Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 10 May 2007 - Brussels

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MRS MORGANTINI
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes

4. Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes

5. Housing and regional policy – Structural policies and EU cohesion – Future regional policy and innovation (debate)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on

– the report (A6-0090/2007) by Alfonso Andria, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on housing and regional policy (2006/2108(INI)) and

– the report (A6-0096/2007) by Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the contribution of the future regional policy to the innovative capacity of the European Union (2006/2104(INI).

  Alfonso Andria (ALDE), rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we have come to the end of the journey of Parliament’s own-initiative report on housing and regional policy, for which I am the rapporteur. The report’s journey really started back with the work done by the Urban Housing Intergroup, chaired by my colleague Mr Beaupuy, of which I am the vice-chairman. This work has taken a significant step forward with the European Housing Charter, put forward and drafted by my fellow Member, Mr Hutchinson, and adopted by the intergroup.

First of all I would like to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues, and particularly to the shadow rapporteurs, for their significant and important contributions. I am grateful to the coordinators and to the officials who have actively worked together to draft the report, providing important points and useful corrections to the document. It is only thanks to the understanding shown by all and a sound cooperative attitude that it has been possible to end up with a text, today, that I believe is balanced but at the same time innovative and on which I hope there will be a broad consensus.

The work done with the representatives of the European Commission, the German Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the European Investment Bank has really been very profitable. We established a very effective relationship with the sectoral associations and non-governmental organisations that approached my office.

Next, my sincere thanks go to the draftsmen of the opinions of the Committee of the Regions, Flo Clucas, and of the Economic and Social Committee, Angelo Grasso, for the great commitment they have shown and the excellent texts they have produced. I also thank those who have done significant work with me on the drafting of the report: Anu Ahopelto, the Group official, Agneszka Kunat, the official from the Committee on Regional Development, and my assistant, Valentino Izzo.

Before moving on to the text, I feel it is necessary to clarify the methods we used. The remit I had been set when I started work on this own-initiative report was to take the debate on housing policy up to the level of a European issue, while being aware of the existing problems. In fact the Treaty, as is well known, does not attribute any specific powers to the European Union in this area. Article 7 of the ERDF regulation for the 2007-2013 programming period does, however, envisage, in a limited number of cases and only in the new Member States, the possibility of using Community funds to support housing development projects. Similarly, it should also be said that a large number of European policies, such as energy/environment, transport, security, culture and social policies, have a significant, though indirect, effect on the quality of housing.

The issue of housing, then, cannot be considered as a separate issue. The approach that I wanted to take with the own-initiative report is therefore a comprehensive approach, considering housing choices within a wider sustainable urban development policy, with strong links to the sectoral and horizontal policies to which I just referred.

The report has therefore been structured around two main dimensions: the social dimension, relating to the interconnection between housing conditions, urban degeneration and social exclusion, and the environmental dimension, relating to issues ranging from energy waste to lack of building safety, from the quality of public areas to protection from hydro-geological and seismic risks. Alongside these two, there is a third dimension – although that might not be the best word to use – and that is, the need to coordinate at three levels: the horizontal level, through the various European sectoral policies; the vertical level, through the various levels of government, and also a link between the public and private entities operating in the housing sector.

I would like to mention a few fundamental issues, from among the most important ones.

The right to housing: should Parliament, as I hope, give the go-ahead to this own-initiative report, this would mean recognition for the first time of the right to decent affordable housing as a fundamental right.

Housing quality: the text adopted by the Committee on Regional Policy on 20 March talks about improving housing quality, defines quality standards and also the right to good quality housing. This is the subject of one of the principal amendments being voted on today.

Adequate resources: budget restrictions have reduced the level of public resources available for urban investment and, at the same time, administrative decentralisation and regionalisation in many countries have increased the powers of the cities.

It is thus necessary to give the local authorities adequate financial instruments and to ensure that the right to housing can be effectively and fully enjoyed and that appropriate housing policies and, more generally, urban development policies, can derive from it. So, Parliament is asking for a reinforcement of the right to housing aid and, in particular, calls for concessions for young people.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN), rapporteur. – (PL) Madam President, I have the honour of presenting the Committee on Regional Development's own initiative report on the contribution of the future regional policy to the European Union's innovative capacity.

Our Community has two basic objectives in terms of regional policy: to strengthen cohesion in all dimensions and to support and organise activities that foster innovation. Let the conclusion that, in principle, everything that takes place in the European Union takes place in a region, a town or a village, not seem a truism. Thus, it is not here or, to be more precise, not only in Brussels or Strasbourg, that our future is being shaped. Around two thirds of Community legislation is currently implemented at a regional and local level.

The report, which was the subject of a very fruitful discussion in the Committee on Regional Development, is addressed to Member States, the European Commission and, above all, the regional and local authorities. It is also aimed at other bodies, especially academic institutions, research centres and small and medium sized enterprises, which could also be very effective and flexible vehicles for innovation. Regional policy cannot only be used for authorising projects and managing structural funds in a more or less satisfactory manner. It also has to contribute to improving the European Union's innovative capacity. This capacity should be viewed as complementary action in fields such as research and technology, law and finance, the economy and trade, management and administration, energy and the environment, education, social issues, health and culture. In other words, action should be taken right across the board. There are infinite opportunities for us to do something new, something better. I would like to emphatically stress that all of these features have a regional dimension. The action taken should contribute to achieving real cohesion within the Union, and should be proof of harmonised, sustainable growth and solidarity within the Community, which are things that are often mentioned here. The aim is to also decrease the existing and marked imbalance between growth rates in certain regions in the European Union.

We should also remember that a well implemented regional policy fosters innovation. In turn, innovation encourages further growth. A very profitable symbiosis is therefore achieved.

I do not want to repeat here what is included in my report. However, I would like to thank all those who contributed to the creation of this document. I would like to thank my colleagues here in Brussels, in Strasbourg and in Poland. I would like to thank all the members of the Committee, and the coordinator in particular, for the fruitful debate and the amendments tabled. I would like to thank the representatives of the European Commission, the Committee of the Regions and the Presidency. As in the case of Mr Andria’s report, all contributions have been very constructive.

Let us be aware that, out of all the regions in the EU, only 21 (in other words less than 10%), spend more than 3% of GDP on research and development. Therefore, if we want to implement the Lisbon Strategy, we need more investment in its implementation at a regional level.

Another point to which I would like to draw your attention is the matter of universal and equal access to education at all levels, including at postgraduate level. This is the key to further growth in the Community.

Yesterday, the Nobel Prize winner Timothy Hunt spoke in this House. He expressed his concern regarding the fact that, out of the top 20 universities in the world, 15 are American, one is Japanese, three are British and one is Swiss. This is a signal for the European Union, in terms of what we need to achieve. Cheap access to the Internet also plays a very important role here, as do financial instruments, rural areas and regional innovation criteria.

Meanwhile, others are wide awake. While we are debating the issue, 25 000 new citizens are born in China and 31 000 are born in India every day. Meanwhile, the number of Europeans is shrinking. For us, innovation must also include the issue of families. Let us not waste time, money or energy. Let us find solutions. They are not easy, but no one ever said that we should only solve easy problems.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I will try to be brief, but the issues are extremely important and I would like to respond to both reports.

I should like to start by saying that I appreciate very much this possibility of continuing our interinstitutional dialogue on your own-initiative reports. They will play an important role in our thinking as regards the future shape of the policy.

With regard to Mr Andria’s report, I agree with his assessment that many urban centres in Europe face severe housing problems. We are currently negotiating cohesion programmes with all the Member States, and we see that, in all the national strategies and the operational programmes of the new Member States, interventions are foreseen aiming at the rehabilitation of panel housing estates and multi-family houses which were built in those countries in the 1970s and 1980s. So far we have received 340 out of 444 operational programmes and within those programmes our assessment is that around EUR 900 million is foreseen for housing infrastructure.

I also agree with Mr Andria that we have to do much more for deprived urban areas and neighbourhoods. In fact, in the negotiations with Member States we are strongly encouraging them and the regions to pay particular attention to this issue in all the Member States of the Union. It seems that most of them have accepted this idea.

We already have the preliminary estimates of how much funding will be invested in projects: for urban and rural regeneration it will be more than EUR 8 billion in the years to come; for the promotion of clear urban transport, it will be more than EUR 4 billion; and for the rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land, it will be more than EUR 3 billion in 2007-2013.

There are also two elements in those programmes to which we attach great importance, and we will examine them carefully in the negotiations because we believe that they are essential for the success of those programmes. First of all, again in line with your suggestion, there is the need to pay attention to the question of partnership. Clearly our evaluations – and I hope you would agree with me – show that programmes perform much better when they reach out to the local community, as regards both design and, subsequently, implementation.

Secondly, we also pay much attention to the need to adopt an integrated approach, which I think has been a great success of past urban initiatives. In the negotiations we want to see that the problems affecting those stressed urban areas are really addressed in an integrated way, not only through covering different policies and different sectors, but also requiring participation at all levels of governance, from citizens to political stakeholders.

I also support your suggestion to promote the exchange of best practice on housing and on sustainable urban development in general. I am convinced that regions and cities can learn a lot from each other on how to ensure a balance between housing needs, demographic trends and urban development trends. That is why, in this new initiative on the regions for economic change, we have provided for the possibility of setting up a network related to developing sustainable and energy-efficient housing stock, and we hope that before the end of this year this network will be operational.

I should like to say a few words about ‘Jessica’, because we have moved substantially in the last weeks and this increases enormously the scope of efficient financing for housing across Europe. This is carried out with the involvement of the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank. The EIB has already set up a team with, for the time being, seven experts. There will soon be eight to ten professional staff members from the EIB. We have also started, with all the interested Member States, the launch of Jessica evaluation, the first meetings with Greece and Poland have already taken place, and others are scheduled in the weeks to come.

As a result, we want to have as many evaluation studies of the needs as possible throughout this year, but also through those meetings and reports we want to identify the best projects to be financed by Jessica as well as the proposed interventions: the actions needed in some Member States. New legislation will be needed, as we see it, as well as a lot of structures.

Regarding Mr Janowski’s report on innovation, the cohesion policy is one of those rare policies in Europe which integrates different sectoral approaches in the overriding context of development strategy and it can, on the one hand, deliver tailor-made solutions for each European region or territory, but at the same time it is critically dependent on coordination and on synergies with all other European as well as national policies. That is why, for the period 2007-2013, we have reinforced the coordination mechanism within the Commission. This policy has, in fact, become a kind of meeting point for many different EU priorities, and research and development and innovation is perhaps the best example of this new approach.

We have institutionalised the new synergies between cohesion policy, the seventh framework programme and the competitiveness and innovation programmes. The last two programmes take into account the specificities of lagging regions, which we have not had before, while the cohesion policy will significantly increase its contribution to research and development, but primarily to innovation activities.

We are also working with two other Commissioners on a communication that would provide exactly the information as well as providing advice on how to combine all those resources of different programmes to increase the efficiency of those programmes as well. That will be adopted in July.

As you know, the Commission has also invested in better coordination between our policies and national policies with regard to innovation, and generally, the Lisbon priorities through the annual reporting and the mechanism of coordinating internally between the two policies in every Member State.

We have also introduced the categorisation of types of investment that would allow us to see how much will be devoted to innovation and then would allow us also to monitor how this investment is progressing across the whole period.

I could not agree with you more on the central point of the report that innovation should be increasingly at the heart of the European cohesion policy, because we cannot today achieve cohesion without investing in innovation capacities in Europe across all sectors and types of territories. We are doing it both through human capital investment and regional competitiveness investment. The good news is that Member States are reacting extremely positively to those requests and we already know how much will be invested in innovation in the years to come.

We are also preparing for the autumn communication from the Commission showing in detail to what extent innovation has been retained in the operational programmes.

Let me express my hope that in the very near future we will have regional innovation strategies in every European region. I think we are very close to achieving this goal.

Lastly, you made very clear the need for facilitating the access to finance, mainly for the micro-companies and small and medium-sized companies; I fully agree on this need. As you know, we have developed ‘Jeremy’ to help with this but we are also in the process of developing an action plan for micro-credit with other services in the Commission. Here we aim not only to increase provision of capital but also to develop mentoring services and reform the national, institutional and legal frameworks to support this kind of access to credit for small companies in a more effective way.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Madam President, globalisation and more competition at global level call for new answers. Innovation and regional policy can go hand in hand in this. The knowledge economy needs European investment that goes beyond infrastructure such as asphalt and concrete; it is in need of new instruments, and that is where the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas come in.

This is also the subject of the Janowski report, the topic of today’s debate. This report indicates very clearly how this can be achieved: regional clustering of activities, specialisation, research and development aimed at sustainability and employment. In short, globalisation calls for cohesion policy in a higher gear, for regional excellence in all areas. Focus is the key word. As Commissioner Hübner quite rightly stated a moment ago, this is how an essential contribution can be made to this economic growth and competition. This places innovation at the heart of regional policy, and I also share her view that one of the requirements for subsidies should be that regions develop an innovation strategy of this kind.

The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wishes to seize the fourth cohesion report as an opportunity to hold the debate on the basis of what Mr Janowski has said. This is about an integrated and better, even more specific use of the structural funds and cohesion policy. More than EUR 300 billion will be made available in the next few years, which we can use to demonstrate what this European added value amounts to, not least with a view to the future.

I should like to finish off by saying that regional policy can become more visible as a result, not least in the debate on the midterm review and on the Commission’s financial assessment of the Lisbon agenda at the end of this year. These are occasions when we, together with the Commission, would like to tackle the specific focus on the future and increased competitiveness. On behalf of the PPE-DE Group, Mr Březina will be discussing the other important report, that of Mr Andria, in a moment.

