Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 19 June 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR POETTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

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

4. The situation in Palestine (debate)

  President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have all been deeply moved and disturbed by the terrible events and tragic occurrences in the Gaza Strip over the last few days. As you know, I chose to make the Middle East the destination for my first official trip outside the European Union and visited the region. My meeting with Mr Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, was originally scheduled to take place in Ramallah, but, because of increasing hostilities between Fatah and Hamas, he asked me to visit him at his official residence in Gaza, where he was trying to mediate between the opposing factions, and that is what I did. It was exactly three weeks ago that I was having talks with President Abbas in Gaza, when I was impressed by the calm determination with which he explained his convictions to me, yet, once outside his official apartments, I could feel the tension in the air.

My recommendation to you, Members of this House, is that you condemn the Hamas militias’ violent attacks on the legitimate security forces and the institutions of the Palestinian Authority in the strongest terms, and it is out of the deepest conviction that I recommend that you express our support for President Abbas and our solidarity with him.

We support the Palestinian President’s decision to announce a state of emergency and appoint an emergency government in order to be able to resolve as soon as possible the political crisis in the Palestinian territories. The new prime minister, Mr Salam Fayyad, recently visited me in Brussels; we have great confidence in him and in his leadership qualities, and, should you mandate me to do so, I shall say so to him today.

The new government has a difficult task; it will need active assistance from the European Union and from the international community, and I should like to say, following on from the conclusions adopted at yesterday’s Council of Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg, that we in this House should act on our deepest convictions in supporting, in word and in deed, those who seek peace in the Middle East and are continuing to work for it.

Yesterday, at the opening of our plenary session, this House decided to defer voting on a resolution on the European Union’s Middle East policy until the July plenary sitting, and, given the continuing instability and the constantly changing situation in the region, I do believe that was the right decision to take.

That does not mean, however, that we have any intention of being passive observers of what is happening. The European Union – and that means this House too – must be in the advance guard of those working for a renewed relationship with the Palestinian people and those responsible for representing it.

We must shoulder our responsibility and act accordingly, doing everything in our power to get conditions throughout the Palestinian territories restored to those worthy of human beings; while we must support those who live there in meeting their most pressing human needs, we must also help to give them a real and long-term political perspective.

Yesterday’s Council of Foreign Ministers resolved to restore normal relations with the Palestinian Authority, and this is something we should welcome, together with the related decision to create the conditions needed in order to facilitate the resumption of efficient and transparent direct financial assistance and help with the development of functioning institutions. The mission under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, together with the police cooperation mission, are remaining in place, and, as a decision-making part of the EU’s budgetary authority, this House should firmly support that decision.

As well as taking these steps, though, we in this House should call on the Palestinians to return to the path of dialogue in order to achieve the reconciliation that is needed before there can be a Palestinian state covering the Palestinian territories as a whole. It cannot be in anyone’s interest that the civil war should become more widespread or go on for any longer.

It has to be said, though, that there can be no peace without Israel, which bears a great responsibility. When I paid a visit there – and especially when I addressed the Knesset – I made it quite clear that the European Parliament was and is calling on those in positions of political power in Israel to express their firm support for President Abbas.

With that in mind, I would like, now, to reiterate my call for Israel to release to President Abbas the Palestinian customs duties and taxes – amounting to some USD 800 million – that it has been withholding for several months now. The Israeli Government has declared itself willing to do that, and should now actually do so with the minimum possible delay. The European Union must be an honest broker, and I see the European Parliament’s role as being to play a responsible part in this.

The peoples of Israel and Palestine are equal in dignity; they are entitled to live within secure borders. May the day come when Palestinians can live at peace with Palestinians and Palestinians with Israelis; a policy of reconciliation and mutual understanding along these lines may, today, appear to be a long way in the distance, but we in this House, being the representatives of the people of Europe, must support it as a matter of conviction and out of a sense of our own responsibility.

(Applause)

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that our Parliament was right to alter the agenda in order to deal with the Middle East situation. Unfortunately, I am very doubtful as to whether our debate will help in the quest for a solution to the conflict, but we clearly had to hold it all the same.

Just a few days ago in Brussels we held a debate on the situation in the Middle East with the High representative and Commissioner Ferrero in which we recognised the fortieth anniversary of the Six Day War, during which Israel invaded Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Today, 40 years later, we must accept that the situation is still in deadlock – as the French press reminded us yesterday – that it has not been possible to create a Palestinian State and that, unfortunately, there are effectively two governments in conflict with each other. Furthermore, there is an extremely serious political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis.

You were asking, Mr President, what the international community in general, and the European Union in particular, can do, and what we clearly have to do, firstly, is support Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate government of Salam Fayas, the destiny of which is not just to be the government of the West Bank, but also of Gaza.

We must also lift the international blockade – as you also pointed out, Mr President – imposed on Palestine since Hamas won the elections. We must therefore welcome the decision taken yesterday by the General Affairs Council to restore direct aid to the Palestinian National Authority, and we hope that the meeting that is to be held today in Washington between the President of the United States and the Israeli Prime Minister will take us in the same direction. It is also time, Mr President, for Israel to transfer the sums owed to Palestine in customs duties.

While these are all necessary conditions, however, Mr President, they are clearly not sufficient, since we all know that the situation in Gaza is still one of violence and that, in reality, in the difficult equation of war and peace, progress can only be made in the Middle East through the renunciation of violence as a means of political action, through the recognition of the State of Israel and through any actions, such as the release of the British journalist Alan Johnston, that may contribute to the objective of peace.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are all political men and women in this House, and we are perfectly aware that the highest of the political values is unity and that, without unity, it will not be possible to realise the dream of a viable Palestinian State living in peace with its neighbours.

Mr President, as you have pointed out quite rightly, it is time for the guns to fall silent so that dialogue can prevail and peace can be consolidated, and it falls to the European Union, together with other players such as the United Nations or the Arab League or other members of the Quartet, to mobilise all of its efforts in order to contribute, intelligently and generously, in a manner that is consistent with its tradition and it values and, from the point of view of humanitarian aid, naturally, to a fair and lasting peace in the Middle East.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although we have to regard the events of the past few days as representing a nadir in the development of the region, I would see it also as representing a nadir in our own – the European Union’s – role in its dealings with the Middle East. Yesterday, the Council of Foreign Ministers decided to resume sending aid. Why, though, did they wait to do that until after civil order had broken down?

(Applause)

You, Mr President, have just called for the payment of direct aid to Mahmud Abbas. I would ask whether it might be the case that it is too late for that. Is it not perhaps possible that the disintegration of civil order in the Gaza Strip – which is what is happening now – might have been prevented if the aid had been sent earlier on, and if we had not imposed on ourselves, as a matter of strategy, the rule that there were to be no talks with Hamas?

(Applause)

I do not myself know the answer to that question, and we are certainly not in a position to say that things would have worked out better if we had acted differently, but it is a question that we must at least be allowed to ask.

Is it not also the case that we – that is to say, the European Union and the community of Western states – are now, once again, seeing that there is a process at work, whereby a people elects a government that we do not like the look of; we are happy with the elections – which our electoral observers confirm were unobjectionably conducted – but not with the result that emerged from them, and so we come to the conclusion that what is needed is a blockade, and a complete one at that. Why was it that we did not actually talk to those members of the government of national unity who are not members of Hamas? There were many members of the government who were not members of Hamas, or of Fatah either. The forces with whom we find ourselves talking may not, for the moment, be to our liking, but dialogue is nevertheless the only way to reach peaceful solutions.

I can remember – as you all can – how, when I was a young man, Yasser Arafat was seen as the world’s number one terrorist; the man was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I was in favour of engaging in dialogue with him. History has shown that it was dialogue that provided a way out of violence. Today, Fatah is regarded as one of our partners; it was once seen as the terrorist organisation par excellence. That is why we have to learn from our own mistakes.

If we consider things as they actually stand, then there is only one way we can go – that is what I still believe, that is what my group still believes, that is what the social democratic family of parties still believes – and it is that we have to try to get all the stakeholding forces and all the interested parties around one table. Anyone who talks to Syria is treated as an outcast, yet we ourselves know that the time will come and is not far off when there will be negotiations between it and Israel. Preparations for them are already in hand. We know that the Israeli Government, over the past year, has tried to establish contact with Syria. Let us be a bit more honest and say, yes, it goes without saying that Syria should have a place at the conference table, particularly if you want to have some influence over Hamas.

There is surely no point in only looking back at the past. We have to provide whatever direct aid we now can. I do not know whether there is any chance of exerting some influence in the Gaza Strip, but, if there is, what this aid needs to be used for above all else is the creation of a state infrastructure, with support for the security forces who are actually making things safe rather than bringing insecurity, but most of all – and this is something about which not enough has been said in the debates over recent days – we in the European Union have to ensure that humanitarian aid is provided, for what we are now seeing happening is, among other things, a people who are already in need having – and not for the first time – yet more misery inflicted on them by radicalised armed forces on the fringes of society. The people who really suffer are the ordinary people who have no water supply, no electricity, no medical care, and cannot send their children to school, and it is only as and when we are able to deal with those things that we will get people to want Israel to have the security that it needs in order to be able to live in peace, for one thing that is plain to see is that it will not be able to live in greater security if people become even more radicalised and civil war breaks out. That will make only for even more instability. The fundamental precondition for social security is always that we can extend it and thereby create in a given region greater willingness to make peace. That is what the European Union’s main task must be, rather than the sending of European troops, which is what I have heard advocated by not a few representatives of this Union of ours over the past few days. It is not conceivable that, for political reasons, there should be no money available to send humanitarian aid, but that the funds are there when it comes to sending troops. That it is, in any case, not our way of doing things. I hope that it will prove possible to resume the dialogue in the Middle East.

(Applause from the left)

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, as Mr Schulz said, there can be no justification for the actions of Hamas militants, however badly the Palestinians have been treated.

And yet, if one year ago the international community had not reneged on its commitment to democracy in Palestine, if we had not refused dialogue with Hamas moderates and suspended direct aid payments to a freely elected government, the situation would not be as bad as it is today.

Financial sanctions designed to force recognition of Israel or to push Hamas out of power altogether have simply made the Palestinians more desperate and prospects for peace more precarious.

A two-state Palestine is emerging, riddled by violence, sectarianism and fear, while a two-state solution to the conflict is moving further away.

Liberals and Democrats are disappointed – though not surprised – by what has come to pass. A year ago, we warned that Palestinian suffering would lead to greater extremism, particularly in Gaza’s prison conditions, where 1.4 million citizens have been systematically sealed-off and starved of their basic necessities.

Last week’s violent takeover of Gaza bespoke a lack of respect for the rule of law, which is a de minimis requirement for any legitimate government.

If Hamas is not careful, it will have betrayed its cause and, in the words of Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, ‘put the last nail in the coffin’ of the dream of a Palestinian state.

Unless we want civil war to triumph over unity, all sides must face the facts: their refusal of dialogue has got them nowhere.

A heavy dose of pragmatism is now required – not condemnation, not sanctions, and certainly not a refusal to negotiate. That is the coward’s option and one which will backfire. To that end, my Group welcomes Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s determination to restore security and President Abbas’s commitment to dialogue. We welcome resumption of direct aid to the Palestinian Authority and the prospective release of up to USD 800 million in Palestinian tax revenues by the Israeli Administration.

However, we caution against supporting the West Bank administration at the expense of Gaza. If you consider the strip a ‘terrorist entity’ – as Israeli officials have called it – you will not bring the region any closer to peace, you simply create more insecurity as a desperate people, deprived of food and other essentials, decides it has nothing left to lose.

Hamas control of Gaza was the nightmare that became reality. However, the European Union must not be prepared to take a back seat and watch as Iran becomes a player in the contest.

If this year has taught us nothing else, it is that politics – and politics alone – can create prospects for peace in the Middle East.

While Parliament, at least, kept talking, the Council and the Member States took to the sidelines. It is now up to the Council and our Member States to put democracy, human dignity and the rule of law back at the centre of proceedings and work to foster peace in the region.

(Applause)

  Brian Crowley, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, the most important thing we have to remember here today is the people’s lives that are affected by the new wave of violence in the Palestinian Territories. In particular, we must think of the women and children, whose suffering is not something that has occurred just because of the Hamas takeover in Gaza, or just because of a lack of negotiation between the Palestinian and the Israeli authorities, or just because of the cancellation of aid from the European Union and the US; their suffering goes back 30 years.

Anybody you speak to from the Palestinian area will tell you that it has always been the women and the children who have suffered most, but they have also been the most resilient in trying to find a way forward to challenge the failure to negotiate, the failure to respect and the failure to find a solution; indeed, the failure of both Israel and Palestine to live up to their commitments, to agreements that they voluntarily signed up to, the failure of the United States of America and the European Union to live up to their commitments with regard to clear and open negotiations, the failure of other states bordering Israel and Palestine to take a more proactive and positive role with regard to, ultimately, achieving a two-state solution, which must be based on viability and equality.

Colleagues will remember that, some weeks ago in the European Parliament building in Brussels, the President of Parliament invited a number of Nobel Prize winners to speak on the future of Europe and on areas and issues that they are concerned with. It is quite ironic that, when you read through the speeches of the people who were there that day, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, all of them said that the peace efforts they were involved in only came about through dialogue, respect for diversity, tolerance and equality. What we have seen in Palestine over the last 30 years has been a failure to meet any one of those four criteria.

When Yasser Arafat was the leader of the Palestinian people, Israel said it could not deal with him, it could not negotiate with him. When a new President was brought in, Israel said it could not deal with him, it could not negotiate with him and they were backed up all the time by the Americans and by certain Member States of the European Union. To think that what happened in Gaza with Hamas was an accident is to misread, even with the gift of hindsight, our own failures in the European Union and in the US to deal properly with the solutions that may be required.

Now we have been given a new opportunity to do something. Now we have been given a new opportunity to show courage in the face of death and disaster, to show humanity in the face of oppression and injustice, and to stand up and say what is right and what is correct: that we should give aid to the Palestinian people, we should insist that Israel negotiate with the democratically-elected representatives of the Palestinian people and we should back up the Palestinian Authorities to ensure that the rule of law applies throughout the Palestinian Territories.

(Applause)

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we can all agree that what we have heard today is an analysis. Mistakes have, without a doubt, been made by interested parties on every side, and when I say that we are paying bitterly for them now, by ‘we’ I mean above all else the Palestinians, but also – or so I believe – the Israelis and all those with an interest in this region having, for once, something to look forward to – not just a peaceful future, but any kind of future at all.

What can be done? That is the question I would like to focus on. For a start, the European Union must at last wake up and do something about the mistakes that have been made here, and the reason why it is the European Union that must act is that it is the only political entity in a position to act as a mediator; the Americans cannot do it – the war in Iraq makes that impossible – and nor can the Russians or any of the others.

Someone has to take the initiative in saying ‘yes’ – ‘yes’ to direct aid payments, ‘yes’ of course to support, ‘yes’ to contacts with Gaza and with Hamas in order to address the humanitarian problems in the Gaza Strip. That means not waiting for a declaration, but rather taking action and then getting a declaration – that is what is called for; it means going straight to the heart of the nation in the name of the European Union and carrying on straightaway with a European quintet – which is, in essence, what is being attempted even if it is not being called that – with a great big conference held in the region.

Mr Schulz is right to say that we have to talk to Syria and with everyone we want to – and, in any case, must – negotiate with about the Golan Heights and the borders of Lebanon, and that has to be done now. Why? Because that is the only chance that the region will have of renewed hope. It is renewed hope that makes political dialogue possible and not the other way round.

We are always being warned against giving any one side preferential treatment; nobody in this region is going to be given any. That is what we have to learn from all this. That means without a doubt that humanitarian aid for Gaza must be forthcoming; it is in nobody’s interest that the only humanitarian aid it gets should come from Iran, and if that happens, we will again shed tears and say that we did not want that. Well, if that is not what we want, let us prevent it, and if we want to prevent that from happening, we have to take action; that is what is needed, and right now.

What Israel has to come to understand is that a policy of occupation founded upon a wall that is perceived as an injustice will not bring peace, and it will not bring hope either; they have to get that into their heads once and for all. For them, getting out of a worst-case scenario must mean doing what they have not done before, that is to say negotiating with the new government in Palestine the demolition of the wall and the establishment of a secure boundary on the other side of it. That means that financial assistance, humanitarian aid and political initiative are called for, and if those things are not forthcoming, then, month after month, there will be weepings and lamentations when we meet here.

  Francis Wurtz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, in the face of the tragedy that is unfolding in the Palestinian territories, appeals for the violence to cease are completely ineffective if we refuse to see how this predictable catastrophe came into being.

This unprecedented explosion of violence is, firstly and above all, the product of those other acts of violence arising from 40 years of military occupation. It is the fruit of the impunity granted by the entire international community to the Israeli leaders, whoever they are and whatever they do, in utter disregard of international law. This violence is the price to be paid for the loss of all hope of a Palestinian State worthy of the name. What a heavy responsibility that is, then, for European leaders!

Europe, it is said, is the chief donor. All very well, but what is the point of giving aid if we allow the deadly poison of permanent humiliation to spread? The situation in Gaza grotesquely illustrates this, and the continuing isolation of Gaza could only push it to the extreme. What a responsibility to have ruined historic opportunities such as the Arab League peace plan since 2002, the success of the first democratic process in Palestine in 2006 or, more recently, the establishment of a last-chance national unity government, all by aligning ourselves with the deadly strategy of the White House!

There are a certain number of us here, who raised cries of alarm time after time. The most recent being an appeal by more than 100 Members of the European Parliament to put an end to a policy that, through government boycotts and the withdrawal of direct aid, nurtures the despair of a nation on the point of imploding. We were answered with reassuring words about the intentions of the Quartet, that illusion manipulated by the Bush administration to cover up its non-intervention.

Here, however, we have the UN special envoy to the Middle East delivering, in person, a clear indictment of all those, Europeans included, who practise what he calls ‘self-censorship’ with regard to the occupier and whose recent decisions to boycott and to freeze aid have had, he insists, devastating consequences. This historic failure and this repudiation on the part of the chief UN representative in the region call for a special debate at the highest level. From now on, if we no longer wish to make ourselves party to a new Iraq, we must demand, as a matter of utmost urgency, fundamental strategic revisions underpinned by the international law that should have been imposed on everyone for the last 40 years. History will be our judge.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, last week, the so-called Palestinian Fatah-Hamas unity government came to a violent end. As a result, this House is facing two Palestinian cabinets that deny each other’s right to exist.

Meanwhile, the Council and Commission have clearly opted in favour of the Salam Fayyad crisis cabinet on the West Bank. I should like to back this position all the way, because unlike the Fatah movement under the aegis of Mahmoud Abbas, the Hamas leaders persist in the denial of Israel’s right to exist within and outside the Gaza Strip. On purely religious grounds, Hamas has turned against a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an issue, the religious foundations of Hamas, which Mr Schulz ought to read up on some time.

Given the permanent policy of regional destabilisation pursued by Damascus and Tehran, I can see how this destructive position adopted by Hamas is actively being fuelled by the Islamic republic and Syria. The fact, however, that certain MEPs and even groups in our House wish to trust as an equal interlocutor and pander to Hamas, which is after all Israel’s arch enemy, totally baffles me. Even to this day.

Does this mean that the two-state political solution has become nothing but absurd hypocrisy in this House? Meanwhile, I warmly wish the Palestinian people a selfless leadership that, internally, shows evidence of a powerful government and externally, genuinely seeks the modus vivendi with Israel. The newly appointed Fayyad emergency cabinet offers this opportunity. In order to put this into practice, I am counting on the helping, motivating and controlling hands of all the European institutions.

  Andreas Mölzer, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Gaza Strip is not a new Palestinian state; far from it, it is a prison, a prison in which people – Palestinians, the Palestinian people, and women, children and old people in particular – are obliged to live in barracks, shut away from the world.

The latest outbreak of violence, with the Hamas militias seizing power in the Gaza Strip, was of course made possible by wrongdoing on the part of European policymakers, American policymakers, Israeli policymakers and Fatah too. For it was Israeli politicians who refused the Palestinian Government its tax revenues and built a wall to keep the Palestinian people in their place; the Americans allowed that to happen and showed themselves incapable of forcing all the warring factions to sit down at a table together; and, finally, it was the Europeans, including us in this House, who were unable to give support to a democratically elected government, some of the elements in which we found uncongenial or disagreeable – and hence found ourselves denying support to the moderates and failing to encourage the growth, within Hamas and elsewhere, of those forces who could have been amenable to reason. It is they who are to blame for this state of affairs.

We know that, now Hamas has seized power, it is one of the four radical elements in the Middle East, together with Iran, Syria and Hizbollah. We also know that radical Islamism of the kind preached by Hamas is very dangerous, that the elements associated with it are the forces behind global Islamist terrorism, and – of course – that we Europeans must defend ourselves against it.

On the other hand, though, we have to stand up for the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, which means that they should elect as their government the people they want rather than the ones we want, because we are not in a position to pick and choose them. It follows, then, that we must not repeat our former mistakes; we have to talk to, and support, those Palestinian forces that enjoy majority popular support.

Important though the security of Israel is to Europe, the future prospects for the Palestinian people are no less so, and if we manage to give them hope for the future, we stand a chance of establishing peace in the Middle East in the longer term.

  President. The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) I have serious concerns over the current situation in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian authority is split. Notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, the joint government of the Fatah and Hamas movements was doomed to struggle, and it was only a matter of time until the tensions erupted into a bloody conflict. Hamas takes pride in the fact that, in their founding documents, the movement set for itself the goal of destroying Israel. Judging by the current behaviour of Hamas, we can conclude they have never given up their terrorist actions and way of thinking. How are we supposed to work on helping Palestinian citizens who live in refugee camps, have no jobs and live in wretched living conditions, if the same Palestinians elect a movement which subscribes to terrorism and aims to destroy their neighbour, Israel? How are we supposed to work on implementing the Oslo accords and the establishment of two equal states, Palestine and Israel, when one of the participants dreams of wiping out, through war and terrorism, the very existence of its neighbour with whom it should peacefully coexist?

As a member of the political section of Euromed, I call on Parliament to condemn all forms of terrorism in Palestine and any alliances with Hezbollah terrorists. The European Union must support the peace process in both Palestine and Israel. Last but not least, the EU humanitarian assistance there should not, via non-transparent means, end up in the hands of terrorist organisations.

5. Crisis at Equitable Life – Report by the temporary committee of inquiry (debate)

  President. The next item is the joint debate on

– the report (A6-0203/2007) by Mrs Wallis on behalf of the Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society on the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006/2199(INI) and

– the draft recommendation (B6-0199/2007) submitted by Mrs Wallis on behalf of the Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, on the report by the Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society.

  Diana Wallis (ALDE), rapporteur. – Mr President, for us and for my fellow members of this committee of inquiry, an 18-month journey comes to an end today. This document can leave my desk and come to your desk, Commissioner.

Last week, in preparing for today, I was asked by a journalist whether I would buy a financial services product cross-border. That rather set me thinking, because I hesitated in my answer. I said, ‘Well, perhaps I know too much’. I know too much as a result of this inquiry and it makes me somewhat concerned – indeed, more than somewhat concerned. Would I even, after this, buy a financial services product at home, in my country, the UK, where all this occurred? And that is a financial centre that is meant to be among the best in the European Union.

This whole issue of the sad crisis of Equitable Life goes very much to the heart of the issue of consumer confidence in our internal market. It goes to the heart of the issue of whether we will have confidence as European citizens to save for the future, for our pensions and other investments. If we, as legislators, cannot get the regulatory regime right for the internal market, then we are storing up huge problems for the future.

So, what happened here with Equitable Life? One and a half million policyholders from 15 Member States were victims of the crisis at Equitable Life. This is truly a crisis on a European scale and one that also has to be dealt with at a European level. I think we all understand and appreciate the importance of financial services companies – and indeed other companies – being able to trade and do business across the European Union on the basis of what is sometimes called home/host country of control, or country of origin control. But if we are going to do this – and it is clear that we are – we have to be absolutely crystal clear who is responsible for what. It certainly was not clear in this particular case.

A few weeks ago, Commissioner, I was involved in a conciliation where we spent several hours on another piece of legislation known as Rome II, trying to get right the relationship between country of origin and other Community instruments. But this is not just a semantic or a drafting exercise for us. Somebody said to me at the end of the process, ‘Well, every side can read into this what they would like’. That should not be the case. We have got to be clear where responsibility lies, for the sake of the people whose lives are affected by this.

What I and my colleagues saw in this Equitable Life case were victims, say in Germany or Ireland, going to the regulators in their countries and the regulator there saying, ‘Sorry, not us, not our responsibility’. Then those victims wended their way to the UK regulator, who said, ‘Sorry, not me, you are not my problem’. That must reveal either a fault in our primary legislation or a fault in the way it has been implemented in the UK or other Member States. We have got to sort this out. We have got to have clarity in the future as to who is responsible for our citizens who end up suffering at the end of this.

So, we found that there was failure in the UK regulatory regime combined with a lack of clarity about home/host problems, perhaps; about being too deferential to a financial institution which had existed for hundreds of years; about a regulatory regime that was, perhaps, in the general parlance, too ‘light touch’. We know that we cannot eliminate all risk but we can certainly do better.

We have opened up the market, but let us be clear: no mobility without liability. There has to be this balance. There has to be the protective side. And what have we put there, on the protective side? We have a European group of regulators, CEIOPS, who meet. It is getting better but it is a kind of voluntary meeting or early-warning system. It is not the hard black-letter law that allows the entry into the market. So, we know that cross-border cooperation is getting better, but we believe that there is still more that can be done and that, when they look at this in renewing the Siena Protocol, they can do better.

Then, of course, we are meant to have systems of alternative dispute resolution to help our citizens when things go wrong. I am a great fan of ADR, but, frankly, what we have put in place, up against an open market, is pathetic. The Irish and the UK systems are meant to be the best! I do not doubt that they are, but it worries me about what happens in other Member States. Let us get FIN-NET, the network of ADR in financial services, working properly in every Member State so that our citizens can be assured that there is something there to help them when things go wrong.

Where is the coherent system of cross-border access to justice in the EU? Well, it might be there for those with deep pockets to understand the complexities of what goes on, but we feel that in order to answer this, you need to allow citizens to act collectively, cross-border and that we need a mechanism to do this. I know many people get scared about this, but it was quite clear to us that at the moment there is inequality of outcome and lack of access to justice cross-border. We must do better.

The petitioners in this case who came to us originally were persistent, patient, dogged. They did not give up, although they knew that they were taking on the UK state. Indeed, at first the Commission told us that nothing could be done here. But we have learnt a great deal in this journey about the implementation process. In the future, it must be much more proactive, not just about checklists and tick boxes. We know it is getting better. The quality of our legislation must be more transparent. We must have citizens’ summaries, so that citizens can understand what is about, and correlation tables so that we know where our legislation has gone in the Member States. Better implementation means a proactive Commission combined with a watchful Parliament.

I would like to thank all my colleagues and the Secretariat who have worked together with us on this report. We have had a once in a lifetime opportunity as parliamentarians. I believe this report will assist the victims in a pincer movement with the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman, perhaps finally to deliver compensation. More importantly, I hope it will deliver a huge jolt to our institutions about our lawmaking processes and the European system of justice.

Commissioner, this is now yours – but not just yours, I hope. It is also for the Commissioner for Justice and the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. We are waiting for your answers.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the crisis and virtual collapse of the Equitable Life Assurance Society in 2000 was a tragedy for many hundreds of thousands of policyholders, pensioners and annuitants, not only in the United Kingdom but also in other EU Member States where Equitable Life was active. Many have suffered serious financial loss and much anguish.

Equitable Life was said to be the world’s oldest mutual life assurance undertaking, dating back to 1762. It enjoyed a very high reputation. How could such an illustrious insurer run into such serious difficulties? What conclusions should be drawn for the EU insurance single market and for the internal market as a whole?

The report by Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry, which is before you today, is a very valuable aid for answering those questions. I would like to pay very sincere tribute to the exemplary work carried out by the Committee of Inquiry. The Chairwoman of the Committee, Mrs McGuinness, and the rapporteur, Mrs Wallis, deserve the highest praise. The Committee worked hard to find the truth and give all concerned, the victims, the regulators, academics and the Commission, a chance to make their views known.

The report concerns the supervision of Equitable Life. It also highlights that the way in which transposition and implementation checks were carried out in the mid-1990s was, in retrospect, insufficient. The Committee finds that the Commission could have done more to make sure that the EU insurance rules were properly implemented and applied. I do not contest the report’s finding.

However, the report is fair in recognising that was the way things were done in those days. At that time, the Commission did its best with the means at its disposal. I also note with satisfaction the report’s agreement that the Commission is not and cannot be the regulator of the regulators.

For me, it is most noteworthy and positive that the report’s main concern is to look forward to the future rather than back to the past. So, how can we improve the situation and prevent another Equitable Life affair in the future?

The report makes 47 recommendations. Some are addressed to the United Kingdom Government, some to the Commission and others to all Community institutions. They cover transposition and the regulatory system, remedies, the role of the Commission and the role of committees of inquiry.

These are all carefully considered recommendations, which merit very serious examination. I can assure Parliament that the Commission will give most serious consideration to all recommendations addressed to it. We will, in accordance with normal procedures, give a response to Parliament in writing.

Permit me just to say a few words as regards the insurance sector, which is at the heart of the Equitable Life affair. In July I intend to present our Solvency II proposal to the College of Commissioners. It will reform comprehensively and update insurance supervision and regulation in the European Union. A key element of this project is the aim of linking the capital requirements for insurance undertakings much more closely to their precise risk profile. This will not be a zero-failure regime but will, I believe, make a collapse, such as that of Equitable Life, much more unlikely in the future.

The report also addresses the wider issue of how to ensure that Community law is correctly applied and how transposition is monitored. The Commission will shortly be setting out ideas on how to improve the application of Community law. Your recommendations provide very valuable ideas in this respect.

Let me once again thank Parliament and the Committee of Inquiry for its work on this sad affair and record the Commission’s commitment to making sure that the necessary lessons are learned at EU level.

  Robert Atkins, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, in 2004 the Committee on Petitions received two petitions on behalf of policyholders of Equitable Life throughout the EU. At my behest and with the support of many colleagues across the political spectrum, Parliament set up an enquiry into Equitable Life under the distinguished chairmanship of my honourable friend, Mrs McGuiness. We heard from some of the thousands who suffered financial and emotional stress in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and many other countries. We questioned officials, advisers, journalists and even – unsatisfactorily – the Chief Executive, but representatives of the British regulators and the British Government were conspicuous by their absence.

We discovered the incorrect implementation of EU law by the UK Government; structural weaknesses within, and failure to communicate between, the UK and other Member States’ financial regulatory systems; the failure of the European Commission to monitor adequately the implementation of EU law by individual Member States; the dubious actions of the staff and senior management of Equitable Life; the ineffectiveness of the financial redress system available to victims; and dereliction of duty and the failure to respect policyholders’ reasonable expectations by those regulators.

We made a number of recommendations, which, as the Commissioner said, amount to some 47. Chief amongst them is the belief that the transposition of the Third Life Directive was inadequate and, therefore, action needs to be taken in that respect. We need to ensure that citizens of the EU have redress for grievances throughout the EU, not just in the country in which the company is based.

But, above all, I demand, and my colleagues in the Conservative Party demand, that the British Government make recompense to those policyholders who have suffered because of the failure of the regulatory system and of the ministers involved.

  Proinsias De Rossa, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, first of all I welcome the Commissioner’s endorsement of this report. I think it is an important step on the long road which policyholders have travelled in terms of trying to find a solution to their difficulties.

I want to thank the rapporteur and the chairwoman for their work, and the Committee staff and members, who worked carefully to analyse the Equitable Life affair and to draw conclusions and issue recommendations. Perhaps even more importantly, they looked at how better to protect European citizens in a single-market environment.

This important and reasoned report concerns the plight of 1.5 million European citizens who had invested for their pensions in Equitable Life, one of Europe’s oldest and most respected and trusted mutual life assurance companies. Hundreds of thousands of people have suffered real hardship because of the failure of national regulation in the UK and in other countries where Equitable Life operated.

The Socialist Group supports this report, but not everyone is equally happy with our committee’s findings, as will become clear from some of the contributions here this morning.

Some argue that the criticism of the UK Government is overstated and that insufficient credit is given to the progress made since this crisis emerged. Be that as it may, the overwhelming value of this report is that Europe’s citizens know that they can come to this Parliament and have their case heard, and we have learned as a result of listening to them how we can better defend citizens’ rights to fair play in a single market.

There can be no doubt that the UK’s so-called ‘light touch’ regulatory approach encouraged the company to oversell over an extended period, thereby undermining its solvency, which led, in large part, to this disaster. No amount of special pleading or niggling over detail can hide that stark fact. It is equally clear that the company management bears an enormous burden for its irresponsible actions.

Bearing this in mind, it is legitimate that Parliament should call on the UK authorities to examine the possibility of providing recompense to those who have in some cases lost their life savings.

It is equally clear that the Commission has neither the will nor the resources to ensure the proper transposition of EU law, nor to follow up on its application in the real world of business. In addition to this, we have found that the Third Life Directive itself has serious deficiencies which need to be addressed.

I would like to refer to the situation of the 8000 or so Irish policyholders, many of whom lost substantial sums. Their difficulty in obtaining redress was twofold. They were led to believe that they were investing in a so-called Irish fund, which, they discovered, was non-existent. They also discovered that the Irish regulator took no interest whatsoever in the operation of Equitable Life before the crisis and had negligently failed to avail of the option under the Third Life Directive to implement conduct of business rules. This effectively left policyholders at the mercy of a UK regulator who denied any responsibility for non-UK policyholders.

I also want to draw attention to the 70 or so conclusions, recommendations and remedies contained in this report, which are the distillation of what we found. While national regulation has improved, there remain large gaps on how we ensure that financial services are passported to operate outside their country of origin.

For this reason, I want to conclude by drawing attention to the proposal for collective litigation by consumers in national courts. This would make it possible for people who do not have millionaire bank accounts to seek justice in the courts. Collective actions in national courts against transnational companies or national regulators are essential if the principle of ‘no mobility without liability’ is to have any real substance.

  Sharon Bowles, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I have followed this matter for many years due to my long association with Aylesbury, the headquarters town of Equitable Life, which was affected through job losses, as well as having many policyholders. Therefore, I am very glad that this Parliament has examined the circumstances surrounding the demise of Equitable Life and I hope that our conclusions give some comfort to policyholders in that many of their suspicions and allegations appear well founded.

I am grateful to the frankness of some – unfortunately not all – of our witnesses. Some of the evidence we have taken is astonishing and an eye-opener for the future. Perhaps we had suspected so, but is it enough that the Commission’s check on implementation of directives is just a tick-box exercise? I am glad that it is acknowledged now that it is not enough.

We were told frequently – and in many respects I can agree – that the supervisory environment is already very changed and will become more so with the Solvency II Directive. However, we also heard that it is not certain that all supervisors are immune to bullying, which was an issue in this case. As the Commissioner has said, Solvency II is not a zero-failure regime, nor is it intended to be.

However, it is clear from this inquiry that consumers and policyholders expect their investments to be safe and for there to be accountability and liability when something goes wrong. Any less than that and it is a futile wish to see growth in the uptake of personal pensions.

So, whatever the risk of failure, this means we cannot duck the issue of compensation, and while it may not be appropriate to make Solvency II into a Christmas tree with baubles for everything, it is certainly necessary to have parallel work under way on compensation mechanisms.

Alongside that, we have the shameful hiding of facts because of the changes in the UK’s supervisory regime from DTI to Treasury to the FSA, and now we have a so-called independent FSA without liability for negligence. Looking forward, that has implications for the supervised businesses, as well as for policyholders, and it requires attention. Maybe all the more so, as changes push other supervisory structures in other countries towards the FSA model and this links us back again and into wider issues of compensation.

So, looking to the future, we must take very seriously, in its widest interpretation, paragraph 14 of the remedies that states: ‘There should always be a fully liable chain of responsibility for regulation. The chain of accountability should not be broken including when there is reform of regulatory procedures/bodies’.

  Seán Ó Neachtain, thar ceann an Ghrúpa UEN. – A Uachtaráin, ba mhaith liom ar dtús buíochas a ghabháil leis an tuairisceoir Diana Wallis as ucht an tuairisc seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Ar ndóigh, táimid ar fad anois ar an eolas faoi an 1.5 milliún duine as Ballstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh, 8 000 Éireannach ina measc, a chaill go leor airgid nuair a thit luach na bpinsean agus na gcláracha infheistíochta a bhí á reachtáil ag an gComhlacht Árachais, Equitable Life.

Maíonn an tuairisc go leor laigíochtaí rialaithe sa chomhlacht, laigíochtaí a thabharfadh le fios ag pointe i bhfad níos luaithe ná mar a tuigeadh go raibh fadhbanna airgeadais ollmhóra ag Equitable Life. Tagaimse leis an teoiric sin.

Maíonn an coiste go mba chóir go n-iompródh Rialtas na Breataine an caillteanas mór airgid a d’fhulaing go leor den phobal. Aontaím go láidir leis an moladh atá sa tuairisc, gur chóir do Rialtas na Breataine scéim chúitimh a chur i bhfeidhm dóibh siúd a chaill airgead mór tré chliseadh Equitable Life. Ba chóir go gcinnteofaí go bhfaigheadh Breatanaigh chomh maith le daoine ó thíortha taobh amuigh den Bhreatain, cúiteamh as a gcaillteanas.

Ba chóir go gcuirfeadh Ballstáit an AE agus an Coimisiún Eorpach córas rabhaidh i bhfeidhm, a thabharfadh fadhbanna maidir le rialú comhlachtaí airgeadais le fios go luath.

Mar fhocal scoir, ba chóir go nglacfadh agus go gcuirfeadh Rialtas na Breataine le aon mholtaí a dhéanfadh Ombudsman Pharlaiminteach an Ríocht Aontaithe, maidir leis na polasuithe a dhíol, a urraigh agus a riaraigh Comhlacht Árachais Equitable Life.

  Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too want to extend particular thanks to the rapporteur, without whom this House would not have a comprehensive and precise inquiry report into the Equitable Life affair to take note of or be able to draw unambiguous and clear conclusions from it. It gives the 1.5 million insurance customers in the United Kingdom and in other European states new hope of financial compensation for the losses they have sustained. The conclusion is beyond doubt: it is that the United Kingdom was negligent in transposing the EU’s insurance directive, which applies in cases such as this, but the report goes on to criticise not only the structural deficiencies of Europe’s system of supervision and regulation, but also the German supervisory authorities’ failure to do enough to protect the interests of Germans who had insurance policies with Equitable Life.

Investors outside the UK in particular found themselves, when seeking legal remedies and demanding compensation, caught up in a veritable game of ping-pong between the authorities in the respective countries, none of which saw themselves as having responsibility for the matter. There were considerable problems – and not only in the United Kingdom – where financial supervision and the regulatory framework were concerned, and what is even more serious is that there were undoubted defects in the system for supervision and financial control, not to mention shocking problems in communication between the national supervisory authorities. This will have repercussions right across Europe, since the Equitable Life was able to offer its services in other EU Member States under the third life assurance directive, which was itself founded on the country of origin principle, of which we Greens have taken a critical view. That principle provides that a company’s financial health and the adequacy of its reserves should be monitored only by the authorities in the country in which that company’s registered office is situated.

The Equitable Life case is a textbook example how, if one takes out a policy with an insurance company whose registered office is in another European Member State, loopholes can occur as regards legal safeguards and financial supervision. It is not acceptable that consumers should have to suffer legal uncertainty of this kind in as sensitive an area as the cross-border market in financial services, which is constantly growing, and so I am glad that the committee of inquiry is making the specific demand for legislation to emerge from the work currently in progress, as part of the Solvency II project, on future equity capital requirements for insurers.

It also calls on the Commission to submit before the end of the year the planned legislative proposal on the introduction of guarantee funds for insurers in order to impose Europe-wide and binding requirements in respect of financial services, the creation of reserves for liabilities and guarantee schemes for domestic and foreign customers.

  Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, nobody comes out of this with any great honour, do they? But of course we are dealing yet again with the abandonment of the concept of caveat emptor. As a financial economist, I knew that Equitable Life was unsound in the middle of the 1990s, but it marketed its plans direct to the public with the sales line ‘there are no middle men’. Well, the middle men were the professionals, but the something-for-nothing culture came to the fore yet again.

What about the elephant in the room, the National Provident Institution? Same sort of problem, but they did not have the same number of lawyers and politicians who made up their client bank. So are we talking about a common regulatory policy like the common agricultural policy, or the common fisheries policy? Why do they not adopt our audit and accounting systems here? God help us! Taxpayers’ money for failed investment? This is a very slippery slope, ladies and gentlemen. Marconi shares? Institutional pension funds? Where does it end? Sometimes investments go wrong, and that’s life. It is sad, but we have to put up with it.

  Ashley Mote, on behalf of the ITS Group. – Mr President, this report says that the British Government should set up a compensation scheme for victims. A report in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper interpreted that as meaning that there would be full compensation – if only!

Throughout our committee’s investigations, we saw almost no party politics. It was a search for the facts, despite the refusal of key witnesses to face our questions. But then, towards the end, party politics inevitably kicked in and this report is a pale shadow of what it might have been. It has few teeth and it does not bite hard enough. The British Parliamentary Ombudsman has deliberately delayed her report on the same subject to trump this one, as the committee was warned would happen. Instead of directly helping victims, this one will be discredited and undermined by a deceitful ploy of the British Government that is afraid to face up to its obligations. This report should have categorically insisted on full compensation for all victims, regardless of their status. It should have called for the British Government to reimburse them for their hardship and the damages they have suffered. Above all, it should have demanded that the British Government implement such a scheme without equivocation and without delay. Tragically, it does none of these things.

Not much has emerged from the EU for the direct benefit of ordinary individuals in the UK, but this was just for once an opportunity to prove that the EU could be of real help to real people. It is well known that I am no supporter of British membership of this institution, but even I thought that this was a golden opportunity for the federalists to prove their worth. It was an open goal and they have missed it.

Over 30 years ago, when I was still scriptwriting for a living, a major life insurance company – not this one – asked me to write their entire training programme. Afterwards I was so appalled that I sold all my life policies. Thirty years on, it seems nothing has changed.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, this report and this debate are more relevant to the real concerns of many of our constituents than many debates held in this House. There are many individuals for whom the losses through the collapse of Equitable Life were quite devastating. Promised returns and anticipated comfortable retirements evaporated overnight, and to this day it is these individuals who remain the losers.

This report makes a number of pertinent points, but on its own it can do very little to ease the plight of those who have lost money. Perhaps that is no surprise, because the Committee of Inquiry was unable to compel witnesses to appear and thus it was never going to be able to do more than highlight the issues and, at best, perhaps help others in the future. Only the United Kingdom Government, through a compensation scheme, can bring meaningful relief to the policyholders, of whom there are many in my constituency.

I do not believe that more EU control over financial services or meddling in domestic legislation is the answer. Robust controls and supervision of the sector with paramount protection for investors are required, and that must come through national legislation and strict regulatory oversight.

Finally, I trust that the forthcoming report by the UK’s Parliamentary Ombudsman will grasp the issues and will resist the pressure that it is under to whitewash the Equitable Life scandal.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  President. I would like to take the opportunity to welcome a huge delegation of electors from Salerno, who are attending our part-session at the invitation of Mr Andria.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur Mrs Wallis for her dedicated work on Equitable Life, all the members of the committee, who worked really well together and left politics outside the door – perhaps not all the time but most of the time – and particularly the Secretariat, who are with us today, for their diligence.

I took on chairing this committee 18 months ago. It was a great honour to take on that job and I think that by listening you learn a lot. I am glad to hear from the Commissioner this morning that we are learning from our mistakes. I acknowledge his comments that he does not contest the findings of this report and I also welcome his plans for the future in terms of better regulation and application of EU law.

However, there are over a million people who will hear about this debate and who are directly affected by it. The one thing you would have to say is that this debate, and our work, have brought the work of the European Union closer to the citizen, because we have in our midst two of the original petitioners – Paul Braithwaite and Tom Lake – who came to the Committee of Inquiry. I welcome there here today. They have stuck with it. I worry, if they had not done so, where would we be? I reckon we would still be rubber-stamping and ticking boxes and nothing would have changed. Therefore, even if we do not succeed in compensation – although I stress we will try – they have done a great service not just to their own case but also to the general regulation of financial services.

What are our conclusions after 18 months of work? Well, that the UK was flawed in its implementation of the Third Life Directive. Yes, it ticked the boxes, but its day-to-day application was deficient and inadequate. It failed on a number of different issues, including challenging the dual role of the appointed actuary, focusing too narrowly on solvency margins and other very important issues. The whole light-touch regulatory policy, the disproportionate deference to the Equitable management – all of this pointed to lack of control and regulation.

Too often, we discovered that the home and host state authorities were able to shift responsibility from one to another, leaving non-UK policyholders in a vacuum. For example, the inquiry concluded that both Irish and German regulators pursued an unjustifiably passive approach in respect to Equitable. I find it particularly regrettable, as an Irish MEP, that no Irish authority assumes responsibility for the inadequate actions undertaken by the Irish regulator in relation to Equitable Life prior to 2003.

Then, when we look at redress mechanisms, when things went wrong, we discovered a pattern of confusion and much inequality of treatment, as already dealt with by my colleagues.

So, I turn to our recommendations. We never misled our petitioners and those who came to the committee and who listened to our work. We never promised compensation, but we strongly believe that the UK Government is under an obligation to assume responsibility for this affair and we recommend that it compensate Equitable Life policyholders within the UK, Ireland, Germany and elsewhere. In addition, the UK must accept and implement any recommendations of the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman that she may make in her second report on Equitable, which is eagerly awaited.

We need to tighten up on many issues around regulation. However, there is a question that needs to be asked following this debacle: if the cross-border dimension of consumer protection is not properly taken into account, can we blame consumers in the EU for not shopping more across borders? As to the question put to our rapporteur by a journalist of whether we would buy these products across borders, the answer is still not particularly clear.

