers. This is a major push factor.

This is also a task for the Asylum Support Office. It will collect such information on countries of origin and transit of asylum seekers. The core function of ILOs – the liaison officers – is to establish and maintain contact with the host countries’ authorities with a view to preventing and combating irregular migration. Providing a full assessment of the human rights situation in the host country, however, is not within their competence, although it is high on the agenda.

I think that we have improved the text with your proposal and I very much look forward to your vote tomorrow. I would like to thank you and the shadow rapporteurs again for your important work.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, thank you very much for your words, and also for your commitment. I would once again like to express my admiration for the way that you are managing the portfolio with which you have been entrusted.

There have been 18 speeches this afternoon, and the majority groups have supported this report. I would therefore like to reiterate my deep and heartfelt gratitude, because they have participated actively, enriching and amending substantive issues that should be included and are now included.

I am essentially referring to the human rights chapter, the European Asylum Support Office and the role of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Obviously, in such a broad and diverse Chamber, we are not obliged to agree with one another, which is why the efforts that we have all made to reach a very broad consensus are particularly significant. Ladies and gentlemen, from a centre-right and Christian Democrat position, I am indeed saying that I am unequivocally in favour of the expression ‘irregular’, and that I reject the expression ‘illegal’, as legally, semantically and ethically inappropriate.

Thank you very much to all my fellow Members for their support, and also for their speeches, including the dissenting ones.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 December.

  President. – The next item is the report by Véronique Mathieu, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (COM(2007)0638 – C6-0470/2007 – 2007/0229(COD) (A7-0265/2010)).

  Véronique Mathieu, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the European Union has, for ten years now, been trying to arm itself with legislative instruments in the area of economic immigration.

Instead of an initially global approach, the Commission has preferred a sectoral approach. This draft directive brings to light the need for a common policy on legal immigration, particularly of the economic variety.

Until now, we have legislated on illegal immigration, border controls, visa policy. It is time to move forward together on the subject of economic migration, because the European Union must face up to the challenges common to all its Member States; challenges that require common solutions at the European level.

These challenges are demographic decline and the ageing of Europe’s population. In fact, due to these two problems that affect Europe in its entirety, global employment forecasts are showing up perceptible workforce shortages in the years to come. We must therefore find solutions at the European level to meet the needs of the labour market, and economic migration is one of the solutions that we must explore.

Let us take care, however, and not deceive ourselves. Defining a European approach to the management of legal immigration means organising it with obvious attention to the needs and hosting capacities of each Member State. As is stated in Articles 1 and 8 of this draft directive, states will retain control over the number of migrants that they wish to admit onto their national territory.

Our governments have worked in various ways to regulate economic immigration: by means of bilateral agreements, quotas, regulatory measures. Not one of these measures, however, has shown itself to be truly effective in managing legal migration flows while, at the same time, combating illegal immigration. Now, the link between the two is obvious. It is by organising legal immigration in the best way possible that we shall be able to put an end to illegal immigration. That is the whole issue behind the adoption of this package of measures already introduced by the Commission no less than five years ago.

What will this ‘Single Permit’ Directive bring to the existing legal landscape in the area of economic migration? By contrast with the ‘Blue Card’ Directive, this directive does not concern the admission criteria for third-country workers. It is aimed at eliminating the variations between differing national legislation concerning the application procedures for work permits and residence permits, and the rights of foreigners working legally in the European Union.

There is still no European instrument covering the totality of rights available to third-country nationals working and residing legally in the Union. This directive will therefore put an end to these differences in protection for these workers by ensuring equality of treatment with national workers in a significant number of areas: working conditions, education and professional training, social protection, access to goods and services, tax reliefs.

In this way, this common base will offer these people protection against exploitation by guaranteeing them the benefit of a secure and protective legal status. It is also a way of combating unfair competition that works to the detriment of European workers. In fact, this difference in protection will eventually tend to encourage the recruitment of a poorly qualified and weakly protected labour force at the expense of European workers.

Moreover, this directive will simplify admission procedures for employment purposes. All Member States will have a harmonised procedure that is simpler, quicker and less onerous. The adoption of this directive will thus result in major advantages for migrants, for employers and national administrations, and will finally enable better management of legal migration flows.

Parliament is now a colegislator, which means that it must also demonstrate responsibility – an idealistic and bygone opinion – and we must show that we have risen to the level of the new duties that the Treaty of Lisbon has given us. Let us come forward as credible spokespeople ready to rise to the sizeable challenge represented by the management of migratory pressure at the frontiers of Europe. We know that well-managed migratory flows will be of benefit to everyone.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Mathieu and Mr Cercas, the two committees, as well as the Belgian Presidency, for the hard work that has been done on this proposal.

As you are aware, and as the rapporteur said, the Commission already presented this report in 2007. Our aim was, and is still, to simplify procedures by introducing one permit for residence and work, while guaranteeing employment-related rights to legally residing third-country workers who are not covered by specific EU legislation or Commission proposals. With this proposal, we do not address the conditions for granting or withdrawing a permit. Such conditions are the competence of the Member States, as is the decision on volumes to admit – if any.

This proposal is one of the building blocks of the European Union’s labour and migration policy. If it is adopted by Parliament and the Council, this directive will confirm that the European Union values the important contribution third-country workers make to our economies and our societies. It would also demonstrate that we are ready and able to agree on legislation concerning labour and migration.

It is a very complex proposal and it addresses both the immigration side and the social employment side. The majority of the amendments voted in the respective committees of this House can be supported by the Commission to the extent that they reinforce procedural guarantees for both the migrants and the employers. This is in relation to amendments geared towards further simplifying the application procedures and strengthening the equal treatment provisions – for example, the principle of proportionality of fees as regards procedures and the equal treatment provisions on tax benefits.

On the other side, the amendment that makes the export of acquired pensions conditional upon the existence of a bilateral agreement is much more restrictive compared to the approach proposed by the Commission.

I am pleased to see that both the Presidency and Parliament have made important efforts to bring their positions closer. The Belgian Presidency has tried to have Member States come closer to the EP position, and I know that Parliament has taken into account a number of the concerns and requests by the Council.

The compromise we are all trying to achieve will respect certain criteria, such as the aim to protect migrant workers and to provide them with a series of work-related socio-economic rights on the basis, as much as possible, of equal treatment with EU workers as from day one of employment. It will also take account of the importance of creating a level playing field throughout the EU for these workers and, thirdly, the importance of showing our partner countries that we are ready to provide for the fair treatment of third country nationals legally residing and working in our Member States.

We cannot disregard Member States’ concerns relating to certain equal treatment provisions, especially when it comes to budgetary concentration. What I believe important is that those criteria I have just highlighted are respected, even though the end result may not be as ideal as we wanted and as ambitious as we had hoped for. As Mrs Mathieu said, this is a compromise. It is a good compromise and it marks an important step forward in the area of legal migration and will be of high importance to the workers of the European Union.

Let me therefore express my hope that we can reach an agreement on this proposal as soon as possible. I again thank the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs for the work that has been done.

  Alejandro Cercas, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Mathieu, ladies and gentlemen, immigration in Europe is undoubtedly a highly important and hugely significant political, economic and social issue.

It is a massive opportunity, but it requires intelligent, fair management, as otherwise it would become a problem, not only for those arriving, as they would not be treated fairly, but also for the workers who are here whose jobs would be threatened. The alternative is that the labour market would be split and divided, and there would be ‘low cost’ workers threatening the social victories won over a century of building the European social model.

Consequently, Commissioner, Mrs Mathieu, the principle of equal treatment is the cornerstone of an economic immigration policy that is both intelligent and fair. The Council said so in Tampere 11 years ago, the Commission said so five years ago in its Green Paper, and tomorrow, Parliament must vote on a proposal for a legislative initiative. This subject of equal treatment is the focus of Chapter III of the directive. It is not just a bureaucratic directive. It lays out rights and obligations, which should apply to all legal immigrants, and it should encompass all rights to equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Unfortunately, however, Commissioner, the directive is not the one that we were promised. It is not I or the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs who are saying that, but all of the humanitarian non-governmental organisations, all the churches in Europe and all the trade unions, without exception. This directive is inadequate and even dangerous, because it excludes the very groups that most need protection; it excludes temporary workers, displaced people, those transferred by their companies, and workers from less developed countries who will be coming here under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Mode 4.

Hundreds of thousands of workers are therefore going to arrive from third countries in accordance with the country of origin principle, because they are not going to be treated equally by this directive. This is also because you are giving the Member States the option to opt out of equal treatment with regard to payment of pensions when they return to their countries, to family benefits and to welfare benefits for the unemployed, except for unemployment benefit itself. This will even apply to workers who are subject to the principle of equal treatment and who are covered by what Mrs Mathieu said. They are also excluded from grants and any type of assistance for higher education, including professional training.

For all these reasons, the Commission states in the explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment that it intends to eliminate and put an end to the ‘rights gap’, but in practice, it does not do so. This is not enough, Commissioner.

Moreover, unfortunately we have amendments tomorrow tabled by the right and centre-right groups in this House that go further, as you said, and which even adopt the Council’s most extreme positions in order to destroy the consensus that we had built in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

I therefore believe, Commissioner, Mrs Mathieu, ladies and gentlemen, that we need to have a much broader debate on this issue, along with the other directives, that is open to European civil society, the NGOs, the churches and the unions. We must not deal with this issue so quickly and, in my view, so irresponsibly as we would if we adopted the Council’s text tomorrow.

I believe that the majority of my fellow Members across party divides would agree to conducting a broad debate in order to reach a wide consensus in Parliament that respects the principles of our Charter of Fundamental Rights and that follows the recommendations of the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation and the Council of Europe.

We are talking about people’s dignity, but also about the future of Europe, and I believe that in Europe, we need all workers, without exception, whatever their origins, to have all rights to the exclusion of none if they are living legally in Europe. This is the way to combat xenophobia and racism and fight for a decent Europe.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) Madam President, may I, first of all, congratulate Mrs Mathieu on having been able to take the lead on a dossier which had been knocking around for years. If I have understood you correctly, Mrs Malmström, a proposal for a directive on the conditions governing stays by third-country nationals in the European Union for work purposes was made as early as 2001. That proposal was withdrawn in 2006, whereupon this proposal was tabled in 2007, with this unique procedure for citizens of third countries entering the EU in order to work here. As a result, residence and work permits are being combined into one.

Madam President, the proposal now on the table – and I do not entirely agree with Mr Cercas – indicates that third-country nationals who are in possession of a single permit have social rights which are, in fact, the same for everyone. The debate in the Committee on Social Affairs and the Environment – and I thank my fellow member Mr Cercas, because I am happy to discuss this with him – became quite heated on two points. Primarily because of the scope, whereby – and this is something with which I agree – posted workers cannot, or may not, qualify for a single permit. That is described in Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 96/71/EC, also known as the Posting of Workers Directive.

In my view, the social status of posted third-country nationals is, and was, adequately described in that directive. What I thought then and still think is important is that we create a level-playing field, where employees on loan will not be allowed to work for a lower wage than the usual staff. However, I wonder if, in failing to mention the Posting of Workers Directive, we might be causing ourselves problems in the future.

