Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 14 November 2007 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

2. The European Interest: succeeding in the age of globalisation (debate)

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to see that two of the group chairs are here at least. I had almost overlooked one of them just now, but there he is striding quickly to his seat.

The next item is the presentation of statements by the Council and the Commission on the European interest: succeeding in the age of globalisation.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, globalisation is not merely a phenomenon that must be viewed in terms of its economic consequences and technological implications. For you, ladies and gentlemen, for the Members of the Council of the European Union and for all of us in fact, it is essentially a political issue. It involves people losing their jobs, regions in crisis, disappearing economic sectors, and new security and environmental threats, but it also involves new job opportunities, new sectors of production and lower prices for a vast range of products, allowing improved financial resource allocation and growth of trade in goods and services.

Globalisation has fostered an unprecedented exchange of ideas and contacts between people. The prospects for both economic and cultural enrichment are huge, but the risks of various types of new global imbalance are also huge. We are faced with the challenge of shaping this new and increasingly fluid interdependence in an ever smaller world. Above all, coming to terms with and regulating globalisation is a key issue for our democracies and for the very concept of effective democracy: will we be able to keep political control of the fundamental options in economic governance and so many other aspects of our life in the hands of our people and our elected representatives?

I firmly believe that in various crucial areas we Europeans will be effective only if we are capable of providing new collective political solutions to the most serious problems of our time, such as economic growth and job creation, environmental protection, energy, migration and the fight against terrorism.

The European Union has been updating its internal policies to ensure competitiveness and fair and sustainable development. The strengthening of social cohesion and respect for the environment should guide economic reforms. Investment in research, innovation and education must drive growth and employment. We are not alone, however, and it would be irresponsible to become inward-looking, convinced that self-interest can be effective. This new world does not have effective walls or strongholds. We must work together with other countries and regions to achieve results which are positive for everyone.

Stability, freedom, security and prosperity will be consistent and lasting only if they are shared. This is Europe’s vocation. We must lead and shape globalisation according to our principles and our values, looking outwards with a universalist attitude, as we did during the finest hours of our common history.

Working together, the EU and its Member States have shown that they can address common problems and common challenges by harnessing their experience of 50 years of integration. The new Treaty of Lisbon provides more effective and more transparent institutional conditions for the EU to play its role in the world. The challenge is to preserve and strengthen what we have achieved in that time and to find ways of defending our interests and projecting our common values beyond our borders.

The renewed Lisbon Strategy has provided the framework for Europe to respond to this challenge. The launching of a new governance cycle gives us the opportunity to reflect on the path we intend to follow. The Commission communication under discussion today is an excellent starting point for the debate and provided the basis for the discussion between the Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon informal meeting on 19 October. Our work in the Council is based on this document and seeks to define a package of texts to contribute to the preparation of the Lisbon Strategy’s next cycle.

This week’s Ecofin Council has now adopted conclusions, the Competitiveness Council on 22 November will also approve some texts, and the 5 and 6 December Employment Council plans to adopt conclusions on the future of the European Employment Strategy in the context of the Lisbon Strategy’s new cycle. Other Council formations have addressed issues relevant to the preparation of the new cycle. I can confirm that we are essentially in agreement with the Commission: the renewed Lisbon Strategy must continue to be the appropriate framework for Europe’s response to the major challenges we face, especially the challenge of globalisation. Europe is making significant progress. The goals set out in the four priority areas, employment, knowledge and innovation, the business environment and energy and climate change, which were selected in 2006, are still appropriate.

The major lines of the new cycle must preserve the stability needed to consolidate results. It is important at the same time to make adjustments and improvements so that the full potential of the renewed Lisbon Strategy can be achieved. Taking advantage of the momentum generated by the progress already made, our priority must be to step up the pace of reforms to make our economies stronger.

The EU has global responsibilities and must be better prepared to face globalisation through a strategic, coherent and determined approach at global level. We must remain firmly committed to implementing measures at national level, meanwhile, that enable us to deal more effectively with the problems arising out of demographic change, the quality of public finance and its long-term sustainability, the labour market, employment, social cohesion, the internal market, competitiveness, research and innovation, energy and climate change and education and training.

At the same time the Community Lisbon programme has an important role to play in the new cycle by offering more effective guarantees of the necessary coherence of reforms. Parliament and Council’s ownership must be reinforced, and the exchange of good practices between Member States must be developed. Migration has a fundamental role to play in the context of globalisation by helping to increase growth potential and facilitate adjustments. According to a recent report, submitted to the Council this week, on this situation’s effects on the mobility of labour, EU demographic growth is increasingly supported by migration flows, and note should be taken of the decisive way these help to reinforce the flexibility required to face crises and to offset low levels of intraregional mobility.

In this globalised context the external dimension of the Lisbon Strategy must be reinforced and developed, projecting the EU’s political and economic goals and social and environmental standards beyond its borders. As you know, this was the aspect that was addressed in the discussion of the Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon informal meeting, where we developed issues relating to financial market instability and climate change in particular. This interesting and stimulating political debate, in which the President of this House also took part, reinforced our faith in the future.

As the Portuguese Prime Minister, José Sócrates, has already pointed out here, Europe has a duty to lead the globalisation process and is in a position to do so, taking advantage of the new opportunities that have been created, including in the area of ideas and cultural exchange. By strengthening relations between the peoples and interdependence between nations, the EU is making a key contribution to peace and global stability. Europe has the political and institutional conditions to respond consistently to the challenges that globalisation raises in the economic, social and environmental fields, and can therefore influence the process of globalisation. We need stronger strategic cooperation with our partners in order to develop a new global agenda that combines the mutual opening of markets, improved environmental, social, financial and intellectual property standards, and the need to support the institutional capacity of developing countries.

As the Portuguese Prime Minister also announced at the end of the Lisbon informal meeting, an EU declaration on globalisation will be approved at the European Summit on 13 and 14 December. This will be a clear sign to citizens and to the world of the determination and commitment of European leaders to stimulating the EU’s capacity to influence the globalisation agenda and to find the right responses.

The challenges ahead of us are both difficult and stimulating, and the Portuguese Presidency will continue to engage with them. We are counting on the European Parliament’s support, as we always have done, to promote and develop EU and national action that is agreed at global level and that allows Europe to assume its responsibilities in the global context and to succeed in meeting future challenges.

We sometimes tend to forget what Europe means for so many people in this globalised world. The images of migrants prostrate on our beaches are a cruel reminder of that reality and of how privileged we are here in Europe, which has become a bastion of hope, hope that it is possible to build a model combining freedom, economic growth, social justice and environmental protection based on partnership, cooperation and shared responsibility.

It is not just our success as Europeans that is at stake. A stronger Union for a better world is our Presidency’s motto, as you know, and we sincerely believe that Europe must play a crucial role in building a more just and a more balanced world.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − (PT) Mr President, Secretary of State for European Affairs representing the Presidency of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, globalisation is the central theme for this generation of Europeans. It touches the lives of all our citizens in one way or another, so it is appropriate that it has risen to the top of the European agenda.

As you know, I am personally convinced that the 21st century European agenda must be organised largely around the theme of globalisation, while naturally maintaining the values and principles that have always informed the European project. Globalisation, however, must also be seen as an opportunity for Europe to defend and assert its interests in this increasingly interdependent world. I am therefore very pleased to be taking part in the debate on this issue organised by the European Parliament.