We have the recommendations in front of us; we have this major report of almost 400 pages; the Commissioner is to take it on board and I appreciate that. I would ask this House to support this report and the recommendations fully and I thank you for your attention.

  Peter Skinner (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur and colleagues on the committee who have worked so assiduously on this case, as well as the petitioners who are present here.

I am the appointed rapporteur for the House on Solvency II. Some of these points, particularly on home/host supervision, will not be lost in this debate. In fact, as I am sure most people know, this is one of the things we are taking forward. There are also considerable changes to the laws and to the apparatus of financial supervision which have occurred during the time of the Equitable Life crisis. Indeed, the company still exists today. It was not a failure as was first suggested in the report, but only a crisis – a crisis enough, which actually affected a million people.

But, as everyone knows, there is still a process to continue, which of course means that British, Irish and German claimants will be able to look to the Ombudsman’s report – as somebody has already said – later this year. I hope the issue of compensation and other issues will be settled there, where they should be.

Unfortunately, there were some errors in this report and it is not to my great pleasure to have to point them out. Firstly, there was no compliance – or little compliance – by the British Government as regards the issues surrounding whether or not it should appear before the committee. Ministers attended the meetings they said they could, not, as the report suggested, maybe by avoiding them. I was there. I met the British Ministers at the same time as everybody else. They even supplied correspondence which was missing from other governments, which frankly, in my opinion, should have been taken into account. Thirdly, I totally disagree that the implementation of this particular directive was a failure, if you look at the process. If it was a failure, then perhaps Sir Robert Atkins can explain how that failure actually occurred, which was when he was in government.

I am afraid that this report is weak where it should be strong and could deliver, and strong where it is unable to deliver. For example in the area of supervision, where it could do something and where it will do something. I, as the rapporteur in Solvency II, promise that we will be doing something on the coordination of home/host supervision across Member States, so that victims will never be bandied about pillar to post by regulators. I look to the Commissioner to help me on that issue.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I certainly applaud the work of the Committee of Inquiry and Mrs Diane Wallis. As always, I welcome the petitioners who are here today, as well as Mr Braithwaite and Mr Lake. It is very nice to see you all.

I would like to say that today’s work is due to the successful efforts of both the Committee of Inquiry and, to a significant extent, the Committee on Petitions, as that is where this work began. The Committee of Inquiry was set up as a result of a report drawn up by the Committee on Petitions. The Committee on Petitions exists in order to assist ordinary citizens. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there has been a whole series of cases involving hundreds of thousands, or even millions of victims. There was the case of excise tax on cars in Poland and the Lloyds case, which was similar to the one being discussed today. I also remember the case of the reference to God in the preamble of the Constitutional Treaty. There was the matter of the COPE radio station, cases involving irregularities in land management laws in Valencia and today’s case which involves Equitable Life.

Millions of people turn to the Committee on Petitions. Their cases are either successfully resolved here or at least gain public exposure.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like, of course, first of all to welcome the excellent report prepared by Mrs Wallis, under the firm authority of Mrs McGuinness.

The investigations by the Committee of Inquiry on the crisis of the Equitable Life assurance society have brought to light the harmful consequences of incomplete implementation of European legislation, which was itself insufficiently precise. Policyholders must therefore be compensated for their losses, and procedural obstacles to their compensation must be removed.

I agree, therefore, with the report’s conclusions, whereby the British Government is enjoined to assume its responsibilities and devise an appropriate system for compensating the policyholders of Equitable Life in the United Kingdom and abroad.

This dismal affair must prompt us to improve insurance legislation so that the consumer retains confidence in insurance products and, more generally, in financial services. Parliament will be able to play its part in protecting investors during the debates on Solvency II. This directive, which will deal with the prudential rules applicable to the insurance sector, must, to this end, put in place early-warning systems for national regulators and for the European regulatory body for insurance.

In this kind of directive, Parliament, the Council and the Commission must, as the report recommends, make as little use as possible of the options of exception or derogation or even, if they can, refrain from using them altogether. For their part, the Member States must avoid imposing additional national requirements when transposing Community law and so avoid ending up with excess regulation.

The transposition of directives, in the field of insurance as in other fields, should also be better monitored. This means that the Commission must be proactive with regard to monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the transposed legislation. Furthermore, closer collaboration between the European Parliament and the national parliaments would be a real factor for progress in this respect.

  Harald Ettl (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, one may well spend a lot more time discussing the point of this sort of report or of this sort of committee of inquiry, but whatever emerges from the exercise will not help to make good the losses sustained by the consumers, and it will also tend too much to give the impression that, as a consequence of the report, the Commission and the government responsible can be asked to foot the bill. We can learn a number of lessons from all this about how things could be done better when subject to better regulation and monitoring.

The insurance company itself – which is in fact the sole cause of the damage and the predominant characteristic of whose business practices was obfuscation – is touched on almost only peripherally. Commissioner McCreevy nevertheless went so far as to tell the committee that this was the free market economy that we were talking about, and if the consequence of that attitude is that people think they can leave provision for the twilight of their lives to a market as uncontrollable as that, then our sense of common political responsibility is in a damned poor state, and I say that with reference to the legislator, to the Commission’s failure to implement controls and to the sloppy transposition of the regulations by the government in question equally. If there is any point to this report, it is that we, together with the Council and the Commission, must put in place accompanying and monitoring legislation – and I say this as the person responsible for ‘Solvency I’ – that will enable consumers to plan for the latter years of their lives with greater confidence and safety.

It is above all for this reason that I am voting in favour of a report that will send out a signal, believing as I do that it will also make the so-called free-marketeers more willing to learn from Europe as a whole and that we therefore have to take the necessary actions.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the report and recommendations we are discussing today concern the very specific problem of the crisis faced by Equitable Life. And in this specific matter, there is clearly no doubt that the British Government has not fulfilled the requirements of the third directive on life insurance, nor has it ensured the appropriate legal appeal measures. As a result, the committee of inquiry judges the British Government to be at fault in this case.

However, we must remember that the Equitable Life crisis affected a strong, extremely respected company. This crisis could, therefore, affect any other company, not necessarily in the insurance sector, in nearly any Member State. Therefore, the European Commission’s current evaluation of the Member States’ capability to implement and apply European Union legislation is, in my opinion, insufficient.

I wholly agree with the conclusions of the committee of inquiry, namely that the European Commission should pay more attention to the quality of legal provisions at a European Union level and at the level of the Member States. A formalist and statistical approach to monitoring the transposition of Community law is already seriously inadequate. The European Commission’s recommendations to Member States are based on the assumption that European Union legislation will be effectively implemented when there are enough sufficiently qualified employees available and once the appropriate resources have been assigned for this purpose.

I do not entirely share this view. Staff numbers and the amount of resources at our disposal are not a comprehensive yardstick. We need to be determined and actively involved in the implementation of European Union legislation. These actions will only be credible if countries delegate the implementation of Union legislation to authorised, competent and responsible institutions whose effectiveness will be assessed. The correct handling of the challenges facing the Member States requires three factors: knowledge, competence and readiness.

The first factor, namely knowledge, is not a problem today. The second factor, namely the ability to implement the acquis communautaire, is based on allocating suitable resources for the purpose and hiring the right staff. This is what the Commission is currently stressing the most. However, the third factor, namely preparedness, is the most important.

  Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) The Wallis report on the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society represents an opportunity to clarify the subject, to add impetus to the process of adopting the legislation and the recommendation and to provide greater clarity in the insurance sector in the EU. Here, therefore, is a series of very interesting recommendations that deserve careful analysis on the part of the other European political institutions and the governments of the Member States. Allow me to quote the original English:

‘The committee requests financial service legislation to provide for preventive early-warning systems that are able efficiently to signal potential problems arising from supervision or regulation of financial service companies, in particular when cross-border financial operations are involved.’

(PT) and it goes on:

‘The committee strongly recommends the further implementation of more sophisticated mechanisms which are able to guarantee exemplary cooperation between national regulatory authorities.’

(PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a number of difficulties arise in this report and in the debate. The citizens, the consumers and the insured must be given realistic, rather than excessive or groundless, hope, and I do not feel that the position towards the British Government has been sufficiently thought through. In fact, I find it extremely dangerous. I therefore have a number of reservations concerning this report when, for example, it states:

‘The committee sees it as an obligation of the United Kingdom Government to assume responsibility for its failures in providing redress for citizens’ grievances’.

(PT) Ladies and gentlemen, this does not stop me from acknowledging the enormous amount of work that has been done throughout the debate on this issue and from thinking that we must, on the one hand, pursue clearer and more profound European regulation in the field of insurance and, on the other, codify some of the rules on Parliament’s intervention via Committees of Inquiry.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, omissions have been brought to light, the negligence of the company’s managers documented, many loopholes uncovered, 70 conclusions and recommendations drawn and made, all by one committee, and, through this committee on inquiry, the European Parliament has discharged its responsibility. Even so, the report does not resolve the scandal or draw a line under it; rather, it is on the basis of it that measures need to be taken at all political and economic levels affected by this.

The United Kingdom did not adequately transpose the third life assurance directive; the Commission did not adequately monitor that; the supervisory authorities in several Member States did not perform their function in the manner in which they should have done; the company’s management abused the trust of the people who had policies with it; it lied to them, acted in a negligent fashion and checks were not carried out. We have enough on our plate. We should nevertheless make it plain that European law is not the cause of the problem. What is the cause is its insufficient implementation and the absence of political control.

Although I am all in favour of the market economy, Commissioner, the free market should not be used as an excuse. In the new constitution, we have quite deliberately replaced the free market by the social market economy. We have a responsibility to create the necessary framework conditions and to exercise control, with as much of the market as possible, but as much state control as is necessary, and that sort of tension means that this report needs to be used as a means of drawing the necessary political and economic conclusions as regards occupational retirement provision, pensions, guarantees and hence also the issue of what is done with the public’s trust in political and economic measures.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, the concern of us all in this House is to draw up good legislation and to ensure that it is properly transposed. In this respect, we have here a textbook case. Obviously, the transposition was not equal to the quality of the legislation. We must improve this situation.

Secondly, I understand that, in the United Kingdom, conclusions have already been drawn from this situation as some monitoring bodies have been modified following this affair. No doubt we need to go further still.

Thirdly, progress in Europe has to be made where cross-border activities are concerned. We shall make no progress in this area unless we give consideration to what exactly we mean by monitoring those involved in offering financial products in several Member States of the European Union.

Fourthly, we must improve the strategy for product placement. Selling just any old financial product under any old conditions is unacceptable. There will also be no integrated market for financial services without an improvement in the way financial products are offered to clients. Otherwise, there will be more and more cases of misselling.

Fifthly, the Committee of Inquiry has asked the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to honour its conclusions. Without even waiting for the conclusions of this Committee of Inquiry, it is a fact that the issues of implementing the directives, of improving the solvency of financial companies and of ensuring high-quality supervision of financial markets are at the heart of our daily concerns. Having said that, it goes without saying that this textbook case will serve only to increase our determination in this respect.

Finally, my last point is the issue of victims’ right of appeal. Of course, this is not a matter of authorising the opening of a class action. For all that, if we wish to be serious, we must also, in the context of legislation for the protection of investors and savers, improve European legislation in terms of defining the remedies available to victims.

  Marco Pannella (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to remind the Presidency of Parliament of the need to speak out to stress the merits of this Parliament, which has been unanimous with regard to an event that finally happened yesterday, in harmony with the Europe that we all love – the Europe of Altiero Spinelli and others.

We know that Parliament has unanimously fought for the abolition of the death penalty. Yesterday, thanks to this unanimous Parliament, as well as the Italian Parliament, the 27 Member States unanimously established that we are opposed to the death penalty.

  President. That was not exactly a point of order. We will certainly, however, point out this issue to the Bureau.

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Mr President, firstly I should like to thank Mrs McGuinness for the very able way she chaired the committee and how she largely managed to keep politics out of the debate. I should also like to thank Mrs Wallis for all the work she has put in as rapporteur on a very complex case. Of course, these are real people who have lost real money. Many had set aside this money for their retirement, for their families, and they have had real hardship due to this crisis. I pay tribute to them for bringing their case here.

Also, of course, you have to remember that Equitable Life was a very long-standing company, so people had great faith in this financial institution. Our own House or Commons in Westminster actually had pensions systems tied up with Equitable Life, so how can you blame anybody for actually putting money into their policies? We had evidence before the committee where there was no doubt that the with-profit policies that were being offered were being offered at too high a rate, and the company could not carry on paying out this money. We had actuaries coming to tell us that the company was basically becoming insolvent if it carried on paying out at such a rate. But yet of course everybody changed at the right time so that when the new company came in and the new management came in, they were not responsible for what happened before.

In a single market people expect recompense when they buy policies in Ireland, Germany or the UK, and does it actually matter whether it is the EU or the Member State that is responsible? What matters is for the people who have had those policies to be recompensed. And that is where I join with Sir Robert Atkins and others in demanding that the British Government look very seriously at recompensing people that have lost real money. Like I said, there is no doubt that we have found that the proper regulation was not carried out.

I recommend this report to Parliament.

  Michael Cashman (PSE). – Mr President, firstly I would like to correct my colleague, Sir Robert Atkins. He said that the committee of inquiry was set up at his behest. Those who worked in the Committee on Petitions will remember that it was at my behest, but I will share that equally with him.

He said, and I have to correct him, that the British Government was conspicuous by its absence and so was the Regulator. Where was he when we met with the Chief Secretary of the Treasury and the Regulator? Sadly, he was conspicuous by his absence. We need no lectures from previous Conservative governments, which actually twiddled their thumbs whilst people’s pension policies burned.

I welcome this report, but sadly I cannot fully support it. I believe it strays into areas where it should not go. It fails to properly recognise the measures and provisions which the Labour Government has put in place since 1997. The report strays into areas such as the role of the rapporteur post-Parliament, the role of the rapporteur at EU Member State level, and I do not consider this appropriate. It is intervening in the sovereign Member State parliaments and their legal obligations under the Treaty. Yes, it makes helpful suggestions regarding the single market and responsibility of the host state with regard to financial services, but does it alter the plight of the victims, two of whom are sitting in the gallery today? Sadly, it does not. They are victims of mis-selling, and it was because of their plight that we set up this temporary committee of inquiry. I also commend the work of the chairman of this committee of inquiry. Sadly, it will not help the victims. It is full of promise and no guarantee.

That is why I have urged all along that we ask that the parties involved, including the UK Government, adhere to any recommendations that may come from the British Parliamentary Ombudsman. If there is compensation, let us be clear: it is the British taxpayer who will pick up the tab.

The Labour Group will not vote against this report but it will abstain because of the reasons I have already outlined. Sadly, I must agree with an earlier contribution that party politics has crept into this and it will not serve the victims of the Equitable Life crisis.

  Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the Italians, as a nation, have brought forth many talented artists, but I do not think it appropriate that respected Members of this House such as Mr Pannella should come here and turn Parliament into a circus by finding a brief perch in the last row, raising a point of order and then coming out with something completely irrelevant to the matter in hand. To do so shows a lack of respect for one’s fellow Members and also for the people who are following the debate. I might add, Mr President, that I think you were wrong not to have intervened earlier on.

Turning to the matter in hand, this point is in many respects a learning exercise. We in Parliament have entered a new dimension. We have received petitions and are now on the brink of publishing the findings of a committee of inquiry. I should like to make a heartfelt request to Mrs Wallis and Mrs McGuinness, particularly as we are already receiving the first letters saying, if nothing happens in the wake of this parliamentary report, then we will despair of Europe and we will despair of this Parliament. I should like to ask Mrs Wallis and Mrs McGuinness to consider prefacing this report, which is to be published, with a brief overview of what this Parliament can and cannot do. As you know, we are not the most powerful of the institutions, and this needs to be explained in simple language with the aid of diagrams.

It is not true that the United Kingdom does not have compensation arrangements in place or that it does not have a compensation scheme. More salient is the fact that the United Kingdom has a different standard for liability. In the United Kingdom you are held liable for your intentions, but not for negligence, mismanagement or other failings for which you are certainly liable in other Member States. This is the nub of the matter. In the European Union we will have to find a way out of the old entrenched positions of the country of origin principle and the country of destination principle, because neither extreme is appropriate and we have not yet managed to identify a system that is midway between the two. As a result we have so many irregularities. We need to try to find a new system, particularly for complex areas such as financial services, otherwise we will continue to fail.

I hope that when the British Government finds a way to compensate the victims all victims throughout Europe will be included, because the British taxpayer did in the past benefit from the success of Equitable Life, success which it owed not least to its presence on the internal market. It was this presence on the internal market that led to citizens in other Member States suffering losses.

  John Purvis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, many investors, including pensioners, suffered losses in the bear market between 2000 and 2003. The difference in the case of Equitable Life was negligence. The actuarial function was neutralised, and the business model was akin to riding a wobbly bicycle: so long as they kept selling they could just keep upright. But when the music stopped, what then? It amounted to a selling machine cashing in on centuries of respectability but which was in fact a house of cards, built on shifting sand and known to be such by Equitable Life management and by the regulator.

So how did Equitable Life get away with it? They were operating under an EU Directive which was supposedly policed by the responsible UK Regulator. The Regulator knew the foundations of Equitable Life were ramshackle but hoped against hope that all would come right with time, or else a white knight in shining armour would buy them out. Therefore, the selling was allowed to continue long after it should have been stopped.

Why did they allow a management structure where the statutory actuary was also the chief executive? Why did they allow Equitable Life to go on selling at home and into other Member States when they were the responsible home regulator and were fully aware of Equitable Life’s condition?

This is not just a sad tale; it is a tale of negligence. It is just not acceptable for Member States to exonerate their regulators from negligence if the country of origin and the home/host system of regulation is to work in the European single market for financial services.

Commissioner, you must insist in future, in particular in Solvency II, that Member States and their regulators are fully liable for negligence. Member States cannot be allowed to exonerate them from this liability.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I believe that this morning’s debate has shown that proper transposition and effective control of the implementation of Community law are essential for the proper functioning of the internal market. I am personally pleased that the committee of inquiry went beyond the specifics of the Equitable Life case and took a broader look at how transposition and implementation checks are done more generally. The recommendations, based on real-life experience, are important to make sure that in the European Union of 27 we keep sight of what is happening in reality, on the ground.

Your work is vital for our ongoing work on the application of Community law, and the suggestions you make should be reflected in our forthcoming communication. Your work is also crucial for the many victims who have seen their savings disappear. Clearly, direct redress is a matter for the UK authorities and the UK judiciary. The UK Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report, due later this year, will address this issue.

The Commission cannot rule on this, but what is vital for us and for the internal market and consumer confidence, is that policyholders are treated equally, irrespective of their Member State of residence. The Commission also notes broader recommendations on redress; those that call for an answer at European level are being studied. Good transposition starts with good legislation, but questionable compromises with texts in which everyone can read what they want is fruitful ground for poor implementation. This is a joint responsibility – all institutions bear responsibility for this.

In concluding, may I congratulate the committee of inquiry and the rapporteur, Mrs Wallis, on a job well done. All parties received a fair hearing. We have learned important lessons and take this on board for the future.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place later today.

6. Family life and study (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0209/2007) by Marie Panayotopoulous-Cassiotou, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, on a regulatory framework for measures enabling young women in the European Union to combine family life with a period of studies (2007/2276(INI)).

  Μarie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the future of the European economy and the development of competitiveness and of the facility to work in the European Union will depend to a great extent on the level of education and training of the citizens, especially young people, so that they can contribute to economic development and social cohesion in Europe.

Efforts at both European and national level have borne fruit. In the Europe of the 25 in 2004, the majority of young people between 20 and 24 years of age were in higher education. However, extending the period of study in combination with training, retraining, further training, lifelong learning and so on results in young people postponing their personal, private life or starting a family or pursuing their desires because, as the Green Paper on demographic change concludes, the desires of European citizens to start a family and have children are not compatible with everyday reality. Having children at an advanced age also causes problems on health grounds. It puts a burden on public health and is an obstacle to the demographic development of Europe. Therefore, creating a family-friendly society – as also provided for in the European Youth Pact – means that private, family life needs to be combined with work and with the period of studies which, as we can see, is very long.

The report being tabled today for the vote endeavours to highlight the approach needed in order to formulate policies which support young people. It will give them the facility, on the one hand, to programme their education plans and, on the other hand, to honour their family commitments to raise children or to support elderly people in their family environment because, as we know, in a few decades two thirds of Europeans will be elderly people.

Many students are already living this sort of life combining studies and family. However, the percentage differs from one state to another, from 41% in Sweden, to 12% in Greece, 10% in Austria and 10% in Latvia. There are therefore huge differences between the Member States and this is hampering mobility and access to education.

The aim of our report, therefore, which has no wish to subtract from subsidiarity, is to recognise and respond to the family and social needs of young men and women taking on family responsibilities in parallel to their studies and training. The Member States are responsible for granting special social assistance in order to support the wish of young people to have families without taking account of whether they are exercising some professional activity or whether their parents have an income.

Family benefits can also be granted in the form of loans, affordable housing, adequate crèche services in universities, social and health cover, greater flexibility during studies, an awareness on the part of the teaching staff of the particular needs of student parents or students with family commitments and the use of new technologies to make their life easier. There must also be stronger equality policies, in order to understand that the burden must not fall entirely on women when they are studying.

I am particularly satisfied that the Commission communication acknowledges the need to combine studies, training and family life. I hope that my report will inspire future proposals for family- and youth-friendly measures and a forward-looking solution to the demographic problem.

I should like to thank my honourable friends for the amendments which improved the report; however, I do not support amendments which limit the content of the report or add elements which are unrelated to its subject matter. I therefore hope that my report will be supported.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am taking this report on behalf of my colleague Commissioner Špidla, who has been delayed due to travel difficulties.

I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou on the quality of her report and the very pertinent suggestions it contains. The Commission broadly welcomes the motion for a resolution of the European Parliament on measures enabling young women in the European Union to combine family life with a period of study.

While education and family policies are matters for the national authorities, it is important, in every context, to encourage the reconciliation of family life and study periods. At the Stockholm and Barcelona European Councils, the Heads of State and Government recognised that the future of the economy and of European society would depend on its citizens and, in particular, on the younger generations and their levels of training. Education and training have thus been located at the heart of the Lisbon process.

These policies are decisive for achieving a real knowledge-based European society. For economic reasons and on grounds of equity and equal opportunities, it is therefore important to ensure that young men and women with family responsibilities have the opportunity to take up and complete studies.

The Commission is pleased that the motion for a resolution concentrates not only on students with responsibilities for children, but also on those with responsibilities vis-à-vis dependent adults or people with disabilities. Likewise, it also welcomes the recommendations concerning childcare facilities, fathers’ roles and better sharing of housekeeping and family responsibilities as a significant factor in equal opportunities between men and women. This approach is in line with the Commission’s policy in the field of reconciling private lives and working lives.

The Commission also draws encouragement from the stress placed on equality between men and women. Reconciling private life and working life is one of the six priorities of the roadmap for equality between men and women adopted by the Commission in March 2006. As stated in the proposal for a resolution, we are well aware that, in reality, women bear most family and housekeeping responsibilities, even while studying. In the absence of adequate support, young women are thus more likely than men not to continue in education, to give up in the middle of a course or never to return to education, which inevitability leads to inequalities between men and women in their working lives and a loss of their potential.

Crèches and other childcare facilities are therefore essential to gender equality. In the roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010, the Commission emphasised that childcare services are adapting too slowly to social developments, and it undertook to support the achievement of the Barcelona objectives and the development of other care facilities through the Structural Funds and the exchange of good practices.

In 2008 the Commission also intends to present a communication on the achievement of the Barcelona criteria, which will take stock of the progress made and the efforts that remain to be made.

All these elements also contribute to the response that we have to give to the demographic challenge. Childcare services support individuals’ free choice, allowing them to have the number of children they would like to have.

You probably know that the Commission has launched a formal consultation of European social partners on reconciling work life and private life on the basis of Article 138 of the Treaty. The first phase began in October 2006 and the second in May 2007.

The Commission considers that different legislative and non-legislative components are indispensable with a view to better reconciling work, private life and family life. That is why, in the consultation document, the Commission invited the social partners to give their opinions on a set of legislative and non-legislative options. I am pleased to note that the motion for a resolution broadly echoes the concerns and arguments defended by the Commission in its two documents consulting the European social partners.

Lastly, I recall the adoption in November 2006 of the action programme in the field of lifelong learning for 2007-2013. This programme, which symbolises the new priority given to education, may provide support for projects that meet your concerns.

  Anna Záborská, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I thank Mrs Panayotopoulos for all her cooperation. She has allowed all the political groups to have their say in her report without, for all that, the basic message becoming distorted. She is used to making compromises, being the mother of nine children.

I should like to highlight two points. First of all, we have to create conditions that make it clear that young people’s parental responsibility is not just a heavy burden in addition to the demands of their training courses. That goes for young men as much as for young women. With this in mind, there must be widespread and appropriate information campaigns.

The second point concerns national and Community policies. Statistics show that the Scandinavian countries achieve a figure of 30% to 40% of young people in education who are allowing themselves the pleasure and responsibility of being parents. The European Union could usefully put at the service of all Member States the Scandinavian countries’ experience in promoting dialogue and exchanging best practice. Higher and professional education establishments also have a responsibility for putting in place their own child care services. It would be worthwhile encouraging competition between universities: this would no longer be limited to the quality of teaching, but would extend to support services for students who are parents.

In conclusion, I must emphasise the importance of grandparents and their crucial role in the process of children’s education and in helping young parents who are studying or working. In the light of the many changes of career that punctuate the lives of workers at this time of globalisation, this represents an opportunity for young retired people to make themselves useful in other ways.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg , on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, according to the conclusions drawn at the European Council summit in Stockholm in 2001 and in Barcelona the following year, the future of the European economy and society will depend particularly on young people and their level of education.

Here, we should pay particular attention to the potential of educated young people in terms of demographic renewal in Europe. This aim can be achieved by introducing favourable social, economic and educational conditions which will allow people to start families earlier in life, without their decision having a detrimental effect on their education or career development. According to the conclusions contained in the Green Paper on demographic change, the European demographic deficit is due to the fact that people currently take longer to reach certain stages in life, in terms of education, work or children.

In many countries, students simultaneously take on family and study-related responsibilities or start families before they finish their studies. In Sweden, for example, 41% of women have their first child before they finish their studies, and in Finland this figure is 31%. Following this example, the remaining Member States should take the situation of young parents, who are studying or completing their vocational training, more into consideration. Measures to attain this goal might include offering affordable student insurance, as well as social and medical care, which could also cover the student's dependants.

We should also consider lowering taxes for young people who are both studying and working, those who have family responsibilities, and make it easier for them to obtain loans at a favourable rate from credit institutions. Educational establishments should take into account the financial circumstances of this social group when it comes to calculating fees and provide suitable social assistance, including after graduation. An example of this approach would involve providing aid for a sixth-month period to make it easier for them to get into the job market. I would therefore like to ask you to support paragraph 25 of the report.

It is also important for Member States, together with higher education and vocational training centres, to offer young people a more flexible means of organising their studies, for example through more distance learning opportunities, continuous learning programmes or part-time studies.

Moreover, in order to reconcile students’ family lives with their studies, it is vital to ensure that those with children have access to good quality, affordable state nurseries and after-school childcare facilities. That is why I appeal to you to vote in favour of paragraphs 14 and 15 of the report.

The time has come for Member States and Community institutions to exchange their code of best practice in terms of providing support for learners with families, while taking into account pioneering legislation introduced in this field by certain Member States.

Finally, I would like to warmly thank the rapporteur, Mrs Panayotopoulos, for a very well prepared report.

  Alfonso Andria, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Mr McCreevy, ladies and gentlemen, the issue raised by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou in the report we are considering is of the utmost social significance. I congratulate the rapporteur on her very thorough approach, which highlights the countless implications of this issue: the family and educational projects, the fall in the birth rate, housing policy for young couples, the Lisbon Strategy objectives and lifelong learning, with the starting-point that education is a human right and there is a need for investment in human resources, as a tool to strengthen social inclusion.

Tellingly, Parliament is tackling this report in the European Year of Equal Opportunities. The need to reconcile family life and work, although recognised by the European institutions and the Commission, which even adopted it as a basic principle in its recent administrative reform, has not so far produced effective, concrete action, as we might have expected it to. Such action might – and we hope that it will in the future – have triggered better awareness by the Member States and thus led to policies that are attentive and responsive to the needs of young people and young mothers and designed to achieve an equality that is not just empty words but is properly promoted.

Of the instruments proposed by the rapporteur as useful starting points for national decision-makers, I consider particularly effective the flexible study programmes, for example part-time courses, greater use of learning techniques derived from new technologies, tax concessions for young working students, study grants for students with family responsibilities as well as easier access to nursery schools and after-school facilities. Finally, I endorse the proposal to encourage the exchange of best practice with regard to support for students, by looking at the experiments successfully tried in some Nordic countries.

  Sebastiano (Nello) Musumeci, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe – and in particular southern Europe – has suffered for years from a low birth rate, or even negative population growth, as is the case in Italy.

There are many, varied reasons why the cradles of our towns are remaining empty for too long: the ever-increasing cost of living, with which wages are not keeping step, and the late entry of young people onto the employment market, partly due to the wish and the need to study longer in order to become more competitive in a society that is ever more demanding.

The ambitious goal, which is not an easy one to meet, is therefore not only that of reconciling young people’s right to further education and training with their aspirations to create a family and to have their children at an earlier stage of their lives, but also, indirectly, that of making the Lisbon objectives compatible with the demographic regeneration of our society.

The Member States have a duty to create an appropriate social, economic and educational framework, always keeping in mind the ultimate aim of promoting equal opportunities. For example, the allocation of paternity leave, which is increasingly widespread in northern Europe, is a valid way of attempting to meet the rightful aspirations of young women.

Mr President, we all know that the Member States have exclusive responsibility for the sectors of education and the family, but it is for this very reason that, with a view to finding a common denominator among the states of the European Union, I believe that the rapporteur’s proposal to provide for the exchange of best practice within the context of the meetings of Ministers is to be fully supported. For this reason, my parliamentary group is in favour of the report.

  Hiltrud Breyer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, many may well talk about the compatibility of family, work and childcare, but what happens? We complain, but the Commission and the Council did not even put childcare on the agenda for their last spring summit, and that shows just how little importance they attach to it.

My expectation, Commissioner, is that we, when it comes to making laws, should move ahead rather than standing still; why is the Commission not doing more to bring the employment rates of men and women closer together? We know that the reason why work and family are more readily compatible in the Scandinavian countries is not only that there are more child care facilities available there, but also that more women are in employment. At the same time, in all European countries, the percentage of women with children in work has gone down by 15%, while that for working fathers has gone up by 6%. Almost a third of all women do part-time work; there is still a perceptible wages gap in the European Union, and it is Germany, indeed, that is bringing up in the rear with 26%.

What I expect of the EU, then, is that it should come up with proposals rather than merely lofty sentiments. I also expect the Commission to make a statement on just how it happens that, in Member States such as Germany, there can be such a thing as what is termed the ‘splitting tariff’ for spouses, which is a reward for staying at home and does childcare no good whatever, while also, in fact, constituting a breach of the directive on ‘equal pay for equal work’. Why is it that children are not made a more central focus of policy in the European Union?

  Věra Flasarová, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the report by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, which brings considerable knowledge to bear in addressing the issue of young women combining studies and family life, and also offers a number of solutions.

Ultimately, the biggest difficulty is to find a solution in the face of age-old stereotyping. According to the report, the higher the level of education reached by women, the more successful they are in the labour market. It also points out, on the other hand, that for women starting a family the path to education is blocked. This often leads women who want to have both an education and a family to delay having children or to have only one child.

It would appear that families stand in the way of both a professional career and lifelong learning, and that work and education, on the one hand, and the family, on the other, are irreconcilable. Anyone seeking success and an education, be they women or men, often have to give up on the idea of starting a family. Does it have to be that way? This is precisely the question we are asking.

On an individual – and, it must be said, non-systemic – level, this is a dilemma for young women that is well-nigh impossible to resolve. Aware of how complicated the task is, the Community can offer progress and take action accordingly. The necessary requirements are being incorporated into the system with a view to making it easier for women to have a family and to study and broaden their minds through education at the same time. Accordingly, the position of young women in the labour market will be strengthened, which, in turn, will lead to greater economic equality between the sexes.

An advanced society needs educated men and women, as well as a functioning family, which, by creating an environment of safety and solidarity for all family members, is vital to bringing up children. A society cannot stop developing, but it must not sacrifice the family at the same time. It must not stop women from accessing education, but it also must not restrict the right to have children. These are critical imperatives that tend to produce conflicting results. This is why we are talking of reconciliation as the solution to the problem.

It is in the interest of the Community – and in particular its lawmaking bodies, educational institutions and employers – to be aware that the temporary economic losses that may be incurred will bring long-term gain. Where employers are unaware of this philosophy, the Community can offer some form of compensation to offset any losses.

Traditional solutions to the conflict between the family and education or career are well known. Women who cannot leave childcare to somebody else, or do not want to, have to give up on higher education and a career. This also works the other way round. There are a small number of women combining study and work who can use childcare facilities or whose grandparents can look after their children. When neither of these solutions are possible, women are faced with a choice: a family or education and a career. This is a dilemma that should be consigned to the past and I am glad that the rapporteur has put forward some good solutions aimed at leaving that past behind.

  Urszula Krupa, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, this document, which acknowledges that young women in the European Union need a balance between education and family life, is proof of a certain return to normality in a European Union which has experienced a dramatic, negative demographic shift and whose population is ageing. The reasons behind these negative changes include anti-family and pro-abortion policies, together with the fact that women are being used as poster girls for contraceptive plasters.

Apart from the demands contained in the document, an important way of helping young, female students to raise their children would be to rebuild a multi-generational family structure in which it is natural for parents to help their children. Their assistance would not only deepen emotional bonds, but the priceless gift of their grandparents’ love would also have a positive impact on the children’s personal development. Rebuilding the extended family would also improve the mental health of our citizens. This would, in turn, facilitate the implementation of numerous strategies.

On a number of occasions, amendments have been tabled to count maternity leave as work experience, with equivalent pay for extended post-maternity leave. This would further improve the position of young families, in terms of raising children and obtaining higher qualifications.

  Lydia Schenardi, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if there are areas that should remain entirely within the competence, and under the responsibility, of the individual nations, they are surely those of education and the family.

This report reminds us, in its first recital, that the Member States alone are competent in these areas. The problem, however, is that, in the paragraphs immediately following, it sets out to show that it is up to Europe to take action by promoting active policies that encourage, for example, ways to reconcile studying, training, private life and family life. Even though we might be in agreement with some of the proposals in the substance of this report, the fact remains that it is not up to Brussels, and still less up to the Commission, to tell the Member States what their demographic, family, educational or even professional policies should be. It is up to each Member State to know what its policies should be in these areas and to carry them out. We do not have to let ourselves be dictated to by some European text about measures relating to morality, religion or even fundamental principles or values.

So it is, little by little, by means of recommendations, regulations or even directives, that Brussels interferes in national policies without being authorised to do so and without even having been approached by the peoples to do so. This systematic propaganda, particularly in relation to the family and to education, is aimed at destroying the traditional concept of the family unit, consisting of a mother, father and the biological children they have had together, and this in the name of freedom without limits and without moral rules.

  Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE). – Mr President, it is my belief that most women in Europe who choose to have a family do not do this under duress. It is a choice they make generally in conjunction with their partner and invariably they understand and have discussed the social, educational and financial consequences of having a child. But they choose to have a child because it is a truly wonderful thing to do.

Many Member States, including mine, endeavour through many means to give women the choice, having had their family, to go back into education or into the workplace. From this perspective this report, or at least its title, is worthy of political discussion. The report correctly points out in recital A that education and the family fall within national competence and responsibility. And thank heavens it does, because reading this report you can see why the European public struggle to take this Parliament seriously and why, thankfully, Member States will not budge on giving this competence to Europe.

I shall cite two paragraphs. Paragraph 30 recommends that Member States ‘facilitate the granting of extension of social benefits to students from other Member States who have dependent children’. In my country, as you know, the debate on immigration is very hot and this would simply be unacceptable to even my socialist opponents from my country. Paragraph 10 calls on the Member States to ‘reduce or put an end to taxation of young men and women who both study and who have family responsibilities or responsibilities towards dependants’. That is everyone! Every single person – so no-one pays tax and government completely stops.

We can learn a lot about how to improve the lives of women who wish to combine family life with a period of study by looking across the different best practices that exist across Europe, especially in the northern Member States. I would suggest, however, that the Committee on Women’s Rights in this House has proven itself to be almost uniquely the worst place for this discussion to take place.

  Lissy Gröner (PSE) . – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report marks a further milestone in the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All. We see from the Green Paper on Demography that the life stages of young people – of students of both genders, that is – are being completed later when it comes to work and family, and women have seen in this process the opportunity to have, by means of ‘second chance’ education, a better life, a life of their own choosing, and they have seized that opportunity.

Women, accounting for 59% of those who complete higher education, have in that respect overtaken men, but the position is nowhere near as favourable when it comes to decisions taken later on, where the glass ceiling again comes into play, and only 43% of doctoral candidates are women, with the figure falling to a mere 15% for professorships, and lower than that – to 8% – in Germany. Is anyone surprised, then, that women, particularly academics, are more and more likely to decide against having children?

We need to work towards overcoming gender stereotypes and the social divisions between the worlds of women and men, and must adopt measures to improve compatibility between family and working life, for example by means of affordable facilities. That point has been made, and I am glad that the Commissioner has expressed the intention of doing something about this, but, with the best will in the world, that is not on. What is needed is for pressure to be brought to bear. People will decide for themselves how many children they want, or, indeed, whether they want to have any at all. I do not know whether young academics will be aware of our debate here today, but we have to respect their right to come to their own decisions, and make the choice easier for them.

We also have to respect the desire of more and more people today to live alternative lifestyles and their abandonment of the traditional family model; I might add that that most needs to be taken into account by our governments, not least the government in Poland, and it makes me positively furious that the Poles are yet again standing aloof from this. Many friends of mine in Poland have asked me to make this point today, and I stand here to speak out for the people in Poland who have the same right to free personal choice as anyone else.

  Karin Resetarits (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, in this report, the rapporteur gives a comprehensive account of all the things that could and should be done to better reconcile family life and study in the European Union.

Demographic developments show clearly that increasingly few well-educated women are prepared to combine their careers with starting a family – and why should they: young women in academia make the utmost demands of themselves, and so they make these of the family, too. The German proverb: ‘To whom the Lord gives young, He also gives the means to feed them’ may have influenced women’s thinking in the past, but those days are gone.

Now it is the turn of us politicians to make provision for meeting the demands of young people. That means we must rebuild the family-friendly society that now lies before us in ruins. Anyone who brings up children nowadays must either be very wealthy or live very modestly as, up to now, our society has been promoting everything above children. Just take a look around: where are the open spaces where children can enjoy carefree play nowadays? Where are children really welcome? Even parks are littered with ‘no playing’ signs. Last week, in my home town, Vienna, a man shot at children playing, claiming they were too loud. Most Member States are investing far too little of taxpayers’ money in education and parenting, Mr Heaton-Harris. Our classrooms are overcrowded, teachers are overstretched. We are trying to produce self-confident individualists in schools that still work like barracks.

Are we promoting family-friendly living? No, we are not: the property market is solely driven by the profit motive. Young people in the city are now happy if they can afford a room in a shared house. That may not have stopped people having children decades ago, but what young people particularly want nowadays is quality of life, and that is what politicians must guarantee them.

  Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Mrs Panayotopolous-Cassiotou’s report deals with a key question for the European Union, namely its future demographic development. That is why we should thank the rapporteur for describing the problem and suggesting specific solutions in what is currently a very unfavourable climate for families.

The report contains many excellent measures that aim to make it easier for young Europeans to raise children. However, these measures will not be successful if we continue to live in an environment where nonsense is spoken about the supposedly undesirable inclusive family model consisting of a man and a woman.

Do adults need reminding of the fact that only these kinds of families produce children? We, in Poland, are aware of this.

European societies have never been so rich and have never produced so few children. There are both objective and subjective obstacles to parenthood.

The family has slipped down the list of priorities in life. What counts is work and having a good time. Enjoyment without any responsibilities is now the top priority. We do not know our purpose in life and therefore we do not know what purpose having children serves. For Europe, the writing is already on the wall: mane, tekel, fares.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, education and training are actually a fundamental right and are also crucial in terms of ensuring that all other social, economic, cultural and political rights are also respected.

The key to making progress on the reconciliation of family, work and student life, which is the issue that we are dealing with now, is to tackle the complicated issue of the distribution and management of time, not just of women but of society as a whole. To that end, we need to propose social and economic reforms that ensure, amongst other things, that the situation in which, in the majority of cases, women, by definition, take on most, if not all, family and care responsibilities, is altered.

We must respond to this challenge by promoting policies on everyday life, with an overall view of the needs and establishing transversal public service policies, guaranteeing the provision of measures such as nurseries, and public mobility, and with flexible working hours that respond to the differing specific realities, without jeopardising the quality of service, as well as the economic and fiscal aid that makes it possible for creating a family to ultimately be a personal decision, including amongst people of the same sex.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL). – (SV) I would thank the rapporteur for an important report, because education is an important factor where women’s right to paid work is concerned.

The concepts of family life and family are central to this report, as well as to other reports concerning parents and children. No definition is provided of the concept of ‘family’, but I presume that the concept is used to denote a variety of alternative family configurations, and not only the traditional picture of a nuclear family consisting of a mother, father and their own biological children. Rather, the concept of a family must also include, for example, lone parents, parents of the same sex and other arrangements that people now choose for leading their lives. In order to clarify this, I hope that Parliament will vote in favour of Amendment 8.

The report proposes a wide range of measures for giving young women the same educational opportunities as men. I support most of the proposals, with the exception of the text that emphasises the importance of older family members, namely grandparents, and what they can do to help students or working parents. The current generation of grandparents often work professionally themselves. Even if they are pensioners, they are entitled to live their own lives, while obviously enjoying the company of their grandchildren. It is not they, however, who should assume responsibility for child care.

Society has a responsibility to develop child care and other forms of care so that all parents who seek such care, and whether they are studying or in paid work, have access to high-quality and educationally sound care for their children.

Both women and men are entitled to engage in study, to have a working life and to produce children. They are entitled to ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or’.

  Georgios Karatzaferis (IND/DEM). – (EL) Mr President, today we are debating two important blessings, perhaps the most important blessing for everyone, which is having children and, at the same time, studies, learning and knowledge. However, these two things have perhaps been clashing recently, because the reproductive age of women, according to the experts, is about 35 years. When half these years are 'wasted' studying up to the age of 30 or 32 for postgraduate degrees and doctorates, valuable time is lost for having a child. Thus, supreme blessing is reserved solely for the well off. The well off are able to pay for their children to study and for the woman to study and have children. People who do not have enough to live on 'postpone' having children and that, to put it one way, is criminal. It is a class difference which we should not allow. We must find ways and means of giving young people the chance, in the form of financial aid, to study and have a family, to have children. We need children. In my country, we have a very low birth rate and this is a huge problem. Children are an issue which deserve particular attention.

  Pál Schmitt (PPE-DE). – (HU) We must definitely support learning, especially if a young person wants to have responsibilities in more than one area. Being a mother is a difficult and demanding role, but the much-talked about knowledge-based society cannot just be made up of men. Due to the lack of suitable support, young women are inclined not to carry on with their studies, to give them up and never return to them, which inevitably leads to inequality between men and women in terms of professional life and later productive capacity.

We must offer every assistance to women, and to young couples in general, in a Europe with a low birth rate and ever ageing population. In other words, those who want to start a family, have children. If this is combined with the necessary ambition for self-improvement and eagerness to learn, society must reward and support this.

The Committee on Culture and Education is also striving to remove every obstacle from lifelong learning and to ensure that students with family responsibilities, taking into account their particular situation, for instance their lack of mobility, also have access to learning opportunities. In order to achieve all this, a social network needs to be set up in the Member States which are showing solidarity with the families playing the biggest role in supporting society. A network of crèches and nurseries is required, which will provide suitable care for the smallest members of society, as well as schools which will guarantee afternoon activities to keep children occupied under expert supervision.

This is not exclusively a material issue, it is also about approach. In fact, our governments' policies on family, education, social welfare, employment and youth depend on it to a large extent. We are gradually realising that every child who is born is worth their weight in gold, and even more, as it means that our future is safeguarded and that our peoples will survive and have a viable development.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteur as, although education, learning and the various family support systems come under the Member States’ jurisdiction, this report draws attention to solutions and local practices, making it very useful to all those Member States where this issue has been neglected up until now.

  Edite Estrela (PSE). – (PT) I wish to begin by congratulating Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou on her report. Demographic change is the main challenge facing Europe. It is a very serious problem requiring urgent measures. The situation varies from country to country, but one thing is for sure: conditions must be created at social and economic level, and in terms of education, whereby young Europeans have the children they want to, without this hampering their careers and without their having to interrupt their studies.

Women continue to be the worst affected and suffer real discrimination when it comes to having access to, and pursuing, studies and lifelong learning. Yet young families are shunted out to the periphery of major cities. This means that it takes them longer to move between home, work and school and that they are under more physical and mental strain. It also means that parents spend less time with their children, with the incalculable social costs that that implies.

There are two major challenges underpinning any gender equality policy: firstly, to eliminate the salary gap between men and women and, secondly, to guarantee that family life is balanced with working or academic life. Access to education and professional fulfilment are rights for both men and women.

In order to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, the Commission and the Member States must put forward policies that take into account the characteristics of different families, for example parents who study, single mothers and so on, in relation to social security systems, decent housing, childcare facilities and flexibility in terms of curricula, timetables and choice of educational establishment. That way, our young people can contribute to a knowledge-based society, to the competitiveness of the economy, to social cohesion and to the regeneration of European society.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, we all understand and share the rapporteur's concern for women, family life and tradition. We thank her for this report which, as well as calling for a balance between women’s studies and their family life, also touches on an even more important issue, namely that of the Union's demographic and immigration policy.