  Alain Hutchinson, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I hope that the fact that two reports have, surprisingly, been combined does not indicate a desire to reduce the importance of a subject that is dear to my heart and to which I feel most committed, namely that of housing. If I remember correctly, this is the first time that Parliament will vote on a report devoted to housing in the European Union. I should like straightaway to thank our fellow Member, Mr Andria, for his constructive and useful work.

To the surprise of some people, millions of our fellow citizens currently live in insecure conditions due to the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of finding somewhere to live – a state of affairs that is unacceptable, given the democratic model on which we so often pride ourselves. This is, therefore, an important moment.

Guaranteed access to decent affordable housing for everyone is an objective to be pursued if we want to make a success of, for example, the Lisbon Strategy. The fact is that having somewhere to live is an obvious prerequisite for completing one’s education and obtaining a job. Although housing is not, strictly speaking, one of the EU’s competences, the fact remains that it is a crucial factor of which account needs to be taken in pursuing our objective of social, economic and environmental cohesion.

In this connection, I am very happy to emphasise that, in anticipation of the 2009 review of the cohesion policy regulations, the report in question asks that the debate be reopened on broadening access to the Structural Funds to all Member States for the purpose of renovating local authority housing – access already possessed, since the last reform of these Funds, by those Member States that joined the EU after 1 May 2004.

Finally, I would emphasise the need for MEPs to remain alert to the concerns of Europeans, a not inconsiderable proportion of whom consider, rightly or wrongly, that the European institutions are at too far of a remove from themselves. With the Andria report on housing, we are, as it were, entering millions of European homes. If, moreover, we fall in with the report’s proposal that this House take the initiative and draft a European housing charter or declaration spelling out the importance of this fundamental right to decent affordable housing for everyone, we shall, I am convinced, succeed in sending the public a strong signal in favour of a closer relationship between Europeans and an EU that has their day-to-day concerns at heart.

(Applause)

  Jean Marie Beaupuy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to leave no one in any doubt about the fact that my group will, as a matter of course, strongly support the Andria and Janowski reports.

Commissioner, I was quite clear to start with that you had taken full account of our fellow Member’s, Mr Janowski’s, requests concerning innovation. I did not have the same feeling when listening to you. Allow me to speak my mind, given that we enjoy close relations and tell each other what we think. You replied on the subject of cities, but you did not really talk about housing.

Housing – and our fellow Member, Mr Hutchinson, has just been talking in these terms – is, in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the second most important need of any human being. The need for food is immediately followed by the need for shelter. Housing is fundamental to the protection of every human being. Housing is therefore an issue in every country whenever there are local or national elections although, admittedly, it presents itself in very different forms. We have seen this in France with its homeless people, and we see it in every other country in which the many and varied factors include problems involving building, urban sprawl, financing and so on.

Among the various factors to be taken into account, there is one that I should like to take a few seconds to highlight. It appears in the Andria report but has not, in my opinion, been sufficiently underlined, and that is the issue of financing. We see how the price of land has risen throughout the world, leading city dwellers to seek ever further afield for somewhere to live. In other words, they waste time every day travelling between home and work and devote a larger portion of their budget to travel costs. This means that, every day, they cause more atmospheric pollution and that, every day, the number of social problems is increased. What I am trying to say is that this issue of housing costs is of relevance to us.

In view of this situation, Mr Andria’s report contains a request for a study to be carried out. Most members of our intergroup and of the Committee on Regional Development are not asking the European Commission or European Union to accept responsibilities for housing that are not properly theirs. What we are asking right away, Commissioner, is that, with the help of your services, we might have a clearer view of the responsibilities involved. What are the responsibilities of, respectively, regions, districts and Europe as a whole? Where do the housing organisations’ responsibilities lie? What are the responsibilities of the financial bodies and of all the other players involved? The study referred to is absolutely fundamental to our knowing who is to do what. Thanks to the studies you are carrying out and the work you are doing, we await some clarification in the course of the next few months, bearing in mind too that a variety of Commission services – environment, transport etc – have a parallel interest in these housing issues.

Finally, and by way of drawing things to a close, you can be sure that, proud as we are today of having obtained the Andria report, I and my fellow Members of the intergroup and of the Committee on Regional Development have no intention of stopping there but, rather, are determined, with yourselves, to make much further progress with this issue of housing at European level.

(Applause)

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, I would like to take the floor in this debate in order to highlight two issues.

First of all, the European Housing Charter defines housing as a primary good and a basic social right, which is a fundamental part of the European Social Model. It is, therefore, a good thing that the European Regional Development Fund will, between 2007 and 2013, provide opportunities for supporting the housing sector in Member States where housing needs, especially of the younger generation, are great. The difficult situation on the housing market in these countries is made worse by the fact that there has been a sudden increase in house prices, amounting to several dozen percent per year, as a result of the objective process of levelling out of house prices in old and new Member States.

Secondly, the influence of regional policy on innovation in the European Union is limited due to the small amount of funding made available by both the Union and the Member States. The Union’s whole budget is barely 1% of its GDP, of which less than 10% is earmarked for research and development. Moreover, average spending in this field in the Member States amounts to barely 2%, while the most developed countries in the world spend many times this amount. As a result, the gap in this field is widening instead of narrowing. In order to significantly increase spending in this field, the European Union needs to make additional efforts. We also need additional funds from national budgets, as well as funding for innovation from regional and local budgets and contributions from the private sector.

  Gisela Kallenbach, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I will now speak to Mr Andria’s report, while my colleague will speak later on to Mr Janowski’s; both rapporteurs and all their comrades in the Urban Development and Housing Intergroup deserve warm thanks for their courage in making the leap from the subsidiarity principle to a longer European view of things.

Cooperation has been exemplary and across party lines, and has borne fruit in the shape of a suggestion for a process that highlights what is crucial about urban and regional development, namely the right to proper and decent living space, the provision of which living space to the members of the public who need it as part of social accommodation support remains a responsibility for the Member States, for their municipalities and districts.

What reasons are there, though, not to respond to similar problems and concerns across Europe with European minimum social and housing standards that ultimately affect people’s quality of life? This own-initiative report tries to find out, and, in the process, calls for action on the part of the Commission and the Council.

I have noted the hearteningly positive echoes – despite their initial resentments – from the Committee of the Regions and from cooperatives and tenants’ associations, which are welcoming the European added value, pushing for a joint declaration on housing, to include a strong emphasis on national responsibility and promoting the application of Europe-wide standards with the aid of European support instruments.

By way of conclusion, then, I ask you, Commissioner, to really make it your concern that this is reflected in the operational programmes, for I find it lamentable that yesterday’s press communiqué about the signing of the German National Framework Plan included no reference to sustainable urban development or to the partnership principle.

  Pedro Guerreiro, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) I should like to commend Mr Andria on his report, which contains points that deserve our support.

Housing policy is a national policy and as such it falls to the Member States to do all they can to guarantee the right to decent housing for their citizens. According to Article 65 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, every citizen and their family has the right to accommodation that is adequate in size, that is hygienic and comfortable, and that offers personal space and family privacy. This right is a crucial factor in integration and social inclusion and a vital prerequisite for ensuring that this basic need for human development is fulfilled for all citizens.

The issue of housing in Community regional policy has acquired a new context in the EU-27. We must not forget that, in spite of the increasing contribution of the Structural Funds to urban renewal, achieved by means of a Community own-initiative, the Structural Funds are designed to ensure regular investment, and to take advantage of positive external factors boosting economic development, such as investment in basic infrastructure and the strengthening of the qualifications of the work force. That being said, we feel that the Structural Funds can play a relevant role in supporting integrated projects to foster social, public or cooperative housing, either for acquisition or for rent at affordable rates, with subsidised social facilities aimed at urban renewal, social cohesion and the promotion of sustainable urban development. For this reason, there is once again a need to increase funding from the Community budget for cohesion policy, and to mobilise other financial instruments such as the European Investment Bank.

  Hélène Goudin, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) Madam President, the EU’s structural and cohesion policy reveals some major shortcomings. Its existence should therefore be brought seriously into question, and mainly for three reasons. Firstly, the efforts it represents amount to artificial respiration, which does not by any means lead to long-term sustainable development. We have to accept that the surrounding world is changing as a result of globalisation. Whoever is competitive today may be out of the game tomorrow.

The second reason concerns financing. Money is diverted from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. That is unacceptable, too.

Thirdly and lastly, the rules governing where the Structural Funds may be directed are far too rigid and restrictive, so that the Member States, regions and local authorities have problems using the money where it is really needed. Conditions differ widely from one EU Member State to another, so that current policy is unsustainable. I therefore believe that structural policy should be re-nationalised.

  Carl Lang, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (FR) Madam President, what Mr Andria says in his report is quite right. Housing is a major economic and social problem.

In France, more than 5.5 million people are poorly housed. What is more, rents and mortgage repayments put a big strain on the budgets of French families. However, the solution clearly does not lie with the European Structural Funds. For one thing, they would involve spreading taxpayers’ money pathetically thinly. For another, French regions such as Nord-Pas-de-Calais would scarcely benefit at all from such aid, despite being hit by unemployment, social precarity and a fall in purchasing power. The fact is that, for seven years now, the districts of French Hainault have already no longer been receiving the sums paid under Objective 1, and the Brussels EU keeps on reducing the funds earmarked for our regions.

If all French people are to have decent places in which to live, a housing policy based on two principles needs to be implemented in France. The first principle is that of liberty, to which home ownership is key. At present, only 57% of households are home owners. In order to increase this figure, house purchase savings plans and accounts need to be given a boost, zero-rate loans granted to families and land tax reduced. The second principle is that whereby countries discriminate in favour of their own nationals and that, in France, would enable priority to be given to French people when it came to allocating local authority housing, including emergency housing. Moreover, it is obvious that policies aimed at social recovery and at stimulating our economy require an end to immigration from outside Europe, the exponential growth in which ruins any effective policy on housing or policy designed to combat unemployment.

There is another essential precondition. The Brussels EU must stop exposing our industries to unfair international competition involving large-scale social dumping. The fact is, there is no time to be lost in constructing another Europe – a Europe of the nations, based on voluntary cooperation between Member States and on Community preference, with due respect shown for the sovereignty and identity of nations.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, alongside its undoubted successes in helping the less developed regions of the EU, structural policy has also had some shortcomings. Experience has shown that the taxpayers’ money is not always put to good use, national development strategies do not always have a synergetic effect, individual countries’ operational plans are not always thought through and resources do not always lead to improved competitiveness, higher employment and sustainable development.

The instruments aimed at improving this state of affairs include the so-called Open Days in Brussels, in other words the European Week of Regions and Cities, organised every year by the Commission and the Committee of the Regions. This October will mark the fifth anniversary of these mega-events. Once again thousands of regional representatives and officials will meet in Brussels, along with hundreds of speakers and journalists, while dozens of seminars and countless cocktail parties and receptions will take place. In parallel with the workshops and events in Brussels, the organisers say there will be a series of events right across the EU connected with the Open Days and geared towards the general public, in order to pass on the message from this week to the regions and cities.

I have serious doubts about the whole enterprise and about whether it is an effective way to use taxpayers’ money for improving regional policies. Studies clearly show that previous Open Days have met the expectations of barely half of the participants. Moreover, it has never been made public how much this week-long mega party costs. I did not expect Mrs Hübner to tell us directly how many regional meetings our taxpayers attend. Until we can say clearly how much the structural policy’s marketing and public relations costs, and until we can compare the quality of the results against the cost of the whole enterprise, we shall face justified criticism from the public that the Brussels Open Days are nothing more than a fancy excursion to the capital city of the Union.

  Jan Březina (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report before us on housing is the result of much hard work on the part of the rapporteur, whom I wish to thank, along with the whole of the Committee on Regional Development, which has dealt with the issue in great depth. Given that the text of the report may yet undergo significant changes due to the proposed amendments, it is perhaps better to wait for the result of the vote before giving a definitive assessment. I am happy to offer a basic assessment now, however.

It has been clear from the outset that this is a sensitive policy area, and a potentially explosive issue, at the core of which is the question of whether or not housing should be addressed at a European level. Personally, I would say that when it comes to the issue of housing the Union should, in keeping with the subsidiarity principle, voice its opinion as little as possible, and then only when the Union’s action can provide added value compared with that of the Member States. Specifically, this means supporting the refurbishment of tower blocks or the construction of housing for socially vulnerable groups such as the disabled and young families with children. Thus far, I consider the report to be a useful document that could bring a new and much-needed impulse.

Under no circumstances should measures at Union level replace Member State regulations. I fear, however, that this is precisely what the report is aiming at, for example when it calls for the adoption of a system of housing quality indicators at an EU level. The EU, and by extension the European Parliament, should not assume more rights than those that are conferred by the founding Treaties. The Member States are the guarantors of rights to housing and that is how it should remain, in spite of the fact that the issue of housing was originally understood in the context of regional development, rather than in relation to social responsibility. In this context, I should like to mention the call to strengthen the right to housing within the framework of the social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy, which in my view does not belong in this report. The Lisbon Strategy makes no mention of housing and we should leave it at that. As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, I welcome the fact that the key amendments were negotiated across the groups, and that there was a willingness to rectify views that were strongly defended at the outset. If the resulting wording of the report reflects a spirit of consensus between the main groups, I shall consider it an acceptable outcome.

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by speaking about Mr Andria’s own-initiative report on housing and regional policy. I should like first of all to congratulate him on his excellent work and to congratulate the Housing Intergroup on its assessment of the contribution of the Structural Funds to housing policy within the Member States.