As the Secretary of State has just said, the Commission document drafted last month on the European interest generated an excellent debate at the Lisbon Informal European Council. I was particularly encouraged by the stimulating consensus reached around our ideas on how to respond to globalisation. I would also like to thank the Portuguese Presidency for its constant support for this global European agenda and for the need to give the Lisbon Strategy a dimension that can respond to the challenges of globalisation.

We also support the idea of a declaration on globalisation at the December European Council. That would be an excellent way to consolidate this consensus, which must also be promoted here in the European Parliament by the drafting of a joint motion for a resolution on such an important issue.

The European Union has in fact been developing a gradual and truly European response to globalisation that has encouraged Europeans to make the most of the phenomenon. This response acknowledges the legitimate concerns of those who are facing change, however, since it must not be forgotten that some people may be adversely affected by it, and we must also have a response for them.

I believe the European interest lies in striking the right balance, but it can in no event be a fearful or a defeatist response, it must be based on confidence. A new interest has in fact arisen in the last few months: turbulence on the financial markets has shown how the health of the European economy is linked to global developments, while extreme climate conditions have shown how serious the potential consequences of climate change are and how a response to this problem is increasingly urgent. Every day we see that jobs in Europe, energy in Europe, the health of our people and quality of life throughout Europe are all influenced by a global dimension.

Mr President, I am convinced that our starting point should be one of confidence. We have the experience of being the world’s largest economy and its largest exporter. We have pioneered innovative ways of tackling new problems – just look at emissions trading – and we have some clear ground rules which have served us well.

First, we have a responsibility to protect our citizens without being protectionist. We should target our policies so that others take the same route as us, to open up. We should not close doors; we should, rather, make others open theirs. Protectionism for Europe, which is the biggest exporter in the world, would be a self-defeating doctrine.

Second, we are open, but we are not naive. This means that we are not in the business of giving a free ride to those who do not respect certain key principles. That was the spirit behind our recent proposals to ensure that the rules on energy investment would apply to third-country companies.

Third, there is much to be gained from a rules-based system, and the experience of the European Union leaves it uniquely well placed to provide a good basis for regulation at global level – a concrete way to shape globalisation. Let us be honest: to have open economies, we need some rules. Markets cannot work without institutions, and in the European Union we have, more than any other, the experience of putting together different rules, putting together different national experiences. That is why I really believe that we are better equipped than any other entity in the world to shape globalisation – not to impose, but to propose our model for this globalisation phase we are now entering.

We also have some tools to help us face globalisation with confidence. Never has it been clearer that the euro is a force for stability in the international financial system. The ability to use European Union law to set binding targets for greenhouse gases and renewables gives us also an unrivalled credibility, and we have a well-established lever for reform in Europe in the shape of the renewed Lisbon Strategy.

When we relaunched the Lisbon Strategy in 2005, we sought to refine it in a number of different ways. We increased ownership and accountability by a defined partnership between the Member States and the Commission. We clarified the work to be done by turning to country-specific recommendations. Every Member State now has its own national reform programme and every Member State accepts that there is a collective effort in going on with those reforms. We have also refocused the Union’s financial instruments on growth and jobs.

The results are now bearing fruit. Despite current concerns, performance has improved: almost 6.5 million extra jobs have been created in the European Union of 27 in the last two years; 8 million are expected to be created over the period 2007-2009. The Lisbon reforms have undoubtedly reinforced the growth potential of the European economy.

However, there is no room for complacency: the task is far from finished. Member States and the Union must press ahead with reform. This is the best way to make our economies more resilient in the face of an uncertain economic outlook.

The four priority areas agreed in 2006 provide the right framework for Lisbon: research and innovation; a better business environment (fighting red tape and promoting better conditions for investment); greater employability, and the great issues of energy and climate change. These areas, and the definition of these areas, have given the strategy a much sharper focus. Of course, those areas are also closely interrelated. We will never become a knowledge-based, low-carbon economy without a highly skilled workforce, as well as more research and greater innovation.

So I would like to underline this point about research and innovation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the European Parliament for its support of the Commission demand for the knowledge triangle of research, education and innovation. Indeed, I would like to thank you and draw your attention to the need for our work together to keep the Galileo project as a great European project, and I would also like to thank you for support for the EIT project.

We are moving forward in the need for a European space for knowledge. In fact, in our document one of the novelties was precisely the presentation of the idea of a fifth freedom – the freedom of circulation of knowledge in the European Union.

We will never create a new dynamism without the right climate also for our SMEs. There are 23 million SMEs in Europe. So that is why I believe all those areas taken together can create a virtuous circle helping all our goals at once.

As we prepare for the launch of the next three-year cycle, we must update the strategy in the light of lessons learnt and new circumstances. There must be a greater focus on the social dimension. More investment in education and training for all ages is the best weapon against inequality and social exclusion and, as I said earlier, not everybody is winning from globalisation. If we want to be sure of the support of European Union citizens for our agenda, we should, in due course, take in the concerns regarding the social dimension. That is why, for instance, the Commission has proposed an adjustment to the Globalisation Fund, precisely because we have recognised since the beginning the need to give concrete responses concerning these areas.

I am particularly encouraged by the agreement of the social partners on the set of flexicurity principles that were proposed by the Commission before the summer. In fact, at the European informal Council in Lisbon, we received very good news about that agreement between the European social partners. I hope that the December European Council can give its support to those principles. This provides a very good basis for each Member State to define a better balance between flexibility and security in their labour markets.

Vigorous implementation of outstanding reforms, stronger emphasis on skills and education, concrete steps to convert Europe into a low-carbon economy: these are, from our point of view, the priorities for the next cycle.

The integrated guidelines provide an important instrument for coordination, a common framework for diverse Member States to pursue their own national reform agendas. Analysis and feedback from Member States show that the guidelines are working. They are the foundation for the Community Lisbon Programme. My feeling is that, while there is a need to update them, if they are not broken we should not fix them.

We also need to do more to ensure that the Lisbon Strategy progresses at an even pace in all Member States: a slower pace of reform in one Member State has obvious knock-ons in the others. We also need more involvement of parliaments, social partners, local and regional authorities.

The commitment of this House to the Lisbon Strategy has been critical in sustaining the momentum. Together with Vice-President Verheugen and with all the College, I very much look forward to deepening our joint work as we move into the next cycle of Lisbon.

The link between globalisation and Lisbon gives us an excellent opportunity to show how, in this day and age, the European economic agenda is not an optional extra: it is the key to unlocking a successful future for Europe. Economic reform, a global vision, a low-carbon economy: these are interlocking goals that need to be pursued in parallel, and only the European Union can provide the reach and coherence that Europe needs so much. Only together can we pursue what we call in our document ‘the European interest’.

Let me conclude by saying that I really believe it is not only the European interest. I really believe that, in the age of globalisation, the world also needs a more committed Europe, with our interests being protected and defended but also with our values – the values of freedom and solidarity – being sustained in this globalisation age.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FR) Mr President, my dear Hans-Gert; President-in-Office of the Council, Manuel Lobo Antunes; Mr President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, in the eyes of our fellow citizens, globalisation is no abstract concept. Globalisation is a reality that affects ordinary Europeans on a daily basis and they look to their governments and institutions for answers to the problems it brings with it.