My second point, with which I have struggled a great deal and which has now been modified as a result of my amendment, is the principle of breaching equality of treatment. I was and still am of the opinion that this principle, as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 883, must also be our starting point when it comes to this single permit. I find that the compromise which the Council has reached is a good one, because it guarantees both equal rights and equal treatment.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (LT) Madam President, the directive on a single permit for residence and work really is very important. There were many discussions, many opinions and many assessments, but a joint decision that would be acceptable for all third-country workers legally residing and working in EU Member States has not been reached. This directive should be a general framework directive on rights for third-country workers and should serve as a framework for specific directives, because only then can it contribute to the European Union goal of a common migration policy. However, the main problem is the fact that the framework of the directive we were promised was already removed from the Commission’s proposal, as certain categories of workers, such as temporary workers, intra-company transfers and refugees were deleted from its contents. In other words, this directive does not strengthen the principle of legal equivalence for third-country workers. For this directive to be a point of reference and a framework, it is necessary to include all workers within the scope of the directive, in particular, temporary workers, because otherwise, migrants legally residing and working in the European Union would not enjoy working conditions based on the principles of justice, uniformity and equality. It should be noted that migrant workers make a contribution to the EU economy through their work and the taxes and social security contributions they pay. Therefore, they must be guaranteed the same minimum rights and be treated in the same way in the labour market. If we vote on this directive tomorrow, we must be united, because only then can we win this struggle for all groups of workers to be included in this directive and for them to have equal rights. I would like to stress that it is impossible to create a two-tier labour market, either within or outside the European Union. We must not allow the creation of an underclass of workers that faces discrimination and does not enjoy any rights or guarantees. If we do, we will be trampling over all the social standards we gained previously.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to start with a little point of order: I note that for such an important debate, our partner in the negotiations, the Council, is absent. I find that unacceptable. It is not the first time and I request the Presidency of this House to write to the Council and complain about this.

(Applause)

Then I would like to go on and, like the others, congratulate Mrs Mathieu for doing a very good job on a very difficult, complex and sensitive dossier. My group, the ALDE Group, will accept its responsibility and we, too, want to arrive at an agreement because we realise that it is very important. However, we do not do so with great joy because, as I think has been expressed in different ways by all the groups in this House and by the Commission, this proposal does not go nearly as far as is necessary.

My group will stick to its position on the additional documents because, if we allow Member States to require additional documents, then that defeats the whole purpose of the single permit; either you have a single permit or you do not but, if you have a single permit, there are no additional documents.

On the correlation tables, for the sake of arriving at an agreement, my group will not vote for the insertion of correlation tables. But I have to say – this is a personal remark – that I find this a shameful red line by the Member States because, if the Member States have the intention of transposing the directive and being transparent about it, they should – of their own free will – insert correlation tables.

Finally, in 1999 in Tampere, the Member States came out with this grand statement that they wanted a common asylum and immigration policy. Well, how much progress have we made to date? Hardly any. It is very clear that the Member States do not want a common immigration policy.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, we, too, have a concern about the variable labour market that we already have across 27 Member States and within those 27 Member States, but our concern is how we move away from this towards something which is more comprehensive and stronger.

We want to be sure that we have an agreed basis of rights for the majority of third-country nationals, as originally set out by the Commission and generally improved in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

We do not want to see these rights increasingly restrained and constrained, so we will support the widest possible and strongest range of rights in tomorrow’s vote. We want to remind the Council that we are concerned here with individuals who should be able to develop their skills and education, benefit from the social security contributions they make and look forward to claiming their pension entitlements, given, as is recognised in the proposal, that their work supports our economies and indeed our societies.

For our group, the commitment to circular migration is also important in Article 11(a). The scope is a vexed issue because we have other existing instruments under discussion which, at times, come into tension. We are also fooling ourselves if we think that what is on the table here is actually going to meet the needs of each and every migrant worker within the European Union. We need a more nuanced approach to ensure that migration works for them, so we are not going to be voting, for example, to include beneficiaries of humanitarian protection.

  Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, as Mr Cercas put it so well, there is a difference of opinion between the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Parliament must therefore vote against what is called the ‘Single Permit’ Directive. Fundamentally, this text has but one aim, which is easy to spot, and that is to make workers in the European Union compete against workers from countries outside Europe, and even make immigrant workers compete against each other, depending on their status.

If this directive remains as it is, there will be several kinds of status: that of a resident, that of a seasonal worker, that of an intra-corporate transferee. It would make the existence of several categories of workers in the European Union official. Accepting this would violate the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Contrary to what you said, Mrs Mathieu, such differences in status would result in permanent downward pressure on the living, working and employment conditions of all wage earners in the European Union. Equality cannot be summed up by merely invoking working conditions.

As Mr Cercas said, equality must involve wages, working hours, security of employment, health, holidays, social protection, access to public services and training. Without this common minimum, we shall have a jungle of competition, stigmatisation, exclusion and exploitation without limit. Equality must involve all workers, whatever their origin. Let us not accept the addition of new types of competition between workers, on top of those introduced by the appalling Bolkestein Directive. Equality among workers must be the objective of a single positive directive, affirming this principle. In its absence, it is in the name of the Europe of workers, of social Europe, of a humanist Europe, that all of us together in this Parliament, whatever our opinions, reject this directive.

  Mara Bizzotto, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report in question certainly contains some positive elements, and the general aim is to simplify processes and reduce the bureaucratic steps for third-country workers who hold a valid residence permit in a Member State.

However, as a discussion point, I would like to mention the fact that, today in Europe, tens of millions of citizens – very many of whom are young – are without work as a result of structural deficiencies in the European productive system and as a result of a crisis which does not seem to have an end in sight.

Europe’s primary responsibility, even before assisting third-country nationals residing in our countries, is to implement economic, political and social measures which will help our citizens, in the first instance, to gain, or regain, work. If Europe can provide work for its own citizens, it will create firm social foundations so that external migration flows can be accommodated properly.

The key point must be to ensure, above all, that Europe grows independently and stands on its own two feet. Our countries will then have the strength to offer work to others as well.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, my party has always made it clear that we oppose a European asylum and immigration policy. In the Netherlands, we now have a fantastic cabinet which has been better able to implement the will of the people in the areas of asylum and immigration than before, but we have now simply been presented with a fait accompli.

Nevertheless, my party, the delegation of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), will always strive to ensure that these powers are transferred back to Member States. The important thing to do in the meantime, of course, is to limit the damage, but that is not what this report is trying to achieve: the new application procedure actually makes it easier, not tougher, for people to enter the European Union.

Madam President, only an elitist political class which is completely out of touch with its citizens could manage to leave those citizens, who witness the disastrous effects of mass immigration of non-Western migrants on a daily basis, out in the cold. I will vote against this report because I have been elected by the Dutch and not by fortune-seekers who want to taste Western pleasures without embracing Judeo-Christian values.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating Véronique Mathieu for all the effort she put into achieving this result. She carried out very important work on an extremely complex subject, as Commissioner Malmström said. As the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), we endorse cooperation in the area of legal immigration as long as we make it clear that we are simultaneously sharpening our attack against illegal immigration. I believe the one cannot exist without the other. Nevertheless, at the same time, we also recognise that one of the tools that can be used to combat illegal immigration is to provide good and clear opportunities for regularised immigration, just as we are doing in this case. However, I would also like to recall, as Véronique Mathieu said, that the new powers granted to us in this area by the Treaty of Lisbon brought with them new obligations. Therefore, since we are required to shoulder these new responsibilities, this Parliament must do just that, by proving that it is capable of compromising with the Council of Ministers. This requires accepting some Council positions, such as the safeguards that it would like to keep in the issuing of these permits according to this directive. This, I believe, raises the issue of equal treatment. We have to acknowledge that in order to reach an agreement with the Council, then we must inevitably accept that the conditions will not necessarily always be the same. At the same time, however, and I conclude here, those who claim that we are rushing ahead or who are ready to vote against should appreciate that without such a directive, we will end up in an illegal situation that will definitely not dignify any of the workers who find themselves in it.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). – Madam President, I think my colleagues from the S&D Group, Mr Cercas and Mrs Blinkevičiūtė, both referred to the central problem for our group in this package: it is not just about equal treatment or the country-of-origin principle – as Mrs Oomen-Ruijten said, that has been debated very extensively. There is also the question of the illogicality of where we are today. We have a single permit proposal which comes after the skilled workers proposal, the blue card, and comes after sanctions on employers. That means we have a package which has many of the correct intentions, such as having a horizontal approach. However, we are not having a horizontal approach because we are in a situation where Mrs Mathieu is doing a good job with what she has but, as she said in her speech, we wanted a global approach but we now have a sectoral approach, and that sectoral approach is exactly what Mrs Lambert was concerned about.

So where are we today? Our group has deep concerns in the employment sphere on the country-of-origin principle and, as my colleague Mrs Blinkevičiūtė said, we have a real problem with the categories of workers who are included in this proposal. So we have a situation where posted workers, intra-corporate transferees, seasonal workers and – yes – beneficiaries of international protection are all excluded. We will present these amendments again tomorrow on behalf of our group.

If you have a single permit which does not do what it says on the tin – i.e. it does not have a reasonably broad-based approach to entry for third-country nationals to the European Union – you will face problems of equal treatment, of a two-tier work force and other problems that we want to solve with common policies.

On the other hand, we in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in particular appreciate that the sectoral approach is the approach we have to work with, so there will be directives on seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees, but you cannot blame our group, which has equal treatment on the country-of-origin principle at the heart of its activities in trying to resolve these matters. We are telling the truth, which is that we are doing things in the wrong way and we are doing it because of the people who are not present today to listen to our arguments: the representatives of the Council. The Council did not want to deal with this in a horizontal way and we are left with this kind of piecemeal approach.

So on the single permit, we understand the good intentions and the global approach and the work of the rapporteur in trying to make this work, but we will present our amendments tomorrow in good faith in the hope that we can obtain a single permit which says what it is: a single permit covering the broad range of people who seek to work in this European Union. We want to make it a realistic single permit that will really work for all Member States and will stand the test of time.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, I have now been in Parliament for a year and I have dealt with various dossiers, but none of them have been as difficult as what we have on the table here. At this point, I would like to offer my sincere thanks once again to Mrs Mathieu and Mr Cercas, the two rapporteurs from the relevant committees.

This really is a very difficult matter, and the reason for this is that naturally we have very high ideals in Europe. We want to treat everyone who lives and works here fairly and equally. That, in principle, is something we can all agree on as a starting point. However, the question remains as to how much we can really implement this in detail.

We have already been reminded that with the Treaty of Lisbon, we now wish to draw up a common policy on asylum and migration. Asylum policy is something close to our hearts, and not just because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We also need a migration policy for economic reasons, because demographic changes are taking place and we have a very urgent need not just for highly qualified workers, but also for less skilled workers.

Basically, the great difficulty here is what to do. As has already been said – Mrs in ’t Veld mentioned it – the Member States stated back in 1990 in Tampere that they wanted to develop a common structure. Nothing has yet been placed on the table. In other words, what we have today is a compromise – we are not completely happy with it, but in my view, it is a way for us to move forward. Speaking personally, I can well understand why some are saying that we need more time for discussion. I am not completely happy with it either. It is particularly important to me, for example, that everyone should have access to training and further education, because this is absolutely crucial – not just for the persons concerned, so that they can work in the labour market, but also for us with our real need for workers. In the case of social security, for example, where we already have so many different systems anyway that have not even been harmonised within the EU, it raises the question of how we can really create a common set of rights for third country nationals in all cases even if we want to.