For my part, as an elected representative of a rural, mountain-based constituency that people are in the process of abandoning, I am more interested in the problem of housing in rural areas. That is why I tabled two amendments on the subject, which have been adopted in part; hence my satisfaction today, because I feared that housing was regarded only as an urban problem. For me, it was a question of highlighting the combination of handicaps in rural areas – low personal incomes, scattered and often dilapidated housing, insufficient local authority or private rental accommodation – and the challenges in terms of revitalising rural territories through the arrival of new populations. Next, it was important to highlight the crucial nature of measures encouraging the acquisition, restoration and renovation of old buildings, to support public and private bodies offering huge amounts of advice and personalised support to help individuals or professionals to settle, and to improve the supply of new or renovated social, public and private housing.

The own-initiative report is timely in highlighting the specific nature of the housing problem in small towns that link together to form regional networks and that play a major role in the development of rural areas.

In relation to the Janowski report, I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Mrs Douay, who cannot be here this morning. She would like to point out that she is fully satisfied with the report adopted within the Committee on Regional Development on the contribution of the forthcoming policy to the European Union’s capacity for innovation. She particularly welcomes the adoption of the amendments on SMEs and their role in the innovation taking place at regional level, as well as the amendments on the characteristics specific to mountain regions and rural areas. However, she feels that it is harmful to go back over the wording of paragraph 14, which is the result of a compromise that was fairly widely accepted by the various political groups and that should not be amended.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Janowski report.

First of all I would like to congratulate Mr Janowski for his good work and his sound cooperation. This is an important report in that it looks at how regional policy can contribute to the innovative capacity of the EU. It is often suggested that innovation, research and development should be concentrated in urban areas, technological clusters and areas where critical mass guarantees investment, whereas, in this report, it is clear that innovation and research and development in fact reinforce regional policy objectives and contribute to cohesion, both between and within regions. I am a firm believer that strong regions contribute to strong national growth. It is like the pieces of a jigsaw fitting together and the final picture being greater than the sum of its parts. If some of the pieces are missing and we do not have regional development and regional innovation, then the overall picture is incomplete.

The report stresses the fact that SMEs play a vital role in innovation capacity-building within the EU and underlines the use that can be made of the financial instruments Jaspers, Jeremie and Jessica. The report also encourages all Member States to increase the percentage of GDP spent on R&D. Some Member States spend in excess of 3% of their GDP on research and development, but others – like my own country, Ireland – lag well behind at less than 1.5%. As Mr Janowski said, given some of the comments we heard yesterday from Nobel Peace Prize winner Tim Hunt, it is very clear that greater investment in education, universities and research and development and innovation is crucial if the EU is to compete in the global market.

Finally, I was very pleased to hear the Commissioner say earlier that the Commission will provide information on how to combine resources from different programmes to create synergies. That is crucial in order to promote regional development. I was also pleased to hear that the Commission will monitor how investment in innovation is progressing. Hopefully, based on that monitoring, we will see appropriate action being taken.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – A Uachtaráin, tá sé rí-thábhachtach go bhfaigheadh grúpaí atá curtha fútha i gceantair imeallacha, in Éirinn agus ar fud na hEorpa, sciar den airgead atá ar fáil faoin gClár Taighde, Teicneolaíochta agus Gnóthaí Forbartha.

Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Uasal Janowski as ucht a chuid oibre ar an tuarascáil seo.

Níor chóir go mbeadh aon cheantar imeallach ar fud na hEorpa fágtha gan áiseanna Theicneolaíocht an Eolais rud, faraoir, atá fíor i gcás an bhanda leathain mar shampla.

Caithfear an banda leathan a chur ar fáil do chuile cheantar, go háirithe do na ceantair imeallacha. Caithfear a chinntiú go mbeidh áis an bhanda leathain ar fáil do na ceantair seo chun go mbeadh siad in ann infheistíocht a tharraingt chucu féin mar aon le fostaíocht a chruthú ins na ceantair seo. Mura mbeidh an infheistíocht seo ag teacht isteach do na ceantair mar seo, gheobhaidh siad bás.

Mar sin, caithfidh Coimisiún na hEorpa tarraingt le Rialtaisí na mBallstát, lena chinntiú go bhfuil an banda leathan ar fáil do chuile pharóiste, is cuma beag nó mór iad, ar phraghas réasúnta.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I do not believe that the Janowski report, as regards the light in which it depicts the role of innovation, focuses sufficiently on the really central problems, although it does note that too high a value cannot be put on the role innovation plays in cohesion policy, for the programmes – even the new ones – are still dominated by wholly antiquated concepts.

Among them is the erroneous view that the formation of large clusters in economic centres can also bring cohesion to the disadvantaged regions around them, whereas the opposite is in fact the case, because the magnetic attraction of major clusters exacerbates inequality in development. Innovation must also be feasible in small regions and in small or medium-sized towns; we must not aim at a critical mass in terms of size. Real innovation means as much of it as possible everywhere, and that includes regions that are rural in character.

Help with innovation must not take only young and successful businessmen for its model; entrepreneurial women need support in exactly the same way, although the support they are given must be quite different in nature, and this is where there is an urgent need for a rethink on the part not only of the Member States, but also of the Commission. Much more attention needs to be given to equality of opportunity in innovation, or else valuable potential is going to go to waste.

I would like to take this opportunity to give the Commission a firm reminder that it needs, if it wants to accomplish this, to examine the programmes in a more critical way and not simply give its blessing to antiquated concepts.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I think that ‘Mind your own business!’ is the best reaction I can give to this resolution. Housing and regional policy within the Member States is a matter for democratically elected national governments, and it is not for the European Commission to poke its nose into. As well as using much pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo, the text also manages to be incredibly patronising when it makes statements of the blindingly obvious such as ‘stresses the importance of safety issues’. This is like a doctor lecturing his patient on the importance of continuing to breathe.

The British Government says we must build half a million houses, mostly for first-time buyers and lower-paid purchasers. I may not agree with this entirely, but I would sooner accept this idea as closer to our needs than the wishy-washy ideas that this EU report has come up with. Despite its frequent use of the wonder word ‘subsidiarity’, this resolution is a recipe for housing policy micromanagement from Brussels and more gross interference in the way the Member States are governed. We in Britain do not need Brussels to tell us what sort of houses we need, or when and where to build them.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Mr President, the spectre of depopulation is stalking Europe. If we do not manage to create sustainable jobs in rural areas, purchasing power will sink still further, bringing about in its turn the closing down of local food suppliers, post offices, doctors’ surgeries, schools and guardrooms, so that rural areas will lose the last of the things that make them attractive.

It is not only our agricultural policy that has encouraged this negative development, although it is common knowledge that the number of agricultural firms and workers is constantly decreasing, but other EU aid programmes, too, have rebounded on themselves; the result of the desire to help businesses create jobs has been that a number of big companies have managed to drive our small and medium-sized businesses from a position of strength into the wall, and, having done enough damage, they simply move to a neighbouring country and collect even more grants.

Breaking out of this diabolically vicious circle is, of course, difficult. The EU now wants to help the development of villages, revive local centres and strengthen rural areas, but, if INTERACT II is to be a programme for managing regional programmes and establishing training centres for its own bureaucrats, then that really is the height of absurdity and the Commission should be so kind as to think back to the original problems and objectives.

  Rolf Berend (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, whenever we debate matters relating to housing policy we should be faithful to our principles of subsidiarity and proximity to the citizen; as we all know, the powers accorded to the EU under the Treaty are very limited, and we should not try to interfere with that through the back door, but, as regards eligibility for grants for accommodation under the ERDF Regulation in the 2007-2013 planning period, I would like to argue in favour of their being given for the reconstruction of the high-rise estates to be found in Eastern Europe and in the eastern parts of Germany.

Many Europeans live on estates made up of blocks of largely industrially-constructed housing that were put up between the 1960s and the 1980s. The eastward enlargement of the EU gave particular importance to a European strategy for the sustainable development of this type of housing; whilst, in western European countries, the future of large-scale estates lies mainly in the performance of social functions, the main task in eastern European states is the repair and modernisation of the stock of prefabricated buildings in order to make the flats in them fit to be rented out, while, at the same time, the structural change of the housing sector from state-regulated institutions allocating accommodation to private-sector or community-based enterprises operating on the market is only just beginning.

In this respect, the ongoing development of large-scale urban housing in the countries of Eastern Europe is primarily a task for the technical experts and housing professionals; in Germany, however, the problem is a new and different one, and one that – Europe-wide democratic change being what it is – will reach other countries sooner or later, in that, as there are fewer people available to live in them, properties are standing empty, and this is happening not only with old properties but also new ones, not only with housing stock in the inner cities but also that on the urban fringes, and that is one reason why a programme has been developed for the provinces of eastern Germany, the object of which is to promote not only the demolition of accommodation for which there has for some time been no demand, but also the restoration of the remaining housing stock in order to adapt urban structures and housing stock to the decrease in demand.

It is for this reason – for this reason! – that the future of mass housing must become more important as an area for European policy-making.

  Jamila Madeira (PSE). – (PT) I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Andria on this report. The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which we would all like to confer constitutional, binding status, states in its very first article that human dignity is an inalienable right. This article encompasses, a fortiori, the right to decent housing.

Although the EU, as previous speakers have said, does not have direct powers in this area, it does have an essential role to play. In close collaboration with the national, regional and local authorities, Europe must undertake to eradicate ghettos in urban housing projects and the scourge of homelessness which abounds not only in our great capital cities, but also in small and medium-sized ones. The time has therefore come to foster the revitalisation of city centres, in order to ensure the preservation of historical buildings, the recovery of the local economy and a kick-start for urban centres, where there are now dozens of derelict buildings. This vision has developed to the extent that we now believe that the European financial instruments available to the Member States should help create public-private partnerships and that there should be structured investment in the construction of intelligent homes in which energy efficiency and environmentally friendly construction are key criteria.

There is much still to be done, but I believe that this own-initiative report and the European Housing Charter adopted by Parliament’s Urban Housing intergroup are two key elements in addressing the issue of housing in the EU, which gave rise to this report and this Charter.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, I am much obliged to the Commissioner for her being present, and would like to start with warm congratulations to Mr Janowski on the report he has presented, which shows that there are some highly creative ways of addressing this old battle of principles, which centres on whether we need more EU funding for regional structure and agricultural subsidies, or whether we have to do more along the lines of innovation, research and technology.

I do believe that it is this dispute that has often enough crippled our budget and our Union, and, by your own-initiative report, Mr Janowski, you, with our assistance, are showing the new tendency that we are talking about, the need to, so to speak, ‘Lisbonise’ the Budget, to change the content of the barrel while leaving it labelled ‘Regional Aid’. This has been accomplished very much under pressure from this House, but also – and here I am addressing Commissioner Hübner – from the Commission.

That is why this programme includes such features as ‘Jaspers’, ‘Jeremy’, and ‘Jessica’ – things that are new and important when it comes to supporting innovation, which itself is about applying knowledge in the shape of products. We will, in future, be availing ourselves more and more of the resources that we have – the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund – in order to get risk capital to the people, and of that I am all in favour.

We also take a very positive view of the demand for innovation clusters, of which there are groundbreaking and very good examples. Innovation is not something that happens centrally; it happens in the regions, where the example with which I am very familiar is the Saxon city of Dresden, which has been enabled, through aid from the EU and the regions, to attract large amounts of direct foreign investment, thus resulting in the creation of an innovation cluster.

Mention of that leads me to add that I take a very positive view of the reference in this report to the EIT, the European Institute for Technology. I am glad to see that the Commissioner is so much in favour of Poland’s offer of EUR 1 billion to host the EIT; that is the way for us to go in future, and warm congratulations to everyone concerned.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, to begin with, I would like to congratulate Mr Janowski on his excellent report. The problems raised in the document are incredibly important for the future of the European Union and in terms of its role in the global economy.

We have to ask ourselves the basic question of whether, in view of the current investment in research in the Member States and the current GDP growth in the countries of the European Union, we will be able to compete with developing countries across the world. We have to ask ourselves whether, in the European Union, ideology has triumphed over healthy economic processes.

It is clear that the restrictions constantly imposed by this honourable House do not contribute to the creation of suitable conditions for the dynamic growth of our economies. Innovation cannot be programmed but we can create the right conditions for communities to actively foster it. If we do not take appropriate action and do not relieve the European Union of excessive red tape, we will not be able to implement the goals of the Lisbon Strategy, which state that, by 2010, the Union’s economy should become the most competitive in the world.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I accept that in this initiative on housing we mean well. After all, having a house is critical to a family and to our communities. However, housing is not our competence, and the dilemma for our citizens is that at national level funds are always accepted, whereas guidelines and strategies are accepted or rejected as it suits. In Ireland especially there is a problem. Despite our urban strategies, families eligible for social housing wait eight years on average for a house, as an insufficient supply of social housing is being built.

This report contains many good recommendations. However, while the EU’s existing strategies recommend things like green spaces, local authorities have been taking these back and squeezing in houses, thus destroying those green spaces for children to play in, and creating concrete patches for graffiti and drugs.

Sometimes the EU recommendations are out of synch with local reality. In rural areas in Ireland it has now become very difficult for a young family to get permission to build a house. Our town planners – and they are town planners, not rural planners – insist that all new rural housing be herded into estates. This discourages young people from living in those areas.

As in all things, we need to respect subsidiarity and do comparable research to understand best practice, which we in Europe can offer as a guide. However, we also have to play our part in asking the nations serious questions about the outcome in terms of people.

  Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I have taken the floor in order to comment on the report by my good friend Mr Andria, especially on the specific issue of improving the energy efficiency of buildings, which is an obligation that derives from the provisions of Directive 2002/91.

This directive results in considerable expense to owners for the certificate they need when they sell or rent their house, because they must first improve the energy efficiency of the building. When we discussed this matter, the truth is that this specific issue was not widely known, but now it is a matter of considerable concern to owners throughout Europe. I therefore believe that we should debate it, by broadening current forecasts for the new Member States, so that the review in 2009 also encompasses the old Member States.