Our fellow citizens expect a great deal from the European Union in this regard. They expect to be protected and to be given security: physically protected in the face of terrorist threats and protected, too, from the vagaries of the financial markets. They also look to us, however, to guarantee their food supply and food security; yet only last summer a sharp rise in cereal costs sent consumer prices rocketing. European consumers need an assurance that low-priced, imported products will be safe in every respect. This is a particularly topical issue: as the festive season approaches, we must be able to reassure parents and grandparents that the toys they are buying for children’s Christmas stockings will not put their health at risk.

While globalisation must contribute to prosperity, it must also be fair – and it must be subject to ethical rules, for example to prohibit the exploitation of children. Globalisation cannot be built on the backs of those who are weakest: it must be an instrument for combating inequality not only within individual countries but also between countries. Globalisation must be directed at increasing the purchasing power of the poorest in society. We have always spoken out in favour of free trade, but that trade has to be based on strict rules. The European Union’s openness to the rest of the world is a driving force in the global economy and many companies are keen to set up in Europe. They will have to accept our rules and comply with our health, environmental and consumer-protection standards.

In the space of 50 years the European Union has managed to create a functional internal market, in which harmonisation of the Member States’ legislation has always been the rule. The European Union has a role to play in exporting its know-how and helping to raise the production and quality-control standards of its partners. We are already on track to do that with a number of them. The success of the first Transatlantic Economic Council meeting, held last Friday in Washington, is a positive sign, and we now have to step up our efforts to remind Brazil, China and India of their responsibilities. We take a somewhat softer line with Africa.

To meet the external challenges we must, firstly, strengthen our own single market by investing more in research and development and, secondly, ensure better coordination of research and innovation among the Member States. While globalisation offers new opportunities, it also demands adaptation work, for example in terms of education and training throughout people’s working lives.

My group welcomes the new initiatives under the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment, and likewise the Small Business Act proposed by the Commission, because small and medium-sized enterprises remain extremely important engines of stability and job creation in Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, we as politicians are increasingly called upon to address the challenge of energy problems. Until it has a common policy for energy security and environmental security, the European Union will remain vulnerable. With the price of oil at almost USD 100 per barrel, this Europe that we live in faces an emergency. We need a European energy policy to guarantee us security of supply and sustainable growth in this sector. We need to undertake a thorough examination of renewable energy sources and to explore the energy-supply potential of civil nuclear power.

All discussion of these issues must be transparent, with a view to raising people’s awareness and securing their support for what we undertake. Ultimately we want cleaner, more efficient and safer energy for Europe. Europe must spell out its interests, not only in terms of trade and the global economy, but also in terms of culture, language and tradition. By working to produce joint solutions to the challenges of globalisation we shall put ourselves in a position to protect the legitimate interests of our fellow citizens, without being protectionist.

(Applause)

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the title of this debate reflects the fact that the European Parliament is to discuss with the Council and the Commission the role that Europe – the European institutions and the EU Member States – intends to play in dealing with the opportunities and risks of globalisation. We must therefore make it clear – as indeed today’s debate will do – that the consequences of globalisation can be seen in different ways and can be addressed through various competing methods.

The negotiations on the resolution to be adopted today have shown that there is a profound difference, in many areas a gulf, between the conceptions on the right of this House and what we in the Socialist Group want. What we say in this debate will therefore define the parameters we apply when assessing the roles the institutions should play, especially the Commission. Having listened to you very attentively, Mr President of the Commission, and to Mr Daul, I would say there is some common ground, but there are also some stark differences.

Anyone who stands for election to the office of President of the Commission, now or in the future, will be measured by our group on the basis of certain key criteria, relating in particular to his or her perception of the Commission’s role in the globalised economy. Macroeconomic policy coordination, to use the jargon, or what we might also call common economic and fiscal policy, must be guided by the principles of social policy. Economic progress in Europe must result in greater social stability. The EU must ensure that global economic progress leads to greater equality of rights and opportunities in the world. That, too, is social policy. Human welfare at home and abroad is our common yardstick.

Economic progress is the prerequisite for social security – not the other way round, as we have heard it suggested in a few speeches in this House. The idea that less social security in Europe should be the source of economic progress is an absolute aberration. Anyone who believes the EU can be used to erode achievements in the field of social policy behind the smokescreen of globalisation, as it were, is mistaken. Deregulated markets leading to maximised profits and lower social standards is perhaps the ideal in the minds of the right in this House. It is not ours. What we are saying is that the secret of Europe’s success has been social progress and economic progress, which are two sides of the same coin. Nothing has changed in that respect as far as we are concerned.

(Applause)

That was an interesting interjection from Mr Daul. For those who did not hear it, he said, ‘The economy first!’ No! Economic growth and social welfare must go hand in hand – that is the crucial point, and it highlights the error of right-wing politics in Europe. Let us get one thing clear: the overwhelming majority of the governments in the Council are centre-right governments, and the Commission, of course, is no El Dorado of Socialism. You, Mr Barroso, are a politician from the centre-right, as are most of your Commissioners. We are therefore keeping a close eye on the actions of the Commission in order to gauge the credibility of your statements.

Of course we need research, innovation and education, and of course we need the internal market to develop in a way that protects the environment and stabilises society’s resources. We most certainly do! But we also need the Commission to present the appropriate proposals for directives. Then we shall need the corresponding legislative initiatives to consolidate the process. There are some good points, and we support them, but there are also quite a few that we need to probe thoroughly.

We also need effective administration. I do not know whether that should be called better Lisbon governance, as it is referred to in the headings of EU documents. I do not know whether the ordinary man or woman in the street understands what we mean by that. And when you speak of simplifying administration and enlist the former Minister-President of Bavaria to lead that effort, all I can say is three cheers and the best of luck!

The one thing that we most certainly need – and on this we agree wholeheartedly with you, Mr President of the Commission – is a set of rules to tame this Wild-West capitalism that prevails in the financial markets and, yes, threatens entire national economies. So let us make a start with these rules in Europe. To spell out what is needed, let me say that we expect the international financial capitalists to be subject to supervision, their operations to be transparent and, of course, their power to be curtailed, and your pursuit of these aims will have our support. That is one of the keys to social progress in Europe.

In conclusion, Mr President – Hans-Gert – ladies and gentlemen, let me say that the issue we are discussing today, namely how we should line up to face the challenge of globalisation and what influence Europe, by which I mean institutionalised Europe – you in the Commission and we in Parliament – can actually wield in pursuit of these ambitious goals, is also the measure by which the voters will judge us. If we keep confining ourselves to general debates where we describe exactly what we want but they are not followed up with concrete legislative measures here and in the Member States, the whole exercise will be pointless. That is why we expect that what we describe here will also be reflected in our joint resolution and converted into firm policy.

(Applause from the left)

  President. − Mr Schulz, the fact that you were allowed to exceed your speaking time quite considerably had nothing to do with the way you addressed the President. In fact, the extra time you took will ultimately be deducted from your group’s allocation.

  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, we have just heard the language of the past:

Die Rede der Vergangenheit!

Others know, often better than we, that we already live in a global society. India, China and Brazil have caught the wave of opportunity and they are riding it high, while too much of Europe fears the wave crashing over it.