It is difficult, and that is why I see the compromise that is currently on the table as a good thing. We really should vote in favour; then at least we will have something.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, it has to be said that it is extremely odd to begin a directive which is intended to guarantee a legal framework for proper access to rights for all workers with a long list of the categories of workers excluded from that directive. That makes it seem like a project for legal migration but also for a multi-layered European labour market, where each category of workers would be assigned, according to their worth, a sort of portfolio of rights. We are therefore a long way from a horizontal and universal approach to workers’ rights.

I think that those responsible in Europe have still not understood that more rights for workers means greater economic efficiency and greater social cohesion, with greater individual and collective benefits, of course, for migrants, for the host societies and for the societies of origin. Indeed, this has been shown in a study by the London School of Economics which says that regularising 600 000 irregular workers in Great Britain, who will not have access to this single application procedure, would bring GBP 3 billion into Great Britain’s coffers. We are not, I think, at all equal to the challenges.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, we all know that economic immigration is a real phenomenon in the Member States of the European Union. However, the presence of third-country workers must be evaluated with at least two considerations in mind. The issue primarily manifests as an economic necessity, as demographic and labour market trends indicate that European societies need immigrant labour. Thus, it is in our interest to ensure that immigration takes place legally, under regulated circumstances, and that Member States have the possibility to monitor the process, while immigrants experience legal certainty, meaning that there should be no advantages to be gained from circumventing legal procedures.

I believe that the part of the directive that concerns common rights, that is to say, the equal rights of immigrants and employees who are nationals of the Member State concerned, is very important. At this point, I would also like to draw attention to the other, cultural aspect of the issue. The presence of immigrants with different cultural customs and traditions is a source of tension in many Member States. I am convinced that the provision of equal rights cannot stop at the prohibition of discrimination on the labour market. I believe that the issue calls for a more subtle approach. This is because legal immigrant workers do not only bring an additional source of labour into Europe, they do not only wish to work here, but also want to study, start families, raise children and lead full lives. Should Europe decide therefore that economic immigration is the solution to the imbalances caused by the demographic situation, it must not disregard the cultural dimension of the issue. The success of multiculturalism presupposes tolerance, mutual respect and solidarity.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the solution that we are discussing is an erroneous solution, that it is highly unfair to many vulnerable people and that, in some ways, it is also self-destructive, because it will not have escaped anyone’s attention – and this point has already been made – that there is a contradiction between discussing a single permit and beginning with waivers and exceptions.

Excluding posted workers, seasonal workers and refugees from the solution in question actually undermines the uniformity of rights, both employment rights and citizens’ rights. And there is an even more negative development: not only are we looking at a solution which could pave the way for forms of dumping, because the costs will differ in each case, but it will also make a distinction between one citizen and another.

This Parliament will need to discuss later on the issue of working conditions for seasonal workers. Commissioner, seasonal workers are not just foreign citizens; they are European citizens too, and if material conditions and citizenship rights distinguish one from the other, it is inevitable that businesses will seek second-rate solutions when employing them.

As far as posted workers are concerned, can you imagine the kind of situation that will be created in our global market if large multinational companies are allowed to hire people to come to work in our countries, but on the terms and conditions applicable in their countries of origin? A new, but extremely negative situation will be created. Dumping will not be the only everyday occurrence; distinctions will be made between citizens, too, and this is something that Europe has never experienced, not even in its most recent history.

Unity is fundamental and, for this reason, the provision should be radically overhauled.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us be clear: is this the agreement that we wanted? The answer is ‘no’. Many of us in Parliament would like to have gone further, but I believe that this is a step in the right direction, for two reasons in particular: firstly, because we are currently creating a new instrument aimed at benefiting the nationals of third countries who wish to immigrate to the territory of Member States by conferring upon them a set of rights; secondly, as Mrs Mathieu has already said, because of the political message that we are sending overseas, which counteracts the idea of a Fortress Europe that is only able to adopt repressive measures and strengthen security, while, at the same time, we are responding to the concerns expressed in the Stockholm Programme regarding the creation of flexible immigration policies in order to promote the Union’s economic development.

I therefore agree with Mrs Mathieu that an agreement urgently needs to be reached with the Council and, while I share Mrs in ’t Veld’s view that many Member States do not want to discuss any sort of common immigration policy, this makes it important to take the first step.

Let us be clear: the abolition of internal borders between Member States has made it essential to harmonise national legislations on the conditions of admission and residence for third-country nationals, to guarantee them equality of treatment, and to ensure that they are guaranteed rights and obligations comparable to those of EU citizens. Furthermore, I believe that the creation of a single application procedure for a residency and work permit will be of benefit in efficiency terms, for both migrants and employers, and that it will also make it easier to monitor the legality of their residence and employment.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, to date, access to employment has been regulated only for a few specific categories of third-country nationals. Indeed, not everyone benefits from the general principle of equality of treatment in access to employment.

As a result, the European Union must take steps to guarantee equal treatment both for third-country nationals legally residing in a Member State and for those who qualify for refugee status or who require international protection, pursuant to Council Directive 2004/83 of 29 April 2004.

We need to prevent a growth in demand, for example, for seasonal workers, just because they can be paid less and because they have different – lower – costs with respect to European citizens employed to do the same job. We must also avoid, for example, the risk of many multinational companies transferring their headquarters to countries such as Morocco or Turkey and sending their employees to work in European branches because it is cheaper.

For reasons of social justice, we must ensure that European citizens are treated equally in terms of remuneration, working conditions and social security. For this reason, I believe that it is right to include seasonal workers, posted workers, refugees and self-employed workers in this directive. It would be extremely dangerous to make distinctions.

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ TŐKÉS
Vice-President

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, over the centuries, people have left Europe for reasons of work and to escape war and political and religious persecution, and now Europe, with its stability, attracts people from outside Europe, and that is a good thing. It is excellent that the rules on lawful immigration are being harmonised within the EU so that residence and work permits are combined into just one permit. That is a good thing.

In my opinion, however, the Commission’s approach is rather less judicious, because it has chosen one that is sector specific. It guarantees different rights for different groups. It has become such a jungle that even the experts find it hard to discover what European policy on immigration actually is. We have employees who have been sent here, employees with blue cards, researchers, seasonal workers, company employees who have been transferred internally, and so on. Why can the Commission not apply the same rules to all employees?

It has become evident on many an occasion that a lot of migrant groups are not treated equally, and that is very difficult to accept. The guiding principle here must surely be equal treatment for all. It is not right that only certain people receive equal treatment and that others do not.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has tabled amendments with this in mind, and I hope that they will win Parliament’s approval in tomorrow’s vote. This is very important, and while we bid the migrants welcome, we want the rules to be made more equal and more consistent.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the idea of a one-stop shop is to be welcomed, but it is a paradigm shift for some European countries – including my own, Austria, where residence permits are issued by the authorities dealing with third-party rights and work permits by the authorities responsible for the labour market, the Austrian Employment Service, with the involvement of the social partners. Regulation of access to the labour market directly affects the social partners and they should therefore be involved in its substance. The discussion that has taken place to date has involved the trade unions far too little, and NGOs and churches have been similarly excluded. Many of the previous speakers have said that migration policy must be viewed as a whole. I am therefore against the Commission’s piecemeal approach that splits up the package and thereby introduces through the back door the country of origin principle, and possibly even social dumping, as has also been mentioned already.

Allow me to make a comment on the legal nature of the supplementary document. A credit card format will not be able to accommodate all the official orders and data, so the supplementary document also needs to be normative in nature. Only then will efficient controls be possible. This serves to protect workers and prevents competition being distorted in a way which benefits those enterprises that wish to grow rich on the backs of illegal workers.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, I have waved my blue card two or three times already so that I could ask a number of questions. Anyone listening to this debate would get the impression that I had not spent several months making my contribution to the social dimension of this dossier that we are now dealing with.

What this is about – and I say that again to all the members here – is an amendment by me which is intended to ensure equal treatment for everyone who enters a Member State with a single permit for residence and work. That is guaranteed. How can you suggest that it is not guaranteed? I have read the press reports, too, and I am getting the feeling that we are just rabble-rousing. Nor can you make the same claim about seasonal workers, and I believe you were going to come up with a proposal in that respect.

As far as posting is concerned, it is not the case that you can set up a company in a third country and then relocate workers there to work in poor conditions. Mr President, that is simply not true!

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the single permit will facilitate administrative procedures, improve the control and management of economic migration and the exchange of data on labour market demand. However, this legislative proposal only offers a half-way solution because it deals with the rights of persons who have already been allowed entry to the European Union and the labour market of a Member State. It does not cover another two aspects: the criteria for granting the right to work and the exclusion of seasonal workers and intra-corporate transferees.

I would also like us to remember that we are regulating the rights of third-country workers, but we still have not fully achieved a free labour market for all EU citizens.

  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, there has been a lot of talk about equal rights in this debate. It is also a matter of balance or conflict, because that is the choice that we will have, and it is also a question of a long-term or a short-term approach.

The exclusions will, in the worst case scenario, open the way for a new form of slavery. We know what amending the Posting of Workers Directive from a minimum directive to a maximum directive has meant in terms of shattering the order and balance on the labour market. These exclusions will not improve the situation. Instead, they will make it worse. This will lead to social disasters. Whole industries will choose to recruit seasonal workers in a way that will affect the whole labour market, suppress wages and create conflict.

I appeal to my fellow Members from other political groups, such as the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), to support the amendment tabled by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. That is the only way to ensure that the exclusions do not create these serious social conflicts.

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 18 December 1990, the UN adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. This Convention is one of the UN’s nine main instruments on human rights. Unfortunately, 20 years later, none of the Member States of the European Union have signed or ratified that Convention.

I believe that recognising the rights of third-country nationals who live and work legally in the European Union must be a priority for a Europe which faces new challenges in relation to integration, non-discrimination and protection of human rights.

For this reason, I ask all Members to support Amendment 16 and to sign Written Declaration 96 – to which I am a signatory, together with Cornelia Ernst, Sylvie Guillaume and Franziska Keller – in order to petition Member States to ratify the UN Convention on migrant workers.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, it is true that this proposal for a directive discusses a wide variety of situations, including, for example, immigrant workers from third countries, seasonal workers and posted workers, but the truth is that what this represents in practice is the legalisation of social dumping, the reinforcing of job insecurity and the worsening of discrimination, under the pretext of a single regulation. That is why we say that this proposal for a directive cannot be adopted.

What is needed is to improve the rights of those working in the European Union, whether as posted workers, seasonal workers, full-time workers or even immigrant workers. We must recognise their rights, including the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. It would be positive if the Commission committed to adopting and ratifying this Convention for all Member States.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, economic migration is a fact that is more or less familiar to all the more affluent countries of the European Union.

Along with the migrants who come to EU countries legally, however, in accordance with their laws and regulations, there are many illegal migrants, who are often exposed to discrimination or even persecution, as employers frequently take advantage of their lack of a legitimate residency status.

The attempt made in this directive concerning better organisation and the introduction of specific common rules to resolve this problem may help to preserve the dignity of people coming to EU countries to find work, if they are willing to accept EU rules on migration. I am under no illusions that the directive will resolve all the problems of employment migration. It may improve the current employment system for migrants, however, and eliminate some of the undesirable developments we have seen in this area. We therefore have reason to regard this draft directive as a step in the right direction. That is how it should be seen.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, there is a proverb in Irish that says: so many people, so many minds. If that is true about anything, it is true about this controversial, complex subject. Therefore, the rapporteur has done a very good job, and she deserves praise.