We have experience from upgrading the façades of buildings in the city of Athens where, in cooperation with the European Union and with partial funding from it, we applied this programme with good results, with technical assistance at central level and with partial coverage of the cost. I think that we need to take the same approach and look at pan-European level at the question of improving the energy efficiency of buildings. This is a very serious issue which affects a great many people. We are not talking about covering the entire cost, but I believe that we need to debate it seriously and see how we can extend the eligible costs, so that this serious issue can be addressed.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the new programming period, regional policy is being called upon not only to reduce inequalities, but also to develop the Union’s capacity for innovation. Given that all action in the field of innovation must be centred on man and improving the quality of life of all citizens, our ability to meet this challenge will depend to a large degree on whether we achieve equal opportunities to access all levels of education.

What needs to be emphasised in particular is that innovation is not just for scientists; it is of fundamental importance to all citizens. A great deal depends on whether we will manage to promote the introduction of innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises and, more importantly, in micro enterprises at local and regional level and on whether innovation policy will include in its objectives the production and processing of agricultural products and living conditions in rural areas. The targets we have set are ambitious and we all need to work together if we are to achieve them.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Janowski, for an excellent report. I would say that regional policy is one of the core policies for us in Europe, and housing policy, as part of regional policy, is also obviously very important, as has been mentioned here. As with innovation, it helps to keep regions strong and vital.

It is important, of course, to consider regional policy not just the business of the European Union and nation states, but above all as something connected with the welfare and happiness of people and citizens. People must always lie at the heart of European policy.

In my opinion we have to try and see these issues as a whole, and our objective must be to guarantee equal opportunities based on sustainable development in housing and innovation all over Europe. This means we need in particular to look after our areas of sparse population, including peripheral areas, so that they too can be involved in development and receive their own share of innovations, and so that the people in them can also live a good, balanced and happy life.

  Roberta Angelilli (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Janowski and Mr Andria for the excellent work they have done. I particularly value their commitment to a more appropriate housing policy. In fact, it is worth remembering that housing is an outright emergency, above all in the large European cities, where the cost of housing is extremely high and forces families to spend over 50% of their earnings on a mortgage or on rent. This is despite the fact that housing should be a primary need and therefore a basic social right.

I hope that we are setting out along the path of upgrading public housing, which in many cases is actually crumbling to pieces, and, more generally, embarking on a strategy of regenerating the underprivileged urban areas in the large European cities.

  Oldřich Vlasák (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing an issue that affects every one of us. Affordable, decent housing is becoming an increasingly important issue, with a bearing on everyone’s individual needs, opportunities and opinions. The report by Mr Andria on housing in the context of regional policy will certainly therefore make a positive contribution.

Before we decide on the Community’s next actions in this area, we should remember that neither the EU nor its institutions have direct competence in the area of housing policy. Nevertheless the strengthening of social and economic cohesion, which was formulated as one of the main goals of the Maastricht Treaty and which is to be achieved through the Union’s regional policy, is closely bound up with how we respond to the need for sufficient affordable housing, with solving the homelessness problem and with the renewal of urban areas and brownfield sites.

One of the most important issues facing us is therefore that of where the outer limits of the EU’s competences and responsibilities lie in the area of housing policy, and in this context we are talking about subsidiarity. We must therefore think about where to focus our efforts. I feel we have two options. The first option is that of promoting the rights of Europe’s citizens to housing, which in view of the varying situations in the individual Member States, regions and communities, together with our limited powers, will always be very difficult to define. Accordingly, we run the risk of arousing expectations among the citizens that we cannot fulfil and thereby losing our credibility. The second option is to follow the path of helping communities, cities and regions to resolve their housing problems by making support for housing and the refurbishment of housing estates one of our main priorities, and by providing local authorities with appropriate conditions and resources within the framework of the structural funds, whilst not overly restricting their ability to decide how to resolve the housing problems in their own areas. The public will then feel that the EU is making a direct contribution to people’s lives. I, for one, am quite sure that we ought to follow the second of these two paths.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, across the European Union, housing affordability is creeping up the political agenda. More and more people are being priced out of the housing market and face exclusion, with first-time buyers being particularly marginalised.

That is why paragraph 6, hoping that national and local decision-makers will adopt measures to help young people get their first home, is such an important point. So, too, is the mention of rural housing. In Scotland, many people born and brought up in idyllic small towns and villages are priced out of their communities due to lack of affordable social housing. Housing today needs to meet the needs of tomorrow. It will not only have to be accessible, but also to be environmentally friendly.

I thank the rapporteur and hope that we can see more discussion at a European level over how we can learn from one another how to make housing decent, affordable and accessible to all.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating our two rapporteurs, Mr Andria and Mr Janowski.

The European Union’s regional policy must help to improve the innovation capacities of our regions so as to reduce the disparities in development and to support a form of sustainable and balanced economic growth, with respect shown for the principles of subsidiarity and of solidarity.

By way of example, the buildings, networks and housing in the outermost regions are for the most part damaged and are insufficiently adapted to the natural risks and specific climatic conditions. Thanks to European, national and regional incentives, together with the help of private investment, an effort in these areas is possible in the outermost regions, on the basis of real public/private partnerships.

An effort of this kind would help to speed up the research into low-cost, earthquake-proof, anticyclonic and high-insulating building materials, so that work can begin on building cheaper housing that can withstand any unforeseen happenings. Such a project would also have the virtue of promoting a more rational use of energy by favouring clean energy sources, exploiting local conditions and increasing the share of renewable energy sources.

The outermost regions are destined to become a centre of excellence in terms of innovation, as much on a scientific and technological level as on an architectural one, with the dual objective being to guarantee the overseas populations safe and comfortable housing and to facilitate the sustainable development of these regions. I should like the Commission and the Member States to encourage centres of excellence, as they act as real bridges between research and teaching establishments, SMEs and local authorities.

The purpose of regional policy is neither to focus yet more of its action on a small number of spectacular projects nor to spread its aid too thinly. It can also be useful and effective if it supports small-scale, innovative actions in the most underdeveloped regions with the aim of guaranteeing the harmonious and polycentric development of EU territory.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE). – (HU) The main purpose of cohesion policy is to create a uniform level of prosperity throughout the regions of Europe. In order to achieve this, a good cohesion policy must focus on two directions. We need to ensure growth and to remain competitive in global terms, through financing developments that can meet the challenges of the 21st century. Promoting innovation has a key role to play in this regard. But in the meantime we must not forget the essence of cohesion policy.

There is an enormous gulf between the various regions of Europe. With numerous problems of structure and infrastructure that await solutions. We can take significant steps to remedy these by means of a housing policy. We must give people who live in the poorest, most hopeless circumstances the chance to believe that their living conditions can improve. Since in the Central and Eastern European Member States extreme poverty and ghettoisation are often typical of villages, it is important not to limit support for housing only to the cities. Rather, we need to create equal opportunities in the area of agricultural growth as well, ensuring that rural populations also have access to higher education, and we need to find a way for innovative developments to reach people in underprivileged regions as well. Thus we will be able to pursue a policy that can guarantee our citizens that their opportunities will not be determined by the place of their birth.

  Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE). – (PT) I should first like to congratulate Mr Janowski on his outstanding report. The EU’s regional development policy could play a crucial role in promoting innovative capacity in the regions, and in particular the least favoured regions.

In every region, there is a potential for innovation that needs to be harnessed, and I agree with the rapporteur that innovation should be understood in its broadest sense; that is, not only innovation arising from the activities of research centres, universities and companies but also innovation that, in the context of dynamic societies, can be the result of ongoing processes of perfecting and improving, in which the contributions of each individual, each worker, each official and each company can prove decisive. Only in this way can an economy’s productivity levels increase, and these are the best indicator of a region’s innovative capacity.

Accordingly, in order for regional development to have a significant impact on innovation, it must above all help create a climate and a culture in the regions that is conducive to innovation and that values initiative, entrepreneurship, healthy competition and a spirit of adventure. We must recognise that in some regions these values are not always fostered by actions arising from the Structural Funds. Far from it in fact, and the risk of creating a culture of dependence on support is a very real one – something that must be avoided at all costs if we are genuinely to foster innovation in the regions.

  Miloš Koterec (PSE). – (SK) I would like to thank the rapporteur for a comprehensive report on housing in the new and old Member States.

I think the problem of providing adequate housing, especially for young people, is particularly pressing in the new Member States. The cohesion policy adopted on the renovation of social housing, which aims to save energy and protect the environment, is an important but incomplete contribution from the European Union towards dealing with this situation. The objective of providing social housing should not lead to the creation of enclaves where many of the features of civilised life are lacking and which can become a source of problems for cities and regions.

I think that an EU policy based on studies drawn up by individual towns, communities, regions and states should help towards producing an inventory of the best practices in use across the EU Member States and will thus lead to better solutions to the problem of social housing, based on the experience of many of the towns and regions in the Member States of the old EU.

I hope that the structural funds and the possibility of using EU money will contribute to better dissemination of best practices, as it is essential that these are recognised across the EU, and will assist the new Member States in solving their problems, particularly regarding the provision of housing for the low-income groups in the population.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to commend the rapporteur on his forward-looking approach to the future of European Union funding. Innovation is clearly one of the key ingredients of economic progress, and unless the European Union embraces it fully we will find ourselves unable to compete at world level.

In particular I welcome any initiative that recognises the role that small- and medium-sized enterprises have to play in economic progress. Often we associate innovation with large multinational companies with enormous research facilities. However, the backbone of the European economy has always been our small, often family-orientated, businesses. I welcome proposals that enable the SMEs to work with large-scale industry and with universities. With the current programming period for the Structural Funds coinciding with the seventh Framework Programme, it is logical to look at means by which one can complement the other.

As regards my own constituency of Northern Ireland, I have often pushed in the past for heavy emphasis on economic regeneration to be applied to our Structural Fund spending. I would very much welcome any opportunity to permit our now vibrant economy to tap into innovation-focused structural funding. Queen’s University in Northern Ireland is recognised for its excellence in research and I am keen to ensure that such universities can take full advantage of EU funding, while also receiving proper national government support.

While it is sensible to promote the development of regional, academic and scientific research centres, it is most important to note that we all have centres of excellence within our own countries which should be the first to receive support. Building a reputation for research and development takes time and I would like to feel assured that what we are aiming at is supporting our well-established universities first and foremost.

It is important that in an area such as this, where the opportunities for cross-border cooperation are endless, we do not make the mistake of being over-prescriptive. The worst thing Brussels could do for innovation in the European Union is to tell national and regional governments how, when and where they are to promote innovation. It is our function to provide the means, not the method.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, we should welcome the proposal to make housing part of the European Union's regional policy. The problem of housing affects many Member States and the time has come to take appropriate action at European level. This problem infringes one of the citizens’ fundamental rights, namely the right to a dignified life in their own home. It also smothers social and economic potential. Therefore, we cannot seriously speak about solidarity and the Lisbon Strategy without also putting forward an appropriate package of solutions.

We should bear in mind that the division of residential areas into those inhabited by richer or poorer sections of society, as well as the problem of homelessness, will worsen in the future. A growing influx of immigrants is unavoidable in Europe in view of our ageing population and the increasing production capacity of our economy, and it is these immigrants who will mainly contribute to social stratification. Dealing with the issue of housing would allow us, to a significant extent, to prevent this negative phenomenon, which is shameful for Europe.

We have talked about innovation in the European Union for many years. We have mentioned different aspects of the issue and discussed it at various levels within the institutions. What should we do to ensure that this time the discussions do not, yet again, produce only empty words and promises? Implementing innovative strategies at the regional level will give each citizen the opportunity to feel that innovation can improve their living conditions and quality of life. It is a difficult path to tread. However, it may be the only one that can finally ensure that the right ideas are put into practice and brought to life.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I would like to thank my fellow MEP, Mr Janowski, for focusing on disadvantaged regions that are not very attractive to investors due to their inadequate technical infrastructure.

The existence of research and development infrastructure is an important incentive for scientists and researchers to stay in remote regions. Therefore, Member States and regional authorities must promote innovative projects that foster partnerships between the public and private sectors, involving companies, particularly SMEs, and universities and schools of technology, as well as civil society. At the same time, I recommend applying the experience of the Euroregions, with their existing cross-border structures and particularly their ability to successfully implement projects using structural funds, which are important instruments for the EU’s innovation capacity.

I consider transparent access to information a key factor for innovative activity. The business community and regional authorities in the new Member States are not properly informed about the new initiatives of the Commission, such as ‘Jaspers’, ‘Jeremie’ and ‘Jessica’. Without relevant and timely information, innovative activity will not be focused on people and on improving their standards of living, and the goal of the innovation strategy for the EU, that is, a competitive European Union with prosperous SMEs and wealthy European regions, will not be met.

Commissioner, I thank you for your presence here, which adds weight to this debate.

  Adam Gierek (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, a policy that fosters innovation depends on a universally accessible education system that favours innovation, advanced scientific research, a properly functioning single market, the synergy produced by enlargement, the Community patent and licensing strategy, the establishment of a European Centre for Innovation and a European Institute of Technology, as well as the creative implementation of European Union legislation on chemical substances, energy, the environment, etc. However, the regional dimension of implementing pro-innovation measures, especially when it relies on regional development funds, is chiefly based on the creation of regional, specialised areas of knowledge. First of all, this step will effectively deepen inter-regional cooperation in terms of exchanging innovative ideas and experiences related to the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. Secondly, it will secure the cooperation of specialists from outside of these regions. Finally, it will also allow local innovative potential to be exploited in fields such as the very important one mentioned today, namely the modernisation of heating systems in buildings made of prefabricated concrete, as well as in other fields, including tourism.

I would like to congratulate Mr Janowski on his report.