Women want to study and they want to have children. Unfortunately, in view of the current fast pace of life in the world, often only one of these aims can be accomplished. That is why we should help young women and men by introducing a more extensive pro-family policy in the European Union and the Member States. A lack of suitable support poses a real danger to our Christian and European society. Even in a country like Poland, which supports family life and tradition, the birth rate is not sufficiently high. In many cities in the European Union, immigrants have more children than the native inhabitants.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr President, the report raises a serious problem that exists in many Member States, namely that it is difficult to study if one has children. A range of measures is proposed. The thing is, however, that these issues do not come within the EU's competence. The committee is interfering in strictly national issues such as tax, social insurance systems and parents’ insurance – a state of affairs that is totally unacceptable.

The rapporteur is also perfectly correct to point out that Nordic countries, including Sweden, have systems that favour students who are parents. It is my firm view that these systems are the most satisfactory, but the EU must not force any system on anyone where these issues are concerned. Those countries that have problems will realise soon enough that the situation is untenable and will therefore look towards those countries with effective systems.

I never cease to be amazed at the proposals presented in this House. The imagination is given full rein, to say the least.

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – Pentru început, trebuie să mărturisesc că mă bucur că particip la o asemenea discuţie în Parlamentul European. Cred că e important să vorbim despre provocările lumii moderne, despre familie şi educaţie, despre noi şi viaţa noastră; iar documentul pe marginea căruia vorbim este unul serios şi consistent, şi pentru acest lucru daţi-mi voie să mulţumesc raportorului, doamna Marie Panayotopoulos Cassiotou.

Datele statistice arată că nivelul de instruire este invers proporţional cu nivelul sărăciei. Adică, cu cât un om are un nivel al studiilor mai ridicat, cu atât scade riscul sărăciei şi creşte şansa de a avea un loc de muncă bine plătit, o locuinţă, o maşină, în final o viaţă mai bună. Tot statisticile arată că nivelul de dezvoltare al unei societăţi este direct proporţional cu nivelul de instruire al membrilor ei. Pe de altă parte, cei cu un nivel ridicat de instruire nu au numărul de copii pe care şi-l doresc. De asemenea, o mare parte din ţările europene înregistrează o rată negativă a sporului natural şi se confruntă cu probleme serioase în ceea ce priveşte relaţiile dintre generaţii, înregistrându-se o creştere a numărului persoanelor aflate în întreţinere. Deci se impune o soluţie de mijloc, care să nu însemne nici renunţarea la copii şi familie, şi nici abandonarea şcolii. În găsirea acestui echilibru statul joacă un rol foarte important. El este cel în măsură să preia de pe umerii familiilor, de pe umerii părinţilor, o parte din responsabilităţile legate de educaţia şi îngrijirea copiilor; să adopte măsurile necesare pentru ca studenţii părinţi să poată beneficia de locuinţe adaptate nevoilor lor; să propună în asociere cu instituţiile de învăţământ o organizare mai flexibilă a studiilor; să faciliteze împreună cu instituţiile de credit acordarea de împrumuturi pentru cei care-şi întemeiază familii şi urmează o formă de instruire; să acorde burse; să scutească părinţii studenţi de la plata unor taxe şi impozite - adică într-o ţară statul poate crea un mediu care să încurajeze tinerii să nu aleagă între o opţiune sau alta. Cred, însă, că la toate acestea mai trebuie adăugată o responsabilitate a statului în ceea ce priveşte educaţia: introducerea educaţiei pentru parteneriat în cadrul familiei. Numai când cei doi soţi vor considera că în familie fiecare îl poate suplini pe celălalt, îi poate juca rolul şi chiar o vor face, atunci concilierea dintre viaţa de familie şi cea profesională este posibilă cu adevărat.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, students with family responsibilities have to face specific situations and needs relating to housing, childcare or flexibility of study hours, and that is something that educational and social systems do not always take into account. Public policies on the reconciliation of private and professional life must not therefore ignore the needs of young people during their years of study.

Within this context, women students are also in a particularly vulnerable situation, since, despite being students, it is they who, in the majority of cases, take on most family responsibilities, not just in the case of maternity, but also in the event that they are responsible for the care of elderly or disabled persons.

Without adequate support, young women are more likely than men to interrupt their studies and not return to them, which inevitably means that men and women do not have equal opportunities in their future professional lives, and the consequence of that is a significant loss of human potential for the labour market and for society as a whole.

A person’s educational qualifications have an undeniable impact on employment, as previous speakers have said. The statistics show that unemployment rates are lower when educational qualifications are higher. If the European Union wants to achieve the objective of increasing the employment rate amongst women to 60% by 2010, therefore, clear measures must be taken so that policies for reconciling personal and professional life begin to be applied while people are young and still studying. The recommendations of this report are therefore very important and I would like to congratulate Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou on her work.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Panayotopolous-Cassiotou for her perseverance in dealing with matters that are important on more than just a social level, especially in view of the fact that she herself is the mother of nine children. One of the challenges of our time, including in terms of the demographic situation, is to find solutions that will allow people to reconcile bringing up children with studying and starting a career. We are not only simply talking about young women, but about young parents in general, namely both mothers and fathers.

It should be stressed that the current need to complete a higher education course, followed by a PhD or various training courses, and then to start a career and become independent, requires a great deal of effort and that this process usually takes more than four years. On the other hand, one cannot deny the laws of biology. Therefore, young people need conditions that will allow them to start a family, as well as fulfilling their educational and career development goals. We also need a benevolent, family-friendly and non-discriminatory environment, which includes social support, flexible studies and academic internships. In this respect, the Internet will prove to be a very useful tool.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, policymakers have concentrated for several decades on getting women into the workplace and on breaking down gender bias and promotion in jobs. Education has always been seen as a tool in this.

In this resolution, however, I think we have failed to look at the difficulties women face in reconciling the rest of their lives which have been glossed over. Women were almost forced to forego childbearing, and if they did bear children, they were forced to forego childrearing. If they did choose to rear their children, they were asked to be superhuman to do it. Thankfully, women are now forcing us to look at changing this and making things more flexible so that they can reconcile family, work and education. We must be flexible. We must help women to combine these things. Or we must even allow women the opportunity to take time off, if they should so choose, in order to have children and to rear them, in the security of knowing that the opportunities will be there when they choose to resume their place in the workplace.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union is facing two challenges, namely solving the demographic crisis and improving the level of education, especially for young people. The aim is to prevent young people having to choose between an education and a family. Mrs Panayotopolous-Cassiotou’s report contains good proposals for reconciling these two European needs. I support the proposals and opinions expressed during the course of this debate.

However, an even greater problem arises after university. In Europe, more women than men obtain a university degree but three times fewer women opt for long term careers in science or research. Barely one in six professors in Europe is female. In the meantime, there are 700 000 empty research posts. More young scientists are particularly needed. We will not solve the problem of growth, or make sure that the Lisbon Strategy succeeds, if we do not change this situation.

Therefore, we urgently need to also apply the solutions proposed in Mrs Panayotopolous-Cassiotou’s report to the period after the end of one's studies. These solutions should also apply to university work, to work in scientific institutes, laboratories and the research centres of large corporations.

It is almost impossible for women to return to a scientific career after giving birth and raising, even for a short period, two or three children. I would therefore like to express my great admiration for UNESCO and L'Oréal for organising a global campaign to support women in scientific careers and I would like to encourage you to visit the exhibition which the European Parliament is organising in October, together with UNESCO and L'Oréal.

  Christa Prets (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I am pleased that so many men are taking part in this discussion today. I assume that many of them are fathers who object to their daughters continuing to be disadvantaged in future. Perhaps this will help us achieve more equality.

As has been said many times today, the balance between working life and private life is taking on ever greater political importance, particularly as we have also recognised that, on the one hand, the benefit of the great potential of the female workforce and, on the other hand, the lack of children, can and should no longer be overlooked.

As far as childcare facilities are concerned, the implementation of the Barcelona objective is unfortunately very disappointing. We note that different countries have different statistical data for students who are also parents. In Austria, for example, the proportion is 10.8%, in Sweden 41%. This is proof that situations can be changed by changing the framework conditions. It is obvious; we just need to tackle it.

Giving birth while studying must not be a reason for postponing one’s studies for a long time, dropping out completely or not starting them in the first place. We need more support, we need more childcare facilities at universities and colleges of higher education, and we need these at socially just rates.

  Anna Hedh (PSE). – (SV) Today, ever fewer children are being born in Europe. This is due not only to the current work situation and the way in which society has developed, but also to the fact that many women are waiting until they have completed their education before they have children. The older a woman becomes, the lower her fertility.

The opportunity for students to have families is very important from an equality perspective. The lack of adequate support from society means that many young women abandon their studies once they have children, or else do not embark on study at all. This, of course, leads to an unequal labour market and also entails a loss for the economy as a whole because the full potential of these women is lost.

We notice this pattern in Sweden, in particular. More than 60% of those who embark on higher education in Sweden are women, but the proportion declines the higher up the hierarchy one goes. A particularly large proportion of women abandon PhD studies once they have reached the age at which they wish to have children, because it is difficult for PhD students to take parental leave.

The level of women’s education is crucial to European growth, innovation and women’s personal development. The Member States must therefore make it easier for students who have children to combine study and family life. This ought to happen through social and economic reforms, such as state financial support and well-developed and inexpensive child care.

  Gabriela Creţu (PSE). – Educaţia şi speranţa de viaţă sunt indicatori ai dezvoltării umane. Europa înregistrează performanţe în acest sens, ceea ce este bine, nu pericol social sau economic. Dificultăţile demografice provin din false priorităţi şi dintr-o repartizare a resurselor insensibilă la viaţă, în care omul pare mijloc pentru creşterea economică, nu invers. Un om nu este doar o valoare utilă, forţă de muncă şi contribuitor la asigurările sociale. Nici reproducerea forţei de muncă nu poate fi necesitate socială, ci răspundere individuală. Precum tribul indian dispărut, politicienii ar trebui să se întrebe la orice decizie: e bun şi pentru copii?

În cele referitoare la studenţii părinţi, trebuie să ţinem cont de specificul lor, de suprasolicitarea cauzată de o multiplă obligaţie: studiu; muncă pentru a întreţine şi creşte un copil; lipsa de locuinţe adecvate; părinţi care nu pot ajuta pentru ca sunt la vârsta activă şi sunt ei înşişi sub exigenţa reconcilierii; instituţii de învăţământ conservatoare – o liceană însărcinată poate fi încă motiv de scandal şi exmatriculare –; anumite alocaţii nu sunt drept al copilului, ci drept derivat al celor care muncesc, excluzând studenţii; la vârsta studiilor numai un bărbat la patru femei doreşte un copil şi e devreme pentru reproducere artificială; feminizarea şi segregarea educaţională pe genuri face dificilă întemeierea unei familii în universitate.

Atingerea obiectivului „Barcelona” privind serviciile de îngrijire ale copilului este urgent necesară. Fără un avans rapid pentru o egalitate reală între femei şi bărbaţi... nu este şi suficientă, acolo unde familia poartă numele bărbatului, dar răspunde încă răspunderea femeii.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, what is the best time to have a child? There is no simple answer to this question, and women have to balance having children with work and education demands.

The Lisbon Agenda is well known for its goal that by 2010 Europe should become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth together with quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and greater social cohesion. It has been calculated that this would increase the overall employment rate in the EU to 70% and the employment rate for women to more than 60% by 2010.

This has obvious implications for women and decisions about family, work and education. Education and training have obvious benefits for individuals and society as a whole. At the same time, women often delay having children because of the demands of work and study. I welcome the Commission’s recognition in its recent communication on reconciling professional, private and family life, that public policy should also be addressed to young women and men who are still in higher education.

We need to make it easier to combine family life with studying. Unfortunately, few EU countries have a range of social and economic measures to help the students who are parents. Students with family responsibilities face considerable difficulties in their university courses and their daily lives. They have special needs, in particular with regard to housing, childcare services and course flexibility. This particularly affects women, as they are more likely to give up studies due to childcare commitments. This builds in disadvantages for women which we have to address.

I urge colleagues to support this report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – Potenţialul şi talentul femeilor nu trebuie irosit. Anul 2007 este anul egalităţii de şanse şi de aceea este imperios necesar să reconciliem viaţa de familie cu activitatea profesională prin flexicuritate, prin introducerea unei metode precum teleactivitatea şi, mai ales, să îmbunătăţim învăţarea continuă. În acelaşi timp, trebuie să fie dezvoltate facilităţi pentru îngrijirea copilului sub 3 ani, pentru cel puţin 90% din copiii cu această vârstă. Acestea trebuie să fie priorităţile noastre, dar mai ales ale miniştrilor însărcinaţi cu afaceri sociale şi protecţia familiei, în condiţiile în care, deşi 80,7% dintre tinerele cu vârste între 20 şi 24 de ani au absolvit liceul, femeile reprezintă doar 15% din persoanele ce deţin grade academice, şi doar 33% din cercetătorii europeni. Doar 28% din femeile cercetători ce lucrează în industrie au copii.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am pleased to note that the Commission and Parliament share the same opinion on the importance of reconciling working life and family life, particularly in the context of promoting equality between men and women. This is true, as this Parliament initiative emphasises, before and after young people enter the labour market.

It is too soon to turn to the follow-up to the consultation and reconciling working life and family life. This is the time to listen; the time to reach a decision is still to come. The Commission will consider the outcome of the second phase of consultation, any negotiations between the social partners and an extended impact assessment. It will then decide whether it is necessary to put forward proposals supplementing existing legislation relating to reconciliation.

  President. Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed, the vote will take place shortly.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.00 and resumed at 12.05)

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

7. Deadline for tabling amendments: see Minutes

8. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details of the votes: see Minutes)

8.1. Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0042/2007)

8.2. Integrated pollution prevention and control (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0043/2007)

8.3. Controls, tell-tales and indicators for two- or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0045/2007)

8.4. Injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0046/2007)

8.5. Steering equipment of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0047/2007)

8.6. Maximum speed of and load platforms for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0048/2007)

8.7. Parts and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0049/2007)

8.8. Field of vision and windscreen wipers for wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0050/2007)

8.9. Minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0132/2007)

- Before the vote

  Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as the successor to Mrs Wallis as rapporteur for codification, I should like to draw attention to a problem that Mrs Wallis also had. The codification procedure is a simple, quick procedure. It is based on agreement between the Council, Parliament and the Commission, and enables legal acts that have been amended several times to be consolidated into a single legal act. Substantive changes are explicitly exempted from the codification, which is why I broadly welcome the agreement on a fast procedure.

Scrutiny is carried out by the legal services of the Council, Parliament and the Commission, which compare the revised legal acts carefully. The result is then presented to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the rapporteur.

I am an advocate of simplification and of better lawmaking, but with one reservation. As rapporteur, I receive the codified legal acts together with the result of the scrutiny by the legal services between one and three weeks before the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs. It is impossible to scrutinise so many legal acts carefully in such a short space of time. There should be the option of careful scrutiny, however, when one is to subsequently vote on the legal acts in one’s own name.

I should like to request, therefore, that in future the codified version be sent to the legal services and the EP rapporteur at the same time. The simplicity of the procedure would not be affected, and the position of the rapporteur would be greatly strengthened. I think that this would be in the interests of the entire Parliament as well as the rapporteur for codification.

(Applause)

8.10. Approximation of Member States' laws relating to trade marks (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0167/2007)

8.11. Protection of workers against asbestos (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0201/2007)

8.12. Community guarantee to the EIB (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0040/2007)

8.13. Protection of pigs (codified version) (vote)

- Wallis report (A6-0041/2007)

8.14. Pure-bred bovine breeding animals (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0164/2007)

8.15. Community trade mark (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0165/2007)

8.16. Production and marketing of eggs (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0166/2007)

8.17. Scrutiny of European Agricultural Guarantee Fund financing (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0168/2007)

8.18. Mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (codified version) (vote)

- Mayer report (A6-0200/2007)

8.19. Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EC and São Tomé and Príncipe (vote)

- Capoulas Santos report (A6-0231/2007)

8.20. Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EC and Kiribati (vote)

- Morillon report (A6-0228/2007)

8.21. Request for defence of the immunity of Mario Borghezio (vote)

- Gargani report (A6-0233/2007)

8.22. Definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks (vote)

- Schnellhardt report (A6-0035/2007)

8.23. Cat and dog fur (vote)

– Svensson report (A6-0157/2007)

8.24. Broadband (vote)

– Hökmark report (A6-0193/2007)

8.25. EU economic and trade relations with Russia (vote)

– Quisthoudt-Rowohl report (A6-0206/2007)

– Before the vote on Amendment 4

  Gianluca Susta, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, while we welcome the idea that there should also be ‘high standards of democracy’, on behalf of my group I propose that the phrase ‘and free-market principles’ should be retained.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

– Before the vote on Amendment 26

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, in Amendment 26, second part, second sentence, I should like to replace the word ‘could’ with ‘should’. This has been agreed with the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

8.26. Competition Policy 2005 (vote)

– Ferreira report (A6-0176/2007)

–Before the vote

  Elisa Ferreira (PSE), rapporteur. – (PT) Ladies and gentlemen, given that unforeseen transport difficulties prevented me and other MEPs from taking part in yesterday’s debate, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the atmosphere of cooperation and compromise that enabled us to reach a broad consensus.

I should also like to thank the Commission services and, in particular, Mrs Kroes for her openness, the personal interest she has taken in this matter and her readiness to engage in dialogue. It has become particularly important today for there to be cooperation between the European institutions and for Parliament to be strongly involved, at a time when European competition policy covers strategic sectors such as energy and services of general economic interest, when it encompasses new areas such as the environment and when much competition has acquired a global dimension.

Consequently, we must go on updating competition policy and must keep up the spirit of cooperation evident during the process of drafting this report, for the benefit of Europe’s citizens.

8.27. Crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (vote)

– Draft European Parliament Recommendation (B6-0199/2007) author: Wallis

– Before the vote

  Diana Wallis (ALDE), rapporteur. – Mr President, this is a real report this time. It is a report that represents 18 months of work of a committee of inquiry of this House. This morning whilst we were having the debate, colleagues from various different groups approached me and said that they would like a roll-call vote. We should have requested it yesterday, but in view of the number of colleagues who have come to me, I wonder if we could now do that.

(The request was accepted)

8.28. Family life and study (vote)

– Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou report (A6-0209/2007)

– Before the vote on paragraph 24

  Anna Hedh (PSE). – (SV) I have an oral amendment to the second clause of paragraph 24. I shall read it in Swedish: Parliament ‘calls, furthermore, on the Member States to count maternity and parental leave during a period of study towards women’s/men’s aggregate time spent in work and their retirement pension entitlement periods, with a view to meeting fully the goal of genuine gender equality’. The word ‘men’s’ should, then, be added.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

President. – That concludes the vote.

9. Explanations of vote

- Wallis report (A6-0042/2007)

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Changing patterns in the world of work, the fragility of certain sectors such as industry, the explosion in the services sector and increased mobility of the work force are all phenomena making it necessary for the European Parliament to work towards greater protection for workers.

As long ago as December, Mrs Bachelot’s report set out to establish a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, and it is this same concern to take account of the rights of workers that lies behind the Directive on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.

Every year, thousands of employees are deprived of income, sometimes for months, as a result of their firms becoming bankrupt, thereby resulting in hardship.

This directive will allow codification of all the rules relating to the protection of the employee in the event of the insolvency of the employer, and it will apply to any employment relationship, whatever the type of contract.

The completion of the internal market, which is sometimes wrongly accused of increasing insecurity on the labour market, may, on the contrary, give rise to genuine legislation and the creation of a system of protection for employees. This report, which I support, is evidence of this.

- Mayer report (A6-0132/2007)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE), in writing. (SK) I am very pleased that we have adopted the EP Directive on minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment.

The codified version was drafted using a data processing system on the basis of the consolidated wording of Directive 89/655/EEC.

It is very important that employers should always take necessary measures to ensure the safety and health protection of their employees by means of suitable equipment and conditions for their work.

New employers in particular are sometimes prone to focus more on net profit, rather than spending on various safety equipment or creating work conditions; as a result, the health and occasionally the lives of employees may be jeopardised. Employers now face a clear framework of standards they must comply with; therefore I welcome the adoption of this text, which unequivocally strengthens health and safety protection at work.

- Mayer report (A6-0201/2007)

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE), in writing. (SK) We have adopted a codified proposal based on the preliminary consolidated wording of Directive 83/477/EEC as amended.

I am aware of the fact that improved safety, hygiene and health protection of employees envisages the elimination of asbestos and all asbestos-containing materials from the work environment, as these materials are extremely dangerous to human health, since they are associated with carcinogenicity.

The consolidation of this directive produces a binding text which prohibits the use of asbestos and materials derived from asbestos for construction, demolition and remediation works, and will improve in all respects the situation of workers exposed to asbestos. I also welcome the preventive measures designed to protect health at work.

- Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos report (A6-0231/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the fisheries agreement with São Tomé and Principe on Community fishing opportunities for four years, beginning in June 2006. Under this agreement, Portugal has five licences for tuna surface longliners.

In this new agreement, there has been a 32% overall reduction in fishing opportunities. At the same time, the financial burden for shipowners – from EUR 25 to 35 per tonne of fish caught – has increased, while the financial burden for the Community has been reduced by the same amount. These are measures that, in view of their impact on the sector, give us grave cause for concern.

At Community level, these conditions mean agreements with ever smaller fishing opportunities and with ever greater burdens and responsibilities for shipowners. The question is therefore that of how they actually contribute towards improving the economic situation for the fisheries sector in the various EU Member States.

Lastly, we have our biggest reservations about Amendment 2 of this report, adopted by Parliament, which confers discretionary power on the Commission to withdraw licences in the event of non-compliance with obligations. In our opinion, the procedure in force for this type of situation must remain in place.

- Morillon report (A6-0228/2007)

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The agreement before us lays down Community fishing opportunities for the next six years in the waters of Kiribati, by and large maintaining the conditions of the May 2003 Fisheries Agreement. The agreement, which is solely for tuna, retains the number of available licences for the Portuguese fleet, that is to say six licences for surface longliners, together with the distribution of financing, with shipowners contributing 35%.

It is important to mention, however, the change in the sphere of reference: the old fisheries agreements with third countries, which were commercial in nature, has been replaced by the new Partnership Agreements, with fisheries protocols, which will effectively work more and more as development aid.

I wish to point out, in this context, that fishing opportunities are diminishing all the time, while the financial burdens for vessels are increasing and the fishing rules are becoming increasingly tough, which means that most fleets will not be able to take full advantage of these opportunities. Furthermore, companies from EU countries in this sector sometimes relocate production. This is a series of issues that cause us to have reservations and concerns, and when these agreements are put into practice, these issues should be studied and evaluated in greater depth.

- Schnellhardt report (A6-0035/2007)

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking once more the rapporteur Mr Schnellhardt for negotiating an excellent compromise; one that, thank goodness, has also obtained the necessary majority in plenary. We Austrians were particularly interested in the issue of ‘Jagatee’. Together with Ministers Pröll and Seehofer in the Council, we succeeded in reaching a compromise that we see as perfectly workable. Our German friends, too, now have a drink that they are allowed to produce exclusively under the name ‘Hüttentee’. I believe that this issue has been resolved as well as possible and also amicably.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you for the fact that here in Parliament we are striving to safeguard Europe’s cultural heritage. Across the political divide, we share the goal of ensuring that the traditional technical or geographical designations of spirituous liquors are accurate, and that no other products can use the same designations. Not only are we safeguarding cultural diversity but we are also protecting consumers’ rights. I have voted the way I did so that all consumers, wherever they order a glass of vodka, whiskey, rum or Czech slivovice, can be sure that they are getting exactly what they want in their drink.

I have voted, therefore, in favour of being able to distinguish from the wording on the label whether something is other than a traditional form of liquor. Spirits made from bananas, for example, rather than from potatoes, cereals or molasses, should not be called banana vodka, but banana drink or banana spirit. Perhaps it would not be so difficult to defend European vodka in the WTO. European consumers must be sure that what they are buying is what they asked for and not a fake.

It is similarly important for the Czech Republic that the labelling of Czech slivovice, which is traditionally distilled from plums, cannot be used also for, say, European distilled spirits that are plum-flavoured because plum juice has been added to the spirit. Trust me, that cannot be compared to plums distilled in slivovice, and if anyone is unsure about that, I would ask them to come to my country and try some.

I would ask my vote in favour in the last nominal vote to be recorded because my equipment was unfortunately not working.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, unfortunately, the majority of Members supported a broader definition of vodka. This was a defeat for many centuries of tradition.

The rapporteur, and the Members who supported the broader definition supported principles which will lead to the production of vodka that is of a poorer quality and tastes worse. This could, in turn, result in a vodka made from various agricultural products, including those of animal origin and post-production waste, which is dangerous to consumer health.

Products such as vodka are associated with certain regions of the world, which often boast many years of vodka-making tradition. These are national products and we cannot tinker with them by introducing ambiguous definitions, which is exactly what we have done today. This decision is wrong.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) When Slovakia acceded the EU, local producers were required to make changes to the designation of alcohol and spirits. The producers were not overly enthusiastic, but they complied with the need for change in a disciplined manner. The ‘rum’ they had produced became ‘um’; to have retained the designation ‘rum’ it would have had to be produced from sugar cane alcohol. For economic reasons, producers preferred to stick with alcohol produced from grain or sugar beet molasses. This is one of the reasons why in Slovakia we have ‘um’ instead of ‘rum’, the former being a spirit with a specific rum flavouring people consume because of its taste, which has evolved over generations and has not changed since EU accession.

This is why I sympathise with my fellow Members from Poland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; this is why I have signed and voted in favour of the amendment demanding that there be a strict definition of vodka, which would regard grain, potatoes and, potentially, sugar beet molasses as the only acceptable raw materials. I do not consider the Schnellhardt compromise acceptable, since, although it would not change the labelling on vodkas made from grain, potatoes or molasses, it would involve products made from other raw materials being designated ‘vodka made from …’ followed by the name of the original ingredient.

This is such a simple matter, and EU definitions should be just as simple. Since the amendment was not adopted, I have abstained from voting on the report by my colleague, Mr Schnellhardt.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) Mr President, I would like to speak about the Schnellhardt document. I am not an admirer of vodka, and I have no desire to advertise the product; however, I believe that the compromise solution we have adopted today, likewise the one regarding the definition of vodka, is a step forward. I voted for it, although the country I represent – Lithuania – wanted a much more specific definition.

I think the solutions we have adopted today do not fully satisfy the hopes of consumers and European Community vodka manufacturers, especially from our region. However, I voted in favour of the proposal on the understanding that it was a compromise solution.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of the Schnellhardt report, as all countries – including my own, Austria – have developed their own, often regional, specialities and spirit drinks.

The issue of ‘Jagatee’ has already been mentioned. It was a very important one as far as we were concerned, as I believe that such traditions, including in the field of spirit drinks, are virtually part of a country’s national identity.

Protecting production methods also guarantees high quality and, of course, guarantees that established producers and production methods are protected. The fact that the ‘vodka war’, too, has now been ended was a further reason for my voting in favour of this report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The new regulation on spirit drinks will bring greater clarity to the definition of this kind of drink and to the methods used to produce it.

The Schnellhardt report improves on the Commission’s proposal by making it clearer and by including some spirit drinks that are difficult to define and others that were omitted from the original proposal.

The report has our backing because it is a complete document that includes two unique Portuguese drinks initially overlooked by the Commission, namely Madeira rum and poncha da Madeira.

As regards vodka, the decision was taken to vote for an amendment calling for clear reference to the raw materials from which it is made when it is not produced from the traditional raw materials of potatoes, cereals and molasses.

This strikes us as an appropriate position because it promotes the traditional, original production values of vodka and because it is in the consumers’ interest to be given clarification of the products they consume.

On the other hand, this is also a precautionary position aimed at preventing the situation from recurring in the future whereby the production and placing on the market of, say, a traditional Portuguese drink is undermined.

Although this amendment was not adopted, we supported the report. Reference was made, albeit less clearly, to the raw material used in vodka production.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Schnellhardt report on the proposal for a regulation on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks, because I consider it vital that consumers should not be misled. I consider it important that producers should pass on clear information on the nature of the product in order to ensure greater transparency in the market.

The purpose of adopting a single regulation bringing together the two existing regulations is to pursue a well-defined policy for spirit drinks, adapting the current law to the new technical requirements also defined by the World Trade Organisation.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The Commission has adopted this proposal for a regulation aimed at updating the Community law applicable to spirit drinks, which includes the definition of criteria for recognising new geographical indications. The proposal is also aimed at providing clear information to the consumer on the nature of the product and forces producers to pass on all necessary information in order to ensure that the consumer is not misled.

This was one of the texts that needed a number of last-minute compromises between the various political groups in order to reach an acceptable proposal for a regulation on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks.

At the heart of the dispute was what is meant by the term ‘vodka’. Some said it should only be made from cereals, potatoes and/or sugar beet molasses, whereas others argued that the labelling should enable consumers to distinguish the raw material used in its manufacture.

As regards Portugal, I feel that there are no problems with the proposals contained in the regulation as regards geographical indications, which include the various forms of wine, grape marc and pear spirits, Madeira rum, fruit spirit from the Algarve and Buçaco, ginjinha portuguesa, licor de Singeverga, Portuguese anis and poncha da Madeira.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be voting for this report. I accept the need to bring the rules respecting vodka more closely in line with those of whisky. Yet at the same time I hope we will continue to pay attention to the plight of those small producers of ‘apple and pear spirit’ within the United Kingdom who in the past have suffered from unfair discrimination.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report that is designed to improve the applicability, readability and clarity of the labelling of spirit drinks.

Spirits will, therefore, be in keeping with the new technical requirements, and particularly with the rules and standards of the World Trade Organisation.

The aim is to allow European producers of spirits to retain their indications of geographical origin on the world market.

It was possible to retain the definition of ‘agricultural rum’ during the negotiations. Producers and consumers approved the compromise reached concerning, in particular, the quality criteria. In the French Overseas Departments, the definition of ‘agricultural rum’ makes it possible for producers to set themselves apart from competitors from third countries. Produced exclusively from sugar-cane juice, the designation ‘agricultural rum’ is a guarantee of quality recognised by consumers.

The solution that has been found with regard to the question of vodka makes it possible also to retain the designation ‘traditional vodka’, produced from cereals, potatoes or molasses, without preventing production using other agricultural products. In the latter case, the label must bear the indication ‘Vodka produced from...’.

  Jens Holm (GUE/NGL), in writing. (SV) I voted today against the report by Mr Schnellhardt in the final vote. The point of departure is the social situation in Europe, where alcohol consumption needs to be cut back on. Work on better public health needs to be given the highest priority. In this situation it is preposterous for the European Parliament to define vodka and thus to support the use of an alcoholic drink that is harmful to people when consumed in substantial quantities.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The battle over vodka really took place at midday in the Chamber during the vote on the revision of the legislation on spirit drinks, a vote during which the European Parliament certainly displayed fairness, but not firmness, in defence of culinary and wine-growing traditions.

It displayed fairness inasmuch as it rightly considered that vodka, an alcoholic beverage traditionally produced in Poland, Sweden, Finland and in the Baltic States, deserves legal protection in the same way as other spirits with protected designation of origin such as gin, whisky or brandy.

Then there was confusion as producers who distil vodka other than from potatoes or cereals (apparently there are producers in Italy, the United Kingdom and even in Belgium) will be able to retain the designation ‘vodka’ for their spirit products in return for a simple statement on the label.

When all is said and done, it is not consumers who will be the losers in this affair but, rather, a certain conception of cultural heritage and of food or wine-growing traditions that are strongly rooted in our regions and territories. Europe must, however, encourage people to devote themselves to these traditional industries and not cause local producers to despair.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE), in writing. (SV) Today, the European Parliament has voted on the definition of vodka. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, including myself, chose in the first place to vote in favour of a narrow definition of vodka which, from the perspective of the vodka-producing countries, should contain only grain and potatoes. Unfortunately, this narrow approach did not win through. In the future, it will be possible for other raw materials, such as grapes, to be put into vodka. It is a wording that I accepted in the end, even though it was not my first choice.

  Marek Siwiec (PSE), in writing. – (PL) On 19 June 2007, the European Parliament voted on Horst Schnellhardt's (PPE) report which included, among other measures, the proposal to update the rather vague definition of vodka that has been in force since 1989.

The latest definition of vodka, which appears in the report before us, and which was drawn up by the European Parliament in collaboration with the Council (on the basis of a proposal made by the German presidency), is not favourable from the point of view of countries who are seen as traditional, European vodka producers, especially Poland. This proposal allows vodka to be produced from any agricultural materials, which is contrary to the tradition and history of vodka production, or the requests tabled by Poland and the Scandinavian countries.

That is why I have voted against the compromise drawn up by the Council and Parliament. At the same time, I would like to express my support for narrowing the list of raw ingredients used to produce this beverage to include only grain, potatoes and sugar beet.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. I have been reassured that the compromise reached will not be detrimental to Scottish whisky. I therefore support this report.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. (PL) I am voting against Mr Schnellhardt's report on the ‘definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks’.

A broad definition of vodka undoubtedly devalues its reputation as it poses a real risk to its quality. Introducing vodkas onto the market which are not made from the usual ingredients and will benefit from the reputation of vodkas made from grain and potatoes, will also mislead consumers. As far as they are concerned, the use of the label ‘vodka’ will imply that that this is a reputable, high quality product made from grain and potatoes.

The Polish PSE delegation have made every effort to ensure that the definition of vodka remains in line with Polish interests and have called for traditional recipes and regional methods be respected in the production of spirit drinks. Our position has not, however, gain the support of the parliamentary majority.

- Svensson report (A6-0157/2007)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) An instrument must be created to standardise the rules applicable to the trade in cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur, on the Community market and to place a complete ban on its use, import or export in the Community area.

This is based not only on the ethical consideration that these animals can be pets but also on the need to ensure a level of protection and respect for the animals’ well-being, which the cruel method of rearing and slaughtering these animals ignores.

The confidence of consumers and European fur traders must be restored, an objective that can only be fulfilled by means of a common body of law banning this trade, whereby the legal requirements in all Member States as regards the banning of the sale and distribution of cat and dog fur are clarified, and the barriers to the smooth running of the internal market in the fur industry as a whole are removed.

Mindful of the fact that European citizens are concerned about this illicit, immoral trade, I feel that the adoption of a range of practical measures by the Union in this area will help bring the citizens closer to the European institutions.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the Svensson report because I feel that by creating a range of measures banning the use of cat and dog fur, we will be helping to put an end to this deeply inhumane trade.

I also feel it is vital to create Community-level methods of analysis whereby the origin of cat and dog fur can effectively be monitored and to ban the import of, and export from, the European market of cat and dog fur. It therefore makes no sense for there to be any kind of derogation aimed at creating exemptions when it comes to the placing on the market of such fur.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) In response to a large number of petitions and to concerns that have been expressed, this regulation proposes banning the placing on the market and the import of, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur and products containing such fur. The ban would replace the different existing measures implemented by several Member States and aimed at prohibiting the production and/or marketing of furs from cats and dogs. The proposal also aims at ensuring that information on new methods able to detect cat and dog fur and to distinguish it from other types of fur is made available to the Commission and exchanged between Member States.

The rapporteur strongly endorses this proposal, highlighting however the need to clearly eliminate any legal loopholes that would undermine the import and trade ban as such and emphasising the need to tighten customs checks as well as administrative – and, where possible, also criminal – sanctions applied by Member States in order to create a truly dissuasive framework that would enable this shameful and illegal trade to be brought to an end.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. (DE) I voted in favour of banning the import into, and export from, the EU of cat and dog fur (and of products containing such fur) from 31 December 2008. It is particularly important in this regard that no derogations be allowed and that the Regulation not contribute towards the promotion of the fur trade.

I reject the idea of a labelling requirement as insufficient and too costly.

I also voted in favour of specific criminal measures, such as confiscation or revocation of licences, and I hope that the Member States will lay down and ensure the implementation of such penalties. There should be a regular exchange of views on the implementation of the Regulation.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. A ban on the import of cat and dog fur into the EU must be fully implemented. That is why I cannot support the derogations suggested by the Commission, but fully support the report.

- Hökmark report (A6-0193/2007)

  Liam Aylward, Brian Crowley, Seán Ó Neachtain and Eoin Ryan (UEN), in writing. We welcome the Hökmark report on ‘Broadband’. We supported amendments which point out that public authorities should make every effort to ensure that all citizens have access to broadband. The benefits of broadband need to be extended to every section of the population of Europe, including Ireland. We believe that public authorities play a crucial role in ensuring and speeding up the deployment of, and access to, broadband in less economically developed regions where it would be more difficult to create ICT infrastructure available at affordable cost and of sufficient standard to provide the necessary services, particularly in rural districts. General access to broadband is an essential prerequisite for social and economic development and cohesion, and improved public services. The benefits of broadband should not be reserved for the few, and ‘Info-exclusion’ should be avoided at all costs.

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I regret that the Hökmark report did not take up the many suggestions from the Committee on Regional Development, for which I was the rapporteur.

Consequently, it sidelines the European Commission’s initial concern, namely that ‘despite the general increase in broadband connectivity, access in more remote and rural regions is limited because of high costs due to low density of population and remoteness’, and hence the search for solutions.

We must recognise that in certain areas of the European Union – isolated and rural areas and new Member States – there is a market failure that justifies intervention by public authorities and particularly by local and regional authorities thanks to the Structural Funds. I had experience of this in the Limousin with the DORSAL project. I am, therefore, pleased by the adoption of the two Socialist amendments that bring matters down to earth because it is in fact in these remote areas that information and communication technologies are most necessary and useful as they make it possible to overcome distances by facilitating relations between users and services – clients and providers – and between the public and public institutions, and to reduce the costs and timescales for the provision of services.

  Brigitte Douay (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Hökmark report on Building a European Policy on Broadband, because it is very important to encourage initiatives facilitating access for all to the Internet and, in general, to knowledge.

In accordance with the Lisbon objectives, it is essential to develop information technologies and, among those, broadband. Even if access to new technologies in the most remote regions is an objective that the European Union has to pursue, account must also be taken of the persistent discrepancies within single regions where new technologies are concerned. There are still many villages which, being too far from urban centres, still do not have access to the Internet or which have access to it but unduly slow access that does not allow satisfactory connections, while the region as a whole to which these villages belong is, overall, well served.

For the sake of cohesion, these intra-regional disparities should also be better addressed with a view to combating the digital divide.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) In his explanatory statement for the report, the rapporteur pushes two contradictory arguments. On the one hand, he points out that it is not the EU’s task to finance broadband development. On the other hand, he maintains that EU policy needs to support a more rapid pace of innovation in order to make Europe into the world’s most dynamic market.

To conduct a broadband policy at EU level with general resources is in itself indefensible. What would happen if this policy were to fail, as the Lisbon Strategy has?

Firstly, the June List believes that the development of broadband is a task for the market. It is the market’s actors who, through technological development in the framework of free competition, must ensure that demand for their services is created. Secondly, the June List believes that political objectives in this area need to be formulated and implemented at national level in the framework of institutional competition in order to devise constructive solutions for encouraging the development of broadband.

The June List is therefore voting against the report as a whole.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We welcome the adoption of our amendment aimed at considering that ‘general access to broadband is an essential prerequisite for social development and improved public services and that public authorities should make every effort to ensure that all citizens have access to broadband, thereby enabling its benefits to extend to every section of the population, particularly in the less-developed areas of the Union’. We are very disappointed, however, by the rejection of our amendments, which included the following:

- ‘whereas some parts of geographically highly fragmented outermost regions still have no access to essential ICT infrastructure such as broadband Internet; whereas this applies to, for example, the Western Azores group (Flores and Corvo), which thus has to suffer greater constraints on account of its remoteness and is therefore being penalised twice over’;

- and ‘considers it necessary to allow for the differences between individual outermost regions, one example being the constraint imposed by geographical fragmentation of the kind that exists in the Azores and the Canary Islands, which implies a need to guarantee the right of access to essential ICT infrastructure such as broadband Internet in all parts of the outermost regions to their inhabitants as a whole’.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. – (PL) I am voting in favour of Gunnar Hökmark’s report on a European policy on broadband (2006/2273(INI)).

The rapporteur rightly stresses that the development of broadband Internet connections will contribute to the creation of advanced, global healthcare systems, as well as facilitating better access to professional training and government administrative services. The 500 million European citizens who have broadband access will also provide Europe with the opportunity to become the leading, knowledge-based economy in the world. I fully support the appeal, addressed to Member States, for broadband access in all schools, universities and educational establishments.

I think that improving the broadband infrastructure should be a priority and that significant funds should be earmarked for this purpose. I am also sure that European Union funds should be used to modernise or replace broadband networks that do not provide access with a sufficient traffic volume.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The dynamism of regional economies is strongly dependent on the level of development of information and communication technologies, among which is access to the Internet via high speed broadband connections.

The European Union must indisputably play a major role in promoting, among its Member States and its regions, the fight against the ‘digital divide’, in order to reduce the gap separating individuals, businesses and territories in terms of access to the knowledge society. Government support, channelled within the framework of public-private partnerships, must, as a priority, target the areas that are ill served.

Wireless connections and mobile and satellite communications can deliver broadband to areas traditionally excluded from fixed-line networks, thus offering interesting and inexpensive solutions for people living in remote or relatively inaccessible areas, such as the island or mountain regions and, of course, the outermost regions.

In the outermost regions, these technologies are even more useful than elsewhere, as they make it possible to overcome distances and reduce costs and timescales by facilitating relations between users and their service providers, between clients and their suppliers or even between the public and the public authorities.

- Quisthoudt-Rowohl report (A6-0206/2007)

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS). – (DE) Mr President, we abstained from voting on the Quisthoudt-Rowohl report, despite welcoming, of course, the fact that there was a 20% growth in mutual trade between Russia and the European Union last year and individual Member States have closer cooperation with Russia, for example in the field of oil and gas. Better cooperation should be sought in general terms, although the main focus on both sides must be on the resolution of the issue of the meat embargo. The most important thing is to refute the Russian accusations of poor quality and meat smuggling without delay in order to prepare the ground for negotiations on the strategic partnership agreement due to expire at the end of the year.

Energy supplies are being used as a strategic, political weapon – a fact that should have been clear to us since the Russian–Ukrainian conflict if it was not clear already. In this regard, we Europeans will have to start considering a single line and policy strategy already, so that we have a clear position with which to defy Russia in the foreseeable event that such things recur. We should not forget, however, that our dependence is reciprocal, and that our objective must be to form a viable axis between Europe and Russia, which – in my opinion – should not apply only to trade relations.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I believe that there should be a public service obligation imposed on service providers of broadband technology. As someone who lives in a village in Gloucestershire, that only within the last 12 months or so has had access to broadband, I know the economic consequences of exclusion. I accept that the installation of broadband will start with the more populous and accessible regions, but it should not be allowed to stop until over 99% of the population is covered. Service providers cannot be allowed to cherry-pick without adverse consequences for peripheral regions and economies. I will vote in favour of this report as it is going a long way in the right direction, if not quite reaching my final destination.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report reflects the current climate of inter-capitalist contradictions between the major powers of the EU and Russia. The report sets out its approach to intervention in Russia - which goes to show that it is nothing but a guide to neoliberal policy - designed to induce Russia to pander to the interests and ambitions of the major economic and financial groups in the EU.

Take, for example, the significant criticism of ‘the bill recently introduced in the Russian Federation, which allows the government to reject foreign bids for majority stakes in Russian companies, thus prohibiting foreign ownership of more than 49% in companies active in 39 strategic industries’. The majority in Parliament ‘questions the bill itself as well as the choice and the growing number of industries that have been classified as strategic and essential to national security’ in Russia.

Furthermore, and perhaps because it reveals too much of the real intentions of this report, the following paragraph was removed: ‘considers that this does not represent a move towards improving the investment climate and that this raises fundamental questions regarding the role of the State in a market economy and competition in key sectors of the economy; considers that the ownership situation of companies, in Russia as in other countries, is a matter which can best be determined by the market’.

Need one say more?

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Russia’s importance to the EU is based on a combination of factors such as its geography, its scale, its strategic position, its importance in terms of energy supply – specifically as an alternative to energy sources located in the Middle East – the memories that are particularly fresh in most of the Member States that joined the EU in the last two rounds of enlargement, trade and, of course, Russia’s role in international relations. With regard to all of these factors, realism is needed. Realism must not, however, be confused with ignorance of the difficulties nor with the absence of a framework of values. Although improvements have been made in some areas, today’s Russia is far from being a free and open democracy that upholds human rights in full.

I therefore applaud the way in which the EU succeeded in speaking with one voice at the recent EU-Russia summit and the fact that it managed to raise a number of the Member States’ concerns and interests. Although the results achieved are not ideal, an approach such as this is preferable; an approach that recognises the multiplicity of European interests, that represents those interests and that remains faithful to its framework of values.

- Ferreira report (A6-0176/2007)

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, the votes today on the Ferreira report demonstrate once again the relentless attack on countries in Europe that operate low corporation tax regimes. The putting in place of a common consolidated corporation tax base means that there will be greater distribution of corporation tax receipts to the exchequers of the larger EU Member States at the expense of others. Even if eight or more countries agreed to a common consolidated corporate tax base, this would in turn have the effect of invalidating existing bilateral tax treaties with Member States that chose to participate in a CCCTB arrangement.

Efforts are already being made by some Member States whereby corporation tax receipts would be made in the country where is sold. This would be very bad news from an Irish perspective because many of the large companies in Ireland only manufacture or produce new goods and services that are sold in the larger EU Member States. Let nobody be in any doubt – and in particular after the very hostile and negative comments recently made by the German Finance Minister – that Ireland and other countries with low corporation tax regimes face a real battle to keep their low corporation tax structure in place, which has kept employment high, unemployment low and has been one of the main planks of a successful economy.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I have voted against the report by Mrs Ferreira because in section 13 the rapporteur proposes the introduction of a consolidated tax base throughout the EU. In my opinion, tax base consolidation would be the first step towards consolidating the rates of corporate income tax. This would have negative implications by diminishing the competitive pressures to which Member States are exposed.