As the European Union is founded on principles of peace and prosperity, it is only right that it should try and convey that idea throughout the whole European Union, and indeed the world. As the world’s biggest donor to third countries, it is right that we should be trying to ensure that those who are legally within our borders will be treated with the same dignity and respect that we would like to be shown to our citizens if they were in third countries. While this is not perfect, it is a step in the right direction. I welcome it and therefore endorse it.

  Alejandro Cercas, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – (ES) Mr President, I do not wish to re-open a debate with my fellow Member, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, but rather just to dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s.

The debate has not been in any way personal, and no one has called her work into question. If they had called it into question, I would say straightaway that she has done an excellent job on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

However, if Mrs Oomen-Ruijten says that she has tabled amendments for tomorrow’s sitting that improve the text and provide equality, I have to say that this is not the case. Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has put her name to the amendments to the texts – which I have here – that the Council did not succeed in introducing during the dialogue we had with the Council. These are not amendments by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten; they are the Council’s text word-for-word. With regard to the posting of workers, the Council has a much more unequal position than the Commission.

We would be prepared to accept the Commission’s original text, but the text from the Council states that all posted workers, including those who are covered by the 1996 directive, are also excluded from this directive. This amendment does not, therefore, provide greater equality but rather greater inequality.

I would like to reiterate my personal regard for Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. She is undoubtedly an excellent MEP whose work is very good, but ultimately, she has aligned herself with the Council’s view.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this has indeed been a very good debate. Regarding the scope of the directive, it is no secret that the Commission would have liked a global approach. My predecessors proposed this many years ago. It was impossible. It still is, so we therefore have this sectoral approach. I do not like it, but it is the only way to move forward.

The directive is necessary because we have third-country workers. They are in our countries and make an important contribution to our economies. We need to protect them. Having said that, contrary to some of the views that have been expressed here today, let me emphasise that the present directive establishes the principle of equal treatment for migrant workers in all employment-related areas, including employment conditions and wages. It does not create discrimination. Once adopted, the directive will be a very important tool in the fight for the protection of migrant workers and against social dumping. Nobody wants social dumping. We want to protect these people.

Other categories of workers, such as seasonal workers and ICTs (intra-corporate transferees), are not included in the present proposal. I share your view that we need to protect them. That is why, before the summer, the Commission proposed two separate instruments covering ICTs and seasonal workers, specifically targeted to protect them. I am sure that, once the rapporteurs, the shadow rapporteurs and the committees really start working on those proposals, they will do their utmost to make sure that those categories are also protected and that we can progress in those fields as well.

I am also aware that some people or groups here would like to have included posted workers – who are now excluded. The directive which we are discussing today is supposed to avoid discrimination, not create new discrimination, so let us treat the issue of posted workers separately and not in this context. The Commission is about to launch an impact assessment study on the issue. It has announced a revision of the Posted Workers Directive for the end of next year. The question of the personal scope of the Posted Workers Directive could be addressed as part of the announced revision of the Posted Workers Directive.

As regards the issue of correlation tables, which Ms in ’t Veld raised, the Commission fully shares her view, not only as regards this directive. It would have been, and hopefully it will be, an important tool for addressing the issue of better regulation and greater transparency on the part of Member States when they implement the various directives. It will be good for you; it will be good for us, the national parliaments and citizens. We keep repeating this to the Council. If it facilitates things, the Commission is prepared to make a declaration on this. However, we do not want to jeopardise the directive if it is possible to reach a decision tomorrow, when you vote on this issue. However, we will keep on fighting for this and we will come back to it for many other pieces of legislation.

Thank you for this debate. Thank you for the very hard work that many people have been doing, particularly Ms Mathieu and Mr Cercas. I hope that we can reach an agreement and have a positive vote tomorrow.

  Véronique Mathieu, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I must agree wholeheartedly with you, as you have given very full answers to the 23 fellow Members who have spoken on our text, to Mr Cercas and to me.

I must thank all the rapporteurs on this text from all the political groups, with whom we have had much discussion and very good cooperation throughout this year, as we have been working together on this for a year now. We started at the beginning of the year and we are finishing with the Belgian Presidency. Thank you, Mrs Malmström, as you have paid very close attention to this text, as have your services. I also thank the Council, because the Council has listened to us very attentively and I also thank those fellow Members who have spoken this evening.

I would like to say that tomorrow, we are actually voting at first reading. This is a compromise. A compromise is never 100% satisfactory and if fellow Members still need to be reassured, I hope that in any event, the speech you have made will reassure them.

With regard to Mrs Flautre, who said just now that we were beginning the text of a report with exclusions, remember that all those workers concerned in the exclusion were, in any case, covered by directives relating very specifically to them. It was not therefore a matter of excluding a certain number of workers from third countries.

I hope that the text of this report, which we have drawn up with all the rapporteurs and which we shall be presenting tomorrow to our other fellow Members, will be a great step forward for workers from third countries.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 December 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I voted against this dangerously worded draft directive from the Commission and Council that sought to create a low pay job market for migrant workers in the EU. Migration must be fair. Everyone working in the EU should be treated equally, regardless of his or her country of origin. This proposal for a single work permit for nationals of non-EU countries was a missed opportunity to support decent working conditions where migrants are welcomed on the basis of equal treatment. Instead, the proposal would have resulted in discriminatory treatment between EU workers and non-EU employees posted to work in the EU. For example, companies could find it more profitable to officially relocate their headquarters to countries outside the EU and then to post their workers to their European branches to avoid having to provide the same rights and conditions for their workers that are legally applicable to EU citizens working in the EU. The European Parliament rejected this proposal. This ensures that the Commission and Member State Ministers must go back to the drawing board and bring forward a visa proposal that does not promote a race to the bottom.

  President. – The next item is the report by Mr Claude Moraes, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection (COM(2007)0298 – C6-0196/2007 – 2007/0112(COD) (A7-0347/2010)).

  Claude Moraes, rapporteur. – Mr President, I fear that as I get into the first paragraph of my speech, there will be only me, the PPE coordinator, and the Commissioner left in the Chamber. I admire you for your stamina, Commissioner. I should never take up my speaking time by doing this, but I could not help it. Thanks to the PPE Group for being here too at this time of night.

Commissioner, you and the Council did a great job in rescuing this proposal, which now benefits those who should never have been excluded from the original Long-Term Residence Directive. There was another opportunity to include them in 2008, and again unfortunately, through the failure to reach unanimity in the Council, this could not happen. So it is a very happy day today that a proposal taken on by my predecessor as coordinator in my group, Martine Roure, is now the subject of an agreement. I am very grateful to the Council, too. I pointed out in the previous debate that it was not present but, if it were present here today, I would thank the Council too, because during the Belgian Presidency, we were able to make good progress. I am very grateful for that.

The proposal will bring direct benefit to all beneficiaries of international protection who have been in the EU for more than five years but currently cannot become long-term residents. It will finally bring to an end their differential treatment compared to other third-country nationals and will give them greater certainty about their situation in the EU.

The main issue for the negotiations boiled down to the calculation of the time period of legal residence to reach the five years. We supported the Commission that the full duration of the procedure should be taken into account. However, this was strongly opposed by the Council. We were particularly concerned about this, because asylum procedures can take many years in some Member States. The compromise we have reached in the negotiations is that at least half of the asylum procedure will be taken into account and, if a procedure takes more than 18 months, the whole procedure will then be taken into account.

I hesitate to go on to the issue of correlation tables but I am duty bound to say something about them – I would rather not. I would nevertheless like to implore the institutions to reach a horizontal agreement on this issue. I would particularly urge the Council to recognise the importance of correlation tables for overseeing the implementation of legislation. We had a very difficult situation in which many of the dossiers considered of great importance by groups across this House could have been delayed because of this issue.

I am very happy also that the scope of the proposal includes both refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. It is vital to continue the trend towards aligning the standards of protection and the rights granted to both groups, as in the recasting of the Qualification Directive. The agreement also contains many safeguards against refoulement. Given that beneficiaries will now be allowed to move between Member States, it is important that the protection background of beneficiaries is never forgotten. Therefore, Member States will have to include a comment in the long-term residence permit and will be obliged to consult the Member State that granted protection in cases of possible expulsion. The proposal also takes into account the transfer of protection to another Member State under national arrangements. The long-term residence permit needs to be modified accordingly in order to safeguard against refoulement.

We have also ensured that the principle of family unity is upheld in the event of expulsion to another Member State, but it is also clear that it should not be automatic in cases where it may not be in the best interest of family members to go with the expelled person.

The agreement we have reached on this is a signal of the new cooperation which can exist between the three institutions in the area of asylum and legal migration aided by the new framework in the Lisbon Treaty. It shows that we can reach an agreement with Member States on a progressive piece of asylum-related legislation.

I again want to thank my shadow rapporteurs from across the groups, Ms Nedelcheva, Ms Wikström and other colleagues who helped make this what I would call a pleasurable trialogue – if that is not a contradiction in terms! I should like to thank all concerned for making this a reality.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the European Parliament rapporteur, Claude Moraes. He has done a fantastic job together with his team of shadow rapporteurs. Parliament, the Commission and the Council have really achieved an agreement. The minister was also very helpful.

The compromise that we have reached is a well-balanced one and is in line with the 2007 proposal. The extension of long-term residence status to beneficiaries of international protection will ensure a higher level of protection and legal certainty for refugees in Europe and will allow for better integration in our societies.

This is also the first building block of our asylum package – the first of six pieces of legislation – and is a first step towards our joint aim of achieving a common European asylum system by 2012. It will give a strong political signal that we can agree, that we are willing to go down this difficult but necessary road and make progress, and that we can act reasonably and constructively on this. I would really like to thank you for that.

Concerning the much talked about issue of correlation tables, the Commission made a declaration to the Council. I would like to read it out, with your permission: ‘The Commission recalls its commitment towards ensuring that Member States establish correlation tables linking the transposition measures they adopt with the EU directive and communicate them to the Commission in the framework of transposing EU legislation, in the interest of citizens, better law making and increasing legal transparency and to assist the examination of the conformity of national rules with EU provisions.

‘The Commission regrets the lack of support for the provision included in the 2007 COM proposal amending the Long-Term Residence Directive which aimed at rendering the establishment of correlation tables obligatory.

‘The Commission, in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of the Long-Term Residence proposal, can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on correlation tables included in the text with a relevant recital encouraging Member States to follow this practice.

‘However, the position followed by the Commission in this file shall not be considered as a precedent. The Commission will continue its efforts with a view to finding, together with the European Parliament and the Council, an appropriate solution to this horizontal institutional issue’.

I think we can agree on this. It is important that this declaration is in the protocol and has been heard. As I said in the earlier debate, the Commission is repeating this argument.

Nevertheless, on this particular report, it is very important that we have reached agreement. Thank you all, again, for your contribution.

  Mariya Nedelcheva, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Moraes, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Moraes, on the excellent work he has done and on the exemplary cooperation he has shown with the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council.

With this report, we have made a great step forward towards a harmonised European asylum system. The agreement reached with the Council was necessary and I am very pleased that we have succeeded in making progress on this issue. The asylum package is very much greater and, indeed, there is still much to be done. Therefore, we must not drop our guard and I hope that the Council will take the same cooperative attitude in negotiations on future issues. That is what I wanted to say by way of introduction.