When President Sarkozy addressed us yesterday, he spoke of ‘different possible futures for the Europe of tomorrow’, putting our policies for competition, energy and enlargement up for debate.

Mr Barroso’s expression during much of that speech told us more than all of his words this morning. If Europe sits on its hands because national leaders – citing citizens’ concerns – contest the EU’s agenda, we will miss the chance to shape globalisation in Europe’s collective interests.

It is not citizens we need to convince, it is Member States. Survey after survey has shown that most of our citizens see the European Union, not national government, as best placed to manage globalisation.

Look how the earthquake of globalisation is shaking Europe’s body politic. Some on the right are retreating, in the face of global challenges, from Conservatism into nationalism, or from Christian democracy into Christian autocracy. The fissure of globalisation runs right through the EPP.

On the left, Kurt Beck and his friends are holding back much needed reforms. Franz Müntefering saw that and that is why he has voted with his feet. And yet the visionaries see the need for reform and they have written it into the new European Socialist manifesto, adopted appropriately in Oporto.

The division in our politics is no longer between left and right over economic policy but between those who respond to global challenges by pulling up the drawbridge and those who – with Liberal Democrats – advocate the open society.

Mr Barroso, you have majority support in this House for your Commission’s approach to globalisation. But it is not a majority based on one political family. Indeed, it may even prise apart and refashion Europe’s political families.

Globalisation will increasingly shape our politics. Not globalisation in the rather narrow economic sense defined in this communication – although a stable euro and effective competition rules and market regulation are in all of our interests – but in its wider, more holistic sense, encompassing world population growth and migration; climate change and energy security; and internationally organised crime linked to terrorism.

Is that not the validation we need to ‘act on a continental scale’, as this document urges, to utilise our ‘critical mass’ to ‘enable Europeans to shape globalisation’, as the Commission’s communication demands?

If so, Mr Barroso, where are your policies? Your timetable? Your comprehensive approach? We were promised action: instead we are proffered a paper which is rich in rhetoric but rather poor in proposals. This cannot be the final word in Europe’s response to globalisation. I await your single market review, to see how you will drive growth and jobs in difficult terrain, and your legal migration policy, hoping it encompasses the concerns of the countries of origin.

My colleagues and I await urgent action on cutting energy use and fighting cross-border crime. We believe, too, that social health and economic vitality are both important. If we are creating a global market, we need a new global social contract, reconciling the competing demands of flexibility and fairness because, as Martin Luther King taught us, ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’.

So the Union must bring together the Lisbon agenda with its focus on competitiveness, the Cardiff agenda with its focus on social rights, and the Gothenburg agenda with its focus on the environment.

The world needs a strong, united Union to counter injustice, conflict and poverty wherever they are found because we are one of the few players capable of tackling global issues and, if we do not take the lead, nobody will.

That means stopping the hypocrisy of trade tariffs and fashioning a fair deal for developing countries in Doha; clinching a contract on carbon emissions in Bali, using our collective influence to get America on board; and building an international approach to financial markets, focusing on regulatory cooperation, convergence of standards and equivalence of rules.

Resolving these challenges in fairness to everybody needs more, not less, globalisation. For we live in an interconnected world, a world that requires solidarity at global level as much as it requires solidarity between European citizens.

And we must look forward, with Victor Hugo, to the day when the only battlefields are those of markets open for business and the human spirit open for ideas.

  Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, globalisation is a phenomenon that, in many ways, is irreversible. Individual European Union countries should not only understand this, they also need to respond to these changes in a practical manner. The actions of the EU cannot, however, impinge on the economic interests of sovereign states, for example by making unjustified restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, which will bring serious harm to the economies of countries such as Poland.

On the other hand, these political steps should not lead to the loss of national identity. While countries in Asia are successfully adapting to the new situation and their economies are expanding rapidly, we in the European Parliament are discussing such weighty issues as rear view mirrors on agricultural and forestry tractors and the role and importance of circuses in the European Union and other similar matters.

The EU is constantly adding to regulations, making effective competition increasingly difficult and does not seem to see the reality, which is evidenced by today’s speeches from the Socialist representative. I hope that today’s debate will help to change the way that we think about globalisation in a European perspective.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I think that what we have seen in this particular communication is an absolute failure of imagination, given the seriousness of the situation that we face.

We have in this no real definition of globalisation. It normally relates to the economic side – that is what I want to talk about.

This paper talks about us facing a third industrial revolution. I think we need to learn some of the lessons from the past industrial revolutions. Those that have not taken environmental costs fully into account; those that have not taken social costs fully into account. There is an assumption that low commodity costs are going to continue, often on the back of the world’s poorest countries; that we can trade in countries where we force open markets when social infrastructure and a sound public sector are not in place; that we need to beware the siren of reciprocity if it is not amongst equals. There are also instances where we have overestimated the role of the markets in delivering social goals, and there are issues surrounding economic consolidation, especially when this is based on a debt economy and speculation rather than on reality and thus becomes highly dangerous for economic stability.

The new context that we face is not just about climate change. It is about peak oil and what that will do to developing countries’ opportunities; it is about meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

It is true we need to rebalance trade, the social dimension and the environmental dimension. The WTO prioritises trade over production methods, over anything else that gives us the right to say that we have problems with the way in which goods are produced because this does not meet our standards. We chose not to write that into the rules.

If we are looking at growth, we are still talking as if the quantity is what matters, not the quality and not what is actually growing within our societies. I welcome the Commission’s conference on this next week, but this is work that should have been going on for years.

What are we going to do with our agricultural sector? With our tourism sectors? With so many others in the face of climate change? We do not agree that we do not need to revisit the guidelines and to revise them. We think we do.

If we are talking about training and education, the sustainable development strategy now demands that we look at that within the context of climate change and environmental progress. I have heard no real, serious link on that. There is no European strategy on that at all.

If we are talking about a low-carbon economy, how are we going to deliver that? There is nothing within this paper to give us any great confidence on those issues.

And we need to look at the social inclusion side again. The gender pay gap is still there. We still need a liveable wage, and flexicurity has to take into account financial security for individuals.

We still need to integrate Lisbon and Gothenburg. That is the challenge. This document does not face up to it and I am not convinced Parliament does either.

  Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to express my disappointment over the final version of the draft resolution. I am disappointed on two fronts. Firstly, it is a pity that for a long time it was impossible to come to an agreement and that a majority agreement was reached only at the last moment and under time pressure, for which the price to pay (in my opinion) was excessive concessions on fundamental questions. Secondly, I am disappointed because the resolution does not reflect the European Interest, as per the title of the document, and – more to the point – it does not even reflect the interests of the majority of European citizens.

This double disappointment stems from my analysis of motion for a joint resolution, which in no way recognises the negative influences of globalisation and, in fact, does not offer citizens anything more than an approach for putting up with globalisation much like they would put up with floods for example. In my opinion, it is impossible to like either globalisation or floods, let alone put up with them. The normal approach is to try to influence these processes, to prevent their negative impact. There is, however, nothing of that sort in the resolution: it does not even offer a model of sustainable global development.