In my opinion tax competition is necessary, since it prompts states to introduce necessary reforms. My country, Slovakia, is experiencing an economic boom thanks to the numerous reforms implemented by the former prime minister, Mikuláš Dzurinda. Slovakia is an example of how simple, transparent, neutral rules generate more government revenue. Tax revenue does not depend merely on the tax rate, but first and foremost on a broad tax base and the number of exemptions, allowances, special regimes, etc. For this reason, I am strongly opposed to any corporate income tax harmonisation.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Parliament tends to use annual sectoral reports – in this case on Competition Policy 2005 – to present its maximalist positions. This time, it is doing so in relation to the idea of implementing the liberalisation of the entire energy sector by 1 July 2007, in relation to the harmonisation of business taxation (with a common consolidated corporate tax base) and in relation to the reduction and control of state aid, which is a distinctive characteristic of the EU’s competition policy. It also makes a point of amending competition rules when they block the concentration and centralisation of capital. All of this is done in the name of the neoliberal Lisbon Agenda. Hence our vote against.

There are two points in particular that deserve to be highlighted. First, we wish to restate our opposition to changes of strategy in relation to mergers and the impact of competition. These changes are aimed at encouraging even bigger European multinationals to compete globally, instead of at looking into the impact of the concentration of businesses in national markets, while ‘monopolies’ and public authorities continue to be criticised. Mergers and acquisitions have trebled in value since 2003. Secondly, there has been an attempt to apply competition rules to services of general interest by the back door.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. I voted against paragraph 13 and the overall report on Competition Policy 2005. I am opposed to the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base as I believe it would be a first step toward tax harmonisation.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The Union’s competition policy is vitally important in an open market economy.

Measures in the area of fair trade in goods and services – for example, price reductions, increased quality, choice for consumers and the important development of technological innovation – are crucial prerequisites if we are to make the most of the openness of the markets.

We voted today for greater clarification of competition rules and greater legal certainty, in order that maximum benefit can be derived from all the measures that have been taken to improve the effectiveness, transparency and consistency of this policy. The current approach seeks to go beyond a merely formal outlook with regard to competition rules, so that we can better assess the actual or potential effects of certain practices or structural changes in companies. Decentralisation is a further positive trend in this regard. I therefore voted in favour of the Ferreira report.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. The EPLP believes that the general approach of the rapporteur was the right one. However, on the issue of the common consolidated corporate tax base, the EPLP keeps its long established view that this is a case of national sovereignty. As such, we voted against the second part of paragraph 13.

- Wallis report (A6-0203/2007)

  Godfrey Bloom (IND/DEM), in writing. UKIP refuses to support the recommendation of the Equitable Life enquiry on a number of grounds. Principally that recommendations include a common regulatory policy similar in concept to the common agricultural and fisheries policies, which have proved disastrous.

Also a recommendation that taxpayers should compensate Equitable Life Policy holders but not National Provident Institution policy holders or failed institutional pension scheme members whose case is no less convincing.

  Michael Cashman and Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. The EPLP supported the setting up of this committee because it believed Parliament could use it as an opportunity to provide clarification and learn lessons from the Equitable Life crisis and give a voice to the victims. Several of the facts of the crisis and its aftermath were not included in the report, so the final result is not balanced. The report has also been used by the opposition parties to attack the Labour government, while misleading the policyholders by falsely raising their expectations.

This vote is on a recommendation to adopt the findings of the report and not the report itself, following the committee vote there were no further opportunities to amend or improve the text. Therefore the EPLP abstains on this vote.

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM), in writing. UKIP refuses to support the recommendation of the Equitable Life inquiry on a number of grounds, principally that recommendations include a common regulatory policy similar in concept to the common agricultural and fisheries policies, which have proved disastrous.

Also a recommendation that taxpayers should compensate Equitable Life policyholders but not National Provident Institution policyholders or failed institutional pension scheme members whose case is no less convincing.

  Bert Doorn (PPE-DE), in writing. – (NL) As a member of the committee of inquiry, I have looked into the quality aspects of legislation.

The committee of inquiry has concluded that whilst the Commission monitors the formal transposition, it does not sufficiently monitor the application. Is legislation transposed correctly and is it transposed in such a way as to ensure that its application complies with the objectives of European legislation?

We as MEPs should also monitor to a far greater extent what happens with legislation in the Member States once we have approved it. As I see it, the responsible rapporteur should monitor what is subsequently done in the Member States. The rapporteur needs to sound the alarm bell when things go wrong and if necessary, get the Commission to take action. I would also counsel in favour of including the national parliaments.

Structured cooperation between the Member States in the area of national supervisors leaves a great deal to be desired. This is not only affecting supervision in the area of financial markets, but also in all kinds of other areas. In the Member States, the number of independent supervisors is increasing. The big question is: who supervises these supervisors? And who supervises the quality of cross-border cooperation between supervisors? Is this not where the European Commission could play a substantial role?

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be abstaining on this report. When the committee of inquiry was established, I thought it would be an important opportunity to learn important lessons from the near-collapse of Equitable Life and provide some explanations to those who were the victims. The problem is that the report disappoints with sins of both omission and commission. It falsely raises the hopes and expectations of policyholders and has been used in a blatant political way to attack the Government. In the circumstances of a committee of inquiry report where there is no possibility, in line with our Rules, to table amendments, I cannot in all conscience vote in favour of the report.

  Jeffrey Titford (IND/DEM), in writing. UKIP refuses to support the recommendation of the Equitable Life enquiry on a number of grounds. Principally that recommendations include a common regulatory policy similar in concept to the common agricultural and fisheries policies, which have proved disastrous.

Also a recommendation that taxpayers should compensate Equitable Life policy holders but not National Provident Institution policy holders or failed institutional pension scheme members whose case is no less convincing.

- Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou report (A6-0209/2007)

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, I should like to emphasise my opposition to Amendments 7 and 8. The vote was not controlled and I wish to express my opposition, because their content is beside the point. It touches on the principle of subsidiarity and I personally believe that the reference to exceptions weakens the principle of equal treatment.

I hope that the report will have a good result and will help everyone, without exceptions.

  Alexander Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the Members from the German Free Democratic Party, I should like to say that Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou’s report deals with a very important issue, namely measures enabling the combination of family life with a period of studies. We have cast our vote to show our solidarity with those of our fellow Members who worked on it.

Nevertheless, I should like to emphasise on behalf of my colleagues that, in our opinion, this issue is one that should be dealt with exclusively at national level rather than by the European Union. Accordingly, this Parliament should take the opportunity presented by this report to conduct a more careful examination of which issues fall within our competence and which would be better left to the nation-states.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Inger Segelström and Åsa Westlund (PSE), in writing. (SV) People’s level of education is crucial to their personal development and to European growth and innovation. The opportunity for students to have families is also very significant from an equality perspective. It is therefore important for the EU Member States to invest more in creating good conditions for enabling people to study and have families at the same time. In the light of this, we chose to vote in favour of the report in spite of the fact that most of the topics it addresses are national, regional and local, rather than European, responsibilities.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report underlines the importance to all young people, men and women, of the benefits of high quality education and training that is adapted to the new demands of the market, and of constantly updating their knowledge in order to be able to enter the labour market and make lasting progress.

The level of education is an essential factor in the growth and innovation capacity of a society. The OECD considers that adding an additional year to the average time spent in education increases the rate of growth by about 5% immediately and by about 2.5% in the long term. In countries with a higher level of studies, there is less inequality between people, which is a major challenge for Portugal, a country with the highest inequality and the lowest educational training in the EU.

In general, the higher the level of studies reached, the higher the level of employment. Looking at the whole population aged from 25 to 64, the employment rate of those with higher education qualifications was 84% in 2001, that is to say, approximately 15 points higher than the average for people of all levels of education and almost 30 points higher than for those who had not progressed further than lower secondary education.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. (PL) Mr President, I am voting in favour of Marie Panayotopolous-Cassiotou's report on a regulatory framework for measures to reconcile family life and a period of study in the European Union (2006/2276(INI).

Member States should give more consideration to the position of young women and men with families The report accurately stresses the need for a framework of policies that would provide more support for young people so that they can study and raise a family without needing to prioritise one of these goals.

The rapporteur suggests that the expectations of young women and men who both study and have families should be taken more into account in terms of educational systems and social structures. This could involve offering favourable student insurance as well as providing social support and medical care which could also cover the student's dependants. Other measures could include reducing the tax burden or not taxing students with families.

As a university lecturer, I think that the report’s appeal to Member States to work together with higher education and vocational institutions to create a more flexible framework for studying, which takes advantage of new technology in the field of education, deserves our full support.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. Work-life balance and work-study-life balance is essential for a healthy and happy workforce. Young women who study and have childcare responsibilities need to be given greater support across the EU.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 12.55 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR POETTERING
President

11. Membership of Parliament

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, the competent Irish authorities have informed me that, with effect from today, 19 June 2007, Mr Colm Burke has been appointed as a Member of the European Parliament in place of Mr Simon Coveney. I should like to wish Mr Burke a very warm welcome to the European Parliament. May your work give you great pleasure.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to join with you in welcoming Colm here, replacing our colleague Simon Coveney, who has been elected to the Irish Parliament. I take this opportunity to wish Simon every success in his future in national politics. We have an excellent replacement in Colm Burke, from Simon’s constituency of Cork South.

  President. Thank you very much, Mrs Doyle. With your good wishes it must be a success!

  President. Pursuant to Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Procedure, until such time as his credentials have been verified or a ruling has been given on any dispute, and provided that he has made a written declaration that he does not hold any office incompatible with that of Member of the European Parliament, Mr Burke may take his seat in Parliament and on its bodies and shall enjoy all the rights attaching thereto.

12. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

(The Minutes of yesterday’s sitting were approved)

13. Conclusions of the G8 meeting - MDGs at the Midway Point (debate)

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

– statements by the Council and the Commission on the conclusions of the G8 Summit;

– the report (A6-0220/2007) by Mrs Kinnock, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the Millennium Development Goals – the midway point (2007/2103(INI)).

The Council is not present.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I shall make a few comments, as I have been asked to do, about the outcome of the Heiligendamm Summit regarding development issues and issues relating to Africa.

The mere fact that these issues should once again have received particular attention was already in itself good news. The reaffirmation of Africa as an important subject in the G8 process is a good thing, but it is obviously nothing special considering the actual results. I quite understand the criticisms of those who are disappointed by the references to development aid. The compromise adopted limits itself to simply reiterating the Gleneagles commitment, and I think we could have been more ambitious.

We know that the European Union of 27 will, for its part, be financing between 80 and 100% of the G8 commitment to Africa. We should not allow the G8 members to neglect their own commitment which, as I recall, consisted of doubling aid to Africa. Some G8 members are not at all on the right track for honouring this commitment. Overall American aid, for example, has fallen by 20% and Japan’s by 10%, and they should certainly do more.

With regard to questions of governance as well as fundamental principles of development policy, I am reasonably happy that our approach to good governance, that is to say one that is multidimensional and holistic, as well as the wording that we suggested, have been retained in the final declaration on Africa. Our governance strategy is focused on results and on offering incentives for reform to those countries that are engaged in appropriate and credible reforms of governance based on sound political will.

I am pleased to highlight the fact that the work of the G8 Summit this year focused particularly on education: that is undoubtedly one of our most valuable contributions. The declaration clearly expresses the necessity for financing those needs that are not covered and that are estimated to have a monetary value of USD 500 million for 2007 in all the countries that come under the Fast Track Initiative.

I am also delighted with the final text on financial resources for health issues, for the Global Fund and for programmes for the prevention of transmission from mother to child. The USD 60 billion that were promised for the next few years in order to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis represent a clear and strict commitment in comparison with the cautious language that was used initially and that omitted any definite indication of the financial resources required.

I am going to conclude my remarks concerning the G8 with an observation of a more general nature. The beauty contest of figures and declarations that the G8 seems to have become where development is concerned does not win over our African partners. Quite the contrary, as the latter confront us with the lack of results on the ground and, above all, with our lack of respect for our commitments. They do so all the more forcibly, moreover, having found an alternative model in China. Not only is China purchasing huge amounts of raw materials in Africa, but it is constructing roads, ministries and hospitals in the months following the request it received and the promise it made. That is quite a coup when our own procedures which, moreover, were basically established by the Council and the European Parliament, impose upon us de facto timescales of several years between the time when the agreement was reached and the time when it will actually be implemented.

We must also, however, learn a lesson where the G8 is concerned: while Africa is increasingly developing relations with emerging countries, the G8 beauty contest is going to become a side show which will become less and less convincing if we do not manage to include China and the other emerging countries in international initiatives on Africa and development. It is, indeed, for this reason that I shall be going to China at the beginning of July: to talk about Africa with Chinese colleagues.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before I finish, I should like to say a few words about Mrs Kinnock’s report and therefore about the Millennium Development Goals at the midway point, the current relevance of which seems to me to be quite indisputable. I remain convinced that the Millennium Goals are within our reach, provided, of course, that all those active in development - not only the sponsors but also partner countries - honour their commitments. I should also like to emphasise the European Union’s firm and total commitment in this crucial period of implementing those goals.

On this point, I should like, therefore, to make a few observations – and, indeed, express a few reservations – regarding the detail of the message contained in the report. If I am naturally very broadly in agreement with the content of this report, I am all the same a little surprised by the mixed message that the report sends out to the world regarding the European Union’s performance as a donor. I should like to point out that the European Union is - and let us not forget this - the main provider of development aid, in terms of volume as well as in terms of percentage of gross domestic income: we devote EUR 100 per head to it, compared with the figures of only EUR 69 contributed by Japan and of EUR 53 contributed by the United States. This is not a reason for wallowing in blissful self-satisfaction, of course, because progress is obviously possible and necessary in this area. Such progress is, moreover, planned as the European Union is committed to it through the European Consensus on Development.

The report laments the fact that the increase in aid from certain Member States results partly from debt cancellation. I agree, of course, with the thrust of this remark or this reservation. Having said that, even leaving aside debt relief, aid from the European Union has increased, which is not the case where the other major donors are concerned. We are, nonetheless, obviously sensitive to this argument, and that is why the Commission has invited the Member States to establish, by the end of the year, a national schedule showing the budget increases that will allow the Member States to achieve their development aid objectives by 2010.

Moreover, we must not underestimate either the effectiveness measures or the multiplier effect of dividing the work between the Commission and the Member States. Nor must we underestimate the value of aligning ourselves with the strategies and procedures of partner countries or, still less, the growing recourse to budget support, which is considerable. In these areas too, the European Union is in a position of undisputed leadership. I note, however, a certain unease regarding budget support which, nevertheless, is the preferred instrument of partnership, reflecting confidence between partners who are equal in terms of rights and duties. By supporting national policies and involving ourselves in the budget process, we are putting in place the instrument best suited to appropriation by the partner countries, an arrangement that also offers greater predictability and exceptional flexibility. Of course, it is still possible to improve the mechanism. That is the purpose of the contract for the Millennium Goals on which the Commission is currently working - a matter on which I touched briefly yesterday when I replied in committee to our colleague, Mr van den Berg - and we shall be able, in the weeks ahead, to discuss with you the criteria and the conditions of this contract for the Millennium Goals.

Those are just a few remarks. Otherwise, I believe that it is vital to join forces in pursuit of the Millennium Goals. Thanks to our approach, developing countries will receive a clear message of solidarity from the European Union, which can only be a support to them in expressing their own determination.

In conclusion, I must thank Mrs Kinnock for this very significant report and congratulate her on it. It does put the issues in their proper context. It is an extremely useful contribution and a constant source of inspiration for the work of the Commission.

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, thank you very much for being here, giving the status that these issues deserve in this Parliament. I should also like to thank the Commissioner for his kind remarks. I think many of us here deeply regret the fact that the Council chose not to be represented here today in discussions on the G8 and the Millennium Development Goals. We are sorry that priorities took them elsewhere.

My report is an opportunity at the midway point to assess progress or otherwise on meeting the Millennium Development Goals. Of course the reality is that many sub-Saharan countries are not on track to meet even one of the MDGs. Virtually no country in Africa is on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for child and maternal health. That is why our committee agreed that the European Union should continue to lead on efforts to support sexual and reproductive health rights through funding and other support. In 2005, the leaders of the rich world met at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles and undertook to double annual aid to poor countries to USD 50 billion, and to give 100% debt cancellation.

In May 2005, the EU Council had already set the agenda for the Gleneagles Summit which took place in July of that year. They had agreed – and this is important – a time-bound commitment to meeting the 0.7% of GNI and 100% debt relief. At the time of writing my report, it was clear that were serious questions of credibility in relation to certain Member States of the European Union. This is where I have a fundamental disagreement with the Commissioner. Excluding debt relief, a number of Member States are falling behind. The Iraq and Nigerian debt deals have been counted in such a way as to distort the true picture on real aid. It is estimated that it amounted to some USD 13 billion in 2006. In 2010, when aid to Africa is supposed to reach USD 50 billion a year, debt relief would have been largely accounted for and would therefore no longer bolster the amount of aid a country gives. The shortfall is now estimated by Oxfam to be an absolutely shocking USD 30 billion.

At the G8, we saw efforts by some Member States of the European Union to press for the promises to be met. But what we saw, as you said Commissioner, was a reiteration and confirmation of the 2005 promises to increase aid. We are still lacking clear timetables and binding practical commitments. We need more specifics and clear financial pledges which will, for instance, fill in the funding gaps for the countries endorsed by the Education Fast Track Initiative.

We also need clarity on the pledge to scale up universal access to HIV/Aids. They talk about 5 million people in 2010. We want to know whether this is a global figure, because, if it is, it should be more like 10 million. If it only applies to Africa, then the communiqué is presenting a somewhat different picture. Of course, again, there is no specific target date. The reality is that developing countries do not want some kind of cheque in the post or some kind of promissory note. They want to be able to put credible and costed plans in place, as our own governments do.

On climate change, all the G8s except the US and Russia agreed to cut emissions by half by 2050. The US commitment to join in with the UN efforts was welcome. However, again I have to say that there were no clear binding targets, and even the 50% by 2050 target had no base year agreed by the G8 in Germany. There is also no agreed intention to limit climate change to 2°C. In the context of the importance we attach to debt relief and to pledges on aid, we know that the whole issue of trade justice continues to elude us. Last year in the G8 in St Petersburg they issued a grand clarion call for the Doha Round to reach a successful conclusion, but what you see, in fact, is a far cry from what developing countries thought they were signing up to when they signed up to a Doha development round. All the G8 in Germany did was to repeat what they said in St Petersburg a year ago.

On EPAs, I particularly recommend Mr van den Berg’s amendment, which unfortunately was left out of the text that you have here because an error was made when the compilation took place. I think it makes a very valuable addition to the debate on EPAs.

Finally, I would like to say that what we need to see now is an absolute change of gear. In 2005, thousands of our citizens across the world marched under the banner of making poverty history. We are seeing that aid really works. There are real improvements in reducing poverty, getting children into school, improving health and saving lives. However, there has to be real social and political change, as well as the growing understanding that what we are calling for here is not for charity but rather for justice for the world’s developing countries.

(Applause)

  President. Thank you for your excellent work, Mrs Kinnock, and congratulations on your report.

  Maria Martens, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, the Millennium Development Goals, that were laid down in 2000, are ambitious plans to drastically reduce world poverty by 2015. At the end of this month, we are half-way through this period, but not half-way in terms of realising these goals, unfortunately, not by a long shot. The development agenda is running way behind schedule. There are still too many people dying of starvation, too many children still have no access to schooling, too many women are still disadvantaged and AIDS, malaria and TBC are still claiming too many victims, and I could go on for some time, unfortunately.

It is vital that the quality and quantity of the aid should improve, and much depends on the political will in the countries. Needless to say, all countries must deliver on their promise to set aside 0.7% of the Gross Domestic Product for development aid. This is not just about money, though. It is mainly about better and more effective aid, and about better coordination of this aid. Phantom aid, whereby the money is mainly spent on consultants, assessment reports and studies, must be reduced.

On behalf of my group, I should like to broach a number of other points. First of all, I should like to draw your attention to the importance of transparency of financial flows. It must be clear where the monies end up. Secondly, with regard to debt reduction, whilst debts are a major problem to many countries, their reduction cannot and indeed, should not, be a reward for mismanagement by governments. This is why debt reduction is only possible under strict conditions, including good governance and transparency. It must be guaranteed that the resources which have become available are actually spent on fighting poverty. Thirdly, I should like to draw your attention to the importance of trade. Trade and the opening up of markets can, under certain conditions, represent a tremendous driving force for economic growth. Countries must be able to count on our support in this.

As for intellectual property rights, I should like to caution against throwing out the baby with the bath water. It must remain appealing for industry to continue to do research into the fight against poverty-related diseases. A certain level of protection for patents of intellectual property rights is needed for this.

Finally, with regard to sexual and reproductive health, many women in developing countries run high risks, even risking their own lives, during and after pregnancy. Many women die unnecessarily from it. Aid in this area is extremely urgent. This is why we are in favour of more aid for these women.

  Margrietus van den Berg, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, unfortunately, the Council is absent, something which the Socialist Group in the European Parliament is deeply disappointed about. In 2000, 191 world leaders committed to the Millennium Declaration to stamp out extreme poverty in the world by 2015 and to improve the health and well-being of the poorest. At the moment, one in five of the world’s population has no access to basic social needs, including education and clean drinking water. In exactly two and a half weeks’ time, we will be half-way towards the MDG deadline. The excellent report by Mrs Kinnock, which we back fully, takes stock of what we have achieved thus far.

Over the past seven and a half years, people have worked hard on realising these goals, and a number of great successes have been achieved. Particularly in Asia, where there has been a major reduction in poverty. The number of people who have to survive on less than 1 dollar per day has decreased there by over a quarter of a billion people since 1990. In Central America too, things are visibly on the up. In both regions, the number of undernourished children has decreased drastically. Child mortality has been cut by many percentage points. Hundreds of thousands of people in Central America and Asia have been lifted out of poverty, something which these regions and the whole world should be proud of.

What is still going wrong in Asia and Central America is the yawning gap between the rich and the poor. We have to help implement strategies for a fairer distribution of natural resources and of soil, for fairer taxes, less corruption and good governance. Too many people, despite all the growth and progress, are still deprived of basic social needs. This is what the focus of European aid programmes, via civil society, should be.

On one continent, the Millennium Goals have been getting further away instead of closer in recent years. Africa, despite separate valiant achievements, despite the efforts of many, is going downhill. It is unlikely that any of these Millennium Goals will be met there on time. Three quarters of the population suffer from AIDS/HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The number of starving people has risen in that region by many tens of millions. How can we change the mindset of the groups that are successful? How can we help African businesspeople, women’s cooperatives and micro-credit banks help turn the tide? First of all, by placing centre-stage not only the victims, but also the successes, including, for example, the end of the wars, in Mozambique among other places, not to mention top African diplomats such as Kofi Annan, fashion houses from Abuja, wine farmers from South Africa, pilots from Ghana, top football players from across Africa and female ICT entrepreneurs. They are the ones who will change Africa. They are the ones that I want to form partnerships with. They are the ones on whom we should focus our European aid. They must receive trade benefits instead of being pestered with our dumped goods.

It is time for a new beginning. A turning point, albeit an uphill one. After all, if we combine quality and national resources with our genuine cooperation in the areas of aid and trade, Africa can rise from the ashes. Genuine cooperation means that we need to focus the European Development Fund and our aid budgets more on the Millennium Goals, education and health care.

You are right, Commissioner, MDG contracts are a good way of achieving this. This also includes the G8, which set real deadlines for major tasks. Genuine cooperation means generous economic partnership agreements. African businesspeople must be able to place their products on our markets with added value. If GSP-plus can help in this, then it should. Let us build an African team made up of good players, of winners, and let us give the African team the chance of winning this football game in the second half of the 2015 match for the MDGs. This will benefit Africa, and indeed, the rest of the world.

  Johan Van Hecke, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, it is probably not a coincidence that a great deal of Dutch is being spoken in a debate on development cooperation, something which pleases me enormously.

Judging from the G8 results, it is safe to say that the process of achieving the Millennium Development Goals is starting to become a case of one step forward and two steps back. Indeed, the subject of Africa did come up briefly in Heiligendamm, even if it was with the intention of not alienating Bono and Bob Geldof. These pledges from 2005 were once again reiterated, but no fresh commitments were made, let alone a timetable. I share Mrs Kinnock’s concern that, at this rate, we will not get there by 2015. Moreover, the Kinnock report has become a very even-handed document, in which our group’s concerns have also been taken into consideration. Let me list them for you briefly.

Firstly, the 0.7% should not be an obsession. The quality and effectiveness of the aid granted are at least as important as the quantity. The so-called development spending of certain governments leaves many questions unanswered, and coordination often leaves something to be desired. Secondly, more direct budgetary aid is inevitable if we want to achieve the MDG goals, but this should be conditional, primarily upon good governance and also on parliamentary control being carried out as a matter of vital importance. Thirdly, we are in favour of further debt reduction. Not linear, but conditional. The capital that becomes available in this way could be paid into a fund that is first and foremost channelled into education and health care.

I should like to finish off by saying that the debate about whether we should give priority to achieving the MDGs or aid for trade is a false dilemma which we do not wish to get involved in. As far as we are concerned, it is not a question of either/or, but of both/and.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, only a joint, global effort can help Africa today. Europe’s persistent funding on so-called reproductive rights, including abortion, poses a fundamental obstacle to this unity.

From both a moral and a medical point of view, abortion is not the answer to the problem of childbirth-related deaths in Africa. If we want to help African women in this field, we should send medical aid, provide drinking water, education and medical facilities. Using European Union resources to fund abortion in Africa is contrary to the principles of providing aid.

It forces all European Union citizens to become indirectly involved in this matter. It is also a form of moral imperialism directed towards Africa, which is an attitude that cannot be condoned in this House. That is why I ask you to vote against points 40 and 41 in the report. I particularly direct this appeal to the Christian Democrat Members in this House. If my appeal is not successful, we will not be able to support this report.

  Frithjof Schmidt, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are now conducting a mid-term review of the great efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and the assessment is poor – that much emerges clearly from Mrs Kinnock’s report. My group supports this good report most emphatically.

If the political situation continues like this, many developing countries, particularly in Africa, will not achieve the Millennium Development Goals and most industrialised countries will not keep their promises to provide financial assistance. Unfortunately, the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm in Germany was one more example of this.

Since 1999, at two-year intervals, the same promises have been made and broken time and again. This casts doubt on the credibility of the European Union in the eyes of many developing countries. The promises made in Heiligendamm are now being offset against the promises made in Gleneagles. Sixty billion US dollars for the Global Fund, but we are being told that that will be offset against the broken promises from Gleneagles. This is what is known as double-entry book-keeping. It is an attempt to cause confusion with figures without obligating individual countries.

I thought it was very good that the Commissioner expressed himself very clearly in this connection: that is precisely what is needed. It is Parliament’s responsibility to state things clearly and exert the pressure needed to ensure that at least the European Union keeps to its progressive plan for achieving the 0.7% target for Official Development Assistance by 2015 exactly and without book-keeping tricks.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, we are taking stock of the G8 Summit. This G8 Summit issued a declaration on climate change that is quite clearly worthless. I endorse the statements made by environmental organisations; Greenpeace said that it was absolutely insufficient, and Friends of the Earth Germany described the promises given as ‘woolly’. No binding commitments emerged.

I endorse what Commissioner Michel said about there not having been nearly enough discussion on Africa. Debt relief for the poorest countries is still overdue. Since this is also a debate on the G8 Summit as a whole, however, I should like to remind the House once more that these G8 countries have no legitimacy whatsoever. They are self-appointed world leaders. This G8 Summit cost EUR 100 million, the fence around Heiligendamm alone costing EUR 12.5 million of this. There was a very successful 80 000-strong demonstration against this Summit, and the rioting – which was wrong and regrettable – was used by the police to subsequently abandon the rule of law. For example, we now know that undercover police investigators were among the demonstrators and probably also incited them to violence. Lawyers were hardly able to do their jobs there, and judges became an extension of the police. The lawyers had a long fight to even be allowed through to the prisoners. Prison cages were set up, which Amnesty International has criticised in no uncertain terms and described as wrong. The Summit was surrounded by repression worthy of a police state. One does not always have to look far to find repression of citizens; human rights are being trodden underfoot in the midst of the European Union, in the context of this G8 Summit.

  Georgios Karatzaferis, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (EL) Mr President, first I do not think that any citizen in the world has confidence in this G8 summit. It is reminiscent of the feudal lords of 400 years ago, who met and decided certain things without giving the people a say. This is modern feudalism. The G8 will meet and a lottery will be held for eight delegates from poor countries to attend. We are talking about Africa. Tell me the name of one large hospital in the whole of Africa. Would you go to Tanzania, Mr President, if you had a serious health problem? You would go to Germany or England. Tell me the name of one large bank with its headquarters in Africa. All the big banks to which we entrust our money are in the northern hemisphere. This is a special type of racism to which we should finally admit. Or at the very least there is tolerance of a type of racism towards these countries. What we give them are the tips we give someone who cleans our windows.

We need a decision, an ideology whereby all citizens of the world have the same rights to democracy and to health and to involvement in decisions which concern them. I do not think that what is happening today is democracy. We are sharing the wealth, we are creating cancer throughout the world, while the superpower – America – does not agree to support Kyoto, with the result that death and global warming are affecting everyone, and the people have no say. We therefore need more democracy, better access and more respect for citizens, especially in countries where democracy is not yet shining brightly enough. We must be careful, because otherwise we shall get a new AIDS from Africa, which will be more catastrophic than this AIDS which sends many citizens from the northern hemisphere to the other world.

  Koenraad Dillen, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to see that the Commissioner for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid is back with us. We know how busy his schedule is. His leave of absence as Commissioner to play an active role in Belgium’s parliamentary elections may have come to an end – and this European Commissioner’s leave of absence has certainly not been in vain for his party, which I should like to congratulate him on. Nonetheless, we have to note with admiration and some surprise that he remains active on both fronts, even after his leave: here in this Chamber as the Commissioner for Development Cooperation, but also in Brussels where feverish activity is prevailing as a new Belgian Government is being formed and where today, the Commissioner is urging my country’s French-speaking Green Party to join the government. Indeed, it is not easy combining the job of European Commissioner with that of Belgium’s deputy ‘informateur’ investigating on behalf of the crown whether a proposed cabinet formation will succeed. The question whether this mix may not lead to possible bias and whether the Commission’s neutrality is in the balance as a result, probably comes into this too.

Quite apart from this comment, it would be better – and I am now referring to the Kinnock report – to turn our attention to the question of how scientific our approach is towards the Millennium Goals. This provocative question was put by Amir Attaran, an authority in development cooperation at the University of Ottawa in Canada. Indeed, Mr Attaran very much questions the scientific basis underpinning these objectives and above all, the way in which achieving these is being measured. He mentions, by way of example, the objective concerning malaria, and states that even institutions such as the World Health Organisation admit that they are not certain of the relevant data that is being provided. By accepting uncertain statistics as the truth, the UN is building a set of Millennium Objectives on quicksand, according to Mr Attaran. Scientific reliability should be the first concern in development cooperation too. It is time we held a thorough debate on this very subject.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur and my colleagues for the excellent work achieved and for the support given to my amendments within the Committee on Development.

I would like to spend some time on a few points. The fight against AIDS, particularly in the light of the UN’s recent reports and the lack of progress made so far in the Millennium Development Goals, must continue to be a priority for the international community, an unbreakable commitment and a responsibility to be borne by the industrialised countries. This is because it is impossible to carry on talking of economic development, education and health infrastructure if in fact the active population that is able to carry out these reforms is being decimated day after day, despite the contribution of therapies and medicines that are clearly not yet adequate or not effective enough.

According to the UNAIDS report, there were between 4 and 6 million new cases in 2006, with 3 million deaths in the same year, two-thirds of which were in sub-Saharan Africa, the region where the Millennium Development Goals are mainly applicable. This is over 8 000 deaths a day, a figure which is truly untenable.

With regard to this struggle and the struggle against poverty in general we are very far from our roadmap and we can no longer accept the excuses of those countries – my own included, unfortunately – which have not yet met the commitments they have promised to the international community, bearing in mind the fact that these are already minimal. We must ask the governments of the donor countries, in addition, not only for greater efficiency in development aid, but also for full consistency with their own trade policies, because supporting development means above all giving countries in difficulty the chance to raise themselves up with their own resources.

On the horizon there are, then, new challenges, stakes, tests and commitments. My hope is that this time Europe will really be able to play the role that it ought to.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Mr President, at the end of the Second World War, when the concentration camps were liberated, we said, ‘Never again’: there would never again be such an example of man’s inhumanity to man. We in this House, and all those at the G8 last week, know that there are millions of children under the age of five dying each year for want of vaccines that we, in what is called the West, have had for the last 30 years. This is an even greater insult than what happened in those concentration camps, because we know it is happening. It is happening in front of our eyes. And what have we done? We have abdicated leadership. We have abdicated leadership to rock stars – and thank God for them, because if they were not there to apply pressure, who would do so? This is a devastating lack of leadership in Europe.

When we talk about communicating Europe, we think we can talk to people about constitutional treaties and all of that. It is nonsense. As I have said before, people are not talking about constitutional treaties in pubs in Dublin or in restaurants in Germany. But look at the people who went to Gleneagles, who took time off work to march to Gleneagles, who went to all of those rock concerts about the Third World. Why are we not giving those people leadership? Where are the statesmen and stateswomen of Europe? All we have are politicians – and poor politicians at that. No Delors, no Kohl.

This issue needs leadership, and the G8 let us down. They did not give the leadership that this issue deserves, and this House has to insist that sort of standard does not continue. We must insist that politicians in the West, within the European Union and within the G8 take real leadership on this issue. Nothing else is acceptable and you, Mr President, have a part to play in this. You could give us leadership in this House. You could influence those who have the ability to change this. We have the ability to change this. We must not accept these standards. The G8 was a grave disappointment to people. It showed that we are really lacking in statesmen, in stateswomen and in leaders, and I hope that changes.

  President. Thank you, Mr Mitchell. I appreciate the fact that you place some importance on the President of the European Parliament, but he was not invited to Heiligendamm.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – (PT) The genocide in Darfur, serious crises in Zimbabwe, Somalia, Ethiopia and Nigeria, corruption, pandemics, desertification, the flow of arms and the race for oil and other natural resources; all of these are factors fomenting further conflict in Africa and adding to the number of people desperate enough to risk their lives in order to get into Europe or to a place where they can find better conditions. It is therefore depressing to see the G8 limiting themselves to repeating the Gleneagles promises that have not been kept. At the halfway mark, as Mrs Kinnock’s report correctly says, the Millennium Goals have yet to be given due priority by European governments and the Commission.

In Africa, in particular, the Millennium Goals must enhance any security and development strategy, and in turn the joint cooperation strategy to be adopted at the EU-Africa summit to be held in December must not be just another photo opportunity. Following the summit the European and African authorities must make phased commitments to meeting the Millennium Goals and must propose strategies that are above governments and that go beyond a blinkered, unseemly bout of one-upmanship with China.

Making commitments to strengthening democratic and civil society institutions in African countries includes investing in those that are fighting for human rights, for women’s rights and for civil liberties in Africa. It also involves the EU and its African partners being tough with one another when it comes to compliance with already binding agreements such as Cotonou. Without justice and the rule of law, there will be no good governance and, still less, sustainable development.

  Toomas Savi (ALDE). – Mr President, I should like to make two points concerning the midway point for the Millennium Development Goals.

First, it is quite obvious that the eradication of poverty in the world is one of the most important challenges of the 21st century for the whole of mankind. For me, as a medical doctor, it is perfectly clear that poverty and diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis go hand in hand, creating a ‘tsunami’ that wipes out millions of lives a year. It is unfortunate that this awful tragedy has now become a bland, everyday statistic. The eradication of poverty presupposes the elimination of those diseases and the strengthening of the health system in Africa through the provision of at least the projected USD 60 billion over the coming years by the G8 countries. Today’s world has a chance to consign those diseases to the history books, and we have to succeed.

I also welcome the G8 decision to cancel 100% of the outstanding obligations of the highly indebted poor countries to the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank.

The MDGs can be achieved only in peaceful conditions, which means that many local military conflicts in Africa must be ended, especially the lengthy crisis in Darfur that has disregarded elementary human rights.

Secondly, I should like to point out that the new Member States, which just recently were recipients of official development assistance and which, for several years, have seen a rapid growth in their GDP, should increase their contributions, not only meet their fixed goals. Naturally, I support the Kinnock report.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to three issues. Unfortunately, the level of aid provided by a Union of fifteen Member States, calculated as a percentage of GDP and earmarked for the millennium goals, is decreasing. The majority of countries still have not achieved even the intermediate goal of 0.33%. In the meantime, funding for basic education needs amounts to only 23% and funding for healthcare stands at 36%.

Only 18 out of the 60 countries in need have had their foreign debt cancelled. These decisions are important, not only because they reduce the often unbearable financial burden borne by these countries, but also because, as the World Bank stated, countries whose debts have been reduced have doubled their spending on fighting poverty.

Thirdly, the most effective means of helping poor countries is to ensure they have access to the markets of the world’s most developed countries, as well as fostering the development of small enterprises and micro-companies in poor countries.

Finally, it is also important to support the development of local governments, NGOs and to establish a central management system for aid from the European Union’s budget, as this is the only way of improving effectiveness and limiting red tape and corruption.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Kinnock for a brilliant report on the mid-term review of the Millennium Development Goals. I am particularly pleased that we are demanding a reappraisal of trade, development and agricultural aid. Our disgraceful practice of giving with one hand and taking away – indeed, often taking away more - with the other must cease. At the same time, the report refers to a whole range of extremely relevant areas of aid. That being said, it was only with difficulty that we got it through the Committee on Development. Many amendments by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats were voted down by only small margins, and if they had been adopted we should have ended up with a much watered-down report.

Otherwise, the report contains nothing other than what, a long time ago, the Member States, solemnly and with much attention on them, promised the poor, together with severe criticism of the fact that the promises were not fulfilled. The report clearly points out that the practice of using debt remission as a smart way of fulfilling one’s obligations is reprehensible. Debt is rightly often written down or often completely written off in the donor countries, and as a result the countries that obtain money by way of aid in this way are the rich donor countries. We cannot in all decency allow that to happen, and the whole of Parliament should unite in rejecting this kind of trickery.

We should persist in the criticism and self-criticism. Our credibility is damaged, as promises should be kept. The Millennium Development Goals, as well as the goals set out in last week’s pompous G8 speeches on the problems of Africa, are important, and the fact that the Council has not even taken the trouble to be in this House today does of course say something about how serious an attitude it has towards its promises. The fact is that it is difficult to see how we are to take the Council seriously when it does not take itself seriously.

Attention should not, however, be directed only towards how the Member States can escape what is demanded of them or get away as lightly as possible from fulfilling the requirements. What we should all agree on is how we are to achieve our goal of halving poverty before 2015. If, moreover, we are to retain our credibility with developing countries, we must also keep a close eye on whether we are in actual fact doing what we promise. We should make efforts to find ways in which such monitoring can take place. None of us should in future be able to get away unnoticed with ignoring our obligations.

  Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the G8 has been a resounding failure in the fight against poverty and global warming. The tired rituals of a summit that, although legitimate, is now anti-historical, given the resistance to the inclusion of new emerging countries such as Brazil, South Africa, China and India, are reflected in the lack of substance of its final declarations.

In 2005, in Scotland, the rich countries solemnly undertook to increase public development aid to 50 billion dollars per year by 2010, half of which was supposed to be given to Africa, so as to ensure that the Millennium Development Goals set by the United Nations for 2015 would be achieved.

Two years on, as shown by the Africa Progress Panel chaired by Kofi Annan, actual appropriations represent only 10% of what was promised. As though nothing were the matter, in Rostock the G8 countries issued a new commitment to grant funding of 60 billion dollars to combat AIDS, all in very vague and deliberately misleading terms. No deadline was set and half of the amount is in fact recycled from commitments already made by the US Administration up to 2013. The increase of 3 billion per year over the commitments already made by the other governments, including the European ones, is completely insufficient to tackle the humanitarian emergency of AIDS and other pandemics.

On global warming a failure to make a decision was welcomed as a success. The result of three days of meetings, at a cost of 120 million euros, was to send back to the UN a possible agreement on restricting the quantities of carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere. It will not be possible to achieve any promise without calling into question the dominant economic and social models.

  Hélène Goudin (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr President, it is gratifying that the European Parliament’s legal service has established that it is wrong to use the non-ratified EU Constitution as a reference in this report.

The June List, which I represent, has consistently emphasised that it is reprehensible to refer to the EU Constitution, given that the populations in two of the EU Member States have clearly and unambiguously rejected it in referendums. If it is to be possible for the Constitution to be used as a legal basis or reference, it needs to be ratified unanimously. I would appeal to this House to respect this state of affairs in future.

The world’s rich countries have a moral duty to spread a part of their prosperity to developing countries. I wholeheartedly support, then, the urgent objectives laid down in the Millennium Development Goals. The June List believes, however, that aid issues should be dealt with exclusively by the individual Member State in cooperation with organisations that have broad international legitimacy and long experience.

The EU’s role in this connection should principally be that of phasing out the destructive fishing agreements that the EU concludes with poor developing countries and that of drastically reforming protectionist agricultural and trade policy. This makes it difficult for farmers in poor developing countries to sell their products on the European market.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, we talk a lot in this House about how much we pay in aid at present and about how much we should pay in the future. We always maintain that insufficient money is provided by way of aid and that the Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved. It will not be possible to achieve them if the developing countries do not receive such aid as enables them to develop their economies and thus help themselves.

Those here in Parliament who know me are aware that I represent Sweden but that I came to Sweden almost 14 years ago as a refugee from Bosnia. I know therefore that when people are in a weak position and need help, they want aid of a kind that will enable them, within a short period, to help themselves and, as quickly as possible, become independent and autonomous and no longer need help. What they definitely do not want are people who feel sorry for them and the kind of aid that leads to their becoming dependent on help in the future too. It is also in the light of this that we must look at the criticism that I make of the report and in which I want to see still more emphasis on trade and its positive significance for development.

Another matter not sufficiently emphasised by the report is liberalisation. The view that aid should increase without the developing countries being required, for example, to reduce their debts means that aid is given without any demands being made in terms either of liberalisation or debt restructuring. Without liberalisation, debts increase still more, however, and then we arrive at the situation I described at the beginning of my speech in which aid leads to dependence on aid – a state of affairs that should never come about.

  President. Many thanks, Mrs Ibrisagic. From your name, one would not imagine you spoke such excellent Swedish: that sets a great example.

  Anne Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, I should like to warmly congratulate Mrs Kinnock on a critical, but as I see it, particularly pertinent report. I should like to thank the Commissioner for his observations further to the G8 Summit held at Heiligendamm. In fact, I can tell you, Commissioner, that I largely share your scepticism about the outcome.

In 2005 everyone was agreed that the Millennium Goals could be met provided the commitment and funds were there. Less than two years later, this idea is apparently being met with far less enthusiasm, as the Heads of Government of the G8 are not going any further than reiterating the pledges of 2005. As some of our fellow MEPs have pointed out, the G8 countries have not managed to draft a desperately needed schedule that would help deliver on the promises. There is no concrete funding plan in place that would make countries responsible for their commitments and any shortcomings, and it is already evident that the G8 countries will not manage to shift up the necessary gears to double the aid by 2010.

In the fight against HIV/AIDS alone, there is a huge lack of funding. In 2007 the shortfall stands at no less than 9 billion. The promises that were made at the Summit in Gleneagles, namely to ensure universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care by 2010 have not been kept, not by a long way. Only one in six AIDS patients receives medication. Every twelve seconds, somebody dies of AIDS and 70% of new HIV infections occur in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is simply unacceptable. Commissioner, USD 50 billion for HIV, AIDS, TBC and malaria is simply not enough in order to get the G8 to deliver on a promise in the area of public health on time.

I should like to make one last point. Meeting the MDGs is not simply a question of money, but also of rights. Without access, for example, to sexual and reproductive health care for everyone, poverty cannot possibly be fought. I hope, Commissioner, that Europe will continue to fulfil its pioneering role in this respect.

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, in 2005, in Gleneagles, the G8 leaders sent out an exciting message with their promise to assign 42 000 million in health aid to Africa, focussing in particular on AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

In 2007 we have a new promise of EUR 44 000 million. Is this commitment really new? We do not know. Or is it just a new way to disguise their failure to deliver, as all of the large NGOs that follow these calculations closely claim? There is no concrete timetable and it is not clear how this new promise ties in with previous promises.

We must tell the citizens that our governments are not acting in a manner that is consistent with the things they say. The very leaders who see people fleeing terrified to their countries from Africa, prepared to risk their lives only to die in the Mediterranean, express their great sadness at those dramatic pictures, but do not then live up to their promises when it comes to turning them into political decisions.

There must be a commitment to more aid — particularly for health and education, undoubtedly. That commitment must also be taken to the negotiating table, however. In its communiqué, the G8 describes the success of the Doha Round as being vital to the economic growth of the African continent. Vital, says the G8.

Well, when we talk about Africa, it would be hypocritical for us to separate the things we say about humanitarian and aid issues from our behaviour at the Doha Round negotiating table, and I am not just talking about the European Union, I am talking about the whole of the first world, that first world that has come together within the G8.

We cannot separate free trade, the reality of commercial exchanges, the reality of what Doha may mean for those countries, from the things we say about humanitarian and aid issues. At the negotiating table, our promises must be turned into rather more than what is being offered in cash.

Finally, aid must be rational. We must welcome the G8’s support for the Infrastructures Consortium for Africa, the ICA. This is a concrete measure that I would like to highlight in particular.

  Eoin Ryan (UEN). – Mr President, I too would like to congratulate Mrs Kinnock on her very fine report. It is difficult to speak on this issue in one minute, but I shall try. The difficulty, in my opinion, is not only the amount of money, or the lack of money, donated to Africa by the EU or the Western world. The problem is also the administration and coordination of this aid. We are all aware of the constraints posed by weak governance in African countries. Aid works in many cases, but aid donated without good governance will never make poverty history.