Regarding the substance of the dossier, without repeating the rapporteur’s words, I would like to go back to two points. First of all, I would like to stress the importance of integrating third-country nationals into our societies. Migrants who come to our countries are a considerable asset to our economies. We cannot, however, welcome everybody under any conditions. Several governments have realised in recent months that their integration model has failed.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Moraes, who has drawn up the report on which we are to give our views to his usual high standard and with a sincere desire to uphold humanitarian principles and the principle of respect for our fellow human beings.

Beneficiaries of international protection in a Member State often stay there for a very long time, perhaps the rest of their lives, as their vulnerability and persecution in the country from which they have fled tends to remain for a very long time. Many beneficiaries of international protection therefore find themselves in the same situation as those who are classed as refugees. It is also reasonable for people to be classed as resident in a country after they have lived there for five years, and this was the approach taken by both the Commission and Parliament. The Council wanted to take a different approach, which I find regrettable.

I would also like to emphasise that members of the family of the person who is a beneficiary of international protection must have the chance to shape their own lives. For example, in the case of expulsion, the family must be allowed to choose whether to follow or to remain where they are. I am pleased that Parliament will now adopt this report. It is regrettable that the Council has not approved the correlation tables, but I welcome the fact that we are pressing on with the reports that are to be included in the common European asylum system.

It is to be hoped that the Council will now take more of a listening approach. We all have the same deadline to meet and that is 2012. We now need to relinquish our old, ingrained opinions and look to the pan-European approach and what is best for everyone when it comes to asylum and migration. Otherwise, the word ‘solidarity’ will soon become meaningless.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Moraes, once again for his fine work and for his very good, if not excellent, cooperation on this report.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, last week, we visited Athens with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and while I was there, I talked to Mamuth. Mamuth is 26 years old and comes from Eritrea. He entered the European Union via Greece and travelled on to the Netherlands, where he would have preferred to stay, because he had some contacts there, but he was sent back to Greece. Mamuth said that, when he eventually got his refugee status in Greece, he would not be able to travel freely and that it would take an eternity before he was granted Greek nationality.

It is for the sake of young men like Mamuth, who are entitled to a new life and do not deserve to be shunted back and forth across borders again, that I am pleased that this House is now going to change that situation and that rapporteur Claude Moraes has managed to take this first step in our asylum packages. It is also important that Mamuth, who would actually prefer to live his new life in the Netherlands, is given a decent basis for comparison, because this young man has the right to see how various matters are dealt with in Greece and the Netherlands, or wherever it is that he wants to build his life.

Thank you, Mr Moraes, thank you for your cooperation and let us see how long the process takes for Mamuth.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating Claude Moraes on his report. I agree with the report and welcome it with satisfaction because it will grant new rights to those who apply for international protection, including refugees. It will furnish them with rights which, after all, are already given to third-country citizens that have been legally residing in a European Union country for five years. There are, however, a few difficulties in this report. I come from a country which has experienced these difficulties, namely that five years is far too long a time to wait in order to acquire the right that is granted by this law. This applies especially to those countries who are hosting a huge amount of people who are stuck there; blocked in the country they first arrive at. Aside from my country, there are others that have recently undergone similar experiences, Greece being one of them. They are hosting vast numbers of persons who are required to wait five years to benefit from these rights, as laid down by this law. Naturally, they ultimately benefit from long-term residence, yet they can also move to other European Union countries, which could be of great help to those like Greece, Malta, Cyprus and others. Therefore, I believe that this law, although good, could have been improved upon by decreasing the stipulated five-year waiting period. Here, I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur Claude Moraes for having recognised this and for having done what he could to insert a reference, albeit a symbolic one to him, in an explanatory note at the end.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I, too, must begin by congratulating my colleague, Claude Moraes, for this report. I also want to thank him for the exceptional efforts he makes as coordinator within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

I think that it is excellent that this new directive finally fills a legal vacuum with regard to the right of residence which beneficiaries of international protection find themselves in throughout the European Union. These persons who have settled in one of the Member States are currently in a precarious state of legal certainty due to the fact that they are not eligible, under current circumstances, for long-term residence permits, something other third-country nationals are eligible for. They must be granted the right of long-term residence in a non-discriminatory manner, with the only condition being prior legal residence, as is also the case for the other third-country nationals. I believe that it would have been better to take into account in this calculation the whole duration of legal residence within the European Union, from the time the application for international protection was lodged.

At the same time, consideration must be given to the fact that these people are permanently vulnerable outside the European Union, so that any move to withdraw international protection or the right to residence must be carried out with complete respect for their fundamental rights and the principle of non-refoulement.

This directive provides the necessary additional provisions with regard to the procedures that can be applied if it comes to expulsion or ending international protection. I think that we must vote in support of Claude Moraes’s report as it is part of the general package governing the European Union’s asylum and migration system.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I am not looking at this report through rose-tinted spectacles. I am deliberately looking at it through the eyes of the citizens in our home countries who are concerned because after residing for five years in a Member State, refugees are then to be granted long-term resident status. This will then apply throughout the territory of the EU. So once a refugee has settled in a country with relatively soft asylum law, after five years he will be able to move his place of residence to any other Member State he chooses – and naturally he will initially seek out a country where the regulations have loopholes or are softer, and will subsequently settle long-term wherever the social standards are obviously high. The consequence will be secondary migration and abuse. Even the accumulation of a duration of five years in the asylum system is problematic, since often the administrative procedures are subject to wilful delays and investigations. Extending the directive would place an even greater burden on those Member States with a high social standard, which already have huge problems in any case, making it harder still for refugees to be integrated. I shall be extremely critical of this report.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I do not have much to add. There is a big consensus of support here for the work done by Mr Moraes on this very important directive.

I would just once again make a pledge to Mr Moraes and the others that this is an important building block. I believe it will get strong support tomorrow in the vote. This is the first step in our common journey towards 2012 and the asylum package. I just hope that this spirit of constructive cooperation will remain because I need – and I am counting on – your support for the remaining directives.

  Claude Moraes, rapporteur. – Mr President, I should like to formally thank the Commissioner again for her work on this.

One of the reasons why we hope that the first step on asylum can be completed in tomorrow’s vote – and I hope it is a resounding vote – is because, although asylum remains one of the deeply sensitive issues for this House, as Mr Busuttil explained for smaller countries in particular, every piece of legislation on asylum can have a disproportionate effect, not just on small countries, but also on flashpoint countries such as Greece.

We should all proceed carefully, as we did in this report, and there are some items in the explanatory memorandum which ensure that Members’ concerns are taken very seriously, particularly when they come from serious Members. For example, I think we were able to incorporate Ms Nedelcheva’s concerns regarding integration and those of Ms Wikström when she talked about family members and expulsion, as well as the issues of domestic violence and other issues. It is when we have that kind of cooperation that negotiations go very well at the higher level of the Commission and the Council thanks to the work we do in Parliament with colleagues.

Finally, Ms Sargentini, I really wanted to find an inventive way of saying that correlation tables were extremely important. To say that asylum seekers are now waiting for the correlation tables to be implemented is probably the most inventive and imaginative lobbying for the correlation table resolution to happen, so I hope Council was listening. Thank you again to all my colleagues for their support on this report after such a long time.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 December 2010.

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

- A7-0309/2010 by Mr Petru Constantin Luhan, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on territorial, social and economic cohesion

[2009/2233(INI)]; and

- A7-0280/2010 by Mrs Ramona Nicole Mănescu, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on good governance and EU regional policy

[2009/2231(INI)].

  Petru Constantin Luhan, rapporteur. – (RO) Mr President, we have intended with this report to answer the question raised in the title, which is whether establishing economic, social and territorial cohesion is an absolute prerequisite for global competitiveness in the European Union, with a particular focus on the role played by the cohesion policy in this respect.

It is alarming that there are such great disparities between the European Union’s 271 regions. While the most developed region has a per capita GDP which is 334% of the EU-27 average, this figure is only 26% in the poorest region, in other words, 13 times smaller.

Another adverse factor is the rate of economic growth in the European Union, which is slower compared to that of our international competitors. Therefore, as is also mentioned in the EU 2020 strategy, we need to develop strategic areas and look outside the European Union to become more powerful.

Europe is faced with a tough task as it will need to tackle, apart from the impact of the current crisis, other major challenges as well, such as adapting to globalisation, demographic changes, climate change and energy security problems.

The cohesion policy’s role in the EU 2020 strategy is unarguable. I think that this policy’s priorities must be aligned with the objectives of the future strategy, but it is worth mentioning that it still needs to remain an independent policy. The strategy’s objectives can be achieved more easily through increasing the synergy between the research, development and innovation programmes, on the one hand, and the cohesion programmes, on the other. We must support large projects with a major impact at EU level, which will generate economic growth, create jobs and ensure sustainable development for the regions.

Particular importance must also be attached to investments in any kind of infrastructure, be it transport, ICT, social, educational, research and development or environmental, which will help achieve a suitable level of accessibility for all European citizens, offering them equal opportunities to development potential.

The guidelines at local and regional level will be dictated by the specific features of the area, with the opportunity available to generate immediate added value. The application of the principle of decentralisation must be encouraged up to local authority level so as to improve the absorption of European funds.

While promoting economic competitiveness and creating jobs, the particularly important role played by SMEs must not be overlooked. They must enjoy increased access to EU funding, financial engineering instruments and other credit sources. Maximising the cohesion policy’s impact is an absolute must for boosting economic competitiveness. At this point, I would like to stress the need to continue simplifying the procedures for using EU funds, the guarantee of their flexible use, the continuing use of GDP as the main criterion for determining regions’ eligibility under the cohesion policy and the need for a specific proposal from the Commission on the use of public-private partnerships.

In terms of increasing the European Union’s global competitiveness, I think that part of the funds allocated to the cohesion policy should be used to establish and maintain Europe’s role as global leader in the sectors where it already enjoys a competitive edge and in the sectors where there is potential for it to become global leader.

Therefore, fellow Members, achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion, along with strategic investments, is the absolute prerequisite for guaranteeing the European Union’s economic competitiveness globally.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu, rapporteur. – (RO) Mr President, the current global crisis has highlighted once again how important good governance is at every level, as well as the need to have local and regional authorities constantly involved, as equal partners, in devising and implementing EU policies and strategies, especially as they enforce almost 70% of EU legislation.

The cohesion policy plays a vital role in the application of multi-level governance. Given the considerable impact this has in achieving territorial cohesion in Europe, the principle of multi-level governance should become compulsory for all Member States. Indeed, active involvement by local and regional authorities in the decision-making process even at the prelegislative phase, along with a relevant analysis of the effectiveness of share management mechanisms, with the various responsibilities that the Commission and Member States have, will actually guarantee that better results are achieved with regard to the absorption of European funds in the future programming period.

The practical reality has shown us that an integrated approach to regional policy is much more effective in terms of the results achieved. This is precisely why this approach should also become compulsory. We need a common definition of the concept of partnership. On this point, I have asked the European Commission to come up with a definition of this as a condition for establishing proper partnerships with local and regional authorities.

Therefore, adopting the local development methodology based on local partnerships is the solution available to Member States for enhancing the role of local and regional authorities in the management and implementation of European programmes, especially those relating to urban, rural and cross-border development. The simplification of regulations at EU and national level, not only as a consequence of the economic crisis but also as a general principle of the future cohesion policy, is a prerequisite for better governance in applying the cohesion policy, as it is the only way we will be able to encourage prospective beneficiaries.