In its motion for a resolution our political group focused on the following facts in particular:

– The fight against poverty, since the statistics show that around 80 million people in the European Union have a disposable income of less than 60% of the national equalised median income;

– We stressed the need for more effective means of ensuring citizens’ rights, such as access to quality and well-paid employment, and minimum social standards;

– Regarding the Lisbon Strategy we stressed that a new integrated strategy for sustainability and solidarity is needed to replace the current Lisbon Strategy and provide an effective implementation tool.

Yesterday some political groups agreed on a joint resolution and completely ignored our group’s proposal. By doing this they have clearly shown that they attach more importance to economic issues than to social rights and justice. For the above-mentioned reasons our group will not support the resolution.

  Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, yesterday we enjoyed a wonderfully clever speech by the French President. I listened intently to this articulate wee man. He stood foursquare for free trade. But, of course, if other countries were for protectionism, so was he. He stood foursquare for democracy: the people were entitled to have their views heard, but then, it would seem, ignored, as the people of France and Holland have been ignored. He is, as he would have it, a European first, but a Frenchman through and through, a Frenchman first, but a European through and through. Okay, with a bit of Hungarian goulash thrown in.

We need a European army, navy and air force to ensure our peaceful European values are spread far and wide, for we must never go to war again. We must build on our democratic institutions but not, it would seem, too much. The French cannot have another referendum, because that might lead to an English referendum, and of course we all know that the British would reject the new Constitution – oh, sorry – ‘Treaty’.

We must, he suggested, examine ourselves more closely and make sure there is more motherhood, not just for women but for men; more apple pie, especially for the poor, whether they want it or not. To coin a phrase, an old English phrase – and I love to test the best interpreters in the world – it was all humbug!

  Dimitar Stoyanov, behalf of the ITS Group – (BG) First of all, I would like to remind the Commission and the Council that the globalisation is not a process that exists in itself, that Europe is a big factor in world politics and that the policy pursued by Europe will determine whether globalisation will develop.

And it is exactly this that I could not understand from the strategy of the Commission. Is the Commission willing to pursue a policy that will develop globalisation or slow down this process? Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the single market, on its own, is not a guarantee for Europe’s success in the globalisation development process.

The Council has declared that it finds competitiveness to be very important but currently there are new economies in the European Union, which are fragile and lack competitiveness even on the internal market.

The Commission, in its turn, has stated that it considers the development of the Lisbon Strategy to be most important for them with a view to implementing their plans from the globalisation perspective.

Specially for Bulgaria, I expect the Lisbon Strategy to fail because my country, as we have repeatedly stated, was not ready when it joined the European Union. Therefore how can we protect the interests of the European citizens if we do not use some forms of protectionism?

The open society that Graham Watson is talking about is simply traitorous to the weaker economies in the EU. If we have global solidarity first instead of solidarity within the Community, then why do we need the Community at all?

In this context, a future development of globalisation with weak economies that have big trade deficit and are not competitive even on the internal market would continue to pressurize these economies up to the point of breakdown and these economies which have been fighting to embark on a normal way of development would disintegrate as houses of cards.

  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – (CS) (The beginning of the speech was inaudible) ... to make an effort so that Europe is as strong a player as possible on the world market. To achieve this, however, the world trade negotiations must be brought to an end, subsidies to European farmers must be lowered and US customs fees must be reduced. It is also necessary to firmer against China within the WTO, and to make systematic use of anti-dumping measures. If we want to tackle globalisation successfully, we have to do away with the burden of excessive regulation hampering small and medium-sized enterprises. This is what the Barroso Commission had promised but then it got stuck at the beginning of the road.

The Union would also become stronger if Turkey and Ukraine were to join, and if it had a proper economic partnership with Russia. The migration policy is unhealthy. Instead of being a final destination for poor people, Europe should become a final destination for the brains that these days leave for China and the US. If we really want to tackle the challenges of globalisation, the most important thing is to enable the Union to speak with one voice on the international stage; otherwise it will not be taken seriously. I hope that the heads of state will arrive at the same conclusion come December.

Allow me to make a couple of final comments. My colleague Mr Schulz talked about Wild West capitalism raging on the financial markets. This used to be the rhetoric in the days of deepest Communism when financial capitalists were labelled ‘Wall Street thugs’. We all know what this attitude finally did for the Eastern bloc economies.

  Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank the Presidents of the Council and the Commission for their statements on this fundamental issue for the future of Europe.

To survive and prosper, Europe needs to face up to the challenges of globalisation, and we must rise to these challenges and see the opportunities and not just the threats. Fulfilling the Lisbon Agenda is central to Europe’s future prosperity and we need to make sure that we finally secure a deal in the World Trade talks. We need to reform the common agricultural policy and we must give a fair deal not only to our own farmers but to those in the developing world. We must push further and faster on the deregulation agenda, freeing business and industry to compete on competitive terms with China and India, and we must make real progress supporting Chancellor Merkel’s efforts to create a transatlantic common market.

I welcome the President of the Commission’s recent statement on globalisation, in which he said that the EU’s raison d’être for the 21st century is clear: to equip Europe for a globalised world. And in order to do so, he said, we must invest in people, in growth, in jobs, in energy security, in fighting climate change and in giving consumers a fairer deal. He went on to say that protectionism cannot make Europe wealthier; protectionism would impoverish, not protect, our citizens. This is a crucial statement and one that all European governments should heed now.

Of course, in financial services and accounting, European standards are fast becoming global standards and I am proud of that. The way forward in Europe is radical reform of the European social model, increased flexibility in labour markets and further action to deregulate and reduce burdens on business.

Of course, we must also lead the way in tackling climate change, and I welcome Parliament’s decision to include aviation emissions and the emissions trading scheme, another sign of our willingness to lead the global community.

In the fight against poverty we must ensure that the programmes of the EU are credible, cost-effective and targeted. We need to enhance the trading opportunities for the developing world and make a real difference in Africa.

We should be proud of our achievements, but there are many opportunities still for us to seize.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE) . – (FR) Mr President, in negotiating the motion for a resolution on the challenge of globalisation, I saw very clearly the extent of the divide between left and right in this House. My PPE and ALDE colleagues have sought to criticise the millions of ordinary people who – as they watch jobs disappear due to corporate relocation, mergers and takeovers, or compare their tiny incomes to the lavish bonuses heaped on senior executives (who, by the way, preach the virtues of wage restraint) – doubt the benefits of globalisation.

In my view, globalisation is a necessary process, particularly as it gives the poorest countries access to international markets, thus enabling them to raise their people’s living standards. But let us not be deceived by sound bites! The perfect market, much beloved of liberals, is an illusion. Competition is necessary but it is never free.

Take the energy market, for example, where 90% of the world’s resources are controlled by sovereign states. A cartel dominates the oil market. Another cartel is gearing up to grab the gas market. Pricing policies are not transparent and they apply to no more than 40% of world trade. A third of the end price goes to a long chain of intermediary speculators whose economic contribution is nil. When these speculators and their ‘special vehicles’ end up in the ditch, central banks pump billions into the financial system to stave off widespread instability, but the effect is actually to underwrite speculation.

A few CEOs may manage a soft landing thanks to their golden parachutes but millions of consumers end up mired in debt and forced to sell off their homes. In the space of six months, nearly half a million Americans have had to file for personal bankruptcy. The European economy, meanwhile, is marking time. The Commission may have trimmed its economic forecasts but, in place of policy proposals, it is content to churn out familiar mantras. Yes, indeed, we need more growth and more job creation, driven by better coordination and more research and development and, yes indeed, we need to face new social realities.