One idea that could be looked at is the need for individual European states, or groups of Member States, to take on a coordinating role in the administration of aid in individual African countries. This would be a fundamental step towards making the donor countries accountable for the aid they spend. Equally, it would demonstrate the best practice in terms of implementing the Millennium Development Goals.

I say this on the basis of my experience as a Minister in the Irish Government in dealing with poor communities in Dublin and in other European cities, whereby one government agency was responsible for coordinating everything we gave to those communities, and it was very successful. I believe the same thing could be done at European or world level with regard to Africa.

I do not have enough time to speak on this, but the other big question is trade. Without trade, there is no way that Africa can pull itself out of poverty. That is another issue that must be addressed. In any case, I believe that we need far greater coordination of the way in which we implement and spend our money in Africa. If there is proper coordination we could make improvements in this area. As we all know, it is not a simple task and there are no easy solutions, but we need to make changes to the way we deliver aid to the poorest people in Africa.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, whilst it is a good thing that attention has been drawn to progress in some regions here today, the situation in black Africa is still tragic, as previous speakers, including Mr Van den Berg, have pointed out. A distinction should be drawn geographically, but also one based on gender. President Bush is now convinced that more should be done to fight AIDS, as it affects women as well as men. I cannot get away from the impression that this is an important condition before money can be put on the table.

Only women die from maternal mortality by the very definition of the term. There is no sign of improvement in the area of sexual and reproductive rights. It seems that to many, a woman’s life is not as valuable. In Sub-Sahara, 1 in 16 women dies as a result of pregnancy, for example in child birth or due to an unsafe abortion. Sri Lanka demonstrates that investments actually save women’s lives. Mr Szymánski, water and medicines alone are just not enough. Women must be able to decide for themselves whether they want to become pregnant. Difficult decisions about abortion, for example, should be taken on an individual basis rather than form part of a broad and general statement that is made from the comfort of our own chairs.

Commissioner, you are right that the EU is an important money lender and also fulfils an important role in this. EU countries have not delivered on their Cairo promises either, though. What mechanism do you intend to put into motion for this?

  Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Kinnock, for her report which, if it had been adopted in time, would have sent a clear message to the Heads of State gathered at the G8 and the entire international community about how vital it is to take decisive action to achieve a reversal of our course.

This is the request of millions of people who are still dying of hunger, thirst and disease, or because of wars. Although it would not be enough, it would certainly mean a lot if the G8 countries and the international community kept faith with the commitments they have made. If no action is taken, however, on the structural causes of poverty and underdevelopment, people will continue to die.

Commissioner Michel is right about the need for concerted and consistent strategies on several fronts, such as the quantity and quality of public development aid, debt cancellation and the revision of the rules of international trade and also, certainly, the assumption of responsibility, transparency and sound government by developing countries.

I should like to highlight a few points: with regard to the quality of aid, it is particularly necessary to put an end to the highly damaging practice of aid linked to economic and geopolitical interests, as well as the inconsistency between the European Union’s development, trade and agricultural policies. It is also necessary to review the EPAs and to seek alternative paths that are compatible with achieving the MDGs, overcoming the stalemate in the Doha round negotiations.

The three Millennium Development Goals on health issues will never be achieved if there is no universal access to therapies and medicines. Too often international legislation on intellectual property rights infringes the priority of the rights to health and life of millions of people, to the benefit of the profits of the multinational pharmaceutical groups. The disappointing agreements achieved at the G8 also highlight the contradictions of the world’s large powers, which spend on development 5% of what they spend on weapons of death and destruction.

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, I in turn should like to congratulate Mrs Kinnock on her own initiative report on such an important issue.

It is interesting for the European Parliament, midway towards the deadline set for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, to see how far we are from achieving them and, by extension, to revise some of the means for achieving them.

It is a pity that numerous countries in the poorest area of the world, in Sub-Saharan Africa, are a long way from achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Clearly the Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved unless the poorer, developing countries receive increased, improved aid to complement their own domestic resources.

The United Nations, the African Union, the G8 and the European Union must follow current estimates about the need to increase aid to Africa by approximately EUR 3.7 billion a year.

In addition, as the biggest donor of humanitarian aid, the European Union must persist with efforts to have the debts of developing countries wiped out.

Nonetheless, I must admit that what concerns me most is the inability to achieve the target in education. One hundred and twenty-one million children, 65 million of whom are girls, have never been to school. In addition to Goal 2 on free compulsory primary education for everyone, the conclusions of the 1990 World Summit for Children included a goal for the year 2000 of universal access to education, with at least 80% of children completing basic education. Unfortunately, we are a long way from that goal. The developing countries must realise that, if they fail to invest in the quality of their human resources, they are condemned to the same development situation ad infinitum.

  Linda McAvan (PSE). – Mr President, I want to talk about the G8 Summit and make two points. The first is on climate change. This was good news, because the US agreed to stay within the UN process, but bad news that no binding targets were agreed and worse news, in a way, that we made no progress on getting the emerging economies, like India, Brazil and China, within the process.

Commissioner, we have a lot of work to do in the run-up to Bali. I know you are not the lead Commissioner for climate change, but as the Commissioner for Development, you have a key role to play in keeping the momentum on climate change going because, as you know, the poor in the developing world are already paying the price of climate change. Therefore, I hope you will be putting that at the top of your agenda.

While the poor pay the price, if we look at the other key aspect of the G8, foreign aid, we see that the rich pay lip service. Looking at the figures, we see that the G8 is way off track on aid to the developing world and, amongst those, EU countries are some of the worst performers.

Commissioner, my theory is that we will be back here in two or three years’ time, lamenting yet again the failure to make progress on foreign aid. The pledge to double aid was made at an EU summit. Are you keeping a scoreboard on this, or do we have to rely on NGOs to give us the score? In fact, we should be looking at scoreboards on climate change and on aid, because what Mr Mitchell said earlier about credibility and the EU is correct. People out there will judge us on how we perform on the issues they really care about: tackling climate change and poverty. The Constitution issue is important to us, but not to the public. Therefore, unless we deliver on those issues, we will not have much credibility with the outside world.

  Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Michel, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking Mrs Kinnock for her report. Because of time constraints, I shall discuss just one point at this juncture, which – regrettably – is given hardly a mention in this report. In my opinion, the vital importance of decent work as a means of eliminating poverty is a tremendously significant factor in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Where are we up to now with regard to these goals?

As I see it, the results of the mid-term review of this are disastrous. Most of the Millennium Development Goals have not even begun to be achieved and, according to realistic estimates, will not have been achieved even by 2015. This is an indictment of the donor countries. Newspaper reports of the supposed successes of the G8 Summit do not change this fact.

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Mr President, as usual, Mrs Kinnock has produced a good report, but producing a good report, as we all do in this Parliament, is not enough.

I am very concerned that in paragraph 40 and, in particular, paragraph 41 of her report, Mrs Kinnock mentions the Maputo Plan. The Maputo Plan, as I understand it, promotes abortion and goes far beyond the Cairo Declaration. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that the child, by reason of his physical or mental immaturity, needs specific safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

According to the UN, some 8.5 million people around the world die every year because of starvation. This is in contrast to the 46 million children who are aborted each year according to the WHO. That is about the same as or more than the population of Spain. That means that from the moment you are conceived, you are five times more likely to die through abortion than starvation. Contrast the 46 million abortions with the total of 56 million people who die in the world each year.

Forty-six million abortions is also in contrast to the 70 000 women who sadly make the choice to have an illegal abortion and die because of it. Therefore, the ratio is that for every one woman who falls pregnant and then dies because of an illegal abortion, 650 viable children are aborted in the womb – what should be, as nature intended, the safest place in the world for a baby to grow.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against paragraphs 40 and 41 which have nothing to do with maternal mortality, which is supposed to be the theme of MDG 5. Nor have these paragraphs anything to do with either sexual or reproductive rights because abortion has no connection to sexuality: it is not healthy, it is obviously not about reproduction – quite the opposite – and in my view, it is certainly not a right.

  Åsa Westlund (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, I was quite touched by what the previous speaker said. I therefore find it rather difficult to talk, but I shall try to stick to what I intended to say.

When I was at school, I learned that people in Africa were starving because they had cut down the trees in the places where they lived so that nothing could grow there any longer. In a way they had, then, more or less brought the situation on themselves. Now, there is more and more to indicate that it is in actual fact we in the rich world who, through our life-style and our substantial emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate-affecting gases, have caused climate change in sub-Saharan Africa, as a result of which the inhabitants of that region are unable to provide themselves with enough food and water. This undeniably makes us see world poverty in a different perspective. Our responsibility for eradicating poverty is that much greater if it is we ourselves who have caused it.

Mrs Kinnock has a special section on climate change in her report, emphasising our responsibility for ensuring that our carbon dioxide emissions do not affect the poorest people on earth. If we are to manage to do this, we need both drastically to reduce our emissions of climate-affecting gases and to support developing countries so that they might cope successfully with the huge adjustment that the world has to make.

What is at issue is everything from dealing with, for example, raised water levels to ensuring that developing countries that are able to produce renewable energy have the opportunity to do so and thus also have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.

If the world is to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, we must concentrate more on these considerations and give higher priority to them. Nor, if we seriously want to reduce mortality due, for example, to HIV, AIDS and unsafe pregnancies, should we allow religious notions to stand in the way of people’s freedom of choice and their ability to protect themselves against life-threatening diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Reproductive rights, information concerning legal abortion and access to contraception are, and remain, necessary features of our work designed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. All other considerations are merely prejudices, and I am amazed to hear them expressed in this House. We should be more enlightened than that.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, today’s debate makes us take a clear look at just how far we have still to go by 2015 in order to achieve the Millennium Goals. It should be pointed out in this House that these goals are vital in the context of development cooperation and that they must encourage aid that is effective and coherent. As the due date approaches, the slender results obtained, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, force us to be more demanding and to redouble our efforts in order to keep our promises. Faced with what is at stake, the European Union must play its political role fully in order to strengthen the means for development and the effectiveness of its action on the African continent.

2015 is almost upon us. This, therefore, is not the time to run out of steam or to throw in the towel. As the leading global supplier of official development aid, the European Union has the means to help the countries of the South to achieve stability and to benefit from economic, social and human development. If we have the means, therefore, let us now think about the tools for effectiveness, so that the aid given is matched by tangible and lasting results.

This requirement means mobilising all those involved. It is not a matter of charity towards these countries, but of aid for development. The promises made concerning the realisation of these fundamental goals are numerous. One can, therefore, note the commitments made during the very disappointing G8 summit, which decided to allocate EUR 44 billion in aid for the fight against the pandemics in Africa and which reaffirmed the commitment of 2005.

Let us only hope and pray that these promises become more than mere words. For that to happen, these initiatives must now be translated into practical and measurable action. It is urgent that we take action. Let us intensify our efforts in a spirit of partnership so that we do not miss the 2015 deadline.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, a minute is very little to address what is a huge subject. I have been a little bit distressed by some of the mood of this debate and I wonder whether, if we asked African women what they want, they would have had some of the answers that have come up here today. The women I spoke to in Malawi certainly spoke about the need for education, for food, for jobs and for hope, and I thought that is what the Millennium Development Goals would give them, but it is clear that we are not going to get there in time.

In the 30 seconds I have left I want to address, in particular, the trade aspect of all of this: paragraphs 83 and 89 are particularly interesting. There is a suggestion that the WTO negotiations might be an answer to some of the problems of Africa and yet paragraph 89 states very clearly that the LDCs will benefit very little from extensive trade liberalisation, and I think Africans need to remove barriers to trade within their own continent and look very closely at that issue while we in Europe help them develop trade with the rest of the world. But we wish we could do more and I hope that this debate will help in that.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I need hardly tell you that it is always frustrating to have to respond within a very short time to an avalanche of comments, most of which have been very apt. I certainly agree very broadly with the comments, assessments and ideas I have heard.

Let me begin with the G8. I must confess that I, too, have been extremely disappointed to see the G8 summits become more and more of an essentially ritualistic exercise, and I regret the fact that, the more ritualistic this exercise becomes, the less credible it is, and one day people will start asking whether it actually serves any useful purpose.

I heard someone – from the left of the Chamber, I think – ask about the representative nature or legitimacy of the G8. I believe that question needs to be asked. There can be no denying that huge swathes of the real world in geopolitical and demographic terms remain unrepresented, and that is rather a pity. The G8 is becoming more and more of a beauty contest, and it is, of course, extremely sad to see the very concept being discredited by the participants’ failure to honour the promises they repeat year after year. It is always possible to see some grounds for satisfaction in this type of meeting, but they are not enough to convince us that it is a very useful and wholehearted exercise.

I must needs adopt an impressionistic approach in my responses to some of the more trenchant comments that have been made. First of all, on the question of HIV/AIDS, let me say that the two main channels for the provision of financial assistance by the European Community for the fight against HIV/AIDS are support given to countries to improve their health-care provision, particularly in Africa, and the allocation of funds under thematic budget headings. You can rest assured that we shall deploy all the resources at our disposal. The health programmes being conducted in 21 African countries account for EUR 396 million, with an additional amount of EUR 62 million earmarked for the coming months. I will not conceal the fact that it is through these thematic budget lines and the funds assigned to the ACP under the eighth and ninth EDFs that the Community is contributing to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, in which we have been holding the office of Vice-Chair of the Board. Following the creation of the Fund in 2002, the European Community paid a total of EUR 522.5 million into it for the period from 2002 to 2006. Added to the contributions from the Member States, this makes the European Union the largest donor to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

A word on climate change in answer to one honourable Member: I fully share your concern about the threat posed by climate change to developing countries and to their efforts to achieve the Millennium Goals. I believe that issues relating to climate change should be incorporated into development cooperation. Back in 2003 we adopted an EU action plan on climate change and development, which we are implementing jointly with the Member States. Progress in the implementation of this action plan is currently under review, and the findings indicate that, while it has been a good platform for joint action on the part of the European Union, the way in which the plan is being carried out is not really commensurate with the size and importance of the challenge.

I therefore intend to launch a strategy for the intensification of our cooperation with the developing countries most severely affected by climate change. The aim is to work towards the establishment of a global alliance on climate change to underpin the dialogue and cooperation between the European Union and developing countries on the reduction of emissions and on adaptation to changes in the climate. I also intend to share details of this proposal with you fairly soon. That is one specific.

As far as the economic partnership agreements are concerned, I will not dwell on these for too long. Suffice it to say that I am one of those who are convinced that no real development can take place – in the sense of creating the sort of wealth that can fund social services, that can fund all the main access channels to public services – in the absence of access to trade and of economic dynamism. Consequently, the economic partnership agreements as we envisage them, as we perceive them and as we are implementing them are, strictly speaking, development policy agreements. The priority is not the trade dimension but development.

The differences of opinion that may exist between some people and myself on this matter will be common knowledge. I believe that their existence can be taken as read. The decision to conclude the economic partnership agreements before the end of 2007 was taken jointly by the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. The debate and the controversy to which this decision gave rise have been very worthwhile, particularly because they have led to acceptance of longer transitional periods, recognition of the specific nature of certain sensitive products and also acceptance of the principle of financing regional funds designed to offset losses of earnings that result from the elimination of tariff barriers. This is a question to which we shall return, but it is undoubtedly due to the debate that was launched here in this House, particularly by Mrs Kinnock and others, that the Commission, its partners and the other interested parties have come up with far more flexible proposals that take more account of reality.

I am convinced that debt relief helps to fund development. There is nothing unusual about that position. It is quite simply based on our common reference framework in the field of development policy, on the European Consensus that the European Parliament and the Commission approved scarcely a year and a half ago. The European Consensus refers to the OECD definition of public development aid and includes debt relief. The European Union has also undertaken to find lasting solutions to the problem of unsustainable debt burdens.

That said, Mrs Kinnock, you are undoubtedly correct. Everyone hopes there will be more debt relief, none more than I. You are also correct in saying that it is actually no more than one shot and that, if governments want to honour their pledges, they must increase the value in real and absolute terms of the amounts they devote to their development aid policies over the next few years. That, incidentally, is the message the Commission conveyed to the Member States in its communication in April.

As for amending the OECD rules, which has been mooted recently, I do not consider that necessary. I may add that, in my view, there is a risk that challenging these rules would trigger a discussion on the eligibility of other financial contributions which, as far as I am concerned, have nothing to do with development policies. I do not intend to say any more on the matter. Everyone knows full well what I am thinking of.

On the important question of social and human development, I must say – and I say this all the more readily because Mr Deva, who raised this point, is a man whom I hold in very high regard – that I do not share your point of view. The Commission supports policies and initiatives that enable men and women to make free and informed choices about the number of children they have and the intervals between their births and that give them access to high-quality family planning and reproductive health services and to skilled assistance during labour.

I am afraid that I do not share your position, which appears far too radical to me and does not seem to take sufficient account of the concept of individual liberty. There is a philosophical divergence here which we have to acknowledge. People differ, Mr Deva. We are not necessarily all the same, and I believe that the authority argument and the submission argument cut both ways. While I can understand your saying that it is wrong to submit to abortion in practice or in principle, I do not believe we can submit to a religious precept either. That, at least, is my point of view.

I would like to refer to another element that seems important to me, namely the effectiveness of aid. In my view, aid - whether international, European or other aid - will become far more effective when we become a little less obsessed – and I am not trying to impute blame – with the need to wave our own flag. Once we focus properly on the aim of alleviating misery and helping the poorest inhabitants of our planet rather than worrying about who is doing what and how each of us can raise the profile of our activities, that, I believe, is when we shall become far more efficient. That is what we are working for, and we are moving forward with a code of conduct in an attempt to induce the Member States to accept more coordination, more convergence and a more rational division of labour, because these things can only enhance our efficiency.

I must say to you in all honesty, however – because I hear you very clearly, and I know that almost everyone shares this point of view and that, moreover, when we listen to the statements made by governments, ministers, prime ministers, this message is one of the threads that runs through all of them – that these aims are far from having been achieved in practice. We have carried out joint analyses in connection with the preparation of country strategy papers, and we have proposed joint programming. I can tell you today that, for the operational programming of the tenth European Development Fund, I would put the number of Member States that have decided to take part in joint programming at about ten, and even they will not take part in all the programming arrangements. I can cite very few cases of joint programming. That, however, is clearly the objective. The objective is not to know who is doing what but to know who does what best.

As I have already had occasion to say, the Commission has no wish to pull all the strings. The Commission is prepared to delegate responsibilities and to part-fund those who take responsibility, in other words the countries piloting particular areas of activity or projects, provided there is more to be gained by delegation than could be gained from our acting alone. That is the direction in which we must try to move. I remain optimistic, because I believe that, as we progress, we shall furnish proof that efficiency comes with greater coordination, convergence and harmonisation; these are the keys to efficiency.

  President. – The joint debate is closed.

The vote on Glenys Kinnock’s report will take place tomorrow.

14. ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report (A6-0208/2007) by Thierry Cornillet, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2006 (2007/2021(INI)).

  Thierry Cornillet (ALDE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, I shall present you with a few figures on the activity of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2006. It met twice, in Vienna and Bridgetown, as is the norm for the Assembly. Just to slip in a word about Bridgetown, it so happens that Bridgetown is in Barbados and that Barbados is regarded as a tourist destination, like the entire Caribbean. Needless to say, the press pounced on this engagement, proclaiming that the Members of the European Parliament were off on a jaunt to the Caribbean. It is difficult enough to make a joint assembly work without travelling to its member countries. Now it just happens that among the countries of the Caribbean and the Pacific, and even among the countries of Africa, are some in which tourism is a major economic activity. Is that a reason not to go there? Avoiding those countries would be discourteous and would paint a distorted picture of the activity of ACP countries.

Another statistic is that nine resolutions were adopted. I will not enumerate them all but simply point out that some highlighted future problems, such as tourism and development, bird flu and energy problems in ACP countries. My next statistic is that there were seven joint delegations, one of which – the mission to Malta and Tenerife – raised awareness of migration problems.

I would like to emphasise some aspects of the year’s activities. I must mention the arrival on the scene, and indeed the increased involvement in the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, of non-governmental players. That is an entirely welcome development, even if the involvement of these players often takes the form of parallel events. Be that as it may, their participation is undoubtedly a useful complement to the work of our Assembly. I have had the honour of being the Vice-President responsible for these matters. My term of office lasts until the next meeting of the Bureau, and I believe it is important that this post is filled.

Another point concerns the economic partnership agreements. I noted Commissioner Michel’s passionate support for these agreements. Here too, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has played a leading role by monitoring the negotiations and by creating a two-way information flow, through which European Members of Parliament can obtain fuller knowledge of the lie of the land in the ACP countries and our ACP partners can see through the fantasies concocted by some deranged individuals, who misrepresent the economic-partnership agreements as some sort of Trojan horse of Liberalism, and I thank Commissioner Michel for reminding us that they are instruments of development policy and that their terms have not been set in stone, contrary to the rumours circulating in the corridors of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

Lastly, we have held hearings with the chief negotiators and the competent Commissioners on this matter, which has enabled us to deepen our knowledge of the economic-partnership agreements.

With regard to Darfur, I will not revisit the substance of this issue, which, I am sorry to say, is still far from having been exhausted. I simply wish to highlight an aberration, namely the use of separate voting colleges. At the first session, we had a common resolution on Darfur adopted in Vienna, whereas in Bridgetown a separate vote was requested; this blocked the resolution, because our ACP counterparts did not adopt it. They effectively yielded to pressure from a number of countries. In the report, I suggest that this practice be abandoned, so that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly can function as a genuine joint assembly in which the democratic principle alone prevails.

As for the parliamentary dimension – to which I shall return in my conclusion, Commissioner – let me simply remind you of the commitment you made on the transmission of the strategy papers to the ACP countries, of course, and to the European Parliament. I think it is important that our ACP counterparts should be involved.

Finally, as regards the rise of the Pan-African Parliament, I believe it is very important that we should have a partnership with that Parliament and a parallel partnership with the African Union. I believe that a delegation went there and that we have undertaken to host a visit by its President.

Another point relates to the strengthening of sub-regions within the ACP area. There are four regions in Africa plus the Caribbean and the Pacific regions, and it would be beneficial to strengthen the sub-regions, since only a regional approach will allow the economic-partnership agreements to be properly implemented in the interests of everyone.

Lastly, let me conclude with the parliamentary dimension. It is absolutely essential that we, by which I mean the Members of the European Parliament but more especially our parliamentary counterparts in the ACP countries, explore the potential of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly as a source of information. Such a function would entail an upgrading of the secretarial capabilities of the ACP side. This would involve introductory training and a higher level of interest among our parliamentary counterparts in the European Development Fund and its implementation but also in the formulation of integrated national and regional plans, in the country strategy papers and in the economic partnership agreements. We welcome the allocation of some of the EDF funds to the training of Members of Parliament with a view to ensuring that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has recourse to people who have the structures, engage in the deliberations and possess the information with which they can make the Assembly a really useful body.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is becoming an increasingly sturdy pillar of cooperation between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. I have attended all the sessions of the Assembly since I became the Commissioner responsible for development and humanitarian aid. I know exactly how far that institution has come. The Assembly is now increasingly parliamentary in stature and conduct, with debates that are more open and fewer regional tensions. The Assembly has proved capable of addressing a wide range of topics and of reaching agreement on sensitive issues such as post-conflict rehabilitation, sustainable resource management and the economic partnership agreements.

The excellent report by Mr Cornillet and the Committee on Development presents a faithful portrayal of this development. You highlight the advances that have been made but without ignoring the problems that still have to be resolved. The report also identifies the challenges looming on the horizon. I thank you for your appreciation, expressed in point 2, of the Commission’s desire to subject the strategy papers to parliamentary scrutiny. You naturally express regret that this has not been possible, but you are no doubt aware that, following the adoption of our position on this matter, the Member States managed to reach agreement on the insertion of a new provision into the implementing regulation for the tenth cycle of the European Development Fund. That provision prescribes the transmission, for information purposes, of the ACP country strategy papers to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly at the same time as they are sent to the Member States represented on the EDF Committee.

I welcome this solution, which certainly takes account of the specific nature of the EDF, because the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is an institution which is explicitly recognised by the Cotonou Agreement and which is therefore best placed to monitor the proper functioning of the programming process under the tenth EDF, given that the latter is not part of the Community budget. This also provides an opportunity for the Assembly to demonstrate its ability to play a genuine political role in our cooperation.

Lastly, let me take this opportunity to add my congratulations to the Government and Parliament of Barbados and to the Austrian Presidency for their excellent organisation of last year’s Assembly sessions. I shall be seeing some of you again next week at Wiesbaden, in Germany, for the next session of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

  Maria Martens, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mr Cornillet on his report on the activities of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly pertaining to 2006. It was once again a fruitful year. Important topics were discussed, including the problems with energy, tourism, water in the ACP countries, the promotion of peace and security, problems surrounding fisheries in the different countries and the EPAs, of course, the new trade agreements.

The format of this parliamentary delegation remains special and unique. The fact that 77 MEPs and 77 ACP parliamentarians – one parliamentarian from each ACP country – meet a few times a year to discuss development policy is important. Not forgetting the preparations, which are a combined effort between European and ACP countries. These meetings are also extremely important for our parliamentary work, because we are not only talking about them, but also with them regarding the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement and development policy in general. This should, of course, have been done from the start in the Europe-Africa strategy, but this strategy was conceived too unilaterally from a European viewpoint. Fortunately, we will now have a joint strategy from both the European and African Union for the development of Africa. This is a priority, rightly so. The poverty levels in Africa are the highest and the most worrying.

It is good to see the Joint Parliamentary Assembly continuing to develop further and the dialogue between the ACP countries and the European Union gathering momentum. It is also good to see that it appears increasingly possible to broach sensitive issues, such as corruption or worrying situations, including those in the Horn of Africa and Sudan. Zimbabwe remains a thorny issue. As the situation in that country is unacceptable, we have to do everything in our power to protect the position of the citizens over there and to stop the human rights violations. Next week, we will be meeting once again, in Wiesbaden, Germany. I am looking forward to this meeting and I hope we will have another good dialogue where difficult issues can once again be raised.

  Glenys Kinnock, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I really enjoyed hearing the Commissioner say that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly was now a robust organisation. It certainly is. I would like to thank him for his loyal participation in each of the JPAs so far. I would also like to note that the President of Parliament will attend the session next week in Wiesbaden, as did his predecessor, President Borrell, who is now a member of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

This involvement is very important and gives status and importance to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which, as others have said, including Mr Cornillet in his excellent report and presentation, continues to grow and to thrive. That is because it is nurtured by so many committed and active parliamentarians, from the ACP and from this Parliament. We enjoy very active collaboration in the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and, again as Mr Cornillet says, the parliamentary nature of our work has noticeably increased.

We have a wide-ranging agenda and, whatever lists we may wish to make, all our work relates to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, which is a binding, contractual agreement between Europe and the ACP member states. The nature of the partnership between all those countries is absolutely unique. What makes it so is the obligation within the Cotonou Partnership Treaty to have this parliamentary dimension. That is something we should be very proud of.

Another important point is that we have worked very hard to improve the ability of parliamentarians from ACP countries to scrutinise the actions of the executive and the governments in their countries. They also have to hold their governments to account, because that is what parliamentarians are meant to do. But, quite frankly, in most of the ACP countries where we have talked and worked with parliamentarians, they are seldom brought into the ambit of the work undertaken by their governments.

The Commission has been somewhat guilty in this respect as well, because in consultations, such as on the country strategy papers, they have had written into the agreements the need for negotiations and consultations with civil society. I have no problem with that; that is very good. On the other hand, parliamentarians are the elected representatives and I would like to see much more engagement by them in programming, in implementation, in monitoring and in evaluation. We also need to urge European national parliaments to scrutinise the European Development Fund. They can help us in that way.

I think that the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has changed over the 13 years I have been a member, and for the better. It used to be the case that it was completely dominated by European parliamentarians. I think all of us here can fairly say that is no longer the case.

  Johan Van Hecke, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Mr Cornillet has written an excellent summary of the activities of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in 2006, a JPA that is growing in credibility and power, which no longer avoids difficult debates, including migration, and which also dares make choices, even though the ambition remains to reach consensus as a rule. A typical example of this – which also represents one of the best moments for me – was the debate and the resolution on the status of the negotiations on EPAs. A resolution that has fundamentally served as a basis for Mr Sturdy’s report which we approved here in this House. A report that was thus partly supported by our colleagues from the ACP parliaments.

I would also like to make two observations that are less positive. Firstly, as Mr Cornillet already mentioned, an even-handed resolution on East Africa was rejected in Bridgetown, because it was preceded by separate voting, despite the fact that a huge majority in the Assembly were in favour. This is at odds with the spirit of solidarity and cohesion within the JPA. It begs the question whether it is time that the Rules of Procedure were reviewed so that blocking minorities on both sides can be done away with.

Secondly – and we have to be honest about this – there is still pressure from the ACP Secretariat on the voting behaviour of ACP members of parliament. That too is unacceptable, just like the influence which ambassadors are systematically trying to exercise. What is promising is that the ACP countries have decided to organise a study in order to assess the activities of the Secretariat, but something will need to come of this assessment, of course.

To sum up then, my conclusion is that 2006 was a good year for our JPA. Let us hope that we can take another step towards strengthening its parliamentary and political character.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I also wanted to welcome the report on behalf of my group, the Greens and EFA. I believe, however, that any analysis of the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly must be primarily political.

In this respect, can we be satisfied with the state of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries after years of a development policy in which the Union has been the largest provider of funds? That is the question. And what progress has been made on the road to democracy?

In the course of our regular visits to these countries, we have been forced to conclude that human misery is growing there and that democracy is still very much in its infancy. Even if our work in the Joint Assembly is proceeding well, as Mr Cornillet assures us, it must not be the tree that hides the rest of the wood, for we have the means to go further, further in mutual respect of our European interests and, of course, in meeting the expectations of the ACP countries.

There is hope – as illustrated, for example, by the process of transition to democracy that has begun in Mauritania. What the Union still needs to do – and I am addressing the Commission here – is to honour its commitments by helping the Mauritanians to make a successful transition and to re-establish decent living conditions. Support from the Joint Parliamentary Assembly for the Mauritanian National Assembly could be one step in that direction.

Come what may, Commissioner, I would like to focus on the fight against poverty. We have discussed this at length. It has to be said that combating poverty involves the resolution of environmental issues, to which insufficient consideration is given in our work – and I am addressing Mr Cornillet here.

I would also like to mention the report on sustainable development that was produced as part of our work on the action plans which are now being implemented by the ACP countries. What do we do to stop desertification, which is driving hundreds of African to flee into squalid shanty towns or to set out, even at the risk of their lives, for an imagined European El Dorado? That is the question, and the world is waiting for an answer.

  Paul Marie Coûteaux, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the Member States and officials of the Commission, we are in agreement with the general thrust of the Cornillet report, which is characterised by common sense, goodwill and noble intentions, although most of these, I fear, are pious hopes.

Let us nevertheless emphasise one point, namely the excessively sharp contrast between the importance and even the gravitas being attached today to the question of our relations with the countries of Africa and the indifference shown by the European oligarchies, particularly in this Parliament, towards the countries of the South.

Yes, dear colleagues, we are sinning by indifference. There is no comparison between the significance, which is sometimes minimal, of the matters that take up nine tenths and more of our debates and votes and the seriousness of the growing imbalance between the continents of Europe and Africa. I say ‘Africa’, by the way, because I do not believe there is a need to spread the ACP effort too thinly; the brunt of it should be devoted to the original focal point of the Lomé Conventions, which was and must remain sub-Saharan Africa.

The issue is undoubtedly too authentically political, too crudely political, to be dealt with by supranational institutions, which are, by nature, too weak to deal with anything but technical matters. Accordingly, it is perfectly normal for us to turn to the Member States and to call, as the Cornillet report does exceedingly well, for greater involvement of the national parliaments, for by seeking to address the major problems on a European scale we would end up not dealing with them at all and at the same time releasing the Member States from their obligations.

Yes, Mr Cornillet, the solution, here as elsewhere, is to trust the Member States and the truly democratic institutions, namely the national parliaments.

  Koenraad Dillen, on behalf of the ITS Group. – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although this comes as no surprise, it is nevertheless to be welcomed that the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly recognises in its report that the immigration issue will be dominating future relations between the EU and the developing world, and Africa in particular.

The activities and recommendations of this institution in question – because that is, after all, what this report is about to some extent – call for a few critical observations, though. Whilst fact-finding missions in Malta, Spain and Senegal may be useful, they brought few new insights this time round, unfortunately. What can we learn from a report about the effects of migration of educated employees in terms of national development? The migration of educated employees leads to a brain drain in the countries of origin and is in any case detrimental to these countries.

This is, after all, the great paradox, of course: those in favour of more migration to Europe in order to fill vacancies in so-called bottleneck professions all too often overlook the fact that this migration leads to the impoverishment of the countries of origin, with the effect that the weakest are at risk of being left behind alone. We should have the courage to say this out loud. In the final analysis, though, the Joint Assembly’s vision and its response to migration are, of course, predictable. As a link between the European institutions, the Joint Assembly simply repeats policy from official Europe on migration. This is anything but effective and firm immigration policy, where clear messages are sent to the countries of origin and conditions imposed to suit the JPA’s own needs.

In terms of human rights, democracy and good governance, this forum is a faithful reflection of official EU policy and utterly fails to send out a powerful signal. A signal that demonstrates to the relevant countries that a refusal to respect human rights and apply democratic principles should be reciprocated with a reduction, or even scrapping, of all forms of development aid.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Mr President, firstly I welcome this report. I think it is very timely, coming as it does on the eve of the meeting we are about to attend in Wiesbaden. However, – I do not know whether the Commissioner is actually listening to this debate – sometimes I feel we are like gadflies on the periphery, where we raise issues and they do not get much attention except from ourselves when we write very fine reports of this kind.

But I do think that there is an opportunity for innovation and for change. I come from a country where we had famine, literally in recent history – I spoke to somebody who spoke to somebody who lived through the last Great Famine in Ireland: it is that recent. One of the things that made a great change in Ireland, as in the United States, was property ownership. I would like to commend both Nirj Deva and Jürgen Schröder for constantly raising this issue. I think it is an issue we need to raise. We need to try to bring new ideas such as this one to the fore.

If you look at the history of Ireland and how the partition of Ireland came about, in the north of Ireland a lot of people who came there were given small plots of land and ownership of that. From that, they grew flax and they gained capital and prospered. In the south of Ireland we had absentee landlords, and tenants who could not afford to pay their way and who had no ownership of their property.

The same thing happened in the United States, a country that had huge difficulties in the beginning. People were given ownership of property there, and that made a great change. Particularly in Africa and in the Third World generally, we have to start looking at ways we can give people ownership of capital. I believe that, whereas I welcome and support the general thrust of this report, we need to start looking at new ways and added value that we – Parliament, the Commission and the Council – can bring to the issue of the Third World. I think in the area of giving ownership of property, there is an issue worth pursuing.

  Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I must thank my honourable colleague Thierry Cornillet for his excellent report. He expresses clearly and forcefully the power of work that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly accomplished in 2006. Through the quality of its output, I believe the Assembly has established itself as a pivotal player in the dialogue on North-South cooperation.

The Assembly has made its mark by expressing itself forcefully on Darfur in Vienna, by scorning taboos to apportion blame and by proposing a road map designed to end the crisis. It also made its mark by expressing its views on the crucial question of the economic-partnership agreements in Bridgetown. Its message, moreover, was a unanimous declaration that these agreements must remain instruments of development, as Commissioner Michel reaffirmed a short while ago during the previous debate.

The political clout of the Joint Assembly will continue to increase over the coming months now that the Commission has undertaken to grant it the right to examine all country and regional strategy papers for the African, Caribbean and Pacific areas and now that the Assembly can convene regional conferences in order to come up with specific responses on major issues such as migration.

In view of these new powers – even if they are not really powers – we must take care to ensure that the Assembly has the means to perform its tasks. I wish to say to the Commission and the Commissioner that we shall have to act together to find flexible and effective ways to work jointly on the procedure for the exercise of this new right to examine strategy papers. It is cumbersome, it is difficult, but we must rise to the challenge.

I also appeal to the working group on parliamentary reform to take account of the specific characteristics of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the constraints affecting it, because, when the parliamentary calendar is compiled these days, some of our commitments clash with the work of the Assembly.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Mrs Kinnock for the manner in which she has been co-chairing the Assembly.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). – Mr President, I welcome this report from my colleague Mr Cornillet. It provides a concise and comprehensive summary of the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly last year.

The annual report is a good moment to take stock and consider what is working well in the JPA and what could work better. We are answerable to our electors about whether non-legislative bodies, such as the JPA, are good value for money. I would suggest three positive indicators that the JPA is robust, as was said earlier, and that it is earning its keep and increasing in relevance. As the rapporteur said, the involvement of non-state players is a positive development, and so is the growth of fringe meetings. These bring together Members sharing common concerns, for example ACP delegates representing remote and arid areas and MEPs working on climate change. It is in these informal discussions that MEPs and ACP parliamentarians can often work together best.

Secondly, I believe there is a desire on all sides to make the JPA more responsive, more capable of reacting to current events. The rapporteur refers to this in paragraph 17. Of course, there needs to be a structure to debate, but the formal structure of discussions and reports is very drawn out. We need to find ways of making the JPA more immediately engaged and reactive.

That brings me to my third point: the level of participation by members of both houses has sometimes been disappointing. Naturally, the first duty of parliamentarians on both sides is to their own legislatures, so, inevitably, there are diary clashes. I am, therefore, really pleased that the European Parliament is looking at changing its timetable and earmarking some weeks – the new ‘turquoise weeks’ – for external meetings. I hope this will get rid of conflicts of duty on the European side and greatly improve active attendance by the 78 MEPs. This is something we should continue to monitor as the changes to the European Parliament timetable are implemented.

  Liam Aylward (UEN). – Mr President, one of the issues that will be addressed at the forthcoming ACP-EU Council meeting in Germany next week will be a re-evaluation EU policy on Sudan. There is an ever-deteriorating security situation in Darfur, and let no one think otherwise. Without a safe and secure environment, we cannot access the people most in need. A full-scale humanitarian crisis is being faced by over four million people who are living in Darfur at this time. More than half a million people were displaced from Sudan in 2006 alone.

The international community has simply not been tough enough when dealing with the Sudanese Government over Darfur. The Sudanese Government has played a game of cat-and-mouse with the international community so that the European Union and the United Nations would have as weak a role as possible in Sudan.

I welcome recent moves to increase the presence of African Union forces in Sudan under what is known as the African Union Mission there, but the difficulty for these troops is that they are not well trained and there are not enough of them. Moreover, the European Union must look to tighten the sanctions regime against the Sudanese Government to incorporate a ban on travel into the European Union by key Sudanese Government members and officials and to block Sudanese Government representatives from making financial investments in Europe.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the JPA deals with more than Africa, but it is Africa that dominates so much of our attention. Two weeks ago, Archbishop Desmond Tutu was in Parliament talking specifically about Darfur and more generally about Africa. He said thank you for not succumbing to donor fatigue and Afro-pessimism and thank you for not allowing governments to turn a blind eye.

But he shared our concerns about the Zimbabwe regime, which has destroyed a once-vibrant economy, oppressed its people and polluted the relationship between Africa and the European Union.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has finally recognised that there is a problem in Zimbabwe and has mandated President Mbeki of South Africa to facilitate talks between the Mugabe regime and the Zimbabwean opposition. There has already been some progress. The first meeting took place between Zanu PF and the MDC last weekend in South Africa, but an enormous amount remains to be done. Let us remember that just a few days ago, two MDC activists from Matobo district were abducted and murdered.

Just as SADC is beginning to understand that Mugabe’s regime is a problem, so the ACP is also stirring. In March, the ACP-EU Bureau called on the Zimbabwean Government to re-establish respect for human rights and the rule of law in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement. Next week Zimbabwe is on the agenda of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. There is an urgent need for both colleges in the ACP-EU to speak as one on the appalling aberration that is Zimbabwe. After the JPA, the African Union Summit will be held in Ghana. We must do all that we can to encourage the African nations to go to this summit determined to support the Mbeki initiation and to do all that is possible to bring about rapid political change for the better in Zimbabwe for the sake of all the people of that country and, indeed, all the people of Africa.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, in the field of development policy we often talk about taking local conditions into account. One of the regular ways of finding out what those representing our partners in the developing world want is the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

The report summarising the work of the assembly last year is a very interesting and important document. I would like to thank Mr Cornillet for his work. The assembly dealt with a range of issues that are important to developing countries, including energy, water, bird flu, the role of regional integration in fostering peace and security, the social and environmental aspects of fishing, the co-dependence of tourism and development, as well as progress in negotiations on economic partnership agreements.

I would like to draw your attention to a certain problem. I think, that there is no real sense in maintaining a superficial dialogue with representatives of countries that regularly infringe human rights. It is a pure myth that participation or the opportunity to observe the work of the assembly will have a positive effect on their policies. For some, their presence at this forum simply serves as propaganda rather than dialogue. Propaganda cannot provide us with real solutions. This is something I experienced myself during the Communist period in Poland. Back then, the intention was to replace policies with propaganda. Countries which behave in this way are wasting our time, money and potential. They are also damaging the image of the ACP countries. They have very short-term goals, namely to prevent any criticism of their own internal situation. They do not want anyone to help them as they believe that their actions are correct and appropriate.

If we want the assembly to be a real, joint centre for establishing political positions, the attitudes of countries such as Cuba, Zimbabwe or Sudan have to change.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, as a member of the ACP-EU delegation, I attended both Joint Parliamentary Assemblies in 2006. The Assembly is of crucial importance to the establishment of political dialogue as referred to in Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement. The meetings in Vienna and Bridgetown were mainly successful and there was a lively debate at both. I am particularly pleased with the way their parliamentary nature was emphasised.

At the meeting in Barbados I was one of those who drafted the resolution adopted on water in developing economies. The procedure whereby a parliamentary representative of the EU and one of the ACP together draw up a resolution for the Parliamentary Assembly is a fruitful one. The drafting procedure adds legitimacy to the decision-making process. I would like to stress the importance of following up important resolutions, in which the role of the standing committees is central. Enough time needs to be set aside for this for dialogue to deepen.

It is of crucial importance to third countries how fundamentally society is rooted in good governance, the rule of law and democratic structures. They also lie at the heart of the expectations which the ACP countries have regarding development. I am therefore wholeheartedly in favour of the request made by the Parliamentary Assembly that a share of the appropriations in the European Development Fund should be spent on concrete projects which support administrative reform. The educational programmes organised for members of parliament is one example. Another problem is the few resources which many members of ACP parliaments have: there are few opportunities to respond to the ambitions of strong governments.

The report fails to mention one essential issue: it is vital to respond to the intolerable situation in Zimbabwe. The country’s human rights situation is one of the grimmest in Africa and Mugabe’s Government is plunging the country into ever deeper despair. It will no doubt also try to block discussion of the state of the country at next week’s ACP-EU Assembly in Wiesbaden. This should definitely be prevented: there needs to be a proper debate.

  Louis Michel, Member of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, let me first say that I obviously cannot respond to all the comments which have been made, but the Commission shares the view that national parliaments must play a key role in the definition of national policies and development strategies in our partner countries. I say that in answer to Mrs Kinnock.

I agree with her there, needless to say. The only thing is that we must find a way to achieve that objective. I doubt whether I would be within my rights to ask the national parliaments of our partner countries to respond to the country strategy papers. The principle of not intruding on the territory of another institution remains intact, and I am not very sure how this process can be organised. I was relying heavily on the Joint Parliamentary Assembly to be the interface with the national parliaments, but I can assure you that I am quite willing to examine any proposed solution to see how that aspect can be improved.

I also wish to inform you that the Troika has opened the door to progress in the preparation of the joint EU-Africa strategy. That is an exercise, of course, with which the European Parliament has been closely associated. On the basis of the agreement reached by the Troika, the Commission will adopt a communication on 27 June on the objectives of the strategy and on the road map for its adoption at the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon, scheduled for 7 and 8 December of this year. My departments are in permanent contact with Parliament, both on the content of these documents and on the organisational aspect. I attach great importance to the participation of the three main EU institutions in the formulation of these strategies.

In this context, I must emphasise that one of the innovative aspects of this strategy would be the establishment of a genuine partnership of peoples. I would therefore like to involve the parliaments – the European Parliament, the Pan-African Parliament and the African national parliaments – in the implementation of this strategy on a permanent basis. I am open to all your suggestions. It is conceivable, for example, that there might be a joint hearing of the European Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament or a joint meeting of the European Commission and the Commission of the African Union. Logistical and political support could conceivably be given to the Pan-African Parliament – in fact, provision has already been made for that – and assistance to the national parliaments in Africa would be feasible too. There are, incidentally, parliaments of EU Member States which are already doing this. We have only just started. We can therefore work together to meet this major challenge.

Let me respond to a couple of remarks chosen at random. Mr Van Orden, you referred to the case of Zimbabwe in connection with the EU-Africa summit. While I share, at least in fairly broad terms, the judgments you passed on President Mugabe, the important thing for me today is that the European Union and Africa should be able to hold this summit. I must remind you that there has not been a summit of this kind since Cairo, while an Africa-China summit has taken place in the meantime. So what matters to me is that our summit should take place.

Someone also spoke of sanctions against Sudan. I have to tell you that I would not have any problem with sanctions if someone could demonstrate to me that they are useful and do not penalise ordinary people. Generally speaking, I am fairly sceptical about sanctions. I am a far greater believer in the carrot than the stick, and I put far more faith in the exertion of pressure. Besides, with President al-Bashir having accepted the hybrid peacekeeping force, particularly in Darfur, I am not convinced that this is the time to be raising the spectre of new sanctions. Sanctions, we know, can be applied at any time, and I am not sure that the sanctions some people have in mind would necessarily be useful.