  Jan Olbrycht (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, today's debate is proof of the fact that the European Parliament feels that it shares the responsibility for implementing cohesion policy as one of the Community policies. The European Parliament not only plays a part in drafting legislation, but it is also involved at the implementation stage. It pays particular attention, and in this role it supports the Commission, in highlighting the importance of an integrated approach. The European Parliament stresses that cohesion policy is not simply a system of subsidies. It also involves targeted support for not just investments in infrastructure, but also various types of innovative activities. In addition to this, and on the basis of adopted regulations, we should support the construction of new housing which, as we all know, is the fly wheel in the machinery of economic growth, as well as a way of improving the standard of living and protecting our cultural heritage.

Today’s debate proves that regional and cohesion policy, which is currently being modified, should always be treated as a key European Union policy.

  Wolfgang Bulfon (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, affordable living accommodation for all classes of society has always been an important issue for me; in his report, the rapporteur stresses the necessity of a right to aid with accommodation and calls for the reinforcement of other social rights in order to guarantee true worker mobility. He also expresses the aspiration that national decision-makers might take steps to help young people acquire their first property, and I am fully supportive of both these concerns.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to highlight the risk that ghettos may be created, as can happen when the concept of ‘social housing’ is too narrowly defined and aid given solely on the basis of criteria of social need. I see it as very important that housing projects should be socially mixed, since that helps to prevent the creation of the sources of conflict that are inevitable when ghettoisation occurs.

There are, in Austria, concerns that excessively broad harmonisation in the housing sectors might eventually undermine the system that we have, and which currently works very well, in that we have a very high standard where the right to rent is concerned, and it is one that must be upheld come what may.

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like firstly to welcome this report, which highlights one of the problems which is currently of most concern to European citizens: the difficulty in accessing housing, a problem that restricts many workers’ opportunities for social integration and mobility, which is a source of huge social inequalities and which makes it difficult for young people to exercise healthy independence and set up their own homes, a problem that goes beyond the social field and falls within the broader context of urban planning.

In this regard, the Member States must use the ERDF funds in the field of housing, as well as the Jessica and Jeremie financial instruments, in order to make progress on resolving these problems, in close cooperation with local and regional authorities, socio-economic operators and civil society, all of this combined with promoting the exchange of good practices.

Finally, I would like to stress the importance of training in the field of urban planning within the framework of the European Social Fund, to promote the dissemination of new technologies and of more effective building products that make it possible to improve energy efficiency in the housing sector.

  Alfonso Andria (ALDE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to comment on the very rich content of everything that has been said, including by colleagues who have not always expressed full and complete agreement with the work we have done, if only through a difficulty in approach to the issue, unaware of where we are in introducing a clarification regarding the powers of the European Union in this area. The report under consideration today definitely represents a step forward, and that is why I very much value all the contributions and the very rich debate, which has naturally also been on the report by my colleague, Mr Janowski, whom I would like to personally congratulate, as well as on my report.

I would therefore like to express my appreciation for the openness displayed by Commissioner Hübner, with whom we are now accustomed to working. I must say, particularly in view of the original starting point and the difficulty to which I have referred on several occasions, that signs of progress by the Commission can be seen along these lines, signs that, among other things, are well matched with the financial instruments which were referred to, introduced by the Commission together with the European Investment Bank, and that focus on making use of best practices, the problem of rural areas, and the revitalisation and reversal of urban degeneration in historic city centres, and thus have a particular focus on existing housing stock.

I would like Parliament to reflect on these issues, and on the energy issue, dealt with at some length by Mr Hatzidakis, on issues of social exclusion, ghettoisation and spatial segregation. This is an issue that is very much interconnected to other issues, as I said in my introduction: housing problems, spatial segregation and ghettoisation are absolutely crucial factors with regard to social exclusion. Just now Mrs Badia i Cutchet rightly referred to training issues, too, and I would add those of transport, services, health and a whole range of issues relating to the topics of culture and to structures for culture and for social services. It is for this reason that we must look at this matter with greater openness, as Parliament is attempting to do.

We need to start by noting that we are not proposing to infringe the decision-making sphere or the autonomy of action of national States or regional or local bodies. With great respect for the principle of subsidiarity, we are asking Europe to take a slightly more decisive step forward on this path. Ladies and gentlemen, this means that today Parliament has a great opportunity, which is the opportunity to show European citizens that we understand their needs, since housing is a primary need. This should be done without excessive interference, without restricting the decision-making autonomy of the national States or local or regional bodies but in collaboration with them, as Mr Vlasák and Mrs Sudre also said. They rightly stated that Europe needs to intervene and to support, through regional policies, the other Member States, too, and not just, as stipulated in Article 7 of the ERDF regulation, the States from the last enlargement.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN) , rapporteur. – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank you all for this interesting debate. You have clearly shown that innovation should not be an end in itself.

In my report I also mentioned innovation in the field of housing. I would therefore like to thank Mr Andria for highlighting this point. Regional innovation strategies, which was something that the Commissioner mentioned, will become very important. We should pay particular attention to the criteria we intend to use to measure innovation. As you pointed out, public-private partnerships are proof of the fact that the work which we have undertaken together has not been wasted. This was something that was also stressed by Mr van Nistelrooij, when he spoke about poles or points which connect the whole. My colleagues on this side of the Chamber, who took the social aspects into consideration, also mentioned this point. Once again, I would like to thank you for this fruitful debate.

  Danuta Hübner, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to begin by reminding everyone that we are, of course, working within the regulations. Within the framework of the regulations, the Commission is trying to be as innovative as possible as regards generation of new instruments that could help us better address all the challenges. We are also trying to be as flexible as the regulations will allow. We are also working within the budget, which is large for some and too small for others, but which certainly made us reach out to other sources of financing, again in order to have increased capacities to address the challenges.

However, the period in which we live requires us to do both things. On the one hand we must substantially improve our citizens’ quality of life. On the other hand we have to create the basic foundations for long-term sustainable development, for which, of course, innovation is crucial and the most important factor.

Concerning housing, the regulations are more generous with regard to poorer states, but there are still many areas in the EU-15 where we can support housing-related activities. This is especially true of the rehabilitation of public spaces in deprived inner-city areas, including security measures, and of the connection of multi-occupancy family houses to water supplies and sewage, energy and telecommunications networks. The EIB and the Council of Europe Development Bank have been important sources for financing investment in the housing sector, independently of Jessica. Within the Jessica framework we are now analysing how we can do the maximum to boost investment in housing through cheap loans and credit.

One day of the Leipzig ministerial meeting in May will be devoted to issues relating to urban areas. There will also be a Leipzig Charter on sustainable European cities. One of the paragraphs concerns the challenges that must be dealt with in relation to housing, especially in the context of energy. The Commission will submit to this meeting an analysis of future programmes, especially concerning the housing issue. I would just like to remind you that the Commission’s inter-service group working on urban issues has recently prepared an inventory of the urban dimension of Community policies. It identifies all the policies which have an impact on housing in the context of public health, energy, social policy and urban transport. That inter-service group can certainly give more prominence to housing questions in its work programme. I am still considering how we can do this, but we will commission the study that you ask for in your report. I am sure these will be very useful studies, and we are, of course, constantly trying to be more innovative. We must be more innovative in terms of financial engineering and combining different sources. We will not succeed without making such efforts.

Concerning innovation, and as regards Mr Janowski’s report, many of you stress something which I find absolutely essential, namely the broader interpretation of innovation as not merely being limited to multinationals and state-of-the-art 21st- or 22nd-century technology, but also taking small- and medium-sized companies on board. I fully share your view on this twin challenge. We need local motors and poles to take us forward quickly. However, the real challenge is to spread innovation capacities across Europe. I share your views on this very strongly. We need both poles and networks. That is why the Regions for Economic Change, the first network of its kind, which will be launched this year, concerns the linking-up of clusters all over Europe. We will have the regions working together on the question of how to bring innovation to the market as quickly as possible. As we know, Europe’s basic disease is its slowness in this area.

Once again, Mr President, thank you very much for this debate on the reports, which is a continuation of our interinstitutional discussions in this area. Both reports are extremely useful, not least with regard to future policy reflections.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place in a few minutes’ time.

Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE), in writing. – I welcome this report as an important follow-up to my report on the thematic strategy for the urban environment. I propose again that EU funding should be allocated and used by Member States in order to retrofit buildings and neighbourhoods. Member States should promote projects co-financed by the EU related to the development and modernisation of district heating. In this respect I should highlight that in an energy crisis, a switch to a different energy source is easier to achieve with district heating. Many unnecessary energy consumption can be prevented with the increasing of the environmental performance of buildings with energy-efficient house design: insulation, renewable energy use, green roofs, passive/active solar design, low energy houses, etc.

I recommend the development of a database for an EU-wide sharing of best practices in improving energy and water efficiency in buildings. In our Member States ten million of our citizens live in pre-fabricated buildings. It is our joint responsibility to improve their living conditions and to co-finance the rehabilitation of their dwelling sites.

  Katalin Lévai (PSE), in writing. – (HU) As the spokesperson for Roma affairs for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, I would like to draw your attention to another aspect of the report, namely the difficulties with regard to housing faced by Europe’s largest minority.

It is especially true in the case of the Roma that the problems of access to and quality of housing for the most part lead to problems of social segregation. The main reason for this is that the most disadvantaged sections of the population are stuck in problematic areas.

I emphasise that social exclusion is contrary to the European social model. We need to guarantee greater social cohesion, paying particular attention to helping the Roma minority.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that a significant portion of Roma live in sub-regions of the Member States which are disadvantaged in terms of the economy, infrastructure and employment. Over the past decade the segregation of Roma and non-Roma has grown dramatically, and the majority of families live in extremely poor housing conditions. This is why I am initiating an examination of this type of problem among the Roma population in addition to among immigrants.

We cannot postpone the complex development of the most disadvantaged regions, which are densely populated by Roma. Improving housing conditions goes hand in hand with a large-scale reduction of regional and housing segregation – not only with regard to housing but also in education and employment. An important instrument of job creation may lie in transforming the socio-political system of housing support in such a way as to promote mobility.

In this regard, I can report, by way of a good example, that a few days ago I had the opportunity to announce, jointly with the Hungarian Minister of Social Affairs and Labour, Mr Péter Kiss, the ‘Decade of Roma Inclusion’ Programme, which makes significant efforts precisely in putting an end to these sorts of disadvantages.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

6. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

7. Voting time

  President. The next item is the vote.

(For results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)

7.1. Simplification of Community legislation (amendments of the Rules of Procedure) (vote)

- Report: Reynaud (A6-0143/2007)

7.2. Public passenger transport services by rail and road (vote)

- Report: Meijer (A6-0131/2007)

- Before the vote on Amendment 66:

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the oral amendment is in the name of Mr Piecyk and on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. Referring to the English text, which reads, ‘operator shall be required to perform a major part’, the term ‘major part’ is to be replaced by ‘a substantial part’. This is a minor alteration, but one that can help us achieve a compromise between the Council, the Commission and this House following the unofficial trilogue.

  Paolo Costa (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, we cannot accept this oral amendment because it radically alters the sense of the compromise reached within the informal trialogue. I therefore ask my colleagues to rise.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, since this oral amendment was not adopted, I would like to ask that, when voting on Amendment 66, we should vote on the English text, since the German and French versions do not adequately express certain nuances. I therefore move that we vote on the English wording and that the translations be reviewed later on.

  President. If there is no objection, the authentic text will be the English version.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, had I been given the speaking time I had requested before Amendment 67 was put to the vote, this could have cleared up a misunderstanding.

During the negotiations between 12 and 24 April, agreement was reached with the German Presidency of the Council about the prospective use, in Amendments 66 and 67, of the word ‘significant’ as a condition for subcontracting. The presidency offered the term ‘substantial’ by way of an alternative, but the two largest groups eventually had no need for it. They later decided, without consulting the rapporteur, to insert the word ‘major’ in the amendments jointly tabled by six groups.

Although I agree with the substance of it, I have always warned that this does not form part of a closed compromise and that, in theory, it could make a third reading necessary. Since the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats appeared certain that they could win the Council, and particularly Germany, the latter being its principal opponent, over to this amendment, I was happy to go along with them. I now gather that they have been criticised for enforcing this, given the fact that so many people have disagreed with a vote on an oral amendment in which they would like to take all of this back.

- Before the vote on Amendments 49 and 67:

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, here, too, I should like, on behalf of Mr Piecyk, to move that the English wording ‘shall be required to perform the major part’ be replaced by ‘a substantial part’.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, since this oral amendment was not adopted, I would like to take this opportunity to ask that, when voting on Amendment 67, too, we should vote on the English text in view of the problems already referred to with the German and French translations.

7.3. Nominal quantities for pre-packed products (vote)

- Recommendation: Toubon (A6-0144/2007)

7.4. Approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (vote)

- Recommendation: Harbour (A6-0145/2007)

7.5. Retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles (vote)

- Report: Costa (A6-0124/2007)

7.6. Composition of the temporary committee on climate change (vote)

- Proposals of the Conference of Presidents

7.7. EU-Russia summit (vote)

- Motion for a resolution: RC-B6-0190/2007

- Before the vote:

  President. I wish to inform you that the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has withdrawn from the joint motion for a resolution.