But where are the budgets for these things? Where are the resources? Mr Barroso does not want to improve the integrated guidelines. The right wing refuses to discuss economic coordination. Mr Sarkozy emits quantities of high-sounding hot air but not once in half-an-hour does he use the word ‘social’. Yet all the opinion polls confirm that people want to see greater emphasis placed on social issues: they want to feel more secure, they want their purchasing power to improve and they want better public services.

The mayors of ten European capital cities have just signed a declaration in defence of public services accessible to all. But what is the Commission doing? It is hiding behind a shabby little protocol to the future treaty, guaranteeing subsidiarity only in respect of non-economic services – all the better to demolish the public services that ordinary Europeans are calling for! My group will not accept this Commission cop-out. We intend to join with the mayors, the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee and the trade unions in a political struggle for a Europe with a stronger social dimension, in which public services have priority.

(Applause)

  Margarita Starkevičiūtė (ALDE). – (LT) Many EU citizens are worried about the changes in their living environment as a consequence of globalisation and our duty as politicians is to provide the answer. Very often Parliament encourages the Member States to prepare a common strategy, but I would like to point out that we should start with ourselves. Preparing this resolution was very hard work and it was not easy to combine the opinions of all the committees to form a single generalised opinion. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we should try and combine the opinions of various committees and various resolutions into a generalised opinion more often, so that we can give EU citizens a coordinated answer regarding what we are actually going to do.

Another very important issue is our role as a global player. I would like to point out that our role in the world should be an active one. At present the European Union is the largest union, owing to expansion, owing to the new opportunities. We are bound to have the largest role to play, notwithstanding our willingness or reluctance to take it on. Nevertheless, the impression is that we are lingering, as if we are waiting for somebody else to come up with the solution. Our foreign policy through the external dimension of the Lisbon Strategy should be active.

Speaking of domestic policy, I would like to underline the importance of revising our priorities. According to the most recent research, the reason why the European Union is lagging behind in terms of growth in productivity is not the lack of computers or high tech equipment. The reason is that we have management problems. We do not take full advantage of the single market and fail to create positive conditions for the movement of goods and the expansion of the financial market. One more question: is it right that the EU’s main priority for the future would be the development of technologies? Is there a possibility that food production might become the main priority, as experts warn us?

In summary, we should develop a new attitude towards our economic market and give priority to the expansion of the domestic market. Speaking of social policy, which has been mentioned here on many occasions, I agree: yes, it should be one of the main priorities on our agenda, but it should be active too. We should abandon the tendency to support certain people; our role should be that of creating opportunities for them to earn a living. People should not be pushed into the position of being freeloaders; they should be active market participants. That is why it would be wise to invest in the social spheres which in the future would help accumulate intellectual capital and would ensure an increase in productivity.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the importance of increasing coordination among the EU institutions. This resolution and today’s debate are examples of good coordination. I hope that in the future we will have an opportunity to discuss these questions not only at the night-time sessions, but also during the day.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – (GA) Mr President, it is in the interest of the EU to have a strong, fair international trading system under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. It is not acceptable, therefore, that the Doha talks should revolve solely around further concessions by the EU regarding agriculture, which, after all, accounts for only 5% of world trade. What about the other 95%? Could surrender be the issue here?

To my mind, Commissioner Mandelson is too willing to back down where EU agriculture is concerned. At present he is advocating a 46% import tariff cut in the agricultural sector. But, as President Sarkozy said yesterday here in Parliament, we need to maintain our domestic sources of food. America, for example, has so far not given any ground whatsoever in the matter of agriculture. The recently published US agriculture bill suffices to demonstrate the point.

We need to move forward in the world trade talks in the fields of industry, trade, and services. The average tariff 4% in force in the EU stands at 4%, whereas the equivalent rate in Asia and South America is 30%. Once the Indian and Chinese markets have been opened up in the software and telecommunications sectors, there will be a chance to bring about progress driven by competition. In addition, simplification should apply not just to customs procedures, but also to future trading arrangements.

  Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) . – (FR) Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, to my mind, something major is absent from the document before us and it was absent, too, from Mr Barroso’s speech. The missing element is effective analysis of the proposals being made on the operation of international financial markets, on the existence of international tax havens, on the fight against international financial crime, and on tax treatment at international level – on capital flows in the strictest sense.

I believe that international debate needs a reality check here. Neither in the documents nor in the words of the Commission President do I find any remotely incisive policy initiatives on what are, after all, extremely serious subjects and I cannot help making the connection with climate change and the forthcoming debate in Bali, where the financial dimension will be crucially important, particularly in relation to helping the most vulnerable countries sign up to the second Kyoto Protocol.

We all know that this will require very large sums of public money. Where will they come from? While I realise it is extremely hard to push these issues to the top of international agendas, I believe that if we fail or refuse to do so we will inflict damage on our own international policies.

My second comment concerns the global battle for standards, especially environmental and social standards, and more specifically environmental standards.

The Commission document is very general, as Mr Watson says, and I share his opinion of it. You tell us on page 6: ‘A new international approach focusing on regulatory cooperation, convergence of standards and equivalence of rules is emerging as a result of sectoral bilateral discussions with third countries.’ Well, Mr Vice-President, I should like to know exactly what that implies for the preservation of European environmental standards. What does it mean in terms of developing those standards and what are its practical implications in terms of promoting them internationally as Mr Barroso envisages?

My concerns are only heightened when I read newspaper reports of the negotiations currently taking place between the European Union and South Korea, suggesting that when it comes to upholding standards – or at least social standards – our stance is weaker than that of the USA.

You owe us detailed answers to these questions.

  Sahra Wagenknecht (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, globalisation is not a natural process, even though some may like to present it that way. Globalisation is itself the fruit of politics. It is a political creation, born of every measure taken to deregulate and liberalise the international movement of capital. Its political creation continues every time a developing country is blackmailed into opening its capital market and permitting foreign takeovers. It is a creation of the industrialised nations and not least of the European Union.

What the term ‘globalisation’ actually stands for is not nearly so much the internationalisation of the economy as the power of property owners, banks and conglomerates, which are now beyond the reach of national legislators, to put their money wherever it yields the highest returns, regardless of the social consequences. That power, of course, also enables them to play off countries against one another as potential business locations and thereby compel them to create conditions that are increasingly conducive to profit maximisation.

This is precisely the hidden agenda that lurks beneath the aim of competitiveness, namely the drive to slash corporate taxation, destroy welfare systems and engage in brutal wage dumping – in other words, the quest for increasingly unbridled capitalism. This means, of course, that not everyone is a loser in the globalisation game; it also produces some very bloated winners. Not least among these are the European conglomerates which have developed into global players in the course of this globalisation process and whose profit trends in recent years could scarcely have been bettered. The vast majority, however, are not benefiting from this development. On the contrary, the law of the jungle that prevails in unbridled capitalism enables the ‘haves’ to oppress and exploit the ‘have-nots’.

The resolution on the table whitewashes this state of affairs, and our group will not support it. Instead, we shall continue to fight for a different economic order in Europe, for an economic order in which people are not mere cost factors and countries are more than just business locations.