Mr Mitchell spoke of access to property ownership. This idea has been extensively developed by Mr De Soto, and I have been following this matter very closely. I am also a member of an informal working party in which, together with Madeleine Albright, we have been working on this idea of property ownership, with which you are no doubt familiar. I find the idea very appealing, and I am trying to see how we could contribute to such a scheme through the European Development Fund. Experiments are taking place, and I believe this is a very interesting and important approach in the quest for an effective solution.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

15. Fact-finding mission to the regions of Andalusia, Valencia and Madrid (debate)

  President. – The next items are:

- the oral question by Marcin Libicki and Michael Cashman, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, to the Council on the fact-finding mission to the regions of Andalusia, Valencia and Madrid (O-0030/2007 – B6-0127/2007), and

- the oral question by Marcin Libicki and Michael Cashman, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, to the Commission on the fact-finding mission to the regions of Andalusia, Valencia and Madrid (O-0031/2007 – B6-0128/2007), and

Like all of my honourable colleagues, I believe that I cannot but deplore the absence of the Council, which will not be in attendance to answer Members’ questions.

  Marcin Libicki (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, I would like to check something. As far as I understand, I have two and a half minutes to speak because it seems that Mr Cashman is also going to speak on this matter. Am I right in believing that I have two and a half minutes of speaking time? I wanted to check because you did not mention this earlier.

Mr President, from the point of view of tourists and northern Europeans wishing to relocate, the Mediterranean coast is the most attractive destination. The coast of Spain has been particularly exposed to extremely intensive urbanisation. This extreme urbanisation has resulted in a number of conflicts.

There seem to be three parties involved in this conflict, namely the developers, the authorities and the residents. What is more, and this should be highlighted, the conflict involves both Spaniards and citizens of other Member States who want to settle in these regions, or who have already moved there.

As a result of the enormous number of petitions on this matter that were sent to the Committee on Petitions, we organised a special fact finding visit and, as early as December 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, based on these petitions, on the infringement of directives on public procurement, water supplies, and the infringement of property rights.

Another fact finding visit took place this year and on 11 April 2007 the Committee on Petitions drew up their position on the matter, with reference to the previous resolution passed by the European Parliament.

In this context, I would like to address a question to both the Commission and the Council. What activities have been undertaken by the Commission and the Council to ensure that Community legislation is applied correctly and that the citizens’ basic property rights are respected, as laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union?

  Michael Cashman (PSE), author. – Mr President, it saddens me to have to take the floor once again on this issue. More than 18 months after the adoption of the Fourtou Report in December 2005 by an overwhelming majority of this House, we are still debating the same issues, and nothing has changed. The Council is absent – that is shameful!

Citizens from many Member States, including my own, but also Spain, Germany, Holland and Belgium, are having their legally acquired lands taken by local authorities without due process, which I am convinced is in breach of EU law. Moreover, they are being forced to pay large sums of money – tens of thousands of euros – to pay for new infrastructure and new developments that they do not want and which are on their land.

The situation I am describing sounds unimaginable in the 21st century EU but it is a sad reality for thousands of citizens in Spain. People have bought land or property in good faith only to see it taken away by what can only be described as, at best, administrative incompetence or, at worst, criminal negligence and corruption.

This issue was brought to the attention of the Committee on Petitions in 2003. Back then, 15 000 citizens wrote to us asking for help. What have we done? Well, we have adopted the Fourtou report, which brought forward a series of recommendations to the Valencian Government. The Valencian Government brought forward minor changes in the LUV, which do not address the key problems of land grab. It is worth mentioning that large numbers of projects in Valencia were rushed through prior to the entry into force of the new law. This is a clear sign that constructors and developers wanted to continue to exploit the loopholes of the previous law.

We have now sent three fact-finding missions. The last came under shameful attacks from the Partido Popular, which were attacks upon the integrity of this House. It saddens me to say that the President of this House, Mr Pöttering, remains indifferent to the attacks upon the integrity of this House.

The Partido Popular politicians say that the petitions in Valencia have been imagined. The pain is real, the pain is desperate, and that is why people have looked to us.

The Commission is unhappy. It believes that possible infringements of EU law are under way. Therefore, I say this: to do nothing is not an option, we have exhausted what we can do in this House and this will be resolved in the Court of Justice or before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and it will be to the shame of the Partido Popular in Spain.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, let me start by thanking Mr Libicki and Mr Cashman for their hard work in preparing the report on behalf of the Committee on Petitions on the third fact-finding mission to Valencia. This mission gave committee members an opportunity to meet the representatives of the administrations and the complainants and to gain first-hand experience of the situation on the ground.

The urbanisation projects in Spanish regions at stake involve three main aspects: public procurement, fundamental rights and environmental rules. Let me give you a few indications of our actions in these areas.

Firstly, on public procurement: the Commission takes the view that approval of integrated action programmes under the Valencia Land Planning Law involves the award of public works and services contracts. We consider that some activities were carried out in a way which infringes EU public procurement legislation. I informed Parliament about this in December 2005.

We thus decided to launch infringement proceedings again Spain on this issue. The Commission challenged the existing law on land and town planning at the time. On 30 December 2005, the regional authorities approved a new land law which revoked and replaced the previous one. However, the new law does not correct some of these infringements, which relate to tender notices or the information required by tender notices and the unclear definition of the contract's object. It contains other provisions that are also incompatible with the directive on public works, supply and services contracts. We pursued the legal procedure during 2006. The replies we received from the competent authorities were not convincing. I therefore intend to propose that the Commission should refer this case to the Court of Justice.

Secondly, with regard to fundamental rights, the Commission cannot intervene in this area. In our view, the alleged infringements of property rights do not involve any provision of Community law which would enable the Commission to intervene on these grounds.

Thirdly, on environmental legislation: here too the Commission can only take legal steps when Community law is infringed. However, as far as the environment is concerned, land development policy as such does not fall within the competence of the Union. The departments under the responsibility of my colleague Mr Dimas do, however, investigate land development cases where these are alleged to infringe Community environmental law. I can assure you that the Commission will continue to see to it that the competent Spanish authorities comply with EU environmental rules when implementing urban development plans.

The Commission has already taken action in other cases when they fell within its remit, i.e. when urban development projects breached environmental directives, for instance those on water or on environmental impact assessment.

  Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, this matter has been discussed actively and passively, and I am not going to get into the fundamental issue, because it has been discussed on many occasions in the Committee on Petitions.

I would, however, like to talk about an issue that I believe to be important, and that is that, by bringing this resolution to plenary, we are facing a problem of competences, because I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that we are impinging on national competences. You want to replace the decisions of the regional parliaments, you want to replace the decisions of national parliaments, you want to replace the Constitutional Court, you want to replace the Spanish jurisdictional body. In other words, this resolution is an invasion of competences on an unprecedented scale.

I therefore believe that Parliament's Legal Service should tell us whether we can vote on absolutely everything when national and regional competences are being trampled upon, as they are in this case.

The truth is that the Commission’s response has reassured me. It is reassuring to my political group to hear that it has not been possible, and it is not possible, to intervene, because, naturally, the Valencian Parliament and Government have always acted in accordance with the law, in accordance with the jurisdictional approach that that government has always defended.

I simply wished to end with a question that we have also been hearing within the Committee on Petitions: We were told that the citizens would remember, that, when it came to voting, the citizens would express themselves and that they would make the Valencian Government or the Madrid Government pay for what was happening.

Well, the citizens have spoken and they have shown clear support for a programme, for a well-known project, for what has been done in the Community of Valencia, for what has been done in the Community of Madrid, and they have given majorities, not relative majorities, but absolute majorities, to the governments of the People’s Party, both in Madrid and in Valencia.

  Carlos Carnero González, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I do not believe that the fundamental objective of the Committee on Petitions’ excellent work is to bring down any particular regional government in Spain, however regrettable its actions may have been. What the Committee on Petitions has done is to act according to a politically unquestionable principle.

When it comes to defending the rights of citizens, national sovereignty and national borders do not matter. The point is that, in certain Spanish autonomous communities, not in the whole of the country, certain regional autonomous governments are damaging the environment, damaging the sustainability of the citizens’ lives and hence violating individual and collective rights. This is happening in Valencia and it is happening in Madrid, which is my autonomous community.

The President of the Community of Madrid has not just done it in the past, but she intends to continue doing so: just today, her projects were moving in that direction. We are not talking about houses, but, for example, she is determined to press ahead with a road project – previously the M-50, which she now calls the M-61 – which intends to destroy no less than the Monte de el Pardo, an area of crucial ecological importance.

I would like to congratulate the Committee on Petitions and say that it has accepted the demands of the petitioners and citizens – and this resolution also does so – and furthermore I would like to express my support for this serious work and say that the insults to the integrity of this House and the members of that delegation were as unacceptable as some of the content that it is intended to maintained here. Doing what is right is more important than anything else.

  David Hammerstein, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Iturgaiz, winning elections does not give anybody the right to show disdain for European legislation. A mere vote by the majority of councillors of a municipality cannot lead to the public interest being used to justify a great misappropriation.

A political majority cannot be used as an excuse to cancel out local democracy through the creation of parallel local councils whose protagonists are the insatiable town-planners and the omnipotent construction companies.

The mere fact that a town-planning project is approved does not give anybody the right to jeopardise the conservation of water resources and valuable land of several generations by covering everything in an avalanche of concrete.

What has been lacking is greater transparency and a minimum degree of respect for small-holders and public participation in all processes. Yes, the Valencian, Andalusian and Madrid building scandal is a European scandal that demands a European response.

We demand that the Commission act vigorously and urgently in the face of flagrant violations of the Directive on public procurement, the framework Directive on water and the 'Habitats' Directive on the part of the Valencian authorities and other regional governments.

Many of the 750 000 homes built in Spain last year, more than in France and Germany put together, have failed to respect Community Law. Why can the Commission not act straight away?

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – Mr President, clearly the issues that are being addressed in relation to Spain are not confined to Spain, and I offer that as some consolation to our Spanish colleagues on the PPE-DE side of the House. Similar problems, not in relation to property ownership but certainly in relation to impact on the environment, on heritage and, indeed, on people’s quality of life are occurring as a result of major infrastructural developments in Ireland, and it seems to be an issue that we at European level have not been able to get to grips with because the European legislation is not stringent enough or, indeed, the Commission is not in a position to act fast enough in terms of addressing complaints when they are made.

When I visited Madrid, for instance, I was made aware of the situation there, in which the regional authority redesignated a ring round around Madrid as a city street, decided to develop it as a motorway, broke it up into about a dozen different pieces and argued that it therefore did not need to have an environmental impact assessment applied to it. Now, the Commission eventually decided that this was wrong, but three quarters of the motorway had already been built by the time that decision was made.

  Joan Calabuig Rull (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, this Parliament’s missions to the region of Valencia have resulted from the reported cases of town-planning abuse, which have been reflected in the media and which have been of concern to many citizens.

It is not the visits by MEPs that are scaring away potential home buyers. In fact, these missions help to enable the tens of thousands of European citizens who wish to live in our territory to do so in the confidence that they are investing in a place that has clear rules and that is respectful of the environment. Future customers are increasingly demanding and these two elements represent a competitive advantage that we cannot allow to be destroyed through uncontrolled town-planning.

Over recent years, complaints about this kind of abuse have increased from citizens who believe that they have been victims of actions that have affected their properties or which have seriously spoiled the environment in which they live. In spite of this, I would also like to point out that I do not believe that they are generalised or that they happen every day.

The promises made by the regional authorities prior to these missions have not been fulfilled, however, and they have not resolved the problems, reformed the laws, assisted the people affected or applied the recommendations approved by this Parliament in 2005.

There were elections in the region of Valencia on 27 May and it is true that this is a good time to begin a new stage and, above all, to put right, and, to start with, to acknowledge, this problem, something that the regional government has not yet done. Also to accept the fact that it has not been capable of resolving it so far. It is also time to stop being arrogant and stop showing distain for the MEPs who visited the region.

I would like to say, finally, that my party, the Socialist Party, is once again willing, as it has been on several occasions, to contribute to resolving this problem; in the case of the region of Valencia, therefore, it would say once again that a broad social and political agreement is needed which includes all of the parties affected and which involves the reform of Valencian town-planning law in order to bring it into line with the Treaties and in order to increase the legal security of all of the parties, and which also includes the establishment of assistance and dispute-settlement mechanisms for citizens who feel that they are affected by town-planning abuses.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, many petitions on this issue show that buying real estate can be a real challenge. The cases mentioned raise a number of complicated legal issues that relate to property law. This is the exclusive competence of the Member States; the Commission cannot interfere with this. Any redress in this respect must be brought before national authorities and we cannot create false expectations on the part of the petitioners.

However, where cases raise questions of European law, the Commission takes its role as guardian of the Treaties seriously, where we establish whether there are infringements of Community law. In our view, this is the case regarding public procurement legislation. We have already started infringement actions about this. We intend to pursue these actions with a view to obtaining full compliance with Community law.

  President. – In accordance with Rule 108(3) of the Rules of Procedure, I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ at the end of this debate.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday.

(The sitting was suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

(1) See Minutes.

16. Commission Question Time

  President. The next item is Question Time (B6-0125/2007).

The following questions have been submitted to the Commission.

Part One

  President.

Question no 35 by Manolis Mavrommatis (H-0355/07)

Subject: Insurance companies in the EU

Insurance companies will reportedly conclude insurance policies only in respect of vehicles which are registered in and have number plates issued by the State in which each company is based, despite the fact that EU legislation makes provision for the insurance of vehicles with number plates issued by another Member State. In the light of the third directive on direct insurance 92/49/EEC⁽¹⁾ and the fourth directive on motor vehicle insurance 2000/26/EEC⁽²⁾, will the Commission propose a review of the directives so that European consumers will be able themselves to choose their insurance companies and the State in which it is in their interests to conclude their motor vehicle insurance? Does the Commission consider that this freedom will also promote competition and thereby appreciably reduce the cost of insurance?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the principal aims of the EU legislative framework are a high degree of protection of road traffic accident victims, the promotion of free circulation of vehicles and the encouragement of cross-border activities of insurance undertakings.

The EU legal framework for compulsory motor insurance is a major EU success story. Developed since the early 1970s, it has been a fundamental factor in making the free movement of motorists and their vehicles in the Union a reality. The motor insurance directives have permitted the abolition of border checks on insurance, so the vehicles can be driven as easily between Member States as between one country. They also allow for easy compensation for the thousands of accidents involving vehicles from more than one Member State.

The motor insurance directives require that insurers have a local presence for claims settlement and oblige them to be members of the local guarantee fund and the local green card bureau. This is to protect victims, in particular from having to enter into cross-border negotiations with an insurance company established in another Member State.

The membership of the local green card bureau ensures a smooth functioning of a system without a need to check the insurance certificates. All EU Member States, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Croatia and Andorra participate on the basis of the ‘Multilateral Agreement’.

The link between the country where the vehicle is registered and the insurer’s membership of that country’s guarantee fund is also an expression of the solidarity of the local motoring population.

European consumers have the possibility to seek motor insurance cover EU-wide as far as the above specific conditions set for insurers are met. Whether insurers are prepared to enter into insurance contracts for cars registered in another country depends largely on the insurers’ commercial policy and their willingness to cover risks largely or wholly situated in another country, where the risk structures may be substantially different from what they are familiar with in their home country.

With this in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that the volume of cross-frontier business in this branch is very limited. However, some argue that there is a lack of competition and that a higher volume of cross-frontier business might bring down motor insurance premium levels. We are assessing this question as part of our ongoing public consultation on retail financial services.

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply; however, I should like to insist on my question following this morning's debate and the huge Equitable Life scandal, with millions of victims calling for fair compensation on the grounds of the poor administration of the insurance company.

Perhaps this example alone is enough to convince the Commission to liberalise the car insurance market and the way in which citizens themselves choose what is in their best interest, in which case they would be wholly and personally responsible for their choices.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. What we were discussing this morning on the report by the Committee of Inquiry into Equitable Life was how insurance companies are regulated and the deficiencies found by the Committee of Inquiry regarding regulation, the transposition of EU directives and other matters.

But I think what the Member is referring to here is that the citizen should be able to benefit from being able to conduct motor insurance business across frontiers. However, that is a two-sided transaction. He or she must get an insurance company to provide that particular business, and the evidence so far is that many insurance companies do not have a commercial policy for looking for cross-frontier business for a wide variety of reasons – I submit that they are probably not familiar with the claims policy in that country, the legal system, or the quantum of damages that may be awarded, which vary considerably from country to country.

Therefore, as I have pointed out in my reply, under the directives we have, it would be possible for an individual to do this, subject to the various rules. However, there must, of course, be an insurance company that is willing to act in that particular way and to take on those aspects of cross-border business.

As I said in my reply, I accept that it would be a very good thing if that could be done, and this is why we are looking at this in the context of the Green Paper on retail financial services. If there are things we can do to make that somewhat easier, we will take it on board. However, until now the situation is that, while we want to bring down the frontiers and make sure the market is liberalised, there needs to be a company that, for its part, wants to do it, and that has not been the situation up until now. There are limited exceptions, but it is not a business in which these opportunities have been uptaken.

  President. Question no 36 by Brian Crowley (H-0411/07)

Subject: Information campaigns concerning the buying of properties in different EU Member States

Would the European Commission consider drawing up and marketing an information leaflet which would highlight the different taxation, accountancy and legal issues that prospective European purchasers should watch out for when buying a residential property in a different EU Member State?

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Buying residential property represents a difficult and time-consuming challenge for consumers. Legal and fiscal matters are big challenges, even in one’s own Member State. These challenges are only exacerbated when consumers are purchasing a residential property outside their Member State: procedures often are completely different from the ones in place ‘at home’.

While the Commission is fully aware of these facts, there is no simple answer. Taxation and property laws that lie at the origin of the complexity fall largely outside the scope of Community competence.

Nevertheless, the Commission supports initiatives that promote transparency in European housing and mortgage-lending markets. Transparency is particularly important for consumers, especially where rules vary from one country to the next. Consumers need full and accurate information to be able to make an informed choice when buying a property in another Member State.

The request for an information leaflet for consumers purchasing property has also been made within our ongoing review of the European mortgage credit markets, where stakeholders suggested that the Commission create and maintain an online guide to the main legal and other issues relating to cross-border lending. I am in favour of such initiatives. Buying property across borders is a natural consequence of the freedoms that constitute the essence of the Single Market. Where consumers face practical problems or lack of information, we must try to help them, for example by pointing out what problems they may encounter and by pointing them in the direction of the relevant bodies and authorities that can assist them.

The Commission will look into these issues and see what is feasible. But let me be honest: this is not an easy task. The Commission does not necessarily have access to all the information that would be required, nor would we necessarily have the means to verify that such information is accurate or up to date. Before moving ahead, we must be certain that we can overcome this challenge. Working together with third parties may also be an option.

  Brian Crowley (UEN). – I would like to thank the Commissioner for his response. I suppose in this area, as in all other areas, the clause caveat emptor should always apply first and foremost. However, there are complexities, as you rightly said, and I welcome the fact that you have looked at what the European mortgage providers are considering.

However, there is another aspect – the need to have a second will. If you own a property outside your country of residence, it is necessary to have a second will to cover the execution of your estate in that scenario. So, even though there are differences across the 27 Member States, and further complexities within them, there are certain core values which could be put up on the Commission website, as you rightly say.

I would encourage you to work further towards that goal, highlighting at the same time that caveat emptor should always apply first and foremost.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. I certainly agree with the honourable Member. As I said, it could be quite a difficult task to undertake this body of work. As Mr Crowley mentioned, the underlying principle must always be caveat emptor. In all these areas, whether you are buying property or financial products, it is something that everybody must be aware of. As I said earlier today, when someone comes along offering you a deal that seems too good to be true, it usually is too good to be true. That is something we must bear in mind.

Mr Crowley mentioned the question of having a second will. Only last weekend I read an article in a professional magazine that was advising people who have properties in Spain, for example, that it was essential to make a will there covering that particular property and how to go about it. By the way, I do not have a property in Spain as of now, but many Irish people I know do, and are not aware of this requirement. This article was in a magazine that would only be read by people working in accountancy. What Mr Crowley says is very important. Only a very small percentage of Irish people who have homes in that very nice country of Spain would be aware of this information.

One of the 48 recommendations set out by the expert group was for there to be an information leaflet. It will be a bit of a task to determine what we can cover adequately within the leaflet, but we will certainly have an attempt at it. The danger is that, since we will not be able to cover everything, we may face the moral hazard of not supplying all the information, but let us see what we can achieve. If we are trying to have a single market for all areas, the logical thing then is to provide the information that goes across these particular fronts.

It would also help improve the image of the European Union if ordinary people were to say that was something very worthwhile had come from the European Union. We will make an attempt at it. How successful we will be, I do not know.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Mr President, Commissioner, I agree that this question is complicated. I myself have written a book on how to establish a business in the 15 old European Union countries, including the purchase of real estate, taxes and other considerations. You mentioned that there are compendiums of information. Could you specify which compendiums of information there are? If they are not complete, they need to be updated so that people circulating freely within the European Union could have all the information they need about these conditions, including the purchase of real estate.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. For fear there has been a mistake they do not exist yet. Mr Crowley’s question was whether we could consider preparing an information leaflet and this action was also recommended by the Expert Group on Mortgage Credit. We are examining this and will attempt to see what we can do in terms of having a proper information leaflet, subject to the various caveats I myself entered about how this would be produced.

I congratulate the Member for her initiative in tackling this in an obviously professional capacity I imagine it was a considerable amount of work. However, as I said in my former reply, we might endeavour to marry the expertise that is available out there among private organisations who might agree to having some type of joint approach, using what is already there rather then starting afresh ourselves. So perhaps the honourable Member would be willing to give some of the information she has to my departments and we might exploit her obvious talents in this matter.

  President.

Question no 37 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0362/07)

Subject: External Service of the European Union and immigration policy

Given the recent extension of the Union's powers in the area of immigration, and the implementation of Commission action in this area, does the Union's External Service have the resources to enable it to help the Member States with the new cooperation modalities which have been put into action in this field, on issues such as the hiring of legal immigrants or the repatriation of immigrants and their integration into their home societies?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. The external dimension of EU migration policy and Commission action in this area has developed a lot over the last few years due to the needs regarding migration, in particular for the definition but also the implementation of a global approach to migration. We think this is important for the future and we are trying to do what we can to come to a global approach.

In the context of this global approach, we are developing various initiatives relating to all aspects of migration. That means including legal migration, but particularly the fight against illegal migration, readmission and readmission agreements, return, reintegration, asylum, migration and development, and migration and integration.

From the outset, I have personally committed myself to the 3% target in the Neighbourhood Policy Instrument. I am already beginning to give definite form to the commitment as regards the countries under my responsibility. Together with Mr Frattini and Mr Michel, I have just presented to the Commission for adoption the 2007-2010 thematic strategy for the thematic programme on cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum. The programme provides for an indicative amount of more than EUR 380 million over the period 2007-2013 for cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum, including on labour migration and reintegration of returnees.

The Commission delegations play a key role in the implementation of this ambitious agenda, both at political but also at operational level, and Brussels-based Commission departments systematically inform the Commission delegations of, and involve them in, new developments related to migration. Political dialogue with third countries is conducted jointly by the delegations and Brussels-based departments.

At operational level, delegations are also responsible, for instance, for identifying needs and constraints, to ensure that actions financed with Community external assistance are properly implemented. In addition, delegations in countries where migration has emerged as an important new topic in the context of Community external assistance are also assisted by the departments in Brussels through training measures, thematic networks at operational level and support missions.

Through these measures, we in the Commission ensure that the delegations are able to interact with the Member States but also with third countries, and to implement migration-related Community assistance.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, over recent months I have listened to the statements by you and by Commissioners Michel and Frattini, and I have found the commitments that you have made very encouraging.

My concern is that we in the European Union often express excessive amounts of will, we make statements but then they are not followed up by actions because we lack resources. For example, the Frontex system has faced immense difficulties controlling illegal immigration.

The commitments made by the three Commissioners would require the establishment of a European Union external service of a new kind, not economic or political, but rather of a social and work nature, something similar to the work and social organisations that all of the Member States currently have.

Does the Commissioner believe that that kind of external service can be established? Do you have sufficient resources? What can Parliament do to help the Commissioner to establish this new role?

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, Mr Medina Ortega, you are aware that there are currently European Commission delegations in which we do not have experts of all kinds, but, as I have said, we are trying to provide training. It would certainly be good to have more experts in the future, however.

In fact, I am always open to the idea of Member States posting officials to the Commission's delegations. We have done so in Mauritania, for example, in response to a request from the Vice-President of the Spanish Government, who came to see me to ask for that, and I opened up the delegations straight away.

With regard to Frontex, you are aware that it is a Member States’ agency and it is therefore more complicated, but Franco Frattini has shown great will and with much support from us, and from me, he has already managed to do a lot, though even more needs to be done in the future, of course.

You are also aware that we have worked in Mauritania and in Morocco, with, I would say, great funds and with this training programme, with the management of borders, in order to help these countries, but also the member countries of the European Union, to tackle today’s great challenge of immigration, illegal immigration in particular.

Part Two

  President. Question no 38 by Dimitrios Papadimoulis (H-0371/07)

Subject: Development of deficit and public debt

In its answer to my previous related question (E-0574/07), the Commission stated that 'it is expected that this assessment report will be presented to the GNI Committee in July or October 2007. ... Only after all the steps explained in reply to the previous part of the question have been carried out will it be possible for the Commission to calculate the additional contribution.'

When will the Commission finally examine the Greek Government's proposal to revise Greek GNP? What is the trend in the deficit and public debt during 2007 and what are the Commission's forecasts for 2008? In the Commission's view, what measures must be taken to maintain the downward trend of the deficit and public debt?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, Mr Papadimoulis, the Commission is completing its analysis of Greece’s revised GDP and GNP figures. It has used the same procedure for that analysis as for all of the other Member States.

The procedure and timetable employed are as follows:

On 22 September last year, Greece presented the Commission with the revised figures on its gross domestic product and its gross national product. These figures represented a revision upwards of approximately 26%. At the end of October last year, therefore, a month after having received that information, Eurostat communicated those figures for an initial analysis by the Member States' GNI-Committee.

The committee then issued a statement to the effect that it did not have sufficient information on the revised data and the changes in methodology communicated by Greece. The committee also pointed to the urgent need for Greece to cooperate fully with Eurostat and to provide a completely revised inventory of its GDP and its GNP, explaining in detail the new sources and methods used by Greece for its national accounts, in order to enable Eurostat to carry out a complete verification of the new data and inform the committee of the results of that verification.

Greece presented the inventory to Eurostat on 6 February of this year, in the form of a 460-page document in Greek. Following the relevant translation, Eurostat is completing the analysis of that documentation and it will send a mission to Greece by the end of this month. Like those carried out in other countries, experts from other Member States take part in that mission, in order to ensure the necessary degree of transparency.

The results of the mission will be analysed with Greece firstly and then any comments made within that context will be taken into account in the final wording of the report assessing the revised figures for Greek GDP and GNP. Eurostat will present this report to the committee for an in-depth debate. It is hoped that it will be presented no later than October 2007.

With regard to the second part of your question: according to our spring forecasts, carried out on the basis of the non-revised Greek GDP figures, the public deficit for this year is expected to fall to 2.4%, compared to last year's 2.6 %. For 2008, on the assumption that current policies are not changed, the Commission foresees a slight increase in public deficit, from 2.4% to 2.7%. All of this is on the basis of the GDP figures prior to the revision.

With regard to the level of indebtedness, it is calculated that it will continue to fall, from the 104.5% of GDP in 2006 to around 100.7% in 2007 and 97.5% in 2008. In view of these figures, on 16 May of this year the Commission recommended to the Council that the excessive deficit procedure, which had been opened up two years earlier, be ended, and on 5 June of this year the Ecofin Council adopted the decision to close the procedure, in accordance with the Commission’s proposal.

Furthermore, on 27 February of this year, on the recommendation of the Commission, the Ecofin Council approved its opinion on Greece’s updated stability programme for 2006-2009 and in that opinion Ecofin recommends that Greece take advantage of the favourable economic situation to progress towards the mid-term objective – which is budgetary balance – in order to continue improving the budgetary process, increasing its transparency and defining a budgetary strategy within a longer-term perspective which effectively applies mechanisms intended for the supervision and control of primary spending.

Furthermore, and in view of the high indebtedness and the expected increase as a result of ageing, it is recommended that the Greek authorities as soon as possible draw up future forecasts for spending linked to ageing and improve the long-term sustainability of the public accounts, providing the resources necessary to achieve the mid-term objective.

On 20 April, following the meeting of the Eurogroup in Berlin, the Greek Minister for the Economy and Finance formally and publicly announced that the government had decided to bring forward from 2012 to 2010 the time limit for achieving that medium-term budgetary objective.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your detailed reply.

In a statement after 5 June, you expressed the Commission's concern about the large deficit in the balance of payments of the Greek economy and recommended strict measures in order to achieve a sustainable and constant reduction in the deficit and the debt. My question therefore is: have you discussed the measures proposed by the Commission with the Greek Government? Do you have replies and commitments from the Greek Government for the measures that you consider necessary?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, formally speaking, the Commission is so far not going any further than what we proposed to the Council, and the Ecofin Council approved the latest update of the stability programme, that is to say, the long-term sustainability of the public accounts in Greece must be improved.

Greece is one of the six Union countries that, according to the report that we produced last year, is in a position of high risk in terms of the lack of sustainability of its public accounts, largely due to the fact that, according to the current demographic forecasts, a sharp increase in spending on health and pensions is expected. It is not the only factor, but it is a clear factor, to which we can add Greece's extremely high level of public debt, which, as I said in my first speech, is over 100% of Greek GDP.

The Greek authorities therefore need to draw up, and the Greek Parliament needs to debate and approve, reforms aimed at improving sustainability. It is absolutely clear to anybody who analyses the Greek economy and public accounts that these reforms must involve a reform of the pension system and the social security system, improving their sustainability and hence their medium-term and long-term viability and at the same go further than the excessive deficit correction that has taken place.

A structural objective of Greece's budgetary strategies must continue to be a reduction of the levels of public debt because, although they are falling, they are still extremely high.

  President. Question no 39 by Danute Budreikaite (H-0393/07)

Subject: Implementation of the Treaty on the Accession of the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union

Article 2 of the first part of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union states that, from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions before accession shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act (of Accession).

It follows from the above that Sweden, pursuant to the Accession Treaty approved by referendum in 1995, must adopt the euro once it fulfils the Maastricht criteria. However, in spite of this obligation entered into by virtue of the Accession Treaty, Sweden has declined, by means of a referendum to introduce the euro.

Can the Commission, which monitors the application of EU law in the Member States, comment on the case of Sweden? Do other Member States also have the right to employ similar procedures, for example to guarantee their energy security?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, with regard to the provisions of the euro zone’s single monetary policy, Sweden is currently one of the Member States that are subject to an exception. At the moment there are 13 Member States subject to that exception and, furthermore, we have the case of the United Kingdom, which has the famous ‘opt-out’ clause and which is not therefore included amongst the States with exceptions.

With the exception of Denmark, all of the other Member States with exceptions, that is to say, 12 Member States must adopt the euro as their currency, to which end they must seek to meet the convergence criteria laid down in the Treaty. Nevertheless, the Treaty does not set explicit time limits for the Member States to comply with that obligation.

Our last convergence report, which covers the States with exceptions, was published in December 2006, and in it the Commission concluded that Sweden met the price stability criterion, the criterion relating to the public budget situation and the criterion on the convergence of long-term interest rates.

Nevertheless, according to that same convergence report, Sweden did not meet the exchange rate criterion, which requires the Member State in question to have remained within the normal margins of fluctuation laid down in the exchange rate mechanism (ERM II) without any serious tensions for at least two years prior to the assessment.

Furthermore, in last December’s convergence report, the Commission pointed out that the Swedish legislation was not fully compatible with Articles 108 and 109 of the Treaty with regard to the regulation of the Central Bank and its integration into the European system of central banks.

In view of this assessment, the Commission concluded that there was no need to modify Sweden's status as a Member State with an exception in this area. In accordance with the Treaty, the Commission and the European Central Bank will publish the next convergence report in 2008, in principle in May 2008.

With regard to the final part of your question, which relates, by way of comparison, to the security of energy supply, the provisions of the Treaties in force have already led the European Parliament and the Council to adopt directives relating, on the one hand, to the security of natural gas supply, and, on the other, to safeguarding the security of electricity supply in investment in infrastructures. These directives must be transposed into national legislation, and in the case of the latter directive, it must be transposed by 1 December of this year.

We are not therefore in two completely identical situations from a legal point of view. With regard to the obligation to join the euro, the Treaty does not stipulate any maximum time limit, nor the rules for implementation, but leaves it to the convergence assessment that is carried out every two years. In the case that you give as an example, however, that of energy security, there are directives that must be applied by the Member States, and in the event of non-compliance the relevant infringement procedures are applied.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) Commissioner, I am not happy with your answer because in Sweden's accession agreement it is clearly stated that Sweden must implement all agreements in force at that time. In other words, on the principle of closer cooperation, no exceptions are possible. Now the Swedes have decided, four years after a referendum on the subject, to again vote against the introduction of the euro. Does this mean that countries may choose which parts of the accession agreement to honour and which parts not to honour? I have in mind the Lithuanian nuclear electricity generation plant at Ignalina, which is safe and which the Lithuanians do not want to close. Should we perhaps just refrain from closing the plant without bothering to consult anyone?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, Sweden must apply the Treaties, of course. The fact that a referendum has been held does not excuse Sweden from its obligation to apply the Treaties. The Commission also has to apply the Treaty, and what it has done, and what it is going to continue to do, is analyse every two years, as the Treaty demands, whether or not the Member State in question in this case Sweden – fulfils the required conditions for entering the euro. For the time being it does not do so.

Sweden has a problem because its currency is not included in the exchange rate mechanism and, therefore, it does not fulfil the exchange rate stability criterion, it does not conform to the criterion on bringing its legislation into line with the rules laid down in the articles of the Treaty that I referred to earlier, and we point that out. What all Member States must do is try to prepare for that moment.

As the honourable Member knows, and as you all know, the results of the referendum held in Sweden in 2003 are not going to remain in force forever. We have well-known cases of referendums that delivered a certain position in a particular country, but that position changed over time because the will of its citizens, expressed by means of elections or new referendums, changed.

I would insist that, from the point of view of the type of legal obligations laid down in the Treaty, the situation is not comparable if we analyse, on the one hand, the need to move towards Economic and Monetary Union and, on the other, the need to comply with the energy security rules that are included amongst our fundamental rules.

  President. We shall now proceed to supplementary questions. I have received more questions than I can accept. Consequently, I can only give two MEPs the opportunity to speak. I must comply with the provisions laid down in Rule 109 and Annex II of the Rules of Procedure, which cover the conduct of Questions to the Commission. I have chosen Mr Lundgren and Mrs Kauppi.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – (SV) Mr President, notwithstanding the Rules of Procedure, there is good reason for considering how this whole issue of Swedish membership of the currency union has been dealt with. When the referendum on Swedish membership of the European Union was organised in 1994, it was made clear that we were not obliged to join the currency union if we voted in favour of EU membership. That was an issue about which we had negotiated and on which we could decide later. That is the political background to this matter.

I agree with the Commissioner that Sweden cannot be forced into ERM II as long as we do not fulfil the requirements for participation in it. What I would point out, however, is this: is it really imaginable – and this is my question to the Commissioner - that a country that has joined ERM II can …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, I am not sure whether Mr Lundgren has actually asked a question, but in any event he and I agree that there is at least that point that you mentioned in your speech, Mr Lundgren, and there are also the legal incompatibilities which make it impossible at the moment to say that Sweden fulfils the criteria for joining the euro.

I would say once again that at no point does the Treaty lay down maximum or minimum time limits. It lays down a general obligation to prepare, to seek to fulfil the conditions, but it does not stipulate a specific timetable. The Treaty must therefore be interpreted with the same flexibility that was employed when it was drawn up, not according to criteria that are different to those laid down in the Treaty. In any event, I would say that we need to apply common sense, as we so often have to do in politics. If the Swedish citizens said no four years ago, we will have to ask them when they decide to change their minds, should they decide to do so. I do not believe that any country can be obliged to join a currency against its will.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – I would like to ask three direct questions. The first is a purely technical issue: is the Accession Treaty clause for the Swedish Accession Treaty completely identical to those of the 12 Member States which joined after 2004?

Secondly, I understand that Mrs Budreikaitė is not as much interested in the euro as she is in the former interpretations of the Accession Treaties. If there is no deadline for implementing something in primary legislation, is it possible to postpone it forever?

Thirdly, do you think that the referendum is relevant to the debate?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) Mrs Kauppi, I shall try to reply with the same precision with which you asked your questions.

Firstly, Sweden has exactly the same regulation as the 12 new Member States. The only Member States that remain outside the Eurozone and that have a different regulation are Denmark and the United Kingdom, which have opt-out clauses that in turn differ from each other. The second issue is that of time. Directives have a timescale, whereas the obligation to prepare the groundwork for being in the Eurozone does not, according to the Treaty, have a timescale. Thirdly, as regards your question on the referendum, this is something that depends on each country’s own law.

If I am not mistaken, the referendum in Sweden is not binding in this regard. It would be difficult for Swedish citizens or the Swedish parliament to amend the Treaty solely of their own volition.

  President. Question no 40 by Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0435/07)

Subject: Poland's entry into the euro zone

When does the Commission think that Poland will fulfil the criteria enabling it to enter the euro zone? Could this be feasible by 2012 or earlier, or, if not, when?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr Czarnecki, being a Member State of the European Union, as we have just discussed in the last reply, brings with it the obligation to adopt the euro, except in the case of Denmark and the United Kingdom, which negotiated an ‘opt-out’ clause. The Member States that are not yet members of the euro zone are committed to adopting the single currency once they fulfil the conditions necessary in order to do so and to try to prepare for fulfilling them.

When the Commission confirms, on the basis of its own assessment (the convergence report), and the European Central Bank does the same, that Poland meets all of the conditions laid down in Article 121(1) of the Treaty, Poland’s exception can be removed, in accordance with Article 122(2), and the zloty can be introduced into the euro.

For the time being, Poland does not entirely fulfil the convergence criteria with regard to the situation of public finances – because the Polish public deficit is higher than 3% – and nor does it fulfil the criterion with regard to the stability of exchange rates insofar as the zloty does not belong to the exchange rate mechanism. Furthermore, the legislation regulating the Central Bank in Poland does not yet conform to the Treaty’s requirements, according to the analysis included in our latest convergence report of December 2006.

The Commission does not make predictions concerning when the Member States will or may fulfil the required conditions, but it certainly encourages all of them to gear their policies towards achieving macroeconomic stability and to promote productivity growth. These policies promote sustainable economic convergence, which is the best basis for preparing the countries that wish to enter the euro and for enjoying all the benefits of belonging to the single currency once they are in the euro zone.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Commissioner, thank you for your speech. However, I would like to say that we are obviously aware of the conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to join the Eurozone. My country has clearly stated that this is still not the right moment in economic terms, and that a decision will certainly be taken in a few years. I am very aware of the fact that the European Commission cannot discuss dates, but could we broadly state that 2012 would be a more or less suitable date for both sides?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, I would insist that it does not fall to the Commission to reply to that question. I believe that it is a question that should be addressed, and that I sometimes address, to the Polish authorities. When I meet with the Polish authorities, I ask them: have your intentions, timetable and objectives for joining the euro been established yet? And I do not ask out of mere curiosity, but because I am convinced that, for an economy such as the Polish economy – and for many other economies of Member States of the European Union that do not yet belong to the single currency – it would be extremely useful to set that target date in order to guide macroeconomic policies and structural reforms in a consistent and coherent manner towards compliance with the conditions in order to prepare an economy to take the best possible advantage of the benefits of belonging to the euro.

Since the enlargement, we have experienced some very positive times in terms of the behaviour of the currency markets and of the financial markets, but that is not always going to be the case, and the financial markets, the rating agencies, the investors, are also going to put those questions to the Polish authorities. Not only are you, the Members of the European Parliament, and we, the Commissioners, going to ask them, but the economic agents, observers and investors are asking them and will continue to do so with increasing insistence.

I therefore believe that it is good for everybody that the countries that are going to join the euro, not just through obligation, but above all through conviction, and which are undergoing a process of convergence, growth and modernisation, through a very significant reform effort, clarify this element of the strategy; above all, because it is good for them and for their own interests.

  Richard Corbett (PSE). – Would the Commissioner be willing to answer the same question again but in relation to the United Kingdom? As you pointed out earlier, the UK has no obligation to join the euro but it has the right to do so, provided it meets the conditions. How close is the UK to actually meeting the conditions?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, it is true that the situation in the United Kingdom – as I have already said, and as you have repeated – is not the same. The United Kingdom has an ‘opt-out’ clause, and, therefore, the comments I made earlier with regard to the 12 countries that do not have that clause do not apply to it.

Even with that clause, however, the day will come – and I hope that you and I will see it soon – when the British authorities, regardless of that clause, decide to prepare for joining the euro because they believe that it is positive for the British economy. When will that day come? If you ask me whether I believe it will be this year, I shall say no, I do not believe that it will be this year.

My impression is that, in the current phase of the economic cycle of the British economy and of the euro zone economy, the arguments in favour are not going to increase over the coming months or in the immediate future. I always respond to that question with a particular observation, however. I believe that the time will come when the circumstances that the British, being the good pragmatists they are, analyse each month with regard to the pros and cons of joining the euro will change, and will show the British citizens, British politicians and the City of London, to name three significant parties in this regard, that it will be good for the British economy to enter the euro at a particular time. I am sure that that time will come, but, to be frank, I believe that it will come after the next crisis.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) Honourable Commissioner, I also would like to link the last two issues and ask you a specific question. I personally do not doubt the advantages of the euro; however, in some countries, which do not yet have the euro, public opinion is different. How would the situation be affected by, for example, referendums in Poland or Lithuania, or Hungary or the Czech Republic, in which people voted against the introduction of the euro? How it would affect the moral climate is clear, but what about the legal and practical situation?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, quite apart from the political problems created by the ‘no’ votes in the referendums – and this applies to other issues as well as this one – I feel that the consequences of a ‘no’ vote would be different for the countries you mention than for the Swedish economy, or than the consequences of the opt-out clauses for the United Kingdom or Denmark.

The United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden are highly industrialised, one might even say post-industrial, economies that do not have to carry out a process of nominal and real convergence, that have carried out many of the structural reforms needed to derive maximum benefit from belonging to a single currency, and in which the financial markets, investors and ratings agencies have great confidence. Unfortunately, none of these characteristics are apparent, for the time being, in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, countries with high rates of growth but with large ongoing nominal and real convergence processes, which requires them, their citizens and their authorities to carry out significant reforms and to work extremely hard. They need to resort to external savings in order to fund their investment and growth processes and need to gain confidence with markets and investors. I therefore feel that failure to promote the euro as a medium-term strategy as part their macroeconomic policies, and their policies as a whole, would lead to great difficulties for these countries.

  President. Question no 42 by Sarah Ludford (H-0365/07)

Subject: Plans for third runway at London Heathrow

What action is the Commission taking to ensure that plans for a third runway at London's Heathrow airport are not advanced in breach of EU air pollution and noise regulations?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, Baroness Ludford, according to EU law, it is up to the UK authorities to carry out impact assessments of infrastructure projects and to ensure that all applicable environmental standards are complied with before, during and after the realisation of these projects. Nevertheless, the Commission is closely monitoring the United Kingdom’s implementation of the relevant provisions in Community law.

The plans for the sustainable development of Heathrow involve an undertaking by the UK government not to build a third runway without prior public consultation and only to do so if noise and air quality conditions are strictly adhered to. A complete environmental impact assessment has therefore begun, which must comply with the provisions of the 1985 directive covering assessments of this nature, and with the provisions of the 2001 Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.

According to the 1996 Directive on the Management and Quality of Ambient Air and directives arising from it, air quality plans must, where necessary, be implemented in order that the set limit values are complied with. The impact of Heathrow Airport is covered by the air quality plan of the London metropolitan area. In 2005, however, air quality levels in the area often exceeded the limit values laid down for PM10 particles.

Moreover, pursuant to the 2002 Directive on environmental noise, Heathrow must, before the end of this month, draw up a strategic noise map that includes an analysis of possible eventualities. A year after this map has been drawn up, an appropriate action plan must be drawn up following a process of public consultation.

To sum up, the Commission is following the development of the EU’s biggest airport with interest and is monitoring the implementation of the relevant provisions in Community law. However, the specific provisions on the extension of the airport, for example the provision relating to the building of a third runway, rests with the British authorities in this particular case.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – I would like to thank the Commissioner for his answer. This will reassure Londoners that the Commission is indeed keeping a watchful eye, though, as you say, the main responsibility lies with the UK Government.

However, an extra runway at Heathrow would allow an extra 500 flights a day to pass over London. The UK Government’s optimistic claim that air pollution can be kept within EU legal limits appears to rest on hopes of cleaner planes and controls on vehicle traffic around the airport. Aviation already accounts for one third of all London’s carbon emissions. Therefore, we would ask the Commission to keep that close watch on what is going to happen. We are expecting the consultation soon, but it needs the Commission to keep a very close eye to make sure that Londoners are protected.

  Jim Allister (NI). – While it is easy to lambaste plans for new runways, is the Commission aware that last week, as an indication of just how essential a third runway is at Heathrow, the Chief Executive of British Airways said that without it there is no prospect of restoring BA flights between my constituency in Belfast and the capital city of my country, London? Thus, should those who would jump to oppose progress not pause to reflect on the prejudice and the hardship which they would impose on citizens of the UK and elsewhere who need the modern, efficient flight connections that projects such as this would provide?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, Baroness Ludford, I must reiterate what I said in my reply to Baroness Ludford’s question.

The Commission must monitor compliance with Community law. As I mentioned, there are a number of applicable directives, and monitoring their effective implementation is our responsibility.

In the particular case raised in Baroness Ludford’s question, that is to say, the third runway at Heathrow, let me repeat that responsibility lies with the British authorities and, pursuant to the subsidiarity principle, the Commission may not interfere in issues for which responsibility lies with a particular Member State.