- Before the vote on paragraph 2:

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to move the following oral amendment on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. ‘Stresses the importance of strengthening unity and solidarity among the EU Member States in their relations with Russia. Welcomes, therefore, the common line taken by the EU in the negotiations with Moscow on the lifting of Russia’s ban on Polish agricultural products;’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

- Before the vote on Amendment 11:

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, in view of the discussion that we had yesterday, we should like to replace in the text:

'Calls on the European Union to demonstrate solidarity with Estonia in the context of recent events in Tallinn;'

(FR) Where Tallinn appears in the text, we would like,

‘in the context of the recent events in Moscow.’ The main problem was the way events were handled in Moscow, rather than in Tallinn, and we would therefore prefer the text to read ‘the events in Moscow’. That would seem more appropriate.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I should like to attempt, by means of an oral amendment, a better and more correct wording to the second part of Paragraph 11, which would then read as follows, and I will read it out in English: ‘in particular by means of enhanced dialogue over Ukraine en Belarus and joint efforts to finally resolve the frozen conflicts in Moldova en the South Caucasus’. ‘Nagorno-Karabakh and Georgia’ would therefore be deleted and replaced by ‘in Moldova and the South Caucasus’.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

7.8. EU strategy for reform in the Arab world (vote)

- Report: Rocard (A6-0127/2007)

- Before the vote on Amendment 19:

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I propose that the phrase ‘full respect, including legal respect, for different sexual orientations’, should be amended as follows: ‘full respect for, and non-discrimination against, different sexual orientations’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

- Before the vote on Amendment 14:

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I propose to replace the term ‘Palestinian State’ with ‘democratic Palestinian State’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, my group does not object to the oral amendment, but we are not in favour of Amendment 14, even when amended by the oral amendment.

- Before the vote on Amendment 20:

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (FR) This is simply a linguistic point, given that it is the French version that is deemed authentic. Thus the words ‘secular Islamicists’ would not replace the words ‘moderate Islamicists’ but would be regarded as an addition.

- Before the vote on Amendment 21:

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Cappato has tabled an oral amendment, by means of which he is asking for the separation of Church and State more or less to be guaranteed. We would ask to add as an oral amendment:

‘as it should be in any democracy’.

(FR) Indeed, while Islam mixes politics and religion, in Europe, among our countries, there are also those who do not separate Church and State.

(Applause from the left)

  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Cappato’s amendment deals with the separation of political and religious power. We are talking about countries of the Arab world here, not about countries of Europe. If the amendment relates to the countries of the Arab world, we are in agreement, because, when we speak of the church, we refer solely to the Catholic or the Protestant church.

This amendment relates to religious power and political power, and it should be made clear that we are referring only to these two elements, since I thought that I could discern in what Mrs de Keyser said an attempt to insert extraneous elements into this report.

  President. Mrs De Keyser's amendment introduces a phrase which is universal in scope. It says ‘in any democracy’. The amendment is therefore intended to be universal in scope.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I am personally very happy with the amendment tabled by Mrs de Keyser, which I consider to be more or less taken for granted; if it is not, then that is all the more reason for this amendment to be put forward.

  Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, I believe that each of us has the right in this Parliament to speak, to express our own ideas and to have clear information in the texts that we are about to adopt.

With regard to the authentic text, the amendment by Mr Cappato says, in Italian, ‘anche garantendo l'indipendenza e la separazione delle istituzioni e del potere politico dalle autorità religiose’ – ‘also guaranteeing the independence and separation of institutions and political power from the religious authorities’. This is the text, but we are talking about the church and the State. The terms are ‘political power’ and ‘religious authorities’.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

  Véronique De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I should simply like to ask my group, under these circumstances, to vote against.

7.9. EU partnership in the Horn of Africa (vote)

- Report: Kaczmarek (A6-0146/2007)

7.10. Assessing Euratom (vote)

- Report: Maldeikis (A6-0129/2007)

7.11. Environmental protection from radiation following the crash of a military aircraft in Greenland (vote)

- Report: Wallis (A6-0156/2007)

7.12. Housing and regional policy (vote)

- Report: Andria (A6-0090/2007)

7.13. Future regional policy and innovation (vote)

- Report: Janowski (A6-0096/2007)

7.14. Strengthening European legislation in the field of information and consultation of workers (vote)

- Motion for a resolution: RC-B6-0189/2007

- Before the vote:

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Mr President, this resolution has been tabled in the name of certain political groups, but the name of the PPE-DE Group does not appear. That might give the impression that we have somehow been excluded from the process, given that we spoke out against having a resolution in the first place as we will shortly be producing a report in committee. However, the fact is that we have been actively involved in the discussions with other groups. We share the general desire to see this legislation reviewed and modernised and have indeed contributed significantly to the text in its final form. I just wanted to record that although we still have certain reservations over some of the wording, I am pleased to confirm that PPE-DE Group policy will be to vote in favour of this resolution.

  President. That concludes the vote.

8. Explanations of vote

- Report: Reynaud (A6-0143/2007)

  Richard Corbett (PSE), in writing. On behalf of the Socialist group I very much welcome this amendment to our Rules of Procedure, which will enable Parliament to deal much more efficiently and speedily with proposals to simplify European legislation, either through codification of existing legislation, without changes of substance, or else through recasting proposals where changes of substance are combined with the simplification of existing legislation.

More and more, European legislative proposals that we consider in this Parliament are about amending or updating existing European legislation rather than bringing forth new legislation on new subjects. Yet few things contribute more to the opaqueness and complexity of European legislation than the habit of having sets of directives amending previous directives, without the texts as a whole ever being consolidated into a single document. The Commission must speed up its program to codify existing Community legislation, not simply as an exercise in reducing the number of pages of the acquis communitaire, but to provide greater transparency and ease of access to all. In amending its Rules of Procedure today, Parliament is giving a powerful signal that it is ready to assist in this process and to do so with due speed and diligence.

- Report: Meijer (A6-0131/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) If anyone were in any doubt as to the objectives of these recommendations, one would only have to take a close look at the information provided on them by Parliament: recognition ‘for the first time’ of the public authorities’ free choice of the operators of so-called road and rail passenger transport ‘public services’, be they public or private. In other words, this is tantamount to ‘the award of public service contracts’ in the framework of competition; that is, the undermining of the concept of public services provided by the public authorities, whereby the rights of the workers and of the users of affordable high-quality public services are not affected.

Although it does contain some valuable points – such as the relevant authorities having the option to provide the services themselves, or directly to award the contract to an entity over which they have control – the adopted recommendation forms part of the policies of liberalisation and of promoting privatisations and monopolies at the expense of public funding on the basis of the forces of each country coming together.

We are very disappointed at the rejection of the proposals we tabled aimed at safeguarding workers’ rights in the sector, such as the inclusion in contracts of provisions on the protection of jobs in the event of a change of operator.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I supported these amendments to bring in new rules on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, which seek to rebalance the award of contracts for these services between the public and private sectors. I particularly support the move to repeal old EU legislation and replace existing national rules on competition in the public transport sector with standard Europe-wide rules.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. (NL) The Commission proposal dating back to 2000, in which a duty to issue calls for tender was due to apply to the whole public transport sector, fitted into the political context of that time, when the prevalent idea was that the government should withdraw from many tasks, that taxes could be lowered as a result and that the market would be able to organise everything in an adequate manner. This formed part of the agreements which were concluded a few months before this proposal at the summit of Heads of Government in Lisbon, in the expectation that more market and more profit would also yield greater economic growth and even better and cheaper amenities for the public. This neo-liberal ideology has since been disproved in practice. The Lisbon Strategy has not come up to expectation. The market is not offering any answers, and certainly none as far as public transport, and other amenities that are both necessary and loss-making, are concerned. It would lead to the disappearance of integrated networks, with only the busiest lines surviving. Over the past seven years, we have had more experience of privatisation and tendering, and the disappointments experienced in that context have contributed to the growth of opposing forces. It was partly thanks to this that my objective as rapporteur, namely retaining municipal transport companies and freedom of choice, could be achieved.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The report on public service requirements on which we voted today raises expectations of a positive conclusion at second reading of an issue that has taken decades to resolve. The legal uncertainty of the current situation has only fomented disputes and served to hamper the development of the passenger transport public service market.

We therefore hope that this text is concluded, ensuring transparent market access conditions without the artificial restrictions that only serve to protect the status quo, in which we are burdened by bureaucracy and in which obstacles are placed in the way of better and more efficient provision of passenger transport for the people.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The proposal for a regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road is yet another attack on grassroots income and on the rights of the public transport workers and passengers in general.

Following the liberalisation of maritime and coastal transport under the anti-grassroots EU law in Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 and of passenger transport by air and rail, it is now the turn of local road and rail transport to be privatised, in order to increase the profits of big business.

Big business is extending its tentacles to the daily movements of workers on trams, the underground, suburban railways and buses, with high ticket prices and a package of state subsidies in private, monopoly transport companies, with particularly negative consequences on safety and standards for those who work in and use these means of transport, the grassroots family as a whole.

The consequences of the privatisation of public transport, as proven by the experience of towns where it is already applied and by experience with the liberalisation of coastal shipping and transport by air is particularly negative for isolated areas and the poor classes of society.

The workers are also fighting against the anti-grassroots policy of the European Union in the transport sector. We are fighting for a high standard of modern public transport, with cheap tickets, which will serve the needs of the working and grassroots classes, which is why we voted against this EU regulation.

- Recommendation: Toubon (A6-0144/2007)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for the Council's common position on a proposal to deregulate pack sizes for pre-packed products. Once the legislation is implemented, it will be possible to sell many everyday consumer products in a wider range of sizes than at present. I believe that this is an advance for consumer interests.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. (NL) Current European legislation on compulsory packaging materials is 30 years old and is no longer commensurate with current patterns of consumption. The new rules that we have approved here today in second and last reading – in complete agreement with the Council, for which I should like to give the rapporteur a huge compliment – are in keeping with the consumer demand for more diverse packaging formats. Obstacles to competition will be removed, and innovation encouraged, right across Europe. European manufacturers will be able to decide for themselves what packaging formats are best tailored to the requirements of their customers. As for the possibility raised in this report of the scope of the directive on the indication of price per measuring unit being extended to certain small businesses, I should like to say, by way of expressing a reservation, that I am all in favour of consumers being properly informed, and have nothing against demanding from large distribution chains that account for the lion’s share of the market that they place the price per measuring unit on their products, but imposing this duty on SMEs or local shops as well would not be a good thing. I will therefore fight tooth and nail for this when Parliament, as it will shortly be doing, reviews current consumer legislation.

- Recommendation: Harbour (A6-0145/2007)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I supported these amendments to bring in new rules on the manufacturing standards of road vehicles. These will raise environmental and safety standards as well as making it easier for producers to sell their vehicles Europe-wide. In particular I am glad that the legislation will take more account of the needs of disabled car users.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Harbour report, on which we voted at second reading today, deserves this House’s wholehearted support, for, today, the green light was given for a type approval which will apply to such vehicles as buses, coaches and lorries in addition to cars. Mutual recognition of approvals, and for a wide range of vehicles, indeed, is yet another important step towards completing the internal market. Furthermore, the introduction of this framework directive will also benefit safety, partly because this is likely to accelerate the entry into effect of a number of safety measures for buses and coaches.

The simplification that this framework directive brings with it is a good thing for the consumer and the manufacturer, because it guarantees more internal market, increases safety and benefits the environment. All these reasons have persuaded me to give my full backing to the rapporteur.

- Report: Costa (A6-0124/2007)

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) I am voting in favour of the report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community

Mr Paolo Costa rightly stressed that the retrofitting of mirrors on every heavy goods vehicle registered after 2000 in order to eliminate the blind spot in the driver’s vision would save the lives of more than a thousand people by 2020. Without this compulsory legislation and in accordance with the 2003 directive recommending the retrofitting of lorries from 2007 onwards, vehicles without wide-angle mirrors would only be taken off the road in 2023. This would significantly delay the work that needs to be done.

The method of financing the additional mirrors was also aptly described. The cost of retrofitting each vehicle should not exceed 100-150 euros, which is equivalent to one tank of petrol.

I also agree with the proposal to investigate whether other vehicles, such as vans or other delivery vehicles, should also be fitted with these mirrors.

- Motion for a resolution: RC-B6-0190/2007

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) I welcome the fact that the majority of MEPs have distanced themselves from the parts of the resolution on the EU-Russia summit in which the Left attempted to manipulate the European public into believing that the installation of the US anti-rocket umbrella in Poland and the Czech Republic has paved the way for a new arms race. This is a false argument on the part of the Left for two reasons: firstly, because this concerns the completion of a defence system that is meant to deter attacks from the east, from those regimes that threaten peace, and secondly, in relation to the arms race, Russia has increased military spending dramatically since Putin came to power, both in absolute terms and in terms of GDP, where the figure of 4% is still 30% more than the EU countries spend on defence. The resulting resolution is a forthright political message to take to the impending summit with Russia, stating that we do not accept that country’s aggressive policies towards Chechnya, Estonia, Poland and other countries.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the debate we held in Parliament before the EU-Russia summit was an example of our consensus and unity. It was stressed that the Union would defend the interests of every Member State in terms of its relations with Russia. Estonia was most frequently used as an example and mention was also made of the Russian embargo on Polish meat products. However, no mention was made of the fact that certain Member States are dealing with Russia on a unilateral basis, behind the backs of the other Member States of the European Union and contrary to the Union’s interests. Instead, much criticism was levelled at Russia as a whole, with no attempt to distinguish the role played by those in power, who impose this policy, and the position of the average Russian citizen, who is subject to media manipulation. It is in the interests of Europe, Russia and the world to persuade Russian society to support values such as freedom, human rights, democracy and international cooperation on equal terms.

  Mario Borghezio (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the vote by the Northern League for the Independence of Padania on the motion for an EU-Russia resolution is partly motivated by the desire to express a strong protest against the extremely muted attitude taken by the European Union to the Estonian crisis. A Member State, a small young nation, whose people have, courageously and determinedly, achieved freedom from the prison of Soviet communism, has been subjected to considerable threats by the former Soviet occupiers as a result of a domestic political decision.