  Witold Tomczak (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, we need to distinguish between two realities: the phenomenon of globalisation and the globalism programme.

Globalisation results from the development of new technologies in areas such as transport, communications and the collection and processing of data. Globalisation opens new opportunities, but it also creates new threats. It is up to us how we make use of it.

Globalism, on the other hand, is a programme aimed at creating a supra-national global power. This is opposed to freedom for peoples and nations and acts to exalt a small number of those with the most capital and global infrastructure in such a way as to allow them to realise their own selfish interests within the framework of a global country and does not act for the good of peoples and nations. In essence, this is a totalitarian programme. It is opposed to pacifist ideals and provokes threats of war.

Europe is faced with the temptation to undermine the rights of its own nations in order to increase the role played by its cosmopolitan elites in the running of the world. To give in to this temptation would be to wipe out the centuries old heritage of European nations, which rests on respect for human rights and the rights of human societies.

In the age of globalisation, Europe’s success would be respect for human rights, for the rights of families and nations, expressed in the development of institutions that guarantee respect for their achievements. Europe’s success will be to show other peoples and nations in the world how to create a situation of freedom and dignity for the citizen. It would be a disaster for Europe to go down the path of a totalitarian globalism programme.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (ITS) . – (FR) Mr President, colleagues: globalisation, internationalisation, or ‘planetisation’ as the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin would have it, is obviously here to stay, and what we are seeing now is a second wave of globalisation, more comprehensive than that of the 1990s because it embraces finance, the economy, language, population movement and ideology, with a single dominant model – namely the market.

The negative effects of this globalisation are equally obvious: in the southern hemisphere where resources are being over-exploited, in India and China where people, land, forests, seas and rivers are affected and human rights are jeopardised. Here in the North we see the impact in corporate relocations, job losses and financial destabilisation of our social systems, and in the risk – as our population ages and we face the cost of caring for the very elderly – that Europe will turn into a geriatric Rwanda, with all the implications of that in terms of disregard for human life and violation of human rights.

Confronted by these realities, faced with the obvious, what is our response? It would seem to be a mixture of magic words, minimalism and mumbo-jumbo. We hear the magic words, for example, in our current debates and resolutions. Our political ‘spells’ consist of references to the Lisbon Strategy and a more competitive economy. It is reminiscent of Khrushchev at the UN in the 1960s, trying to catch up with the capitalist system. It is the Harry Potter answer to globalisation.

Then there is the minimalism. The perfect example is the Globalisation Fund: a little poke of financial sweeties. Unable to control what is going on, we then look to the heavens and try the old mumbo-jumbo. In the name of the Father, Adam Smith; the Son, David Ricardo; and the Holy Spirit of the Market; before the great global altar of free-trade ideology, we make the sacrifice of cutting and then eliminating customs duties.

Utter mumbo-jumbo! Yet Europe’s greatest invention, the product of its genius 2 500 years ago, was logical thought: reason! What reason tells us today is that free trade is necessary, but it is equally necessary to protect our social and cultural assets. So we have to find a way of reconciling free trade with human security.

We actually have the capacity to do that, thanks to a new form of customs technology. I am talking about the technology of deductible customs duties: under this system, customs duties are of course payable by exporters but their payments give those exporters an equivalent amount of customs credit, deductible against the cost of purchases in the importing country. This new generation of variable, refundable, negotiable customs duties, subject to rebates, will enable us to solve the all too familiar problem of economic, social and environmental imbalances in international trade between North and South.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, for an increasing number of our constituents, globalisation means desolation, as factory after factory pulls out and moves east.

Just two weeks ago in Limavady, in my constituency, Seagate Technology announced its closure with 960 job losses, leaving that small town reeling. It is not just the lure of cheap labour, but our crippling burden of regulation on European industry which is devastating our manufacturing.

President Sarkozy was right when he told us yesterday that the EU has the right to protect itself from such ravages; I wish it would. Two immediate steps would help: a lowering of the threshold for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. One thousand job losses in Paris is bad, but in a small town like Limavady it is catastrophic. So the threshold should be lower for smaller economies. Secondly, the EU needs to loosen its state aid prohibitions so that things like modest industrial derating might help keep our manufacturing afloat. I would invite the Commission on those two specifics to respond positively.

  Werner Langen (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, anyone listening to the speeches here, especially those delivered by Mrs Wagenknecht and Mr Schulz, can tell that they were talking of a time which, I am glad to say, has long passed. These were sayings dug out of the Socialist glory hole, and they bring us no further forward on globalisation issues.

Everyone in this Chamber knows that economic freedom, increased prosperity and the social model are mutually compatible. Europe is the best illustration of that fact. Just as we introduced the euro as an internal fitness programme for the single market, we now have the Lisbon Strategy, for all the reservations and problems that may accompany it, as a fitness programme to get us into shape for global competition. We have no reason at all to hide from globalisation. The way it is being discussed here is absolutely unreal.

Globalisation is the mainspring of democracy and prosperity for underdeveloped countries. It is certainly untrue that there is only a downside, as the examples cited in the last few speeches implied. In fact, all countries benefit from globalisation: the developing countries, the newly industrialised countries and even those developing countries with an overextravagant government apparatus that taxpayers can no longer afford. We cannot turn back the clock, and Europe is the model for the rest of the world. I wonder why we hush that up. Why do we only speak about the bad things?

Of course we can speak about Wild-West practices in the financial markets. Yes, we do need international coordination. We need international restriction and supervision. But who, apart from Mr Goebbels, has mentioned the fact that there are also systemic malfunctions which we have not yet managed to curb? In Japan the rule is that the senior manager of a company must not earn more than twenty times the salary of its average worker. What justification is there for allowing managers in Europe and the United States to earn a thousand times more than their companies’ workers? We can talk about these things, but we surely cannot demonise globalisation in general, for globalisation opens up new opportunities while combining freedom with prosperity.

  Anne Van Lancker (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is good to see the Commission acknowledging the external dimension as a new element in the Lisbon Strategy, but above all we should not forget that globalisation also has implications for our own internal European policy.

The Lisbon Strategy has been good for economic growth and jobs, true, but it is also true that not everyone has benefited as a result. In Europe globalisation has considerably widened the gulf between those with skills and those without.

So I am glad that the Commission and the Council of Employment Ministers will be paying greater attention in future to the social dimension because there are still too many people – the poorly skilled, persons with a disability, older workers, migrants – who have no access to decent training and good employment prospects. Six million youngsters leave school without qualifications, 72 million live in poverty on the margins of society and Europe even has 14 million working poor.

Economic prosperity should benefit everyone, ladies and gentlemen. So I would like to highlight three additional points.

One: it is clear that the new generation of policy instruments for Lisbon must be focused far more heavily on social inclusion, equal opportunities, poverty reduction and proper social protection. The social dimension must again feature in the integrated guidelines.

Two: there must be greater emphasis on Member States’ fulfilment of the undertakings they give regarding employment and training. Economic growth does not automatically mean quality jobs – for that there has to be a clear commitment on the part of Member States.

Three: a lot more must be done in partnership. A good strategy for growth, jobs and social inclusion also requires input from national parliaments, local and regional authorities, social partners and civil society.