  President.

Question no 43 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0366/07)

Subject: European 'ecological governance'

Does the Commission intend to draw up a global, cohesive action plan for 'ecological governance', which will consolidate, simplify and highlight the existence of the existing regulatory framework for the parties concerned? Will the plan include the new legislative initiatives on the environment, and reflect the EU's external commitments on environmental issues? Will it also ensure cohesion between the EU's environmental, trade and industrial policies?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Papastamkos, since it published its White Paper in 2001, the Commission has always stressed the importance it attaches to the quality of governance in its actions, in order to ensure that the European institutions function effectively and democratically, in fruitful cooperation with civil society.

Governance is an issue that cuts across all policy areas, not only the environment. We must acknowledge, however, that the citizens and NGOs place special emphasis on the quality of their environment and that civil society wants to be kept informed and to be involved as regards environmental issues.

The 1998 Aarhus Convention is of particular importance in this connection, as it provides for access to information, public involvement in the decision-making process and justice when it comes to environmental issues. This Convention, to which the Community and the Member States are party, reinforces the commitments mentioned in the White Paper on European Governance. The Commission has applied principles of governance fully in its initiatives.

As regards the issues raised by Mr Papastamkos in his question, I should like to point out to him that all important measures that the Commission is planning to present to other institutions are included in its annual work programme. This programme is presented to the other institutions – including, of course, Parliament, which debates it every year – and is accessible to the public. Most environmental measures are based on the Sixth Environment Action Programme.

Furthermore, all of the Commission’s proposals fully reflect the undertakings made by the Community in international agreements, including those relating to trade policy and the environment.

Lastly, the Commission is playing an active role in the debate on improving international environmental governance. The EU has put forward a practical proposal to set up a UN environmental organisation, on the basis of a UN environmental programme.

This body would have authority and clear legal functions as regards the early detection, monitoring and recovery of data, and would work on a consolidated scientific basis, thereby improving decision-making and the adoption of policies based on scientific evidence.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the environmental acquis contains approximately 400 texts of secondary law and international conventions and they are, of course, used and applied by governments, local authorities, enterprises and the civil society. What has this famous 'better regulation' strategy yielded to date?

Two years ago I proposed here in this Chamber the need to establish an international environmental organisation. What is the Commission's position? The environment, as we all know, is a public commodity and, as such, has no borders. What is the Commission's position on the establishment of an international environmental court?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) As I told the honourable Member in my first answer, the Commission is working with others, and is proposing to set up an environmental, multilateral organisation under the aegis of the UN, with authority and clear legal functions. We feel that this will lead to improved decision-making and to the adoption of policies based on scientific evidence.

As regards your proposal for a court, the Commission has yet to adopt a firm position.

  President. Question no 44 by David Martin (H-0373/07)

Subject: EU targets for the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions

The European Union has set itself the world's most stringent target for limiting the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. According to the Commission, its target of 550 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent will limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

However, in his recent research paper, climatologist Malte Meinshausen argues that there is only a 12% chance that this target can limit global warming to 2C. A draft of the IPCC report suggests that the probability may even be lower. In 2005, the European Commission's own research found that "to have a reasonable chance to limit global warming to no more than 2C, stabilisation of concentrations well below 550 ppm CO2 may be needed".

Would the Commission clarify how it can set targets which it knows cannot achieve the desired result? What plans does the Commission have to lower the greenhouse gas concentration target to 400 ppm - the figure recommended by Malte Meinshausen - in order to maximise its chances of limiting global warming to 2C?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Martin, the Commission bases EU climate policy and its scientific analysis of climate change on the most robust, up-to-date information available. The Commission is aware that, according to recent research, with greenhouse gases stabilising at 550 parts per million (ppm) CO2 equivalent, the chances of meeting the objective of limiting global warming to two degrees are dwindling.

Accordingly, in its Communication entitled ‘Limiting global warming to 2°c’ adopted this year, the Commission stated that in order to ensure that there is a 50% chance of not exceeding the 2°c limit, it will be necessary to keep greenhouse gas concentrations at substantially less than 550ppm CO2 equivalent in the decades ahead. It also stated that emissions must then go down in order to achieve stabilisation at around 450ppm.

This means that between now and 2050, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions must go down by at least 50% in relation to 1990 levels.

The Commission’s analysis demonstrated that this objective is technically feasible and economically viable if those mainly responsible for emissions take action quickly. This technical feasibility was confirmed recently by the report issued by Working Group 3 of the International Panel on Climate Change.

The scientific studies carried out by Mr Meinhausen mentioned by Mr Martin in his question also underpin this ambitious objective. In order to limit climate change to 2°c, to a 2°c increase, developed countries must take the initiative of collectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 30% in relation to 1990 levels by 2020, which is the objective we set in the proposals we adopted in January of this year in the Commission, and that subsequently received the Council’s support.

At the same time, emissions from developing countries must reach their maximum targets between 2020 and 2025. We are facing a global challenge, and the EU, which is responsible for 14% of the total greenhouse gas emissions on the planet, is ready to take the lead on the issue on the international stage.

The EU is sure that the UN Conference on Climate Change to be held in Bali later this year will provide the impetus for negotiations on future international cooperation on climate change after 2012, which will lead to – or, rather, should lead to – an agreement on what must be done to achieve a global reduction in emissions.

I should like to add that, on the basis of the conclusions of the last G8 Summit – taking account of both the progress and the limitations of those conclusions – we feel that significant progress was made on this agreement a few days ago in Heiligendamm.

  David Martin (PSE). – Firstly, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his very detailed and, in some ways, encouraging reply. However, he has acknowledged in that reply that the 550 ppm target is unlikely to achieve his objectives. Will the Commission, in the run-up to Bali, put forward the idea of Europe taking a lead and going for a 400 ppm target as a way of setting a good example to the rest of the world? I also accept his point that Europe acting alone will be insufficient.

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, as Europeans we are convinced that, as I said in my first answer to Mr Martin, enormous progress needs to be made and that the EU must play a leading role on the world stage.

By moving forward together we can achieve much more ambitious goals, the likes of which others responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions are not prepared to undertake, at the end-of-year Conference on the post-Kyoto era, and Europe will find itself alone in making such commitments.

Europe alone, as we said in our January proposals, must move forward in setting ambitious objectives. It will not be possible, however, to make the kind of commitments we wish to unless the other participants at the Conference do likewise.

  President.

Question no 45 by Bernd Posselt (H-0381/07)

Subject: Waste tourism

What is the Commission’s opinion of the developing waste tourism between Bavaria and the Czech Republic and what measures is it planning to reduce waste tourism within the EU and with the EU's closest neighbours?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, Mr Posselt, the European Union applies strict legislation to transfers of waste between Member Status and to transfers to third countries.

Community legislation on the transfer of waste is aimed at preventing the illegal transportation of waste, including cases in which waste is transported illegally from one Member State to another in what is known, and what you have described in your question, as ‘waste tourism’.

The transport of waste is only authorised when subsequent recovery or elimination operations conform to the environmental protection requirements laid down in European and Member State legislation.

European legislation lays down the strictest possible requirements with regard to the transport of dangerous goods and waste intended for elimination. According to this legislation, it is illegal to transport this kind of waste to another Member State unless there has been prior written notification to the competent authority of the originating country. Furthermore, in order to be able to carry out the transfer, authorisations must have been received from the competent authorities of the countries of origin, destination and transit.

The Commission's main priorities include ensuring that Member States correctly apply European legislation on the transfer of waste, as well as preventing and reducing illegal transfers. The Commission has adopted a series of measures for achieving these objectives.

This year awareness-raising events and meetings have been organised with the Member States, with a view to improving implementation and compliance with the rules on the transfer of waste in the Member States.

Another important step will be the Commission’s adoption of a proposal for a directive on environmental protection by means of criminal legislation.

We cannot accept the illegal transport of waste from Germany to the Czech Republic or the illegal dumping of waste at the final destination. We are aware that similar situations may exist in other Member States, in addition to the one you raise in your question. The Commission will monitor the situation closely with a view to ensuring the correct application of European environmental legislation.

Both the Commission and the Member States share the responsibility for guaranteeing the effective application of this legislation. The Member States must provide for inspections and controls of waste transfers on the ground and effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions in the event of infringements.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) I am much obliged to the Commissioner for that good, exhaustive reply. I now have two supplementary questions. Firstly, in the Commissioner’s opinion, is enough being done to combat illegal waste tourism? Secondly, is it true that the phenomenon is only shifting to the new external borders of the EU: for example to Ukraine or South-East Europe?

  Joaquín Almunia, Member of the Commission. (ES) Mr President, I am no expert in this field, but I can tell you that when it comes to this kind of action, and given that both you in your question and I in my reply note that illegal transportation exists, anything that can be done in addition to what is already being done will be welcome, and this is applicable both to our own responsibilities for ensuring compliance with European law and — as I said in my initial reply — to the actions of the Member States, which have the monitoring and inspection instruments on the ground.

With regard to the places in which this kind of illegal activity is taking place, according to the information available — as I pointed out in my reply — transfers of this type do not just take place between Germany and the Czech Republic, but also between Germany and certain other new Member States. And this transit may also exist beyond the borders of the European Union.

In any event, with regard to transfers, to transport between Member States, it is particularly useful that this debate should confirm the intention and commitment of the European institutions to carry out our duties as vigorously as possible and call upon the politicians in the Member States to do likewise.

  President.

Question no 54 by Claude Moraes (H-0357/07)

Subject: Cancer screening

Cancer affects 2 million people in the EU, of which 276 678 reside in the UK. In light of the recent recommendations by the Council on cancer screening, does the Commission have any information on how effectively the Member States perceive this recommendation?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank the Member for the question, even though I have to be honest and say that I wish he was tabling it six months from now, because we are currently in the process of preparing our report on exactly this matter, i.e. the implementation of the Council recommendation, and we expect to have the report adopted by the end of this year. So we expect to have a discussion on the report, mainly under the Slovenian Presidency in the first half of next year.

This report will provide information on the implementation and possible impact of the recommendation in the Member States, in the European Economic Area states and candidate countries. Additionally, wherever possible, the degree of national implementation will be reported in relation to the existing European screening benchmarks in breast and cervical cancer. We expect to derive the facts from two main sources: the Member States, which will be directly contacted by the Commission, and the European Cancer Network, which is responsible for obtaining evidence on the impact and the degree of implementation from independent experts in the field.

I would like to take the opportunity, additionally, to inform you that we are also collecting cancer epidemiological data through the European Union Network for Information on Cancer that was established in 2005, which is co-funded by the Commission and managed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The aim is to compile information relevant to monitoring the cancer burden in European populations. The end of this project is scheduled for the end of August 2007 – two months from now. All the data, therefore, will in principle be available from that date.

  Claude Moraes (PSE). – I asked the Commissioner the question because I was aware that on the horizon there are some very good activities planned, and I wish to thank him for that. I asked the question because I have been talking to doctors, consultants and oncologists in my own city of London, and in the United Kingdom we have a disproportionate number of cancer cases for what is a prosperous Member State.

The question I want to ask you is: when I go back to those oncologists, what will I tell them? Will I tell them that you will make every effort to ensure that the Council recommendation is implemented and that the Commission will take seriously the disproportionate figures we see from Member State to Member State, and that you will make a comparative example of Member States so that we can do something about some of these rates, which are far too high?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. I can assure you that I will do my utmost to have the screening recommendations fulfilled and implemented as much as possible. They are recommendations, nevertheless, and we have to acknowledge this weakness in the European system. Therefore, in the end, it is up to each Member State to apply and implement them as effectively as possible. Perhaps the report will put some pressure on the Member States. However, the fact is that, from the information we already have, there is still great diversity between Member States as to implementation of their screening guidelines and, unfortunately, the worst situation is in many of the new Member States.

Based on the report, there will be a discussion under the Slovenian Presidency which they will announce soon to Parliament. Cancer will be the main health theme during the Presidency. Therefore, I am sure we will have more opportunities to discuss this issue. From my part, I will do everything to have these guidelines and recommendations applied as effectively and as faithfully as possible.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Screening is important, but prevention is better. In recent months, a vaccine against cervical cancer has been developed: a cancer that is always particularly problematic in young women. Member States have adopted completely different practices: some make it available on the national health service, whilst in others it is only available privately. This makes it very expensive and it becomes a social issue. Does the Commission envisage any prospect of putting pressure on Member States to give as many young women and girls as possible access to this vaccine?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Yes, I know about that, and in fact we had an opportunity to discuss this issue at the Informal Health Council in Aachen in April. We have now asked the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), which is working on this issue, to produce guidelines and give advice on this subject. Of course, what is covered and what is not covered by the health system is, as you know, the responsibility of the Member States, but I believe that, based on the ECDC’s guidance, we can discuss the issue further with the Member States and offer science. However, the final decision on finances will be left to the Member States.

  David Martin (PSE). – One of the great strengths of the European Union in the field of health is the ability to spread best practices. Apart from examining the outcome of the screening recommendations, will the Commission take as an example the country that comes out best in terms of screening, treatment and low mortality rates and analyse not just how they got there, but how this could be applied to other Member States? There is no point in just gathering statistics and saying ‘These countries are doing it well’ or ‘these countries are doing it badly’. We also need to know why the best countries are succeeding and how we might transpose that into other healthcare systems across the Community.

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Yes, given the limitations I mentioned earlier as regards responsibility for healthcare, exchange of best practice is one of the best ways for the European Union to offer added value in this area.

Exchange of best practice, networks, centres of reference – all these can work so we can learn from each other and so that one Member State can use the expertise and knowledge acquired in another. As you know, we had a debate on the Health Service Initiative a few weeks ago, and cross-border cooperation, networks, exchange of best practices and centres of reference will, in a structured way, be an important part of that initiative. Unfortunately, there are still some legal obstacles to such forms of cooperation. These will be sorted out, hopefully, through that initiative as well. This will be one of the basic priorities of that initiative, which we expect to present before the end of the year, in the autumn. We will, therefore, have an opportunity to discuss this in Parliament as well.

  President. Question no 55 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0359/07)

Subject: New health strategy

What practical measures is the Commission taking, in the context of the new health strategy, with particular reference to measures targeting children in order to prevent and combat behaviours which are hazardous to their health (e.g. smoking, drinking alcohol, obesity)?

Does the Commission consider that children have their own right to hospital and medical care irrespective of their parents' incomes and jobs?

  Markos Kyprianou, Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, the European Commission does indeed plan to approve a new strategy on health for 2007 and this strategy will be a general framework with quantifiable targets which take an integrated approach to all initiatives in the health sector at European level. I agree with what I might call the inference in the honourable Member's question that children and young people are a special priority for the European Commission.

The strategy will refer to issues such as the importance of a healthy way of life and the need to combat obesity, smoking and alcoholism, but will also make special reference to sectors that affect children and young people.

Of course, as I said in the previous question, our initiative on high-calibre health and safety services will be approved shortly and account will be taken within this framework of all the common fundamental values adopted by the Ministers of Health a year ago which support the European Union's health care systems. The values referred to in the decision by the Ministers include equality, universality and equal access to health services for everyone – and of course that includes children – regardless of their financial circumstances and these values will be taken into account in all the relevant initiatives by the European Commission. Of course, the provision of health services comes within the competence of the Member States, but the Commission will support the Member States in this endeavour and these values will also be taken into account in our initiatives wherever and whenever they refer to the health sector.

We believe that all this will form a useful point of reference for all Community action in the health sector.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, for children especially, as the strategy on children's rights is being debated and the competent commission has not expressed an opinion in the health sector, I wish to ask if provision has been made to introduce certain regular examinations throughout Europe, in order to safeguard the standard of health and the early diagnosis of illnesses.

  Markos Kyprianou, Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, it goes without saying that this comes within the competence of the Member States but, under the various strategies which will be adopted and within the framework of the exchange of best practices in various sectors, of course the question of the best method of prevention will also be discussed and prompt examination is clearly an important preventive method. However, we assume that this will be addressed in each sector separately. I do not expect there to be a horizontal provision especially for children; however, in every health sector and in every health problem that can be avoided, the strategy and the initiative will refer specifically to children and to prevention.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, the Commissioner raised the issue of alcoholism. In Austria, a rare – or not so rare – phenomenon has emerged among young people, namely that of ‘binge drinking’. The aim seems to be to drink oneself unconscious in as little time as possible. In the Commissioner’s experience, is this an exclusively Austrian phenomenon, or is there a trend towards this throughout Europe? If it is a European trend, does he already have some measures in mind to counter such extreme drinking and prevent it in the long term?

  Markos Kyprianou, Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, this problem of excessive consumption of alcohol may indeed have started as a problem in the north or northwestern Member States of the European Union, but it is now extending to the more southern countries. We already know that this problem is being faced by Spain and I have had frequent opportunity to discuss this issue with the Minister of Health.

This issue is addressed in the strategy to combat the harmful effects of the excessive consumption of alcohol adopted last year and supported by the Member States. We are in fact waiting for the European Parliament's position on this issue, but the question of young people and combating this form of excessive consumption of alcohol in general are among the strategy's main objectives. However, to a very great extent, and I must repeat again something I said earlier, the competence lies with the Member States. However, we believe that, through efforts to exchange best practices and transfer experience from one Member State to another and cooperation with all the agencies involved, we shall be able to achieve positive results. That is precisely why, last week, we had the first meeting of the European Alcohol and Health Forum and, of course, the problem raised by the honourable Member was one of the items addressed by the European Alcohol and Health Forum.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – (DE) The aim is to live a long, healthy life. Does the Commission have any suggestions as to how the existing EU programmes, such as the Seventh Research Framework Programme or the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, could be used to achieve these objectives, and what are the Commission’s plans for the period up to 2013?

  Markos Kyprianou, Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, of course in the health sector in general, the basic strategy of the European Commission for this period is prevention. That is precisely why we are focusing on numerous efforts concerned with negative repercussions on the health sector, as I said earlier, such as alcohol, smoking, obesity, mental health and all these issues. However, this too will be part of the strategy; the approach will apply to all European policies in all sectors, especially the research sector you referred to, and to other sectors of the European Union, such as the agricultural, transport and regional policy sectors.

In the research sector in particular, I work in close collaboration with my colleague and much of it is devoted to health research, such as research into cancer, research into avian influenza and in other health sectors, because we consider that it is one of the basic priorities and that is also acknowledged in the seventh financing protocol.

  President.

Question no 56 by Marc Tarabella (H-0360/07)

Subject: Health services

On 20 April 2007, the Commission published the results of the consultation on health services it had launched in September 2006.

As the majority of respondents were ‘in favour of Community action in the field of health’, can the Commission give an initial outline of the action it intends to take on the matter, in particular with a view to improving the provision of information to patients – making it possible for them to make informed choices – and ensuring greater clarity as regards the arrangements for and time limits in respect of obtaining healthcare in another Member State? What right of redress does the Commission intend to propose in cases in which national authorities refuse to grant prior authorisation?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. On these health services, as I said earlier, we had the opportunity to discuss this in May during the debate on the report by Mrs Vergnaud, which was very helpful to us. I can inform Parliament that we are now in the process of drafting a proposal. After a few ministerial discussions this was endorsed by the Health Ministers in the latest Council, which expressed its expectation for the Commission to present the proposal in exactly the same way as the Parliament. So we expect to do this as soon as possible, definitely before the end of the year.

We previously had a broad public consultation and the input from that will also be taken into account, but the basic outcome is that there is added value for initiative at European level. An important part of it will of course be the issue of information, and we would like this to be done in the most accurate and objective way. Our intention is to find solutions that add real value for patients, health professionals and healthcare providers, without creating new bureaucratic barriers, and respecting the principle of subsidiarity. We will ensure coherence between the proposals on health services and the ongoing parallel Commission initiatives on social services of general interest, the wider issue of services of general interest, and the ongoing modernisation and simplification of the regulations on the coordination of social security systems.

As I said earlier, information to citizens is an important part, so there will be efforts to access information; some have already been taken and have already been put in place with a recently launched website on meeting the costs for healthcare abroad. This website, which is already available in French, English and German, will be available in all official languages very soon.

We will of course inform Parliament of forthcoming proposals as soon as they are finalised within the Commission, but I can broadly describe the main issues the proposals will address: improved information to patients, in particular about cross-border healthcare; the issue of the general quality and safety of health services; the rights of the patients to redress when they suffer harm; respect for privacy; procedural guarantees for patients in relation to cross-border healthcare; collection of data on cross-border health services; and support for European cooperation on issues such as European reference networks, developing quality and safety guidelines or developing comparable data and indicators.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE) . – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to know whether the Commission has annual statistics yet indicating the number of citizens of each Member State who wish to avail themselves of health care in another state and, if so, for what main reasons. In the absence of such statistics, does the Commission have the number of complaints that may have been filed by citizens of a Member State who have been refused authorisation to receive health care in another Member State?

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. One of the problems is that we do not have sufficient statistics on this issue. But we know from the evidence we have in front of us is that it is at least 1% of healthcare, so this will increase expectations. The main reason so far is the issue of the lack of information. People are not aware they have this right, and the more they become aware of this the more they will seek treatment abroad. This is an opportunity for us to regulate before it becomes too big an issue, before it is too late.

I am afraid I do not have any indication of the complaints from people not being granted authorisation. As you know, we have had cases before the European Court of Justice where citizens were dissatisfied with a negative decision but, at the same time, the patients’ lack of knowledge that they can seek redress at European level does not give us an accurate and clear picture either. That is why, when I was answering you question earlier, I only had in front of me the collection of data and cross-border health service which will be one of the priorities of the upcoming initiative.

  President. – Questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see Annex).

That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 7.40 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MAURO
Vice-President

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 181, 20.7.2000, p. 65.

17. The transposition and implementation of public procurement legislation (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Arlene McCarthy (A6-0226/2007), on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on specific problems in the transposition and implementation of public procurement legislation and its relation to the Lisbon Agenda (2006/2084(INI).

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the coordinators of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for supporting my work as chairwoman in bringing forward the first detailed piece of work the committee has undertaken on transposition and implementation of internal market legislation, in this case to examine the effectiveness of public procurement law.

The report is a culmination of months of extensive research and informal consultation with Member States, public procurement practitioners and specialists, and staff in the Commission. It has been greatly assisted by the Internal Market Committee’s secretarial staff, to whom I also express my thanks.

We held a workshop to look at best practice, putting the spotlight on public procurement and demonstrating Parliament’s commitment to better regulation while improving businesses’ experience of EU law and demonstrating the benefits for the citizen.

Why did we decide to look at public procurement legislation? A series of negative press articles from 2003 to 2006 seemed to suggest that the internal market was failing because of a lack of regard for EU procurement rules, in particular the rules on non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. Concerns were also expressed that the number of illegal direct awards was rising. The public procurement market, estimated to be around 16% of the EU’s GDP and worth some EUR 1.7 trillion, is clearly of enormous economic significance for growth and job creation across the EU. An increasing amount of public procurement is carried out by our local authorities offering potential for more jobs at local level, in particular for SMEs.

Our analysis led us to the view that there are, indeed, a number of problems with the correct application of EU public procurement law, including cases of cross-border discrimination. A significant number of Commission infringement cases deal with matters of public procurement, and we could have drawn up a report naming and shaming bad practices or naming the Member States, five of which have still, in 2007, not implemented the Public Procurement Directives. To have done so would have guaranteed us media headlines.

However, we believe that, on balance, the opening of the public procurement market across the EU is contributing positively to the health of the internal market and helping the EU to meet the Lisbon goals. Therefore, we chose instead to focus in a constructive way on actions that would improve the record of Member States in tackling persistent – and, indeed, emerging – transposition and implementation problems.

The report therefore recommends that the Commission propose an action plan strongly encouraging Member States to tackle the problems. We ask for collaborative practices between Member States and the Commission, including informal information sharing at an early stage. We stress the role of informal dispute settlement, alongside formal remedies. We are asking the Commission to publish guidelines on the application of social criteria, once its study in this area is complete, and we want to see more exchange of best practice in public procurement with, for example, systematic training of procurement professionals and coordination of the work of European networks for the exchange of best practice. We are recommending adoption of all optional elements of the new directive, such as e-auctions, and we want to see set up national advisory agencies to assist contracting authorities as well as tenderers.

We recognise that the Commission needs sufficient human resources in this area to deal with the problems, and we are also calling for better data collection in public procurement, which we know is a very difficult area because of the sheer volume involved and the varying national accounting systems. We want political commitment from the Member States, in particular, to accelerate the correct transposition and implementation of this legislation.

A current hot issue is in-house service provision and the applicability of the public procurement rules to public-public partnerships. The committee decided there is not currently sufficient ECJ case-law following the Teckal case to provide legal clarity on what public authorities should do. However, we urge the Commission to continue its work in this area to resolve the issues and get legal clarity. I remind colleagues that we recently adopted Mrs Weiler’s report, which makes very good recommendations on public-public partnerships.

Finally, there is a clear relationship between this report and the future of the single market. Indeed, the Commission is expected to report back on future policy in the autumn.

I would like to thank all colleagues for their input into this debate and all those who have contributed at our workshop and in many other ways. I look forward to strong support from the Commission for what I believe is a positive and a practical report to improve this important sector of the internal market.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, as you know, the Commission is currently reflecting on the future of the single market. This autumn, we hope to bring forward our ideas on what should be the focus of single market policy in the coming years.

One major element of our analysis concerns the question of how better to ensure that Community law is correctly applied on the ground. I welcome the fact that you are devoting a report to this issue, which is specifically focused on public procurement, and I commend your rapporteur Mrs McCarthy on the initiative.

As a key recommendation, the report suggests setting up national advisory bodies to assist contracting authorities as well as tenderers. Such a contact point at national level could play an important role in securing the correct application of public procurement rules. Bringing public procurement advice closer to the numerous contracting authorities and individual tenderers, via a national body, is good idea. The Commission is ready to cooperate with such national contact points and to respond to any inquiry they might have.

Member States should take up the suggestions in the report and, for example, set up such a national advisory body. Some Member States are currently in the process of setting up contact points, or internal market centres, which could assist firms and citizens in the context of SOLVIT, the free movement of goods, or the Services Directive. I welcome such initiatives and hope that such national bodies will extend their activity to all internal market sectors, including public procurement.

We also wish to assure you that the Commission is deploying all available means to secure the implementation of 2004 procurement directives as quickly as possible in those Member States which are still lagging behind. I regret that our efforts to give all possible advice and assistance could not prevent the fact that we had to take legal action against a number of Member States for failure to complete their transposition process. However, we cannot afford to lose time in establishing a level playing field among tenderers across Europe.

In conclusion, let me underline that we need Member States’ commitment to the cause of public procurement if we want to achieve progress in correct transposition and implementation. Public procurement cases still represent far too big a share of infringement cases brought against Member States. This is to the detriment of fair competition between tenderers. It is also to the detriment of public finances, and thus taxpayers. Your report highlights the need for improvement, and I thank the House for your support.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, first of all I express my warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs McCarthy, for an excellent report.

Lately, I have noticed a tendency in the European Parliament that I, as a European, find worrying: a weakened respect for the ECJ rulings. The ECJ takes no national considerations into account its judgments: it takes the interests of the Union and its citizens into account. Furthermore, it is one of the bases of the Treaty that the case-law of the ECJ is applicable in every Member State. Our role in the European Parliament is mainly legislative. In fulfilling our task it is crucial for us to use the European approach of the ECJ as our loadstone, rather than seeing the ECJ as an enemy – a view that is not so rare nowadays, unfortunately.

The legislation on public procurement is still suffering from quite a few teething problems. Many of the problems are caused by the lack of, or difficulties with, national implementation. It must always be our goal, and the goal of the Member States, to make the legislation as understandable and adaptable to real needs as possible. SMEs should be able to participate in the cross-border market in reality, not only in theory.

We must make the framework for the public-private partnerships work and create legal certainty for companies as well as for public authorities, and check that all act according to EU legislation without imposing unnecessary red tape. It is our task to make sure that local and national interests will not overrun our European goal, which is, and should be, the best result for all European citizens and entrepreneurs.

I shall finish by expressing confidence in the Commission and in our future good cooperation.

  Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating Mrs McCarthy on her excellent report, but I believe that this is a good opportunity to say some clear things that people from outside this Chamber, the ordinary citizens, can understand.

I have a certain amount of professional practical experience in this field and I must point out that public procurement is the yardstick in the fight against corruption. The transparency and the level of good governance of public administrations are measured according to the level of functioning of legal rules and of their application by the institutions.

I would like to congratulate the Commission on the work that it has done on the application of these legal rules, and acknowledge the Court of Justice's correct application of them. As the rapporteur has pointed out, we cannot accept the current situation, since there are many European Union regulations that have yet to be incorporated into national laws and there are unfortunately still many public administrations within the European Union that are not correctly applying the Community legislation.

I believe that this is the time – as the rapporteur recommends – for the Commission to produce a great action plan aimed, on the one hand, at compliance with Community legislation and its improvement and, through cooperation with the States, which are responsible for the application of this legislation, at achieving effective application at all levels of administration, because, although some countries may not have corruption, I would say that it is the greatest danger both to the functioning of administrations and to the functioning of our democracy.

I would like to thank Mrs McCarthy once again. I believe that we will be able to adopt this report tomorrow by a large majority.

  Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I, too, should like to thank Mrs McCarthy for this excellent report. I, too, believe that there is a pressing need for us to ensure that the Directives are transposed in practice. If legislation is deficient, legal uncertainty and distortions of competition can result. This is something we should prevent.

Unfortunately, this report reveals that, to date, only 20 of the 27 Member States have transposed the new Directives – despite the fact that the deadline passed on 31 January 2006. The reasons most frequently quoted for unsatisfactory transposition are the lack of legal expertise, human resources and political will in the Member States. These are what we must address, therefore, and I think that the proposals Mrs McCarthy makes are excellent. The committee suggests a Commission action plan to encourage Member States to tackle existing and emerging transposition and implementation problems in public procurement.

In my opinion, it is also important, however, that the committee has reaffirmed that there is best practice in certain fields that should be exchanged. Member States should actively exchange knowledge and best practice with each other on transposition in the field of public procurement and improve cooperation with the Commission in this area. The committee strongly encourages Member States to coordinate and simplify electronic purchasing techniques and to facilitate access to such procurements. It welcomes the Commission’s handbook on the application of environmental criteria and calls for the publication of guidelines on the application of social criteria. That, too, would help prevent legal uncertainty.

There is a further field that must be mentioned when it comes to legal uncertainty, and that is the unresolved problem of public cooperation – known as ‘inter-municipal cooperation’ in Germany. Under this, local authorities – and it is really only local authorities – jointly provide facilities such as kindergartens, water supply, waste-water disposal and waste. They engage in this joint cooperation as a means of controlling the population decline in rural areas.

I am now of the opinion that this kind of inter-municipal cooperation has no place in public procurement, and I would expect some clarification from the Commission in this regard once and for all. Hence, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance will be withdrawing Amendment 12 and not putting it to the vote tomorrow.

  Nils Lundgren, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (SV) This is, for once, a report for which someone from the party of Eurosceptics, the June List, can express significant appreciation. This is precisely the matter with which the European Union properly should concern itself, that is to say the matter of ensuring – as we should do in every case – that we obtain liberal economic solutions in those areas in which we have chosen the market. The focus of the report is therefore perfectly correct.

It is incredibly important both that the EU and the Commission ensure that the systems of rules are followed and that it is absolutely prohibited to endeavour to favour domestic suppliers at the expense of foreign ones. This is in the interests of people both as consumers and citizens.

What kind of Eurosceptic would I be, however, if I did not have a few objections? I have two:

Firstly, I believe it is wrong now to start demanding that more staff with monitoring responsibilities be appointed at the Commission. In the Committee on Budgetary Control, of which I am the first Vice-Chairman, we adopt quite the opposite approach, for what is important is that we demand of the Member States and of leading politicians, including finance ministers and prime ministers, that they be able to guarantee that they really are complying with the rules to which countries are subject when they belong to the European Union.

Secondly, we must also remember that countries are entitled to opt for other solutions. If a country does not want to deregulate and wishes to have a state-owned post office or some other institution under government control, it is perfectly entitled to adopt that position and so has no need to demand procurement on the terms in question.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, should like to thank all the coordinators and their representative the rapporteur for their good work on this report. There is agreement right across the political divide that the direction and content of the report are correct, something also demonstrated by the fact that the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection voted clearly in favour of it.

As a rule, it should be noted that there are differences in consistency in the transposition of public procurement law across the EU by the individual Member States, and that therefore the Commission’s repeated assertion that there are problems with public procurement law in certain Member States is untenable as such on the basis of basic macroeconomic criteria. What is vital, however, is that we improve data collection on the problems surrounding public procurement law in the Member States. Consequently, I am delighted that the report addresses this point and calls on the Commission to expand the data resource on the basis of which the national systems of public procurement law are assessed.

I should now like to discuss a few amendments. We reject most of the amendments tabled. I welcome Mrs Rühle’s announcement that Amendment 12 is to be withdrawn. We do not disagree with all the amendments tabled by Mr Lipietz or the Committee on Legal Affairs, but they would weaken the report, which forms a very rounded whole.

The timely and correct transposition and implementation of public procurement legislation would significantly contribute to meeting the objectives of the EU’s ‘better lawmaking’ programme and to improving the implementation of the Directive in the internal market by means of better, more consistent transposition.

We would ask the Commission and, in particular, the Council, to put pressure on the Member States to devote more capacity to raising the level of procurement professionalism and sharing best practice to ensure uniform application of these rules in all areas of the European Union.

As regards the amendment tabled by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I should like to add that, whilst the local authorities presumably welcome the fact that they are to enjoy cooperation free of red tape, ultimately, the case law of the European Court of Justice does not provide any genuinely clear guidelines regarding the opportunities for inter-municipal cooperation or public–public partnerships either in Spain or Traxa. Consequently, the Commission is called upon to look at what further steps are necessary in this field.

  Barbara Weiler (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to join in thanking our Committee Chairman for an excellent report that is consistent with our previous reports and also incorporates all our suggestions. I am particularly grateful because I see this report as following on from the report on public–private partnerships – an approach that is very appropriate and also helpful.

I think the rapporteur makes excellent proposals, which, in principle, bring us closer to the realisation of the internal market. However, the criticism she mentions deserves consideration by us all, including the public.

The fact that the main reasons are ‘lack of national legal expertise or human resources and the lack of political will in the Member States’ is indeed an indictment. We expect proper behaviour from our neighbouring countries, from Asia and Africa, yet we are not meeting our own objectives. I do not want to limit my speech here to accusations, but all the judicial proceedings taking place in this connection are annoying, unnecessary and expensive. That is why it is important that we take action in this field and also support the Commission’s activities.

I should like to reiterate that it is good that environmental and social criteria are being publicised more widely. It is very surprising that, in Member States, it is SMEs, in particular – the upholders of our economic innovative capacity – who are for the most part unaware of the possibilities, and that the public in our Member States mostly think they need concern themselves with only the cheapest tenderers and not be guided by other criteria.

I should like to conclude by expressing my thanks for the constructive cooperation I have received. It was so good that I recommend that all those who have tabled amendments withdraw them.

  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I should like to apologise to the interpreters, because this really only works in English.

My 60-second slot today I really must confess

Precludes my chance of giving you a Gettysburg Address;

And so, to make the best use of such precious little time,

I shall list the points that matter and present them as a rhyme.

Commissioner Verheugen says that EU regulations

Present a half a trillion bill to all the EU nations.

This favours larger companies and hurts the SMEs.

It is directives just like this one that will bring them to their knees.

Not content with these achievements, Mrs McCarthy’s final dream

Was centralised policing of the public procurement theme.

National advisory agencies and a data-sharing goal

Persuade her to keep digging when already in a hole.

If socialism’s paradise need rules that we enforce,

I will eat my hat, and coat as well, with or without sauce.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

  President. Thank you, Mr Booth, you have raised the level of poetry in this Parliament.

  Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I am afraid that I cannot reply in such a poetic way. All I would say is that, when I say to Mr Booth that this public procurement regime should represent the biggest possible advantages for small businesses across Europe, I am sure we can find a hat maker to provide him with a hat that he will eat in due course!

I want to thank Mrs McCarthy not just for this report but for setting out a clear course for our committee in leading the scrutiny of these public procurement directives and raising them in political prominence. After all, the whole public procurement regime was really the first fully worked-through piece of internal market legislation dating back to the 1950s and yet, in many cases, I wonder whether enough businesses see this as a real opportunity.

The prime suggestion here is that Member States really need to get their act together in improving their professionalism in dealing with procurement, opening up opportunities that will not just encourage economic growth across Europe but also deliver better quality services to their citizens by reducing costs and improving quality. We know that, where that has happened, clear benefits are being delivered, and those small businesses need to be catered for in this process.

My closing point, in thanking Mrs McCarthy for accepting one of my own amendments, is to say that public authorities, with the huge amounts they are buying, also have a real responsibility to be encouraging innovation in products and services. Within the remit of the existing directives, they can set up pre-procurement arrangements or pre-competitive arrangements to pull through into the marketplace innovative solutions that will deliver real benefits to citizens. That is the next development that we need to get to grips with and I know that is something that Mrs McCarthy and the committee – and I speak as the coordinator for my group – will work together on, in order to continue to deliver real benefits for the European economy and all our citizens.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – Licitaţiile publice reprezintă peste 16% din produsul intern brut comunitar. Sistemele de achiziţii dinamice şi licitaţiile electronice asigură transparenţa, accesul egal la piaţă şi realizarea de importante economii. În acelaşi timp, armonizarea procedurilor de achiziţii publice duce la creşterea competiţiei între întreprinderile mici şi mijlocii şi, implicit, a competitivităţii acestora. Programul comunitar IDA, destinat schimbului de date între administraţiile publice, a permis din 2003 cunoaşterea implementărilor de succes ale sistemelor de licitaţie electronice. Cu un an înainte, România a introdus sistemul electronic de achiziţii publice, în martie 2002. Cu un număr de peste 7200 de autorităţi publice contractante şi peste 7500 de ofertanţi înregistraţi în sistem, au fost astfel realizate economii faţă de bugetul planificat de 24%. Consider că utilizarea mijloacelor electronice pentru realizarea achiziţiilor publice va ajuta în mod real Uniunea Europeană să realizeze obiectivele propuse prin strategia de la Lisabona. Felicit raportorul pentru munca depusă.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) I welcome the report by the rapporteur, Mrs McCarthy, who has highlighted problems relating to the transposition and implementation of public procurement legislation, which is increasingly important for EU economic growth and the internal market. Public procurement markets in Member States must open to cross-border competition in order to create a level playing field across the Community, especially for suppliers such as small and medium-sized enterprises.

The new directive clarifies how environmental and social requirements should be fulfilled. Care should be taken, however, that procuring entities do not apply these criteria in a way discriminating against firms from other Member States. I agree with the rapporteur that setting up national advisory agencies would help contracting agencies to apply public procurement rules properly and to assist tenderers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, in bidding for public orders.

A highly professional and depoliticised administration is key to the successful implementation of European legislation. Only professional officials with ample experience in civil service or local government work, as well as regular training, would be able to respond appropriately to the new challenges posed by European legislation. The new post-communist Member States in particular seem to have invented a national sport, whereby a new government after taking office seeks to replace virtually all civil servants in positions which should be filled on the merit of professionalism.

Based on my many years of experience in civil service and local government positions, and drawing on my track record in public procurement, I am convinced that only a professional and credible administration will be able to transpose EU legislation into national law in a responsible manner. It is important that Member States should not impose responsibilities on individuals and legal entities above and beyond the transposed rules, and, in particular, should not impose an unnecessary administrative burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. I believe that an active exchange of knowledge and best practice regarding the transposition of public procurement legislation between Member States, as well as the modernisation and simplification of public procurement rules, will significantly increase the efficiency of EU public procurement.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I believe that introducing Community legislation aimed at creating a fair and non-discriminatory public procurement system is the right step to take as it fosters the development of the common market.

Current European Union legislation sets minimum standards which have to be met for this type of procurement. However, these standards are often insufficient, mainly due to the problem of transposing them into national law and the lack of an effective system for monitoring whether the procurement procedures meet the requirements laid down in the directive. The rapporteur defines these problems very aptly and draws our attention to the ways in which they can be resolved.

The problems are mainly associated with the preference shown to strong, national business entities, the failure to respect the principles of free and fair competition, and of course corruption, which prevents business entities such as small and medium sized enterprises from participating in the procurement process. Thus, we need to introduce a monitoring system for public procurement which will allow us to prevent illegal, independent awarding of contracts. That is why I agree that the Member States should make better use of the support offered by the European Commission in order to improve the transposition and application of the directive.

It would also be a good idea to set up national advisory agencies in the field of public procurement. In addition to providing assistance to businesses taking part in the public procurement process, they could also monitor the situation in the Member States and send statistical data to the Commission. We should also facilitate access to this kind of procurement by simplifying electronic procurement procedures.

Let us remember that public procurement is an important indicator of economic growth in the Union, currently accounting for 16% of GDP. The aim of the directive is to eliminate discrimination in Member States and to make the system flexible enough for foreign businesses to have equal access to the markets of other countries.

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in terms of resolving the problem of public procurement procedures we should focus not only on formal solutions, but also informal ones. These include the promotion of good practice, exchange of experiences, organisation of training or the exchange of information between Member States.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, rigorous implementation and enforcement are a priority for the Commission. The Commission is currently assessing how further to improve the correct application of our rules.

The issue of public partnerships is of particular concern to a number of Members. Questions have been raised about the need to clarify concepts such as ‘public authority’ or the notion of what constitutes an in-house contract.

I hear the call for a legislative proposal in this area. Amendments to this effect have been tabled. I have to say, however, that I am not convinced of the need for legislative action. Based on the evidence at hand, I believe it would be premature to go down that route.

The Commission is studying national practices in this area. If this research demonstrates that clarification is necessary, we could then decide how best to provide such clarity.

I welcome your report as a timely contribution to this reflection, and I look forward to working with the European Parliament and making the internal market deliver tangible benefits to consumers and businesses.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 20 June 2007.

18. Derogations from internal market rules for defence procurement on the basis of Article 296 TEC (debate)

  President. The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on derogations from internal market rules for defence procurement on the basis of Article 296 TEC, by Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (O-0022/2007 – B6-0122/2007).

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE), author. – Mr President, I am sorry Mr Booth has gone because I would like to tell him that I am a music lover and perhaps next time he could perform a Euro-rap when my report is up!

As the Commissioner is aware, the defence procurement market accounts for a large share of EU public procurement, estimated at about EUR 80 billion out of a combined Member State defence budget of EUR 170 billion, and that is why we are tabling this question today: defence procurement is still being awarded within mostly fragmented national markets.

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, therefore, takes note of the Commission’s interpretative communication on the application of Article 296 of the Treaty in the field of defence procurement, adopted on 7 December 2006. This helped clarify the existing legal framework. However, we also further note efforts by the Commission to propose new legislation, which should substantially contribute to creating a more competitive environment for the European defence industry and its suppliers.

Therefore, we want to ask the Commissioner the following questions. What progress is being made on the draft directive on the procurement of defence equipment not subject to the derogations of Article 296? What are the subsequent steps planned by the Commission in this area? How does the Commission evaluate, from the perspective of a fair and efficient working of the internal market, the situation within the European defence industry, where in different Member States a significant number of highly skilled jobs appear to be at risk? What impact does it expect the directive to have on the sector, and what is the Commission’s strategy to induce Member States to cooperate more closely on defence procurement issues, to improve transparency and gradually open up their national defence procurement markets in order to establish a well-performing and competitive environment for this sensitive sector? We should also like to know what conclusions can be drawn from the code of conduct that was established in 2006, and how the Commission understands the future relationship between a potential directive and the code of conduct.

  President. Thank you, Mrs McCarthy. I would like to remind you that rap music and the Greek hendecasyllabic metre have the same rhythm. You and Mr Booth are closer than you think.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, four years ago the Commission announced its intention to develop a European security and defence policy. Since then, we have been striving to establish a more open and fair European defence market through a number of initiatives. The new procurement directive for defence equipment is a crucial element of this overall strategy and is one of the Commission’s strategic priorities for this year.

At present, the vast majority of defence equipment tenders are conducted outside Community rules. Member States rely upon the derogation from the Treaty under Article 296. In the Commission’s view, this derogation should be limited to the exceptional cases. We gave some guidance on the matter last December. Nevertheless, the derogation is still the rule more than the exception. Most defence procurement has therefore remained outside of the internal market principles. This means that all 27 Member States procure defence equipment in accordance with their own national regulations, often resulting in non-transparent and sometimes discriminatory practices.

We recognise that current public procurement rules are really suited to the particular needs of the defence procurement. But we believe we can achieve important economic gains if we open up national defence markets, which represent 0.8% of the European Union’s GDP and one quarter of public procurement at state level.

Member States and industry widely acknowledge these advantages. Fair and transparent conditions would allow companies, especially SMEs, to tender more easily in other Member States and thus widen their access to business opportunities in a much larger home market. Longer production runs would allow economies of scale. This in turn would help to reduce costs and lead to lower prices. The final beneficiary of that would be the taxpayer.

Our proposal would adapt certain Community procurement rules to the specific nature of defence and give awarding authorities greater flexibility for sensitive procurement procedures. This will also make it easier for Member States to use the derogation under Article 296 of the Treaty only in exceptional cases. As is the case under the other procurement directives, Member States will continue exchanging views on defence procurement issues via the Advisory Committee on Public Procurement, once the directive has been implemented.

I wish to emphasise that the new directive will implement the code of conduct of the European Defence Agency. The code of conduct applies only to contracts which are exempted from the Community rules on the basis of Article 296, while the future directive will apply to contracts which are not exempted from Community rules. Together the code of conduct and the new directive will enhance transparency and fair competition on defence partners in the European Union.

I am pleased to indicate that work on the proposal for a defence directive is well advanced. My services are currently finalising the impact assessment which will tell us more about the expected impact of the initiative on the market, including social issues. In parallel we are working closely with Member States via the Advisory Committee on Public Procurement and via the European Defence Agency. Industry is also involved in the impact assessment.