Europe has in the main been content to stand by, merely stammering a vague protest about the incidents around the Estonian embassy in Moscow. We ought to replace or, at any rate, to add to the words of empty rhetoric with which the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome was celebrated with a few far firmer and more courageous words in defence of that Member State, whose freedom has been threatened.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) As is well known, the June List believes that neither the EU nor its institutions should conduct foreign policy. A repeated pattern in the European Parliament is one whereby relations with a third country begin at the level of trade policy. That is something of which we approve. The trouble begins when further policy areas, such as foreign relations, aid and fisheries, are added. The EU should devote itself strictly to trade issues and cross-border environmental issues.

In itself, Amendment 9 from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance is commendable. It should not, however, be dealt with by the European Parliament, because it relates to a foreign policy issue. At the UN’s request, Mr Ahtisaari has put together a plan for Kosovo. However, it is not the task of this House to give its opinion either on the plan or on what action Russia should take.

With regard to the problems in Russia, for example the lack of respect for human rights and for the principle of the rule of law, the increase in trade is a good thing. When it comes to straightforward foreign policy issues, it is the national parliaments and governments, together with the UN, that should head up the work, however.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I voted for this resolution which recognises the importance of Russia for Europe, especially in energy relations, but also highlights the need for democratic values and human rights. In particular I support the call for Russia to 'fully respect its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations', guaranteeing the protection of embassies and diplomats.

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. (IT) Russia is an important economic and trade partner for the European Union, which ought to develop increasingly close relations with that country, partly with a view to facilitating the process of democratisation and of respect for civil and human rights.

We cannot, however, conceal our concern in connection with what has been happening in recent days in relations between Russia and the Baltic States, and Estonia in particular. It should be stressed that it has now become a habit on the part of the Russian authorities to use economic and trade pressures against neighbouring countries with a view to obtaining geopolitical dominance in the region.

The EU must be united and unified in defending Estonia and, more generally, any of its Member States against commercial pressures and threats from any non-EU country.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. The tension between Russia and Estonia requires a resolution. It is deeply concerning how quickly this difficulty over a local Estonian decision could escalate to energy supplies being cut off by Russia. Our dependence on Russia for our energy needs continue to worry those who have an interest in security of supply. 60% of Russia's oil exports go to the EU, which amounts to 25% of our oil consumption. In addition, 50% of natural gas exports from Russia accounts for 25% of the EU's total natural gas consumption. I hope that on 18 May when the EU-Russia summit will take place, these issues will be highlighted and addressed.

- Report: Rocard (A6-0127/2007)

  Frank Vanhecke (ITS). – (NL) Mr President, I have voted against the Rocard report, a document that proves once again that the European Union lacks the willingness to face the reality of the Arab world. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that in the Arab world, there is not the slightest bit of interest in political reforms, and even less so in the cultural or intercultural dialogue that is so glorified over here.

The Rocard report should have been one great indictment of the dreadful state of the rule of law, the free expression of opinion and the freedom of religion in the Arab countries. Instead, this House and this report have taken the so-called cultural definition of human rights to a new level.

Moreover, the fact that the European mandarins could not care less about the situation of religious minorities in Islamic countries is something we also recognise, on repeated occasions, in the European Union’s attitude towards Turkey. Despite the hate campaigns against Christians waged by Turkish imams and those paid by the Turkish state, with all the fatal consequences that this entails, the accession process is quietly being kept on track. It is this spineless appeasement policy against the aggressive effects of Islam that my party will continue to fight.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the debate and the vote, we witnessed a conflict over an amendment that we tabled, which we are very pleased was adopted. The report makes it clear that we are seeking a commitment to religious freedom, or to the right of individuals and communities freely to profess their beliefs and to practise their faith, and the amendment stipulated ‘also guaranteeing the independence and separation of institutions and political power from the religious authorities’.

I was in agreement with the oral amendment by Mrs de Keyser making it clear that this holds good for all democracies. I regret the fact that there was an objection to the vote, but I do not believe that this changes the nature of the amendment. In fact, when we talk about the Arab world we are not just talking about Arab States, Arab nations or mere institutions, but about peoples and, as a result, about Arab citizens living in the European Union. When we talk about the separation of institutions and political power from religious authorities, we are also talking about ourselves, because the problem obviously exists, in a very specific form and nature, not only in Mecca but also in Rome. If we tackle the issue of secularity in those countries, it also means tackling it in our own countries.

I would like to conclude by expressing my satisfaction also concerning the adoption of the oral amendment on the ‘democratic Palestinian State’, because, otherwise, the national State is at risk of not being a frontier of freedom, as we wish it to be.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The report by Mr Rocard on reforms in the Arab world has just been adopted by a large majority, and I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the quality and balanced approach of his work.

This report proposes an innovative EU strategy in relation to the Arab world, based on a balanced partnership, with the aim of encouraging fundamental reforms that will involve changes in the law and the crucial involvement of civil society.

The report also has the virtue of pointing out the accommodating approach from which some regimes in this region of the world have benefited. At the same time, it acknowledges the efforts to establish dialogue via the regional integration mechanisms, such as the Barcelona process.

Finally, the report places particular emphasis on the need for these States to insist upon the values of tolerance, respect for human rights and democratic principles if they are to guarantee their stability and prosperity. It also highlights the close link that exists between the rise in extremist movements in the political landscape and the economic and social reality prevailing in these States.

Being in favour of this new realistic and balanced approach, I supported the adoption of this report during the final vote in plenary.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The European Parliament has today adopted a position on what the EU should do to bring about reforms in the Arab world. We are strongly opposed to this because this type of issue needs to be resolved through the UN.

Amendment 20 by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe proposes that the EU should not support ‘fundamentalist and extremist nationalist’ movements. That is obvious, but the EU should not engage in foreign policy at all by supporting movements in other parts of the world. We have therefore voted against the amendment.

In Amendment 21, the ALDE Group wants, furthermore, to get the Arab countries to guarantee ‘the independence and separation of institutions and political power from the religious authorities’. As an institution, the EU must definitely not have views on another country’s system.

Because we do not consider that this is an issue for the EU, we have voted against the report as a whole in today’s vote.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. I agree with the general thrust of the Rapporteur's stance on this issue. It is imperative that peace is brought to the Middle East, and the European Union is well placed to influence that process.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) On this issue and this report I feel entitled to emphasise an idea that I have put forward on several occasions.

With the aim of promoting peace, prosperity, democracy and human rights in our neighbouring countries, on account of both the EU’s direct interests and universal values, I advocate a European project that is based on partnership with our Mediterranean neighbours, a partnership that ideally would create, in the medium term, an area of free movement in the Mediterranean as close as possible to the EU model to which surrounding countries meeting the criteria of democracy, a market economy and respect for human rights – that is to say, the core of the Copenhagen criteria – can adhere. It would be a strongly enhanced partnership in return for reforms. It would also have the incidental and subsidiary virtue of being a solution that, if the conclusion were drawn that the accession process had hit insurmountable obstacles, might also involve Turkey, assuming that Morocco, Israel and Tunisia were interested.

To have prosperous and democratic neighbours, attracted by the prospect of benefits and with populations that would not need to emigrate at all costs, would be a constructive European project, albeit nothing new.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE), in writing. – (FR) During the vote on the Rocard report on reforms in the Arab world, we had to express an opinion on Amendment 21, which calls on those Arab countries that have not yet done so to commit themselves more fully to religious freedom or to the right of individuals and communities freely to profess their beliefs and practise their faith, also guaranteeing the independence and separation of institutions and political power from the religious authorities.

An oral amendment was then tabled, the aim of which was to extend this fundamental rule to all democracies – something that I fully support. Members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats took a stand against this extension. I took the view that I fully supported the content of the original text of Amendment 21. I therefore decided to vote in favour of this amendment, and I am delighted that it should have been accepted by 382 votes, with 222 votes against and 33 abstentions.

- Report: Kaczmarek (A6-0146/2007)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Kaczmarek report (A6-0146/2007) on the Horn of Africa: EU political regional partnership for peace, security and development, because I feel it is vital to consolidate the EU’s presence in a region that has been devastated by three major conflicts – in Sudan, Ethiopia/Eritrea and Somalia – and in which a significant proportion of the population, over 22%, lives below the poverty line.

The partnership for peace, security and development will only succeed if a regional strategic approach is adopted, one that seeks the involvement of existing regional organisations such as the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, along with other international partners under the scope of the UN.

Furthermore, the international community needs to support the region to increase its chances of adapting to the serious repercussions of climate change. After all, whereas Africa is the continent that contributes least to greenhouse gas emissions, it is the continent that suffers most from global warming due to its underdevelopment and poverty.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We feel that the principles that should guide the approach to the complex situation in the Horn of Africa region should be strict compliance with international law and the United Nations Charter, peaceful conflict resolution and détente.

Any genuine solution to the problems facing the peoples and countries of the region should not form part of, nor promote, however indirectly, the imperialist agenda in the region. Imperialism of this kind reinforces the mechanisms of interventionism and militarism, as evidenced by the recent creation of a single US military command for Africa and the installation on the continent of new military bases.

Rather than interventionism, external interference in attempts at conflict resolution and the militarisation of the continent, and in particular this region, the time has come to promote diplomatic efforts – which are far from being exhausted, witness the recent peace agreement signed between Sudan and Chad – to resolve problems that lie at the root of the current serious situation, not least the unjust distribution of access to the rich natural resources in the region. Urgent humanitarian aid, genuine cooperation policies and development aid are also needed.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) Mr President, I support Mr Kaczmarek's report on the European Union's strategy for Africa, which aims to create a regional political partnership with the European Union to foster peace, security and development in the Horn of Africa.

The rapporteur has accurately highlighted the need for solutions to stabilise the Horn of Africa, which has been torn apart by conflict. Five out of seven of the countries in this region are at war with their neighbours. The proposal, put forward by the rapporteur, to appoint an EU special representative to the Horn of Africa, is worthy of our support. The representative would coordinate European Union initiatives in this region.

Another worthy initiative is addressed to the Council and the Commission, calling on them to begin consultations with other partners involved in the region, with the aim of organising a joint conference on security in all the countries in the Horn of Africa.

Mr Filip Kaczmarek stresses that focusing and coordinating initiatives, as well as cooperation in this region, could help to solve problems such as illegal refugees, border security, food security and the environment, control of the arms trade, education and infrastructure, as well as initiating a political dialogue between the countries in the Horn of Africa.

  Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), in writing. (IT) We voted for the Kaczmarek report on the Horn of Africa, which adopted four of our amendments designed to place in context the tragedy of Somalia.

While the report as a whole expresses great hopes for a political partnership between the European Union and the Horn of Africa, we wanted to stress that it is necessary to convene a global conference that is focused not only on security, but also on peace and development, tackling these issues with all the countries in the Horn of Africa.

We wanted to emphasise the fact that women and children are the ones who suffer the most during conflicts because they are the most vulnerable groups in the population, and therefore we added to the text an important reference to the United Nations resolution on women in conflicts.

We also added the statement that, in order to eradicate poverty and to promote economic development, a resolute battle must also be waged against the dreadful practice of female genital mutilation.

Finally, we tabled amendments on the importance of the principle of self-determination of the Somali people and Somaliland, the only democratic entity in the country, riven by rivalry between clans and the infiltration attempt by the Islamic courts, whose only goal is to undermine the peace efforts in the country.

- Report: Maldeikis (A6-0129/2007)

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The EURATOM organisation, unlike the European Coal and Steel Community, does not foresee an end to its activities. Even if it has not implemented all of its planned tasks or has not undertaken all of its planned activities concerning atomic energy, these tasks have been successfully accomplished by working together with other international institutions concerned with atomic energy. The present situation in the EU and world energy markets and the effects of climatic change from using fossil fuel and organic fuel make the EURATOM organisation even more relevant. Fifteen EU Member States have atomic energy plants, and atomic energy production is increasing in other countries of the world. The alleged lack of safety of atomic energy is just a political issue, given the present safety control mechanisms. The EURATOM organisation has to remain independent, which can be achieved by giving it the additional legal basis it requires. I have voted against the convening of an Intergovernmental Conference, as it is likely to be unproductive. As the discussions on atomic energy have shown, there is no need to increase Parliament's powers just yet.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to say how very pleased I am with the decision this House has taken today, by which it has unmistakeably confirmed that there has been for the past 50 years a democratic deficit in the Euratom Treaty and, by a large majority, demanded the power of codecision in matters relating to it. It really is high time that the Member States were not left alone to handle safety issues, because safety and the protection of health are matters of concern to Europe as a whole, and that is why the delegation has decided to endorse these demands.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I have abstained on this report. While I do not want the closure of existing nuclear plants, I am not in favour of their massive expansion, with all the problems that poses for health and the environment. It may be that the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is limited but the hazards posed by radioactive release were all too graphically demonstrated by Chernobyl and the nuclear disaster in the Urals so graphically described by Roy Medvedev. I also object to the undemocratic nature of Euratom decisions and the waste of resources in the boondoggle that is the ITER project. I supported its location in Japan rather than France as then the Japanese would have wasted their money rather than the EU wasting ours!

  Bruno Gollnisch (ITS), in writing. – (FR) Nuclear energy is a special form of energy. It has military and strategic implications, is subject to serious constraints in terms of the environment and the security of facilities and populations and possesses a political, real and even ‘emotional’ dimension. On its own it cannot meet the energy challenges or the perceived challenges in terms of climate change that are currently facing the EU Member States, but it remains inescapable in many respects.

The Euratom Treaty now makes it possible to have some freedom of choice: those States that wish to can develop this sector and this technology, in which Europe is the leader. Those States that do not wish to cannot be forced to provide themselves with a nuclear sector. Furthermore, the Treaty permits the existence of a framework of cooperation for the various parties on subjects of common interest.