In addition, I think that we need for the future programming period a common set of regulations for using European funds, which are applicable to all Member States, thereby eliminating the opportunity for the latter to introduce additional conditions which actually restrict access to funding.

If our long-term aspiration is to have a policy which is clearer, results-orientated and much easier to apply, the Commission must improve both the assistance capacity given to local and regional authorities and the systems for monitoring the activity carried out at national level. I believe that training and guiding these authorities through the process of implementing the programmes will help reduce the high error rate, especially with regard to ineligible expenditure and public procurement. In order to avoid duplication of audits and the excessive level of control currently faced by beneficiaries, we have asked the Commission to produce a single audit manual which will facilitate the uniform application of a single audit model at all levels. Last but not least, we must take measures to encourage the private sector’s involvement in European projects. A first step in this direction is to simplify the regulations for operating the financial engineering instruments aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises.

Finally, I want to mention the good cooperation I have enjoyed with the Commission’s representatives during the consultations, as well as the receptiveness and support they have shown in giving effective backing to the measures featuring in this report, which is a further guarantee that these measures will eventually be adopted by the Commission.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, in particular, Mrs Mănescu and Mr Luhan, I would specifically like to thank both of you for your two reports, which are once again constructive and very positive towards regional policy and have come at absolutely the right time in view of the ongoing debate on the future structure of regional policy, particularly looking ahead to the Cohesion Forum at the end of January/beginning of February.

It is important that we constantly view regional policy in particular as an investment policy – as a policy of investing in regions, in people, in Europeans. In the area of innovation and regional policy, a total of EUR 86 billion has already been earmarked for this financial period, and this is intended to help small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, to improve the quality of their workforce, their production methods and the services that they are able to offer. However, what we need to do – and here you are both absolutely right – is to improve our strategy further in the future, so that in addition to the controls that will continue to be necessary in the future – in other words, alongside correct financial conduct – we focus much more on a results-orientated assessment of our work. I always say – and it is at the core of the cohesion report and its conclusions – that there is no contradiction between focusing on a few priorities as laid down in the EU 2020 strategy and flexibility in implementing these in the very varied regions of Europe.

Territorial cohesion is enormously important. For me, it is a key issue and provides us with information as to how we can improve living standards in the regions further, which is our task, in order to ensure that people have prospects in the regions in which they were born. That will also contribute to further internal cohesion in Europe.

In this context, it is important – and this should be accentuated in the coming programming period – to bring back the focus more to the role of towns and cities, in view of the fact that around 70% of Europeans live in an urban environment, but at the same time, it is essential that we do not forget the importance of town and country relations. Here it is a matter of using other funding to continue to improve the interfaces and to prevent unnecessary overlaps.

It is also important – as we debated very comprehensively and, in my opinion, very well in this House some time ago – to pay attention to areas with specific geographical circumstances and, naturally, to consider the matter of demographic change in Europe, which is something that we will encounter very often and need to deal with. On the one hand, we are seeing very serious tendencies towards depopulation in rural areas and, on the other, a great increase in the attraction of urban areas – with the result that we have not only more and more people living in a small space, but also a corresponding depopulation. To a certain extent, this can be countered by investments in old and new infrastructure. This will make a very important contribution to ensuring growth.

The matter of partnership – of cooperation – is very important, as was mentioned in particular in Mrs Mănescu’s report. Yes, it is important to develop multi-level governance. However, I would specifically like to point out to this House the importance of the regions also involving the local level. When I am in the regions discussing things, I sometimes get the impression that the local representatives are not being involved by the regional representatives, and that the regional representatives are not being involved by the national representatives. We need to develop instruments here.

I am with you but, vice versa, I must also state quite clearly that naturally, we must respect the constitutional framework of each Member State and give it its due. However, I support you on the matter of involving as many levels as possible – but also as many stakeholders as possible, including NGOs – in the development of our partnership and investment programmes.

I will perhaps go into the matter of financial controls in more detail in my closing remarks, since I have already exceeded my speaking time. I would also like to warmly welcome the new president who has taken the chair.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Iosif Matula, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (RO) Mr President, the cohesion policy is one of the EU’s most important and successful policies. The Treaty of Lisbon allows territorial authorities to be more deeply involved in the decision-making process, which is an important step towards genuine multi-level governance. This must play a key role not only in the forthcoming programming period, but also in every phase of devising and implementing the Europe 2020 strategy.

The Mănescu report, which was voted for unanimously in the Committee on Regional Development, wishes to focus on the competences and role of regional and local authorities in the process of implementing the cohesion policy. The report stresses that the multi-level approach must be applied horizontally in all EU policies. Multi-level governance is a prerequisite for achieving territorial cohesion and boosting its potential. It should be based on a bottom-up approach, taking into account the diversity of the administrative systems currently operating in Member States.

Greater focus must be placed on the integrated approach during the current programming period and in the future, which also applies not only to improving administrative capacity but also to the use of the financial engineering instruments. The role of local and regional authorities must expand by adopting a local development methodology based on regional partnerships, especially for projects relating to urban, rural and cross-border aspects. The role of these partnerships is to help achieve balanced development and they extend beyond national frameworks, thereby contributing to the increase in the Union’s territorial cohesion. In addition, they will highlight not only the common development potential, but also the specific local aspects.

Multi-level governance based on clear, transparent procedures will lead, by extension, to decentralisation, which is still necessary in some Member States. Expanding the role of regional and local authorities involves giving them responsibility for making projects more efficient, which will mean adopting a more results-based approach.

I congratulate Mrs Mănescu and Mr Luhan for the excellent reports they have presented, which will provide significant added value to the future of the cohesion policy.

  Evgeni Kirilov, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, let me commend my colleagues, Mr Luhan and Ms Mănescu, for their excellent work. We all agree that the cohesion policy has a significant role to play for the competitiveness of the European regions. With regard to the continuation of the policy and its achievements, we want to see adequate resources, or at least no less money made available for the cohesion policy than we have at the present time.

Neither do we want an additional burden for the beneficiaries. The future design of the cohesion policy depends on the decision we will take together. However, the Commission has an important role to play with the proposal it makes and here we rely on you, Commissioner Hahn, because in my opinion, some of these proposals – like the suggested preconditions for the Member States for receiving European Union financial assistance – need additional qualification.

The cohesion policies for all regions need support, and we should not permit a situation to arise in which they will suffer because of the inefficiency of some national governments. Here again, I agree, Commissioner, that it is important to develop these levels. It is therefore crucial not to replace complexity by conditionality and not to make life difficult again for the final beneficiaries. To ensure the cohesion policy leads to positive results, let us allow the regions to participate actively; let us allow them to feel ownership of the process, give them appropriate resources and make sure they use them in the most efficient way.

  Riikka Manner, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, first I wish to thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work. These two reports really do create a firm basis for the future of cohesion policy.

A viable cohesion policy that applies to Europe as a whole is an absolute precondition for our global competitiveness, no doubt about it. As the Commissioner said, regional policy is nothing less than investment policy. This is something that we also need to strive for in the future. It is through cohesion policy that we can also respond vigorously to the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. If we want better research, development and innovations, we also have to see cohesion policy as an integral component of these goals, and we must acquire a broader perspective on them.

Cohesion policy is not actually just a matter of solidarity. Of course, it is partly, but it is through cohesion policy that we now have very robustly financed research, development and innovation. That is why it is only right that we should also put at least the same amount of money into cohesion policy during the next funding period as we have hitherto. The Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion takes excellent account of these factors, and it is also very important that we invest more time and money in success.

Mrs Mǎnescu’s report also gets to grips with a very important key question in cohesion policy, namely, how to establish such a policy which is good and which takes every level into consideration. We have had some disappointing results as regards implementation figures, for example. As regional policy actors, we should take seriously these problems in cohesion policy and, furthermore, try to find solutions to them. In my opinion, Mrs Mǎnescu’s report also does an excellent job of addressing these issues.

  Jean-Paul Besset, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I should like to focus my speech on Mr Luhan’s report.

Regional cohesion policies have a key role to play in Europe for economic development that is balanced, socially harmonious and ecologically effective, that is, at the end of the day, globally competitive.

I thank Mr Luhan for including some of our amendments aimed at establishing a sustainable low carbon economy which safeguards biodiversity. Nonetheless, we cannot vote for his resolution because it promotes a vision of cohesion policy as an instrument for global competitiveness that still appears to us to be too narrow, too restricted and inadequate.

We must point out two sticking points. Firstly, the rapporteur relies almost exclusively on quantitative measures in terms of infrastructure as the driving force for growth, increase being his main criterion. We do not feel that is appropriate for the current situation. For example, he mentions 246 operational programmes in research and development and is proud of these, but without questioning what they are about. Research is a good thing but we also need to know what it is that we are researching.

The second sticking point is that the rapporteur does not put forward sufficiently clear plans. We would have liked a robust choice in order to meet the challenges set out in his report, the choice of a green economy, of a green new deal which is the only choice capable of moving Europe and its regions upwards.

  Charalampos Angourakis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, these reports are along the same anti-grassroots lines as the strategic plans of the monopoly groups in the European Union and of the bourgeois governments that serve them. There never has been, nor can there ever be, cohesion in the European Union, despite the efforts made to use political cohesion for the purpose of manipulating the public. The policy of the European Union is coloured by two basic elements: the first is the deep-rooted inequality which is an inherent characteristic of the capitalist development method and the second basic element is that Community funds are not allocated to grassroots needs; they are allocated to works and infrastructures to boost the return on capital and hot money for the monopoly groups through public-private partnerships.

Today, as the capitalist crisis continues, even this misleadingly named principle of Community solidarity is being abandoned and replaced by the competitiveness of capital. The reports and plans of the political representatives of capital for future cohesion policy serve the contemporary needs of business groups, faster capitalist restructurings through the anti-grassroots EU 2020 strategy and the savage attack on the labour, insurance and social rights of the working classes. The European Union and the capitalist development method are not able to satisfy urgent needs, such as earthquake protection, education, health and welfare. That is why leaving the European Union is more necessary today than ever before, as is the fight for a planned socialist economy.

  Trevor Colman, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I am speaking tonight because my colleague, Mr Bufton, who would have addressed you, is unwell. On his behalf, I present this to you. As we know, along with the CAP, regional funds represent the biggest part of the EU budget. For decades, the British people have been forced to foot the bill for various projects around the EU, most of which are of no benefit at all to the UK taxpayer.

Recently, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the UK unveiled the fact that EU regional funds are being used to prop up arms dealing companies in Eastern Europe, with some projects receiving funding amounting to millions of euro, although these are some of the richest companies. Do they really need EU subsidies? Given the fraud and waste endemic in this budget line, and the way it is not even being used for the purposes its supporters allege, I call on the coalition in the UK to withdraw funding, as we need this money at home – yet another reason to leave the EU.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Hungary is certainly in a special position when it comes to the creation and support of regions constituting transboundary economic units. It is an historical fact that these regions were a unit within the Carpathian Basin at one time. The Members of Jobbik therefore support cooperation between the regions and consider it a necessity in the present situation as well, which could further mitigate the temporary barriers erected between the Hungarian people.