The Commission is planning to adopt a proposal in the autumn. At this stage we aim to present it as part of a package, together with a proposal for a regulation on intra-Community transfers of military equipment and a communication on defence industries.

Since we started the reference in the field of defence procurement, Parliament has always been one of our strongest supporters. This is clearly reflected in Parliament’s resolution of 2005. I wish to thank you for this and hope that our fruitful cooperation will continue in the future.

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I wish to begin by welcoming the Commissioner’s clear commitment to producing the new directive as soon as possible and by thanking him for outlining a number of important measures on which he and his departments are already working. Clearly, this is a particularly sensitive area because of both its strategic nature and some of the industrial policy issues surrounding the whole defence sector.

I should like to raise two particular points, to which the Commissioner could perhaps respond in his winding-up statement.

Firstly, it is clear that in many areas of defence equipment procurement there are very complex contractual arrangements, in many cases also involving a significant amount of product development. In other words, the specification of the equipment may involve new technology evolutions. These arrangements will be very different in many cases from conventional buying contracts, although, as I indicated in my response to Mrs McCarthy’s report, there is increasing interest in more transparent conditions for these types of contracts. I wonder whether the Commissioner could indicate or confirm that he will be taking these specific strategic needs into account.

The second point, which is a difficult one, is that in many cases defence procurement agreements also have some form of offset agreement attached to them. For instance, the procuring countries may be looking for some form of local investment, involving local firms in assembling the equipment. Or, in some cases, there is a completely different sort of financial offset in terms of an agreement to buy products from a company in another market.

These arrangements seem to raise difficult issues in the context of both competition and procurement law, and I should be grateful if the Commissioner could confirm that he will be looking at these in the review of the directive he has promised.

  Barbara Weiler, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is not only a tricky subject but, astonishingly, also an area in which Member States are persistently infringing European law.

The Green Paper was discussed in 2004, Parliament tabled a motion for a resolution in 2006, and now we have a new interpretation – yet, in reality, hardly anything has changed. Member States are continuing to do as they please. Has the CFSP failed in this respect? I can see no real improvement since 2004. Member States and members of national parliaments seem to be completely unaware of Article 296 of the EC Treaty – as, indeed, it describes an exceptional situation rather than the rule. In addition, the European Court of Justice has found once again that this is not a case of a general automatic derogation. Yet there is no improvement to be seen, even though – and this, too, may still be worth mentioning – the group concerned consists of just six Member States. There, too, I do not currently see any improvement.

To put it clearly, I do not want any increase in the defence budget; above all, my group wants to see savings by means of cooperation and the use of synergies. Parliament has made some recommendations in this regard, for example on the components the new Code of Conduct should have. Perhaps the Commissioner could add something in this regard?

We have also requested better cooperation from the Commission – and not only the Commission, but also the European Defence Agency. I cannot see much evidence of this in reality. I should like to reiterate that we have made suggestions on the mechanisms for the competitive award of contracts the Commission still needs to change for us to finally achieve what everyone in this House wants. After all, we agree with the Commission that a genuine European defence market is necessary to reduce military expenditure costs and to make production more efficient in the interests of the taxpayer and the public.

  Alexander Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by giving my sincere thanks to the Commissioner for his speech clarifying the current position of the Commission on this subject. He pointed out that Parliament is a good ally of the Commission’s, and indeed we do support his view that a more transparent, effective and open European defence market is an important objective, with a view both to strengthening the sector in Europe and to further objectives. I believe that what I have just said goes for all my fellow Members: I would point to the broad consensus we achieved on our resolution on the Green Paper.

We learn with interest that the work on the Directive on the procurement of defence equipment is well advanced and that the Commission intends to present a proposal in autumn. Mrs Weiler has just pointed out that defence markets are still largely national in character. The State is the only relevant bidder for defence equipment, and it is true that, in the case of many award decisions, recourse is still taken to legal bases that are questionable, to say the least.

However, I agree with Mrs Weiler: there is little support for increasing the defence budget. I believe that this draft Directive takes exactly the right course, namely increasing the efficiency reserve in the European armaments industry, ending the fragmentation of the market, and really improving efficiency and achieving economies of scale. That is why we welcome the Commissioner’s remarks on expected growth and on increased competitiveness on the European defence equipment market. I believe that this will also have a positive effect on the trained labour market.

We need a clear definition of the equipment covered by the derogation. The existing regulations are indeed insufficient to meet the particular needs of the defence equipment market. Therefore, we also welcome the Commission’s initiative to adapt the rules to the state of affairs on the defence equipment market and to strive for greater flexibility in this regard. I would be grateful if the Commissioner could tell us why he decided to adapt general public procurement law instead of presenting a separate directive. This may well be appropriate, but I should like him to say a few words about this.

The bottom line is that we agree with the Commissioner when he says that the opening-up of this market will increase transparency and competition and thus ultimately reduce the burden on taxpayers.

Finally, I should like to emphasise that, as I see it, this draft Directive is far more important than any considerations of industrial or internal-market policy. It will contribute to the development of European security and defence policy, thus bringing about progress in what is traditionally a core domain of national sovereignty. The Directive will bring about progress that may not be revolutionary, but is hopefully measurable, towards a European Security and Defence Policy truly deserving of the name. I would like to add that I would be obliged if, in future, such debates were held in Brussels and not in Strasbourg.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, each year, around EUR 180 billion are spent on defence within the borders of the European Union's common market. Almost half of this amount is not subject to the public procurement legislation currently in force. We need to analyse this situation, which has resulted from the application of Article 296 of the Treaty in relation to public procurement in the field of defence. The Communication has partly clarified the issue.

In view of the specific nature of the arms manufacturing industry and the need to integrate it into the defence policies of specific Member States of the European Union and NATO, we need to ensure the technical compatibility of the equipment and communication systems, as well as the proper compatibility of equipment and appliances. We need greater cooperation between individual countries, a properly functioning defence industry and well organised supplies.

The objective of our activities should be to draw up a directive on public procurement in the defence sector. A stable arms market and stability with respect to the procurement procedures used will have a positive effect on the sector, in terms of employment and efficiency.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the basis for today’s debate is the report by our former colleague Mr Würmeling. It was on this basis that the Commission issued its communication at the end of last year, which was intended to clarify the application of Article 296 but in fact had little effect. After all, it was initially geared exclusively towards non-military goods, and thus the majority of military procurements inevitably fell within the scope of this derogation.

Therefore, it is really up to the Commission to ensure that, firstly, the rules on public procurement in the defence sector really support the work of the European Defence Agency and, secondly, that they take account of the fact that, as many of the previous speakers have said, this is a sector that exhibits peculiarities. I have three questions for Commissioner McCreevy, therefore.

Firstly, does a directive in this field not have the flaw from the outset that it is based on a communication that was originally intended to cover only non-military goods, and is consequently unable to achieve what we expect of it as regards the common security policy?

Secondly, would it not be possible to update the 1958 list, which sets out the derogations relatively clearly but is now out of date? Has the Commission abandoned the task of updating this for good?

Thirdly, the Commissioner rightly said that normal public procurement law is not suited to the defence sector. Following on from Mr Lambsdorff’s question, I would be very interested to hear how the Commissioner intends to take account of the peculiarities of the defence sector in a directive.

  Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, each year, the 27 Member States of the European Union spend EUR 170 billion on defence. These 27 Member States have two million soldiers, 10 000 tanks and 3 000 fighter aircraft. In spite of this, they could not end the bloodshed in the Balkan conflict; we needed our American friends to do it for us. Why was that? At that time there were not yet any common decision-making structures in the EU to enable the implementation of such operations.

Another of the main reasons for the inefficiency of European defence is the lack of a common defence market. One of the reasons for this is Article 296. I am convinced that this Article will be retained in future. The reason that no common European defence market has developed is the excessive application of this Article in the past. First of all, the Commission issued its communication clarifying what is and what is not covered by Article 296: I think this communication is helpful. Then the European Defence Agency took action: in my opinion, the Code of Conduct it adopted was an important step in the right direction. We now also need EU legislation in this field, however – which is why I welcome the fact that this Directive is now envisaged.

As MEPs, we keep hearing a great deal of criticism of the EU rules on the award of public contracts, particularly from local authorities. Therefore, we MEPs shall take very great care that the rules established here are indeed tailored towards the defence field, and that they improve rather than worsen the situation in that field. Our assent will be conditional on this.

In addition, we keep hearing that we Europeans are spending too little on defence. If we continue working on this field and create a common market, we shall at least achieve more security for the same money.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, in response to comments by Mr Harbour, Mr Lambsdorff and Mr Schwab, I can confirm that the very aim of a dedicated directive on defence procurement is to take account of the specificity of the defence market. We recognise that the existing framework is ill-adapted to the defence market. Clearly, the fundamental principles of public procurement rules will have to apply, but defence presents specific requirements in terms of security of supply, security of information or the need to have negotiated procedure.

Mr Harbour also raised the question about offsets, which is a very complex issue. Offsets are economic compensations, which most Member States require from non-national suppliers when they buy military equipment abroad. They are legally problematic, politically controversial and economically questionable.

Direct offsets are directly related to the subject of the procurement contract, they can sometimes be covered by Article 296, if the procurement contract itself is exempted on the basis of that article. However, the huge majority of offsets are indirect and non-military in nature.

From the Commission’s viewpoint, these offsets are not covered by Article 296. They must respect Community law, even if they are related to defence contracts exempted on the basis of Article 296. In other words, offsets are a problem in themselves, even in the area covered by Article 296. Addressing this problem via the Defence Directive would only cover the Community part of the defence market and would leave indirect offsets for contracts exempted on the basis of Article 296 untouched.

In conclusion, as I said earlier, the opening-up of national defence markets will lead to important economic gains and will ultimately benefit all taxpayers. In order to achieve this we need to create a new legal framework, which adapts certain Community procurement rules to the specificities of defence. This new directive will give national authorities greater flexibility when they make sensitive procurements.

  President. The debate is closed.

19. The banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0227/2007) by Dimitrios Papadimoulis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury (COM(2006)0636 – C6-0363/2006 – 2006/0206(COD)).

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am pleased to open this debate on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury. I should like to thank the draftsman and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their efforts so far. I should also like to thank the Committee on International Trade and its rapporteur, Mr Holm, for their contribution to this file.

Mercury is internationally recognised as highly toxic to humans, ecosystems and wildlife. Initially seen as an acute local problem, mercury pollution is now also understood to be global, diffuse and chronic. High doses can be fatal to humans and even relatively low doses can have serious adverse neuro-developmental impacts.

Against this background, the Commission developed a comprehensive Community strategy concerning mercury, which was adopted in January 2005. Its key aim is to reduce mercury levels in the environment and human exposure through a number of actions that address all aspects of the mercury lifecycle. The European Parliament welcomed the strategy and its overall approach in the resolution adopted in March 2006.

The proposal that is now before you implements two key actions identified in the strategy, namely Action 5 (by banning the export of metallic mercury from the Community) and Action 9 (by requiring the safe storage of mercury that is no longer needed in the chlor-alkali industry).

The primary production of mercury came to an end within the Community four years ago when the last active mine in Almadén in Spain stopped its activities. The environmentally desirable phasing-out of mercury-cell technology into chlor-alkali industry results, however, in a new source of mercury supplies: some 12 000 tonnes of surplus mercury will come out of the sector over the next number of years until its transition to mercury-free technologies is completed.

Most mercury is currently exported from the Community, and exports of up to 800 tonnes per year end up, at least partly, in unregulated and uncontrolled uses like artisanal gold mining. This is how EU mercury is adding to global mercury exposure.

The basic aim of the proposed regulation is to stop these exports and to ensure that mercury no longer used in the chlor-alkali industry is safely stored and cannot re-enter the environment.

On the basis of the impact assessment, the Commission also proposes to apply the safe storage requirement to two other industrial sources of mercury – natural gas cleaning and mercury resulting as a byproduct of non-ferrous metal mining.

The storage obligation is a logical development from the export ban, as the small remaining internal market for mercury will be unable to absorb the quantities at stake. Recycling and recovery will ensure that mercury is still available for remaining legitimate uses. Storage operations will fall under the legal framework of the Waste Landfill Directive, with additional safety requirements reflecting the specific properties of metallic mercury.

The Commission aimed at proposing a straightforward, simple legislative proposal that is backed by a sound knowledge base and avoids, in line with the principles of better regulation, any excessive administrative burden for industry or for public administration.

The proposal refrains from taking legislative action in fields where the impact assessment did not provide any solid justification for such action or any clear view on its possible impact.

I should also like to underline that the industry concerned, namely the chlor-alkali sector, signalled its support for this proposal and is willing to sign up to a voluntary commitment. This commitment engages industry to select highly qualified storage operators and ensures that key data on mercury flows will be made available.

The Commission intends to acknowledge this commitment, in line with the principles and procedures set out in the communication on the environmental agreements adopted in 2002.

It is not the purpose of the proposal to implement the whole of the mercury strategy: its scope is deliberately more concise. Work on other actions of the strategy is ongoing.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mercury and mercury compounds are highly toxic substances. Even in low doses, they have an adverse impact on our cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems. In the environment, mercury can change into methylmercury and concentrate in the food chain, especially in the aquatic environment. In the city of Mina-Mata in Japan in 1956, 8 000 people died because they ate fish with a high mercury content.

Mercury is a global problem and needs coordinated international action to resolve it. The European Union cannot argue persuasively for a reduction in the supply and demand of mercury and, at the same time, continue to be one of the main suppliers in the world. The Commission proposal for a regulation is a unique opportunity to break the cycle of exports of this dangerous substance.

I am extremely satisfied that both the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Legal Affairs rejected the double legal basis and opted for Article 175 as the only basis, given that the objective of the regulation is to protect the environment and public health.

As far as the starting date for banning exports is concerned, I am calling for something fair and simple: we in the European Parliament need to remain consistent with the resolution we ourselves adopted by a very large majority in March 2006 on the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. That is why I call on you to vote in favour of Amendment 43, so that we are consistent with these stated positions of the European Parliament. I think that the compounds and mercury products already subject to restricted use and marketing in the European Union should also be included in the export ban, as we agreed in March last year.

What message are we sending to third countries if we export to them the mercury products banned in the European Union because they are dangerous? Will we remember the well-known phrase ‘bon pour l’orient’? As far as the ban on mercury imports is concerned, there is no sense in storing mercury from the European Union on the one hand and in importing mercury for use within the European Union on the other. We are calling for common sense. Besides, supply currently exceeds demand, according to the Commission figures, and this situation looks likely to continue in the future.

As regards the storage obligation for metallic mercury no longer used in the chlor-alkali industry, again my views are based on the resolution adopted by the European Parliament. I am calling, until such time as there are appropriate techniques for the final disposal of mercury, preferably in solidified form, for temporary storage in a recoverable form, either in underground salt mines or in surface installations used exclusively and equipped for temporary storage. Otherwise, the storage site for this toxic substance will be the human body itself. Anyway, we are not talking about millions of tonnes. In all, the surplus quantities of mercury in the chlor-alkali industry are estimated at approximately 12 000 tonnes, the volume of which – due to its high density – is approximately 1 000 cubic metres.

At the same time, I am calling for the adoption of a basic framework of preconditions for storage ensuring continuous monitoring, safety specifications, regular reporting, exchange of information and penalties in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle in the event of non-compliance.

Responsibility during temporary storage should remain with the owner of the storage installation, while the Member States should assume administrative and financial responsibility for safe final disposal. I am therefore calling on the Member States to create a fund on the basis of financial contributions from the chlor-alkali industry which will provide the necessary resources. I am also calling for a register of buyers, sellers and traders of mercury to allow regular monitoring of movements of imports and exports.

Let us stand against a watered down regulation which will not provide the level of protection of public health and the environment wanted by the citizens. The call for a ban on exports and the problem of storage must be addressed on the basis of these criteria. The relative cost – for such an investment in the future – is comparatively very low in the face of the exponential benefits it will generate. The European Union, the European Parliament can and must stand at the vanguard of global efforts to withdraw mercury. I hope that our decisions tomorrow will contribute towards this.

  Jens Holm (GUE/NGL), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. – (SV) It is high time that we took this important decision concerning a ban on exports of metallic mercury. There are probably not many people who are aware of this, but the EU is in actual fact the world’s largest exporter of the substance. More than 1 000 metric tons are exported each year from the EU to other countries. That is almost a third of the entire world trade in metallic mercury. Mercury, which is dangerous, ends up almost exclusively in developing countries, where it causes a very great deal of harm.

I am pleased to adopt a position on a well thought-out report by my colleague, Mr Papadimoulis. This report is not only about banning exports of metallic mercury. It is also about obtaining safe storage of this dangerous substance, something that I think is very positive. I am particularly pleased that Mr Papadimoulis has contributed a number of considerable improvements to the Commission’s proposal.

These improvements include the following:

– extension of this regulation to include products and mercury compounds,

– extension of the ban to include imports,

– entry into force of the ban on a date earlier than that desired by the Commission, that is to say 2010 instead of 2011,

– setting up of a tracking system for the mercury trade in order to obtain increased monitoring of mercury,

– support for developing countries as they convert to modern, mercury-free technology.

These changes are precisely in line with what I proposed as draftsman of the Committee on International Trade, and I am very grateful for them.

All that worries me is the demand by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe for a split vote. A split vote would threaten to undermine important parts of this otherwise excellent report. Stick, therefore, to the rapporteur’s approach designed to safeguard the environment and public health and do not adopt the ALDE Group’s market-based approach.

Tomorrow the EU shall, then, assume its responsibilities and stop dumping lethal mercury in developing countries. It is really high time it did so. With our changes and improvements, the EU will also assume its historic responsibility to support countries in the South as they change over from using mercury to using cleaner technologies. This will safeguard the health of thousands of people and of our common environment. That would be no bad thing.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (ES) Mr President, we had no difficulty in the Committee on Legal Affairs in dealing with the issue of the legal basis, because the aim of this measure is not the implementation of commercial policy — and Article 133 is not therefore applicable — but the protection of health — and Article 175 is therefore applicable. The Committee on Legal Affairs has therefore proposed that the sole legal basis be Article 175, with all of the consequences of that from a procedural point of view.

Having said that, Mr President, as an MEP from a country that has very close historical links to mercury activities, I would like to point out that Mr Callanan’s Amendment 40 on the storage of mercury is much more precise than the text that the Commission had proposed with regard to Article 3(1a). Having proposed this legal basis, therefore, Mr President, I would also call for support for Mr Callanan's Amendment 40.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, as this House is well aware, this proposed regulation on the banning of exports and storage of metallic mercury is in line with the commitments contained in the Mercury Strategy which we passed in March 2006.

The PPE-DE Group supports the broad aims of the regulation. Mercury must be disposed of and stored safely in order to protect human health and the environment. Mercury cell technology is being gradually replaced by the environmentally superior and energy efficient membrane cell technology and this conversion is releasing surplus mercury across the European Union. The aim of this regulation is to prevent this decommissioned mercury from entering the world market. In my view the Commission’s proposal is broadly acceptable and the most workable approach.

With regard to the date for the entry into force of the export ban, amendments have been tabled to bring that date forward. We do not support those amendments. The timing of the ban was debated at length prior to the Environmental Council in June 2005, and the 2011 date was agreed in the Council conclusions as contained in the Commission’s proposal. In my view, nothing has changed since the Council took that decision and I would not wish to have those very difficult decisions reopened. This could only delay the introduction of the ban, especially if it encouraged the re-examination of whether an export ban is in fact the best way to achieve the EU’s aims. The date that has been chosen is the date that appears to gain the most support from a majority of Member States and of course, equally importantly, from the many other stakeholders involved. That date has been set by the Commission with the agreement of the Spanish authorities and Minas de Almadén in order to leave enough time to reorganise and restructure that company, and I think it deserves all of our support.

I am not in favour of the proposals to introduce a ban on the import of mercury and mercury compounds. Given the quantities of mercury rising from the decommissioned chlor-alkali plants within the Community, there would appear to be absolutely no commercial incentive for imports and thus no necessity for including an import ban at this stage. The market is quite capable of regulating itself.

Similarly, we are also not in favour of extending the scope of the export ban. We accept the Commission’s view that metallic mercury is by far the most relevant substance in terms of quantity, as compared to mercury compounds and products containing mercury, and that extending the export ban would be very premature at this stage. Furthermore, companies would simply relocate and continue producing. Is it really up to us to regulate what other countries in the world get up to? I personally think not. Both extensions to the Commission’s proposal require deeper analysis of better regulation principles and the cost and impact of existing business.

  Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for you, mercury is just a toxic metal which we need to get rid of and which you have only seen in thermometers when you have had a fever. To me, mercury also brings to mind a place in my province, Almadén, whose mines were one of the birthplaces of the workers’ movement in Spain. Mercury brings to mind thousands of men and women who lived from it for centuries, hundreds of names and faces, friends with whom I have worked as a Socialist Member of Parliament over the last 30 years, explaining to them, persuading them and supporting them with alternatives in order to overcome the paradox that human progress, which was getting rid of mercury, appeared to be heralding their disappearance.

These people have appreciated our efforts and just the other day confirmed their faith in us by voting for Socialist Party candidates in their local councils. Today, thinking of those friends and re-stating my commitment to them, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their understanding, enshrined in the text approved in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and which we will improve tomorrow by means of certain amendments.

There are three favourable pieces of information which will be received in Almadén with gratitude, interest and hope. Firstly, it is recommended that specific Community economic compensation be granted for the socio-economic progress of Almadén and its surrounding area. Secondly, it is recommended that we prioritise the study of Almadén as the location for the mercury store intended for the safe storage of all of the metal in existence in Europe. Thirdly, given the existing experience and familiarity in Almadén with treating mercury, common sense dictates that the store should be located where more than 80% of the European Union’s mercury is already being stored in complete safety.

Someone from my region told me that taking mercury from Almadén to anywhere else would be like taking the piano to the piano stool rather than taking the stool to the piano in order to play a concert.

Finally, we are grateful for the consistency of those people who propose that exporting and other operations with mercury should be able to be carried out — as we had stated in the Matsakis report — until 2010, and indicating the date of 1 December, thereby allowing mercury to be in circulation for rather longer.

I am sure that, with the resolution that we will approve tomorrow, Parliament will be in a good position to take on its codecision duties within the relevant negotiation with the Council.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to express my sincere congratulations to Mr Papadimoulis for his excellent report, and I wish to thank him for cooperating with the shadow rapporteurs.

In general terms, the rapporteur has sought to make the Commission’s proposal somewhat more strict, rightly so in some aspects. However, in two areas, such a position seems neither entirely wise nor realistic.

The first area relates to bringing the proposed deadline date forward to 2009. In our view, this is impractical and unobtainable. We feel that we should keep to the 1 January 2010 deadline, as we previously decided in the Mercury Strategy.

The second area is more controversial, that of the storage of metallic mercury. In my view, the controversy arises largely because of the confusion as to what temporary and permanent storage really mean in practice. The line I support is that if storage can be achieved in local salt mines or other approved suitable places, under strict conditions with complete monitoring and safety guarantees for thousands of years, then this is good enough for me. There is no need to specifically stipulate in this piece of legislation the obligation to retrieve this mercury and transport it across Europe to a new, more permanent storage facility. If the legislators of the future take into consideration any new technological advancements which make it safe for stored mercury to be treated in a particular way or moved to a new location, then I am sure this can and will be done whatever we put in this legislation now.

In conclusion, let us use common sense and keep things simple and in perspective. Until recently, mercury was and, in many cases, still is in every household and in every doctor’s and dentist’s surgery, as well as in every hospital in the form of thermometers, barometers, sphygmomanometers, tooth fillings, etc. We need to get rid of mercury, but it is neither a highly contagious lethal virus nor a nerve gas compound which is deadly on near touch. Therefore, in dealing with the amendments to this report, let us try not to exaggerate and not to go over the top with our demands.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the European Parliament and Council regulation on the banning of exports and the safe storage of mercury is a document that restricts the occurrence of mercury in the environment and its effect on people and animals. Between 1990 and 2000, the countries of the European Union reduced global mercury emissions by 60%. In the meantime, these emissions have risen by 20% across the world.

In the 1940s, my friends and I found some mercury and were pleased when the coins we dipped in it became a silvery colour. Today, society’s attitude towards mercury has changed dramatically, and the industrial sector is moving away from processes that use mercury due to its toxicity.

Although I find this draft regulation to be positive, I do have a few comments to make. First of all, permanent storage facilities should be found for mercury waste as soon as possible, thus limiting temporary storage. Secondly, the storage facilities should be as close as possible to avoid transporting mercury waste around Europe. Thirdly, we cannot introduce new ways of using mercury waste without properly planning and testing them.

We should be aware that, in view of the dangers of mercury, the industrial sector itself is trying to move away from processes that involve mercury. Amendments 11, 12, 15, 23-27 to the Commission's proposal are not justified.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Metallic mercury is a danger to public health and to the environment, and we now have 12 000 metric tons of mercury that have to be stored. Perhaps that sounds a lot, but it is a volume that could easily fit into half of this Chamber. It would therefore be odd if we were to send this mercury here, there and everywhere and store it in a host of different places and in stores that were unsafe. That is why I am opposed to the attempt by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to get rid of mercury, because it would only be a temporary solution.

A permanent solution needs to be completely safe. The only completely safe solution is to stabilise the mercury once and for all. Mercury sulphide is almost completely insoluble, which means that it can be stored safely. If it is not stabilised, we cannot have a whole lot of different, badly supervised stores. I am therefore opposed to Amendment 40, because it would undermine safety at work.

It is important for us to agree on one and the same date: 1 January 2010, as stated in Amendment 43, proposed by my group. This prohibits both imports and exports of all products containing mercury, so creating a holistic view of the matter. Anything else would amount to the cynical export of mercury. We know that the chlor-alkali industry must cease exports. If it gets the chance to continue exporting one year after the ban enters into force, it will empty its stores of metallic mercury and be paid for doing so. The mercury will then be used by gold-washers in the Amazon basin and destroy huge river areas by contaminating them with mercury.

It is important for the ban to be introduced on 1 January 2010. Otherwise, we would undermine the whole idea of the export ban.

  Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, mercury is considered a heavy metal, and is very dangerous in the food chain. A number of other heavy metals, such as chrome, nickel, uranium and plutonium can also be classified in the same category.

It is true that not only heavy metals but also a number of lighter elements in the periodic table can, in large quantities, be harmful to health. For example, beryllium is known to cause berylliosis. Mercury is not just a metal that can cause serious harm after consumption in its metallic state, it is also an important substance in the field of technology. In the past, electrolysis, dentistry and jewellery could not do without it. The instrumental method of chemical analysis using mercury drop electrodes is well known, and in 1959, the Czech academic Heyrovský won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for this process, which he termed polarography. One important issue revolves around the potential uses of mercury and its compounds in industry, although this must, of course, involve the highest environmental standards.

I am not sure whether storing mercury and its compounds in one place is the best solution. The same goes for how long the transitional period should be before the regulation enters into force. It is my impression that for some Member States the period laid down in Amendment 8 is too short. This is why I have reservations about the proposal, although in most Member States mercury and its compounds, including stockpiles, are strictly monitored by the relevant state bodies.

I feel it is unacceptable to enshrine the role of unspecified NGOs in the regulation, regardless of any issues of tolerance and openness to the public, this does not belong in a regulation on the banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury. The involvement of citizens in monitoring activities is covered in other areas of EU legislation.

I fail to understand why salt mines or the mines in Almadén in Spain would be the best place to store mercury and its compounds. It is obvious that the end of operations in any given mine leads to social problems for the miners. In the Czech Republic and other Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, dozens of large mines have been shut down, without anyone drawing up EU regulations to deal with the massive unemployment that that has caused. It strikes me that the bottom of mineral mines might be a better storage place than salt mines. I strongly support the solution of addressing the issue of substances with less than 5% mercury content.

Furthermore, heavy metals in rocks throughout Europe are at normal levels, and in the course of weathering, they – including mercury – find their way into European water supplies. This is why, for example, in the River Elbe concentrations of mercury and other heavy metals are always detected. This is of course a natural occurrence.

There is also the issue of water from old mines, the extraction of mercury from old dumps and waste sludge, which is a potentially massive source of environmental pollution. This regulation cannot, however, cover this issue, of course.

To conclude, I should like to thank all those who contributed to drawing up this regulation, a process that was conducted in a positive atmosphere of cooperation. Mercury and its compounds have a future in science and technology, as this regulation shows, and that is why we support it.

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) First of all, allow me to thank the rapporteur, Mr Papadimoulis, for highlighting in the report the need for banning exports of mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-containing products. This is very important to us in the European Union, since the EU is one of the world’s biggest mercury exporters. Since this substance is extremely toxic, especially for children, we should take an interest in protection not only in connection with mercury production or use, but also during the storage or handling of mercury waste.

High mercury doses are lethal to humans; smaller amounts of mercury accumulated in the body may cause severe diseases of the immune, cardiovascular and reproductive systems. Industry generates excessive quantities of mercury, for example, in the form of by-products in the chemical industry, in connection with the cleaning of natural gas, or in the extraction of non-ferrous metals and smelting in the metallurgical industry.

One should consider whether, by exporting surplus mercury to third, notably developing, countries, which are the main mercury consumers, we will indeed dispose of mercury. Many developing countries lack funds to deploy modern environmentally friendly technologies, and their supervision is less stringent. I agree with the rapporteur and support his stance that the European Union should not be using double standards – that is, a product which may not be used in the European Union should not be exported to countries which have no legislation on the use of mercury.

We should bear this in mind not only because of the need for environmental protection and nature conservation; we should also remember that this mercury might return in the form of residues in food or by way of polluted rivers, not to mention the risk of exposure for local workers and populations. With regard to mercury and mercury-containing products, the European Union must ensure that mercury supplies are consistent with needs and demand. Surplus mercury must be disposed of in an environmentally sustainable way in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Directive which we have adopted.

At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen monitoring and to penalise strictly any instances of non-compliance. I agree with the rapporteur that manufacturers who produce mercury in the production process should be responsible for its safe storage or environmentally sustainable disposal. This is also important in ensuring continued growth in the industry and encouraging transition to new alternative technologies that are not dependent on mercury. As part of our aid to developing countries, we should put more emphasis on implementing such technologies where the environment has been devastated by this hazardous chemical.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, the regulation before us is part of a whole based on the Community’s strategy concerning mercury. EU environmental legislation has been brought up-to-date in line with that strategy this session. I am satisfied that we have now reached a stage where our attitudes towards the export of mercury are being reviewed. The EU is, after all, the world’s biggest exporter of the substance.

It is undisputable that mercury and its many compounds are toxic to humans and environment, and the cost to society for public health and environmental damage is much higher than had previously been thought. The bans under the regulation and the criteria for storage will also be a clear message to the world outside the EU. We are taking responsibility for this damage.

Crucial to environmental legislation is the notion that the means selected are not only environmentally effective, but also socially sustainable. Environmental considerations mean the export ban on mercury should take effect quickly, as Mr Papadimoulis rightly says. We cannot, however, rush, in the light of other realities. The danger is, actually, that a solution made over here creates a set of new problems over there.

The export ban in the Community should take effect at a time which is in harmony with other international measures on restrictions being sought. As it may still take several years to reach international agreement, it seems right to support the Commission in the scheduling of the export ban. The export of mercury, according to that, would be banned as from 1 July 2011. This has had the support of virtually every Member State.

The same goes for the proposal to include mercury compounds in the export ban. We can ask the Commission for a proposal to extend its scope, when we know enough about its wide-ranging effects. It is at present unnecessary to force a move. Let us continue with the policy we have chosen and solve one problem at a time relating to mercury.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE). – Mr President, mercury is not only a metal but also an ancient part of our culture and civilisation. People have always admired it and believed in its magic powers. For many centuries, mercury had a crucial role in alchemy and the secret sciences.

Mercury, the only liquid metal, is a beautiful material, and one can admire it as a unique piece of nature. However, according to new information, mercury is also a dangerous material and we should protect ourselves and future generations against its toxic effects. The workers in the traditional mercury mines, mostly in Spain, lead a hard and honest life but know that their former profession is over. We should respect the miners’ traditions, but the need for a ban must be understood.

The European Union has already banned the use of mercury and materials containing mercury on its territory. Now we want to ban the export of mercury as well. We do so because we also care about the health of other countries and continents. Hopefully, our decision will encourage other countries to reduce their use of mercury as well.

As the shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group, I had consultations with our Spanish colleagues in the spirit of solidarity. Their understanding was crucial for me. My other guideline was Parliament’s resolution of March 2006. Our decision should balance environmental concerns and the interests of the industry.

As far as the date of the ban is concerned, different proposals were tabled: 2011 by the Commission, 2009 by the rapporteur and 2008 by the NGOs. I decided to suggest 1 December 2010 as an acceptable compromise, in accordance with Parliament’s resolution of last year. Other dates and deadlines should correspond with this basic date. If we voluntarily ban the export of mercury, it is more than logical to ban its import as well.

As far as storage is concerned, there were different proposals: Almadén by Spain, a salt mine by Germany and solidification by others. As we have not yet settled on a solution, we should not support amendments excluding specific potential solutions. We should support our Spanish Socialist colleagues’ proposal calling for compensation for Almadén, the largest European mercury mine.

The scope of the ban should cover every material with a mercury concentration of 5% or more. We have to close loopholes, as it is very cheap to convert mercury into calomel. It is very important to each of us to aid agreement by means of a simplified compromise package, otherwise we will run into chaos and, most probably, there will be no regulation before the next Parliamentary elections.

As shadow rapporteur, I worked for a compromise. A good compromise serves our citizens better than postponed debates that do not lead to any kind of regulation.

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, mercury must be banned comprehensively and quickly. It is nothing short of cynical to take hazardous products out of circulation here but continue to permit their export to other countries.

We know that mercury spreads worldwide via water and air. Ultimately, the mercury would also end up and harm people here. It is nothing short of absurd for us to issue warnings, as the Commission has done, that pregnant women and children should eat no more than 100 grams of tuna per week since it is so contaminated with mercury.

We know – and a study published in The Lancet has demonstrated this once more – that heavy metals cause damage to the nervous system and also lasting, irreparable brain damage, particularly in children. It must be our primary objective to enforce this export ban, therefore, as we would lose credibility in the eyes of the international community if we were to say: we want to protect ourselves, but exports are allowed.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mercury is everywhere: for example, it crosses the placental barrier. Mercury is a metal that is liquid at room temperature and readily evaporates. The limit value for metallic, inorganic mercury in blood is 25 micrograms, and that for organic mercury compounds is 100 micrograms. I shall not go into the effects of mercury poisoning here. I am sure you are all familiar with Minamoto in Japan. The issue here is not only the economic pros and cons for our Community, therefore, but also the protection of the health of our fellow citizens and the protection of an intact environment.

The report by Mr Papadimoulis, whom I thank for this work, will mean that there is an end to the export of mercury compounds from Europe and that the EU starts work on the safe storage of the existing material. At the same time, it makes sense for all mercury compounds to be covered by the export ban where a substitute is available, which is the case for almost all uses. In addition, as far as we know, we as exporters of a hazardous substance are not able – and, pursuant to our WTO commitments, not entitled – to demand that the recipients make the mercury traceable, which means that the whereabouts of the mercury are unclear and that there is a very definite possibility that it could return to the Community. I consider Article 175 of the common treaties applicable to this Regulation. The tightening of the rules, the shortening of the deadlines and the inclusion of mercury compounds in the export and import provisions are both appropriate and toxicologically consistent. I am sure there is still room for negotiation to reach agreement on the deadlines.

With regard to the final storage of mercury, attention is being paid to research, as it has not proved possible thus far to find a reliable storage method for this in use on an industrial scale anywhere in the world. The quantities involved run into the thousands of tonnes.

I endorse the report in the original version presented by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

  Åsa Westlund (PSE). – (SV) I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Papadimoulis, for his excellent work. Last autumn I took part in a study in which a sample of my hair was taken and investigated for its mercury content. Amazingly enough, I in actual fact had a relatively high quantity of mercury in my body, a state of affairs that is extremely worrying. I am pregnant and have high mercury levels which are now in danger of harming the child I am carrying and which may lead to the child having difficulty concentrating as an adult.

The high mercury levels are also worrying because I come from a country that has come a very long way when it comes to abolishing mercury. We no longer use thermometers containing mercury, and amalgam is generally not used for repairing our teeth. Nonetheless, I have high mercury levels in my body.

There are alternatives to mercury. In view of the serious health effects of mercury, we could phase it out, and not only here in Europe but also globally.

This very evening, we are concerned with imposing an export ban and finding ways of storing used mercury safely, so ensuring that we do not contribute to spreading mercury around the world.

So that the export ban cannot be circumvented, my efforts have been directed at ensuring that it enters into force as quickly as possible and that it is extended to include other mercury products. They have also been directed towards our not today committing ourselves irrevocably to any particular form of terminal storage, because we do not in actual fact know at present what is the optimum technology for terminal storage. In the present situation, mercury should, then, be stored in safe but temporary stores.

I particularly hope that, in the future, it will be possible for all women throughout the world to eat fish from the water close to them, without being in danger of damaging their children’s development.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, this is a battle that should have all of us rallying to the flag. It is a matter of public health and even of public safety.

We know the dangers, the ravages of mercury on the health of those who come into contact with it. Since the start of the industrial age, the problems have only worsened to assume alarming proportions. Since Minamata and the chain of horrors emanating from that disastrous saga of industrial pollution, we have been even more clearly aware that mercury is dreadfully dangerous. Nevertheless, we have carried on regardless, almost as if nothing had ever happened.

Throughout the intervening period, the God Mercury has continued to exact a heavy tribute from native populations in gold-washing areas, such as French Guyana, and the same applies to those on the other side of the globe who, in unimaginable conditions, recycle our industrial, electronic and other waste, not to mention the workers in Europe who operate in battery-recycling plants.

Yes, it is high time we got rid of this poison, and the only solution is a pure and simple ban here in Europe and throughout the rest of the world, because this poison is everywhere, even in the organs of polar bears, for example, which live where it is neither produced nor used. I regret that my group’s proposals for a more rapid prohibition were not adopted and that underground storage was not rejected. Be that as it may, this is no longer the time for regrets but for securing the largest possible majority in support of a definitive ban on this dangerous metal.

  Pilar Ayuso (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, this proposal for a Regulation proposes banning exports of metallic mercury from 1 July 2011 at the latest, and in parallel includes provisions on the safe storage of the surpluses of mercury that are going to be produced above all as a result of the withdrawal of mercury cells from chlor-alkali factories; it is calculated that, throughout Europe, these cells contain approximately 12 000 tonnes of mercury.

Bringing forward the time limit for the ban on metallic mercury exports goes against the consensus achieved both by Parliament when we debated the Community strategy on mercury and by the agreement that the Commission has signed with Euro Chlor, the European Federation of Chlor-Alkali Producers. The latter has accepted putting an end to mercury exports from 1 July 2011, and I believe that these agreements must be respected and under no circumstances must the date for banning mercury exports be brought forward.

The surpluses from the chlor-alkali industry must be stored, because that storage is necessary. The resolution on the Community strategy on mercury, approved in March 2006, states that ‘consideration should be given to the possibility of using Almadén for the safe storage of the existing metallic mercury stocks or metallic mercury sub-produced by industry all over Europe but not mercury-containing articles that have become waste, thus making use of the infrastructures, local manpower and technological expertise existing there’.

I would also like to point out that the text of the Community strategy clearly acknowledges the historic importance of mercury to Almadén and the need for it to be compensated for all of this.

I would like to end by saying that I am against the amendments that propose that only solid, rather than liquid, mercury should be stored. Given the current state of research, we are not in a position to solidify mercury, and liquid mercury will therefore have to be stored. Furthermore, it can be stored very safely, without creating any vapour, the vapour being the pollutant.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, let me now turn to some of the key amendments in detail.

Amendments 1, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22 and 44 imply a significant extension of the scope of the proposal through the introduction of an export ban for cinnabar ore, calomel, mercury compounds and some mercury-containing products, as well as through the addition of an import ban. The Commission considers these amendments to be either unnecessary or not sufficiently justified. In the absence of mercury mining activities in the Community, there is no need for an export ban on cinnabar ore.

In a similar way, the Community has been a massive exporter of mercury, but not an importer. The impact assessment concluded that secondary sources of mercury – recycling and recovery – will cover the remaining demand within the Community. As mercury compounds and mercury-containing products are concerned, we would need a much more developed information base to justify such an extension. For the time being, it is not possible to estimate in a reliable way the possible impact of such a measure on industry and society, within the Community as well as in third countries. Using legislation to prevent a hypothetical problem would not be considered good practice in terms of better regulation.

Several amendments – numbers 12, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 45 – exclude the long-term storage or final disposal of metallic mercury, allowing for temporary storage only. It is worth noting that no environmentally and economically sound solution for the stabilisation of mercury prior to its disposal exists at present.

Amendments 6, 24 and 36 imply that preference should be given to the former mining site of Almadén for the storage of mercury. The Commission is well aware of the economic and social implications of the mine closure and the end of trading activities on the site. It does not, however, want to prescribe a single storage site to economic operators.

Amendments 8, 10, 13, 30 and 32 increase the administrative burden for industry, as well as for Member States and the Commission. The Commission has strong doubts about the potential effectiveness and benefits of these very detailed requirements as compared to their costs.

As regards the legal basis referred to in Amendment 2, the Commission proposal follows the line given by the European Court of Justice in its judgments in cases C-94/03 and C-178/03 concerning the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent for imports of chemicals. Our proposal is very similar in character, as it proposes trade-related measures as an environmental policy instrument. We cannot, therefore, support the amendment to the legal basis.

Amendments 17 and 34 calling for the introduction of an article on penalties are, however, acceptable to the Commission.

In summary, the Commission can support eight of the proposed 50 amendments fully, in part, or in principle. I shall give Parliament’s secretariat a list detailing the Commission’s position on the amendments⁽¹⁾.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 noon.

Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. – It is clear that mercury is a substance that needs to be dealt with in a cautious and secure manner. This report deals with the important broad issue of handling mercury in import, export and the storage of the substance, while giving a timeline for export and import bans. I support the Commission's proposals for regulation on this issue and believe, broadly-speaking, that it is a good thing. I would like to echo the Commission's comment that this report follows the Mercury Strategy which was passed in March of last year, and want to encourage the Commission in its ongoing work on the Mercury Strategy. This is only one report of many that will deal with other issues such as the use of small amounts of mercury in the dental industry. I am sure work on other strategic issues is ongoing.

Annex – Position of the Commission

Papadimoulis report (A6-0227/2007)

The Commission can support fully, in part, or in principle 8 amendments: 3, 4, 5, 14, 17, 23, 31, 34.

The amendments which the Commission cannot support are: 1, 2, 6 to 13, 15, 16, 18 to 22, 24 to 30, 32, 33, 35 to 50.

(1) Commission’s position on amendments by Parliament – see Annex.

20. Aid for farmers affected by frost damage (debate)

  President. The final item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on aid for Polish farmers affected by frost damage, by Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Roberta Angelilli, Liam Aylward, Peter Baco, Sergio Berlato, Adam Bielan, Martin Callanan, Paulo Casaca, Sylwester Chruszcz, Brian Crowley, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Valdis Dombrovskis, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Maciej Marian Giertych, Béla Glattfelder, Bogdan Golik, Genowefa Grabowska, Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, Małgorzata Handzlik, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Michał Tomasz Kamiński, Sergej Kozlík, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Urszula Krupa, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, Bogusław Liberadzki, Marcin Libicki, Astrid Lulling, Jan Tadeusz Masiel, Cristiana Muscardini, Seán Ó Neachtain, Péter Olajos, Neil Parish, Bogdan Pęk, Józef Pinior, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Umberto Pirilli, Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, Zita Pleštinská, Jacek Protasiewicz, Bogusław Rogalski, Dariusz Rosati, Wojciech Roszkowski, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Eoin Ryan, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Andreas Schwab, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Grażyna Staniszewska, Andrzej Jan Szejna, Konrad Szymański, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Salvatore Tatarella, Witold Tomczak, Bernard Wojciechowski, Janusz Wojciechowski, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski and Roberts Zīle on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (O-0026/2007 - B6-0126/2007).

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), author. – (PL) Mr President, one of the main problems faced by Europe and the world today is that of environmental disaster. Between 1990 and 2006 alone, Europe experienced 31 droughts, 102 earthquakes, 344 floods, 58 forest fires and 170 hurricanes. These disasters caused huge material and human losses. They also resulted in the need to provide aid to the victims.

This year has brought more destructive frosts and spring ground frosts, which have resulted in damage to garden and fruit crops, mainly in central, eastern and northern Europe. For example, the frosts in some regions of Poland produced temperatures of between -7 to -12 degrees Celsius. According to the estimates of the Institute of Fruit Farming and Floriculture in Skierniewice, the harvest will be smaller this year in comparison to the previous year as a result of the frosts. This difference will amount to 60-70% in the case of apples, 80% for pears, 90% for plums, around 40-50% for morello cherries and 50% for blackcurrants. The cherry, peach, apricot and walnut crops will have been almost entirely destroyed. The process of estimating losses is currently taking place throughout Poland. According to the Fruit Farmers’ Association, these losses will amount to a few billion zlotys.

Tens of thousands of farmers’ families have lost their entire annual income and, as a result, their livelihood and chance to start production again next year. Several thousand owners of fruit and vegetable processing companies are waiting for aid. We have to help these people, no matter where they live and where their businesses are based. The national governments and the European Commission need to show solidarity in terms of providing aid.

We need to use funds from the European Union’s Solidarity Fund, which was set up by the Council regulation of 11 November 2002. If the Fund's criteria are not met, then other possible funding needs to be found. The new Member States particularly need this aid, in view of the fact that, unlike the older Member States, they do not receive full agricultural subsidies from the European Union budget and, to a significant extent, fund the common agricultural policy from their own budgets.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity in order to warmly thank you for your support for our efforts to ensure that the new Member States receive additional funding and I would like to ask you to remember those who have been most affected ...

(The President cut off the speaker)