It is because this framework, as it operates today, seems satisfactory to us that we voted against this report. The report recommends, in fact, that Euratom be transformed into a specialised annex to the EEC Treaty, with institutional procedures that would deprive the Member States of their freedom of choice. Furthermore, this move would be under the influence of a Brussels-controlled energy policy, of which we deny not just the relevance, but also the legitimacy. Energy policy must be the responsibility of the Member States, and of them alone.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Nuclear energy has been referred to as one of the energy sources that produces least carbon. Nuclear fission, moreover, is viewed as one of the better ways of addressing ‘climate change’, with saving and efficiency relegated to secondary importance.

We feel, however, that energy saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources should be at the forefront of any energy policy. In this field we should be promoting and carrying out more public research with the aim of achieving genuinely alternative energy that responds to the people’s needs and to the demands of a sustainable development policy for our society.

The increasing liberalisation of the energy sector promoted in the EU, pandering to the interests of the large multinationals, undermines people’s right to secure energy at affordable prices. Given the importance of this sector to the development of any country, we argue that it should be kept in the public sector and are thus opposed to its privatisation.

In addition, we are concerned about the report’s approach of promoting nuclear energy, given that the dangers associated with producing this form of energy – dangers, that is, to the environment and to the people, dangers to the safety of the plant itself and the reactors, and the dangers involved in the processing and transport of radioactive waste – are well known.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) There are some salient ideas in the report. For example, it notes that ‘nuclear energy currently provides the European Union with 32% of its electricity and that the Commission considered it (…) to be one of the main CO2-free sources of energy in Europe and the third-cheapest in Europe.’ It then draws the conclusion that ‘the EU, in line with the Euratom Treaty, should defend its industrial and technical leadership in the light of the vigorous revival by other actors of their nuclear activities (Russia, USA) and the emergence of new world actors on the nuclear stage (China and India) which will be the European Union’s competitors in the medium term.’

I understand and acknowledge that this is an option with well-documented problems, one that arouses negative reactions, but I feel that nuclear energy should not be ruled out when it comes to the future of energy supply, due to the costs involved, the environmental impact and technological solutions involving the fewest risks.

In my opinion, it is in diversity and technological innovation that we must find the response to the current energy challenges and issues associated with them.

- Report: Wallis (A6-0156/2007)

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) Because the European Union is also a union of values that should safeguard the human rights of every individual within it, we have chosen to vote in favour of the present report.

We believe that, in this way, we have struck a reasonable balance between indicating the ethical policy we think a Member State needs to pursue and respecting the Member States’ sovereignty.

We believe, then, that Denmark has a duty to accept medical responsibility for those who, on the orders of the Danish state, performed work through which they may have been injured by radiation in connection with the Thule accident in 1968.

- Report: Andria (A6-0090/2007)

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE). – (MT) Thank you, Mr President. I wanted to talk about regional and housing policy. The Treaty does not give the European Union specific powers on housing. However, European Regional Development Fund regulations for 2007-2013 do provide for houses to be eligible for funds in certain cases. The pattern of votes was important for four reasons. The first is the social dimension, involving recognition of the problem, which exists in my own country, of a lack of decent housing at reasonable prices. Then there is the environmental aspect, which includes the strategic development of houses in cities rather than the kind of move that recently took place in Malta, with the extension of the development zones. The environmental dimension also includes energy security and reasonable water and electricity prices. This is also in contrast to what happens in Malta, where the prices are sky-high. The fourth dimension is integration, that is to say an integrated process aimed at improving the quality of life, in contrast to what is currently happening in Malta in the village of Marsaskala, where they are building a recycling plant. Thank you.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) We voted in favour of the report on housing and regional policy. The report does well to highlight the role of housing policy in strengthening social and territorial cohesion. Housing policy is an important tool for the Member States to use in combating segregation, and the right to a place to live is fundamental.

We believe that housing policy is an important part of the Member States’ welfare policies. In Sweden, the public housing sector is a socially motivated form of business activity, and Swedish legislation on rented housing is designed to provide social protection. The EU should regard the Member States’ housing policies as integral to their welfare policies and so exempt such policies from competition rules governing state aid.

We believe too that the EU’s definition of social housing should be broad enough also to include the Swedish model of housing for the benefit of everyone.

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The lack of decent affordable housing directly influences the lives of the citizens, restricting as it does their ability to integrate into society, as well as their choices in terms of education, training and professional development.

In my view, housing problems are not limited to construction- and land management-related issues proper. They are also greatly influenced by poor urban planning, which results in some neighbourhoods that are affected by environmental damage – air and water pollution, noise, waste, congestion, etc. – and by problems when it comes to public services, accessibility and security becoming less and less attractive and sinking into impoverishment.

Faced with problems of poor housing, it is local authorities that are more often than not on the front line. However, this power is still not sufficiently taken into account at European level. The local and European levels must therefore begin to cooperate in practice.

As a French member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, it is crucial to me that all Europeans have good access to social services, health care and training, as well as to trade and to public administration. It is their right.

  Den Dover (PPE-DE), in writing. British Conservatives have abstained on the final vote on the Andria report.

We support many of the aims of this report and, in particular, we approve the sharing of best practice in construction and technology of housing as a way to encourage energy efficiency.

However, we are insistent that housing and housing policy be subject to the principle of subsidiarity and that therefore such issues are, and must remain, an exclusive competence of the nation states.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We welcome the inclusion of our proposals, which highlight the importance of social housing and which attach priority to resolving the ‘homeless’ problem in the housing policies of the Member States.

Investment in social housing plays a crucial role in making housing available to many who would not otherwise have access to the property market, people who normally see their path to housing blocked.

Social housing is a way of combating property speculation, of ensuring the construction of social facilities and of promoting sustainable urban planning. In this context, support from the Structural Funds and regional policy could prove significant.

We therefore register our disappointment that our proposal to support housing cooperatives was not included. The model laid down in the report regrettably continues to be that of promoting public-private partnerships to the detriment of the cooperative sector.

That being said, the prioritisation of the ‘homeless’ issue in housing policy is vital in guaranteeing decent housing for all, and in combating effectively this growing form of social exclusion.

As regards the idea of establishing European level quality indicators defining the notion of ‘adequate housing’, we need to ‘aim high’.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I take a positive view of the fact that the European Parliament is interested in this major issue of housing in the European Union. This is a first step, but one that is far from addressing the main issue: guaranteeing the right to housing to all those who live in the European Union.

This right needed to be confirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which, today, makes it possible at least for the Member States to give aid to the very poor. This is a restrictive view of the right to housing – a right that ought to become universal and effective for all. What is more, the principle of having widespread competition in the single market has harmful effects on the completion of social housing, which is crucial in all of our countries.

I am particularly worried about the fact that the collection of the Livret A – a system that guarantees ongoing funding for low-cost housing – in France is being called into question. I therefore believe that this report calls for a new stage and that we need to go further in terms of ensuring that housing policies cater for specific circumstances.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. This report addresses the key question of housing. While the EU's competencies in this sphere are not extensive, it should intervene wherever possible, such as through the ERDF, to ensure that decent housing is provided.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. (SV) We in the European Parliament have today voted on a report describing the need for decent housing to be available to everyone in return for reasonable rents. For me as a Liberal, it is of course very important that people should have a roof over their heads, but this is an issue that should be dealt with locally or regionally rather than at EU level. That is why I abstained from voting today.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), in writing. (NL) If we want to make the quality of life in Europe really sustainable, (social) housing is an important lever in this. The Andria report on housing policy and regional policy is right to set the subject against the backdrop of the European Social Model, of energy policy, employment, urban development and the internal market. All these areas overlap, albeit with the friction that this inevitably entails. After all, poor housing and poverty go hand in hand, and poverty is still on the increase. The housing market has been undergoing major changes in recent years, due to supply and demand, but also due to social and demographic changes in our society. The lack of social housing is massive, even though accommodation is not only a fundamental right but also a fundamental aspect of regional development, both urban and rural.

The report makes explicit reference to the social component of housing, the energy poverty that often goes hand in hand with it, and employment that can generate sound, environmentally-friendly houses. It also deals with the need for an integrated approach and support of local governments in more depth. Although housing is, and will always be, a national issue, the pre-conditions could be guaranteed at European level. This is what this report is aiming at and that is why it receives my full support.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. The Andria report is important to place the subject of housing on the European political agenda. With more and more people finding themselves excluded from the housing market, we must do all that we can to find solutions to the housing shortage. That is why learning from each other across the 27 Member States, sharing best practice and finding common solutions can help us tackle the growing problem.

- Report: Janowski (A6-0096/2007)

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE), in writing. The issue of regional policy is one which affects directly the Maltese archipelago. I am of the belief that a whole country and not part of it may be eligible for the status of a region when special circumstances so dictate. This should preclude that in addition, within that country, certain remote or isolated areas are given additional considerations.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Defining a concept as vague as innovation, and describing the contribution made by innovation to economic development, is no easy task.

This report, in keeping with many Commission and Council documents, presents innovation as a cure for all ills and a new model for growth, confusing innovation with technological development.

Although the report contains some proposals with which we agree, it neither distances itself from, nor criticises, the neoliberal ‘Lisbon’ strategy, with a view to commercialising knowledge, research and education. Far from it in fact; it advocates (Community) patents, the concentration of research into so-called ‘centres of excellence’, private-public partnerships and the unholy alliances of companies with research centres and public universities. It refers to the ‘Seventh Framework Programme’ but fails to criticise the programme’s priorities and the cuts it underwent in the current financial framework. It hints that regional and local public transport should be privatised, and emphasises yet again the objective of using the Structural Funds to finance the ‘Lisbon Strategy’.

We were therefore unable to vote in favour of this report.

Lastly, on the basis of proposals that we have previously put forward, I should like to mention the need to guarantee broadband Internet access for the outermost regions, which appears in the report, albeit in watered-down form.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. This report combines two key areas for EU action: regional policy and innovative capacity. I support the approach of the rapporteur.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. Innovation and future regional policy is vitally important to making the EU the most dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. The point the rapporteur made, quoting Professor Hunt, the Nobel Prize Winner, that of the 20 top universities only three are from the EU and those three are located in the UK illustrates the need for a more strategic approach to funding research in Europe's universities. If we want innovation we need investment in Europe's higher education institutions.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. (PL) I am voting in favour of the report on the contribution of the future regional policy to the innovative capacity of the European Union.

Regional policy should, within the framework of the European Union's innovative capacity, combine the cohesion of the Community with the need for pro-innovation measures. However, without specific solutions, innovation in general, and the ambitious challenges of the Lisbon Strategy in particular, will only exist on paper. Good examples of this are the results produced by individual countries in terms of their implementation of the Lisbon Strategy. It should be noted that, today, the USA is not the EU’s only economic rival, and that countries such as China, India and others are also taking their place on the starting block.

The effects of introducing the principle of innovation will only be visible after many years, and many of us may no longer be here in this House. Other decision-makers will reap the benefits of what may be a successful policy, which is why decisions made in this field should be far-sighted. This is something that citizens expect of us.

- Motion for a resolution: RC-B6-0189/2007

  Françoise Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when labour law is the subject of debate in the European Parliament, and 13 years after the adoption of the Directive on European Works Councils, the adoption of this resolution constitutes an essential precondition.

As a French member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, there is an urgent need, in my view, to put an end to the inconsistencies and contradictions between the various European texts relating to information and consultation of workers, in order to prevent abuses by dishonest companies.

If employees are no longer to be held hostage by rampant restructuring projects, they must be allowed genuinely to make their presence felt in the decision-making process within the management boards of companies. Companies must be made to act responsibly and to apply the existing directives, or be punished.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) There are directives in existence on the worker’s right to information and consultation and on the European Works Councils, which provide for some information to be provided to workers, specifically as regards the development of companies’ economic and social aspects and decisions leading to substantial change in terms of the organisation of work or work contracts. The harsh reality, however, is that these directives are either simply not complied with or, when they are, they often fail to guarantee workers’ rights – for example to employment – in the never-ending processes of relocations, restructuring, mergers and closures of companies, which have serious economic and social consequences.

We have long advocated the need to ensure that workers are kept fully informed and that workers’ organisations are involved in the important decisions at such times. This would improve the right to information and offer genuine participation in decision-making, including the right to veto, the possibility of annulling decisions to close companies and the right to halt redundancies.

Also needed are measures such as making Community aid conditional on investment and on companies complying with contractual conditions that guarantee stable, lasting employment and sustainable economic development. It is also essential that we reject ‘flexicurity’ and liberalisations.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. The need for action on better information and consultation for workers is urgently required. There is a need to review and to modernise current legislation as well as ensuring that Member States are properly implementing current information and consultation rules. The additional point reminding the Commission of the need for a coherent industrial policy and of the role social partners have to play should be noted.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. (NL) Today, a large majority in this House approved a resolution that pleads in favour of new legislation in the area of information and consultation of employees. Unfortunately, the current directive has not even been transposed in my country. The Belgian Government has, for a long time, failed to do this and this has, in fact, recently earned it the condemnation of the European Court of Justice. When the Commission tabled this proposal in 1999, it soon transpired that the issue was a politically sensitive one. Despite this, it boils down to the simple requirement that all employees be, by means of suitable representation and an appropriate institution, informed and consulted about their company’s activities. This is in the interest of both employees and businesses themselves. The instruments that are used to bring about this economic democracy and involvement can, of course, vary according to the size of business. It goes without saying that an SME should not be treated in the same way as a multi-national. The detail of the way in which the dialogue between employers and employees should be conducted, is, moreover, a matter for the social partners to decide on, and the resolution on which we voted today does, in fact, give them considerable responsibility in that regard. I set great store by this.

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

10. Request for the defence of parliamentary immunity: see Minutes

11. Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

12. Dates for next sittings: see Minutes

13. Adjournment of the session

  President. I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 12.35 p.m.)