However, instead of resources disbursed and controlled directly through Brussels, we can only envision funding in the form of projects launched and approved in joint collaboration, based on a partnership between the countries concerned. At local and regional levels, identification as well as management of problems can be more effective, taking into consideration the transboundary nature of the economically connected regions mentioned as an example. This should be supported even if we only take into account economic considerations. Similarly, the simplification of rules, the involvement of SMEs in European projects and the process of helping economically less developed regions to catch up should all be supported if these popular measures did not entail an extension of the competence and supervisory role of Brussels and the Commission to the detriment of national control. Prioritising the regions and granting them direct economic support could even trigger the beginning of a new era for the Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, there are few European political strategies that give rise to so much emotion and controversy. Cohesion policy, which, by some, is considered to be a socialist policy par excellence, is thought of as a capitalist policy by others. By some, it is regarded as a just policy, and by others as unjust. Some see it as a way of ironing out disproportions, while others see it as strengthening competitiveness.

In fact, there are no contradictions within the policy, which is essentially intended to foster greater cohesion between areas of the European Union, not only in terms of social justice, but also in terms of equal opportunities with regard to competitiveness. In other words, it is cohesion for competitiveness. Both reports speak about this, and point to certain aspects that are important not only for the situation today, but also in the debate about the future of cohesion policy. I would like to draw attention to the fact that both reports focus particularly on the principle of partnership.

I call on the Commissioner to give serious consideration to whether a requirement for Member States should be placed in the proposed development contract. Such a requirement would state that, before signing a contract, a Member State shall agree all directions for development, priorities and principles with local and regional partners. This should be compulsory so that the European Commission can unambiguously assign to each Member State responsibility for implementing its part of cohesion policy.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to start by congratulating and thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Mănescu, for her excellent collaboration and for the fact that she was prepared throughout to discuss and take account of proposals made by fellow Members in connection with the contents of the report. As regards the contents of this report that we are debating, there can be no doubt that good governance is fundamental to the success of any policy, especially cohesion policy, which is based on joint administration, most of the responsibility for which has shifted to national and regional authorities. There is only one answer to the challenges of this complex administration system: multi-level governance.

What I should like to stress is that, if we take account of the future direction of cohesion policy, at least as it would appear up to a degree in the fifth cohesion report, multi-level governance in both its horizontal and vertical dimension will be instrumental to the viability of any development initiative and to the success of the policy. I also welcome the call for simpler rules and greater technical assistance for local authorities on the part of the European Commission as factors that will guarantee greater participation by potential beneficiaries in programmes and in taking up funds in a viable manner. The assessments which are now carried out by the European Commission give us information as to which bodies consistently have problems in terms of their managerial capabilities in implementing political cohesion programmes. As the report notes, additional technical assistance for these bodies, in conjunction with reinforcement of the ‘Train the trainers’ initiative, will boost the managerial capabilities of even the smallest body at local level. Finally, I believe that more unified and harmonised rules for the Structural Funds will provide a solid basis for efforts towards simplification and sound financial management.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova (ALDE). – (BG) Mr President, just days ago, the Commission voted for the Danube strategy action plan, so I will look at Mr Luhan’s report through the prism of this event, especially since he says in his explanatory statement that his aim is to stimulate debate on the dependency and complementary nature of the measures at European and national level. To this I would like to add the regional level. The report outlines the framework in which the cohesion policy can play a role in improving the Union’s competitiveness. It does not explicitly set out the role of macro-regions in this process, but an analysis shows that the Danube strategy is precisely such a framework on a smaller scale, as was the Baltic strategy before it. I find that the conditions in the report coincide with the realities in the Danube Action Plan. Furthermore, the tenets of increasing competitiveness contained in the report are fundamental to the strategy. For example, the report places great value on building links with other territories. It underlines that the Member States have to support a locally oriented approach to formulating and implementing the cohesion policy. And all of these are operating techniques enshrined in the new policy for the Danubian macro-region.

I also admire the thesis in the report about the importance of providing continued support, in particular, to disadvantaged regions. This makes the Danube strategy a special case in Mr Luhan’s report which conforms fully with its conclusions. The aim of my comparison is to show the true path of the cohesion policy. I believe that these principles and operating methods should form the basis of the cohesion policy during the next programme period, and include a results-oriented local policy through the macro-regions.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur on good governance; in particular, I want to express my thanks for her positive cooperation and to congratulate her on this excellent report. This report shows the Commission what needs to happen in the time ahead, particularly in the area of the partnership principle. It states how it must be ensured that local and regional levels are also involved, and how economic and social partners as well as representatives of civil society need to be involved in all phases – in the implementation and in the evaluation of the Structural Fund. That represents a commitment by the Member States to real partnership. It means that the partners will be empowered to talk to the administrations as equals, through training initiatives and financial support; it means that the partners will have a real influence on the form the programmes take. So far, however, we have seen little commitment on the part of the Commission. That applies just as much to the current period as to the proposals that it has made on the matter. I welcome the fact that Mr Olbrycht said that if this development and investment partnership contract comes about, it will only be possible if there is a partnership and if the partners are involved in developing these plans on an equal footing. Otherwise, there is a risk that we will move from being a Europe of regions to being a Europe of Member States, and that is not our aim. Our aim is regional development and the involvement of the local and regional levels, of the economic and social partners, and of civil society.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, this debate is taking place at an opportune time in that the economic, social and territorial disparities within the European Union are being exacerbated in a way that is worrying: the inequality that exists between countries and regions and those within each country are getting worse. We have clearly failed to achieve territorial cohesion.

Cohesion policy does not exist in isolation from other areas of policy: it influences and is profoundly influenced by the prevailing political guidelines and macro-economic framework. Attacks on workers’ salaries and rights, the dismantling and degrading of public services, the attack on the state’s social functions and cuts in public investment are integral parts of the economic and monetary policies that the European Union has been imposing on Member States. These are policies that lead to increased poverty and inequality, and that prevent us further every day from achieving cohesion.

The truth is that cohesion policy has not counteracted the impact or imbalances caused by the integration of economies with very diverse levels of development into the Single Market or the Economic and Monetary Union. The insufficiency of the funds dedicated to cohesion and the incoherence of macro-economic policies that are obsessively focused on nominal convergence but make real convergence unviable are significant causes, which must be corrected by increasing the budgetary allocation to cohesion and by profoundly changing macro-economic policy.

Supporting production and developing the productive capacities of each country and region, taking full advantage of the local potential that each has through the sustainable use of its resources, preserving the environment and creating jobs with rights, as well as strengthening social security schemes and public services, are strategically essential to effective economic, social and territorial cohesion.

  Giancarlo Scottà (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome Mrs Mănescu’s report.

Multi-level governance has a key role to play in cohesion policy and, in this respect, the multi-level approach, which provides for cooperation and shared responsibilities across various levels of government, is being put into practice in the management of regional funds. The Commission is promoting initiatives in favour of regional and local authorities. There must be a greater incentive to support such proposals in order to ensure the real coordination and effective implementation of European programmes.

The partnership must be guaranteed by a culture based on dialogue between the various parties involved. Cooperation at regional level must be transparent and must ensure fair representation of all concerned.

For this reason, it is important to provide appropriate training for subnational representatives through initiatives such as Erasmus for regional and local officials, the financial cost of which must be borne by the Commission. This is likewise useful for exchanging good practices and for improving the quality and effectiveness of cohesion fund management.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I find it regrettable that an important debate on cohesion policy has once again been pushed almost into last place on the agenda. It does not do justice to this policy and its importance in any way. I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteurs for their reports, which have emphatically shown us the policy area in which the European Union has been really successful – namely cohesion policy – and the fact that it is essential to continue this policy and to do so in a political system with multiple levels – in other words, multi-level governance.

Cohesion policy projects make European action directly visible to our citizens: in infrastructure projects, in social projects, in support for research, innovation, in the maintenance of competitiveness and employment in the regions. In the current debate on the future of the European Union, alongside the debates on currency and finances, we should be debating with the same intensity on what the European Union needs to ensure its internal cohesion, so that countries and regions do not drift apart economically, socially or politically. After all, when faced with global challenges and the emergence of new competitors on the world market, we need greater union and greater commonality. Cohesion policy can make a significant contribution to this.

For this, however, we need cohesion policy to be focused more on those projects and project areas that advance Europe as a whole, that enable those who are strong to remain strong, and that give those that are weaker the opportunity to close the gap to the strong. In my view, to achieve this, it is necessary to maintain and expand the objectives of cohesion policy that have applied to date. However, I also feel it is necessary to make the funding more conditional and more focused on central European initiatives, whether in the transport sector, in the energy sector, in regional and urban development, or in research and innovation. The path described by the Commission in its Fifth Cohesion Report seems to me to be a necessary part of this – namely, to integrate the funds into a common strategic framework which results in a development and innovation partnership between the Commission, the Member States and the representatives of the regions. It also includes, however, involving the local and regional administrations in this process as early as possible. In so doing, the new forms of regional cooperation could genuinely support the process of developing real multi-level governance.

Mr President, I hope you will allow me to make a further comment regarding what was said by Mr Colman, who has unfortunately left the Chamber. I would like to remind him that the European Union is a voluntary union of states. If countries want to leave, they have the right to do so. However, I do not believe that is what the citizens of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England really want.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we are laying the foundations for the Europe of 2020, imagining it to be inclusive, intelligent and innovative and, in doing so, we must clearly situate the challenges we face in a global context.

We can only enter and win the race to become competitive if we succeed in creating uniform levels within the European Union. The three aspects of cohesion policy – social, economic and territorial – together with the Structural Funds, are the instruments on which we must focus our attention. Indeed, we must not think of applying the cuts required to overcome the financial crisis to cohesion policy. On the contrary, we must assume the responsibility for implementing it, improving it where it has failed.

On the basis of the data gathered and of the analysis of the results obtained, the Committee on Regional Development underlines, in Mr Luhan’s report, the close relationship between competition and cohesion, and proposes corrective actions for the next programming period. There is no doubt that Europe can only become competitive if it successfully overcomes the territorial disparities that exist between the various regions.

In this regard, I thank Mr Luhan for having accepted my amendment aimed at reiterating the possibility of introducing advantageous tax provisions for transitional periods of no more than five years – a possibility already contained in the resolution which was voted on by this Parliament in February 2006. This is a useful way of avoiding some of the difficulties encountered in applying cohesion policy, such as complex procedures, inadequate checks and the need for more effective monitoring.

A series of amendments have been tabled on these points to optimise the impact of cohesion policy and thus increase the Union’s economic competitiveness. As Mr Luhan’s report points out, emphasis must be placed both on horizontal and vertical partnerships between local authorities and on cofinancing, elements which must be regarded as fundamental principles.

It is also important to accelerate the simplification of procedures and access to financing, just as it is important to take an integrated approach to the distribution of funds and to maintain transitional regimes, particularly in this difficult period. The bottom-up decision-making process, with the involvement of the regions concerned, ensures support for development by harnessing specific regional aspects.

Finally, the report highlights two main objectives in this regard: innovation and infrastructure. I believe that this report is important because it provides all of us with a clear strategy for responding exhaustively to the problem contained in the title of the report.

  President. – I would like to tell you that, as the person in the Bureau responsible for interpreting and translation, I am going to ask the House to put the light that I have here indicating that the interpreters cannot follow you in every seat, because it is not very helpful for them to inform only me. I can, of course, inform you myself, but I think it will be more effective if we have this light at every desk.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Luhan and Mrs Mănescu on the remarkable work that they have carried out on their respective reports. They have both made a significant contribution to the discussion on new cohesion policy for 2014-2020 that is under way.

Now, more than ever, it is essential to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion to assert the European Union’s competitiveness on a global scale. This goal will be achieved so long as we are aware that it is only by strengthening and developing the regional dimension that we can have a Europe that is internally cohesive and externally competitive.

In particular, I should like to stress three points that I consider crucial: firstly, decentralisation, ensuring that local and regional authorities, especially those with legislative powers, participate more and contribute to better implementing cohesion policy; secondly, the urging of Member States to invite regional and local authorities to participate on an equal footing with the national authorities and representatives in negotiations on the future of the Structural Funds; and lastly, the strengthening of the role of regional authorities in preparing, managing and implementing the programmes. It is only through the greater involvement of these authorities in the whole process that it will be possible to comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

Another aspect that I consider crucial is seeking a more simple architecture for the funds after 2013, not as a result of the economic crisis but rather as a general principle for future cohesion policy, so as to facilitate the absorption of the funds. The great concern underlying the Treaty of Lisbon was to bring Europe closer to its citizens. Instead of just doing this, let us also make their lives easier by preventing unnecessary administrative burdens that will dissuade them from participating. Only in this way will we achieve the goal of true territorial cohesion. Only in this way will we see a reduction in the starkly contrasting disparities that exist today within the European Union, and where there is currently a huge gap between rich and poor regions. Increased participation also means increased responsibility and it is this responsibility that should be taken up and shared by all, as a means of doing more and better to create a stronger, more competitive Europe.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to add my congratulations and thanks to the two rapporteurs for their successful work. The comments made by Mr Luhan on the subject of the ‘Future architecture of cohesion policy post-2013’ are particularly to be welcomed. Although the conclusions on the Fifth Cohesion Report already indicate the Commission’s initial ideas on the subject, Mr Luhan’s report is an important contribution to determining Parliament’s position in respect of the Commission. Like the rapporteur, I therefore consider it eminently sensible for cohesion policy to be in harmony with the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy in the future. However, the individual regions must still be able to decide their own priority areas.

Not all regions are the same; even within an individual Member State, the regions differ. A maximum of two or three priorities – one of which may have already been made mandatory – leaves the regions little scope for manoeuvre. The regions need to be given room to invest in their infrastructure and people according to their own priorities. With this scenario, specific issues such as demographic changes may not be able to be taken sufficiently into account. That would not be much of a regional policy adapted to the needs of the regions, such as the Commission is always talking about. For this reason, I believe that we as Parliament have to make it quite clear from the start that the regions must not be allowed to be weakened relative to the Member States. The partnership principle needs to be strengthened further.

The significance of the regions of the EU varies greatly depending on the structure of the state. For this reason, particular significance must be attached to the principle of subsidiarity. This needs to be taken into account in the Commission’s idea of establishing innovation and development partnerships between the Commission and Member States in the future.

Without going into too much detail, perhaps I might be permitted to discuss briefly the importance of Objective 3. I expressly agree with the rapporteur when he talks of difficulties in the border territories of the EU – both internal and external borders. This objective needs to be brought into play more in the future. In my opinion, too little weight is being given to Objective 3 in the current debate on the future of cohesion policy. In particular, cooperation between the regions situated at the former external borders of the EU – and I am referring here to my home region of Saxony – needs to be developed far more.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the data provided by the Court of Auditors in the 2006 and 2008 annual reports on the control systems in operation for cohesion policy are certainly alarming.

These systems were not as effective as they should have been; they had an error rate of 12% for the amounts reimbursed in 2006 and of 11% in 2008. If this error rate is to be reduced, the European Commission must strengthen its supervisory role in relation to local and regional policies.

The development of a guide for public and private operators and the creation of a training and mobility scheme on how to apply multi-level governance policies in practice could represent effective measures for improving regional policy.

Furthermore, Member States must strengthen the role of regional and local authorities, in particular, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

It is likewise necessary to facilitate cross-border regional cooperation; indeed, in many areas of the European Union, there is enormous potential for cooperation between regions and local communities of bordering Member States, particularly in sectors such as tourism, agriculture, industry and the environment.

I shall take advantage of the fact that I have concluded my speech within the allocated time to thank the interpreters, who are always very good to us.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, at the outset, I would like to stress that I consider the report to be particularly important, and to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Luhan, on an excellent job. I think that cohesion policy should be the European Union’s flagship policy, and that its significance should grow in future years. As a horizontal policy, it should set out the directions to be taken by sectoral policies, and contribute to an increase in the competitiveness of European regions and a strengthening of the European Union’s position on global markets. The system for implementing cohesion policy must be modern and flexible, based on a multi-level management model, as has been mentioned many times. It should also foster the coordination of the Structural Funds with other European instruments and with national funds.

I managed a region with 2 200 000 inhabitants for two terms of office, and I was responsible for implementing cohesion policy instruments on the basis of both a centralised model, between 2004 and 2006, and a decentralised model – the regional operational programme – between 2007 and 2013. These experiences allow me to state with full responsibility that the decentralised model allows for better use of local potential for the implementation of strategic solutions and the achievement of positive changes, which is why I am convinced that goals should be agreed at a European level, but the ways of achieving them should be defined in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity at the most appropriate level, which, in the case of cohesion policy, means the regional and local level. At the same time, it is essential to link expenditure of funds to the achievement of measurable goals and results: economic growth and a higher level of employment and social inclusion.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Luhan, for all his efforts in compiling this report, which is especially important for Romania too. I believe that the Europe 2020 strategy must promote a sustainable development plan. In this respect, what is required are both stronger representation externally and more efficient coordination internally.

This report is important because it mentions the cohesion policy’s achievements. Indeed, a major role is given to boosting the regions’ competitiveness globally. Allocating funds for investment and development projects will definitely be a major benefit for our country. It should be pointed out that Romania may be eligible for substantial funds both now and in the period after 2013.

In this regard, at national level, there were …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, it is true that cohesion policy is important as a contributor to growth and prosperity, as well as to promoting development that is balanced between regions. It is true that development that is balanced between regions is essential to the functioning of the internal market and of the Union itself, and that cohesion policy is essential to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. It is also true that cohesion policy is useful to the environment, to job creation, and to shaping and creating a modern transport network. Given all these things, Mr President, Commissioner, it is unacceptable that the Commission is now taking advantage of these regions’ successes and now also wishes to use them as a threat against Member States that do not meet macro-economic criteria. This is particularly true given that, in these situations, the regions were not even involved and do not have direct responsibilities, and given that they will be the ones most affected by the constraints on the use of the Structural Funds. This is not right, Commissioner, and I should like to hear your reply.

  Alfreds Rubiks (GUE/NGL) . – (LV) Mr President, I should like to draw the attention of this House to social cohesion. I find it difficult when talking to voters to explain that we take decisions here in a profound and deliberate way when their standard of living has deteriorated since joining the European Union. I am talking about Latvia. Thirty-four per cent of the population of Latvia currently survives on subsistence income and on the margins of poverty. The minimum pension is LVL 64, received by 12% of the population. What I see and hear in this Chamber, what is contained in the reports, is something that I cannot, for my part, support, because I cannot perceive that social questions are given any great attention here. Once again, what we have here is talk of further market liberalisation, competitiveness ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I should like to make four comments on these reports.

The first is that the European Union only makes sense to people if it tries to alleviate economic, social and territorial disparities.

The second is that European cohesion policy is the crucial financial policy instrument for achieving this objective.

My third comment is that those who criticise this should really come up with an alternative. If they have no alternative to offer, then they should keep quiet.

My fourth point is that my home region – I come from eastern Germany – is an area where this policy has advanced economic development. We are on the right path, but we still have some way to go. We will therefore continue to need further support after 2013 if we are to keep making progress.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, Tip O’Neill, the great Irish-American politician, once said: ‘all politics is local’. The same could be applied to the European Union in terms of development. All development has been regional.

In particular, the success of my own country under the cohesion policy since we joined the European Union is a perfect example. We had a little over half the average GDP when we joined in 1973, but now we have one and half times the average GDP, notwithstanding the financial difficulties of the country at the present time.

Secondly, as we move forward, one of the key aspects for us is going to be to simplify the procedure, put an emphasis on results and added value and try and cut down on red tape and regulation. You could fill in forms from here to the end of Parliament but, if there is no added value, it is of no benefit. If we do that, we can continue to make progress and I certainly look forward to seeing the regional policy ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the effective application of cohesion policy, which is, at present, very decentralised, requires the responsibilities of regional and local level bodies to be further strengthened, because these bodies best understand the needs of a given area and its inhabitants.

I firmly believe that the creation of a real partnership with regional and local bodies requires a clearer definition of the so-called principle of partnership, as well as the active involvement of local and regional bodies in consultations on the regional policy of the European Union. I would like to emphasise that the provision of better coordination between individual levels of control, greater flexibility, and transparent and clear procedures, not only represent features of good administration of public affairs but, above all, should facilitate the drawing down of funds and increase the participation of potential partners in projects.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to express my thanks for the very lively debate and I would also like to take this opportunity to say a few more words about financial controls. As I am constantly emphasising at various opportunities, we really must get to grips with this and simplify matters, particularly in view of the fact that we need to make greater efforts to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises also take advantage of the opportunities that we want to provide by means of European funding and also, for example, the revolving funding that we want to offer more in the future; and we really need to look at how we can keep the red tape to a minimum.

On the other hand, I am also constantly having to point out that a large part of the bureaucracy is added at national level. In other words, not all the bureaucracy that arises in European projects originates from Brussels; rather, it is the combined effect of processes at national and European level. We need to work on this together. Mrs Mănescu, I agree with you that we must make the effort to develop standards in this area – although naturally I cannot dismiss national legislation and circumstances entirely. In principle, however, I am absolutely with you.

The subject of conditionality is also something that requires detailed consideration which we do not have sufficient time to go into here. It is undoubtedly a matter of identifying for each individual country and for each individual region, where necessary, the reasons for delays in implementing projects; generally, we know what they are already. In most cases, it is nothing to do with money – or at least not primarily so – but rather is due to other shortcomings. The thinking behind conditionality is to get rid of these in advance so as to ensure faster processing subsequently, which is in the interests of all concerned.

I am also grateful to the speakers who referred to the development and partnership contract and to the fact that this represents an opportunity, as Mr Olbrycht said, to push for the further involvement of the regional and local authorities. Some rethinking will be necessary for this as regards how we can actually implement it in a somewhat institutionalised way, and – let us not forget – in a way that is acceptable to the Member States. Here, I am relying on and building on the support and backing of the European Parliament, since the European Parliament, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions are of one mind on this. There is one further player, however, and that is the Member States; we need to convince the Member States that they, too, will benefit from an added value if they involve more people in programme planning and these people thereby come to identify with it far more.

I am also grateful for the comments – which I think came from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance – concerning growth. I am advocating qualitative and quantitative growth. We need both. Take research, for example: this is actually something that falls into the category of qualitative growth. If it is one of our main objectives to increase the share of renewable energy, for example, but fundamentally we also want to be more energy efficient, then a very important topic for research might be ‘How can I store electricity, keep it ready and then make it available when I need it?’, so that we can make our power generation even more efficient.

All in all, one thing has become clear: we will only be able to achieve our objectives if we in fact have a regional policy that reaches all the regions of Europe. As has also been said today, if we want to implement the EU 2020 strategy, we will only be able to do so if we can transport and implement this policy in all the regions, but taking into consideration the needs and requirements that exist locally.

Once again, many thanks – particularly to the two rapporteurs – for this very valuable work.