So my group does not think that the next generation of Lisbon Strategy instruments can just be ‘business as usual’. The Vice-President of the Commission should appreciate that there are many reasons to make critical adjustments to the Lisbon package.

  Bernard Lehideux (ALDE) . – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this recurring debate about the pros and cons of globalisation makes just about as much sense as debating the pros and cons of winter on Christmas Day.

The only real issue for us is how the European Union can attempt to turn what is an ineluctable phenomenon to the advantage of its peoples. What the citizens of Europe expect are effective reforms to boost employment and support them through changing times.

Following the Lisbon Strategy has so far been rather like Waiting for Godot. We hear a lot of talk about it, we are desperately anxious for it to materialise, but we never actually encounter it. Those who hold the key to the Lisbon Strategy’s success, namely the Member States, must come up with the resources to achieve the aims they have set. We expect them to deliver initiatives as well as a full and objective assessment of their results.

It is not my intention to paint an entirely gloomy picture. There are a few encouraging signs, such as the Adjustment Fund, which is functioning even if its effectiveness has yet to be judged. It is also significant that, for the first time in Europe, the social partners have an agreed analysis of the challenges to be addressed on labour markets. They have also agreed to ask the Member States to implement flexisecurity policies, combining the twin elements of flexibility and security, for both employees and employers.

I shall conclude, Mr Barroso, by urging you not to sacrifice the social dimension of the Lisbon Strategy because you think it makes us less competitive. Ordinary people expect Europe to be attentive to their concerns, and companies expect Europe to implement a policy that will counter widespread social dumping.

  Wojciech Roszkowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the Commission’s document contains many words about the place of the European Union in the globalisation process, but does it provide specific answers to the questions that we are asking ourselves ? I rather doubt it.

The document gives the impression that good EU regulations will guarantee growth in the EU and prosperity for its citizens. However, growth and prosperity depend on the efforts of the citizens, who need to be more efficient and productive than before, and also need to be more efficient and productive than citizens in other countries.

Good regulation is not enough to ensure future economic growth in the European Union. It is not enough to equalise economic levels between the old Member States and the new Member States, which are growing at a faster rate than the EU average. The effects of economic migration from low labour cost countries to high labour cost countries are not enough.

Future economic growth in the EU will depend on its competitiveness, but instead the Commission’s document talks a great deal about protecting social gains. This is all very well, but these are not the causes of growth, but its result. While we are protecting these social gains let us not forget that growth comes from innovation, improved organisational efficiency, greater productivity and competitiveness.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission and the Council for their statements. I agree that there is potential for the EU to take a very positive role. But, to date, economic globalisation has led to the acceleration of environmental degradation, poor conditions for workers and growing social imbalances.

On a local level it has come to mean job insecurity and, worse still, the loss of jobs in manufacturing and services, which I saw at first hand in my own community in Wales, where I live, earlier this year with the closure of the Burberry factory, which meant the loss of hundreds of jobs in a very poor area, a convergence area.

Companies are finding it easier to move around, seeking the cheapest labour and not worrying about the consequences of their actions, despite voluntary corporate social responsibility agreements which, like Burberry’s, look wonderful on paper but mean very little in practice.

The consequences are devastating for local communities and those local communities, as we have already heard, are the key to jobs and growth, the very purpose of the Lisbon Agenda. All of this leads to disillusionment with politics, proving that the market is stronger than democracy.

The EU can help by making sure it improves labour and social standards across the world, including the cost of climate change in the market price to avoid environmental dumping. The effects of globalisation make social protection even more important for workers and for communities.

I do agree that the way forward is to support small business and provide long-term sustainable jobs, high-quality jobs, and I do hope that the proposal for a small business act will help to achieve this in the long term.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, in this debate it is right to stress that the European Union’s success depends on how it responds in terms of solidarity and economic and social cohesion. When the European Union continues to suffer a high level of poverty affecting 17% of the population, or some 80 million people in the EU-27, when employment insecurity is rising and the percentage of poor workers is increasing, our fundamental priority must be to abandon neoliberal policies and prioritise employment with rights, decent wages, enhanced social protection and high-quality public services for all that supports productive investment by micro and small businesses and a fairer distribution of the wealth produced so as to promote real convergence among Member States, foster development and social progress, and implement a cooperation policy with the countries of the Third World.

  Patrick Louis (IND/DEM) . – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our fellow citizens – who are also workers, consumers and taxpayers – recognise quite clearly that the European Union, as currently configured, is not so much a bulwark against the excesses of financial globalisation as a staging post on the road to those excesses.

For 20 years now we have been promised a shining future, courtesy of the euro and the dismantling of borders; that is what they dangled before us, for example, to win our support for the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Despite everything, however, our manufacturing base is packing up and pulling out, leaving behind it millions of unemployed, tracts of industrial wasteland and a deserted countryside.

To hear President Sarkozy argue the case, before this House, for a mission to protect Europe, one would almost think he had never accepted either Maastricht or the Lisbon Treaty. It is quite splendid to hear him coming on like General de Gaulle and declaring he will stand up in the WTO against any negotiations likely to damage our national interest. He appears to have forgotten, however, that France does not possess a veto and that the only one doing any negotiating is a Commissioner from Brussels, who consistently disregards the terms of reference given him by the Member States.

Similar illusions were evident when – once again with every justification – he attacked the deflationary obsession of the independent European Central Bank in Frankfurt. But who are we to believe: the man who stands before the TV cameras proclaiming French sovereignty, or the man who abandons our national sovereignty in a European treaty? The reality is that the Lisbon Treaty confirms the logic of the existing treaties, which bar us from steering the course of the euro, from protecting our markets and from standing up for ourselves in global trade negotiations.

Yes, the treaty mentions as an aim the protection of citizens but that is no more than a policy statement without legal force behind it. Significantly, the treaty strengthens the powers and independence of both the Commission and the ECB, with their free-trade thinking. Protocol No 6, and also Articles 3 and 4 of the EC Treaty, reinforce their dogmatic conception of unfettered competition, heedless of national interests, unbridled by borders and careless of democracy.

We believe that the people of France and the people of Europe want something different. So let us rehabilitate genuine free trade, in the form of exchange between nations that enriches them without stripping them of either their defences or their identity.

  Udo Bullmann (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, over the next three years the Commission intends to present proposals for a realignment of economic, social and environmental policies in the European Union. That is a good thing because, as we all know, there is nothing on the table yet. The October paper, which is the basis of our present discussion, is a brief document. While I must mention in passing that it is always good to present brief papers, this one is also a shallow paper, a thin paper, from which we can learn nothing about the direction this journey is supposed to take.

The Commission must help us by resolving a contradiction. If we take today’s debate as the cover page, the introduction, we are dealing here with enormous challenges: globalisation, climate change, the issue of the international financial markets – the formidable challenges that face us in each of the Member States. If, however, we then follow the discussion further into the realm of practical implications, we are told that there is no need to alter the practical policy guidelines. That is incomprehensible. It is totally incomprehensible because it naturally raises the question of the real nature of this globalisation debate. Is it a pretext for taking no action in terms of the practical implementation of our social, environmental and economic policies, or is it really an opportunity to see the real picture and to provide responses to the urgent questions and needs of people in the countries of the European Union?

Let me raise a few more questions. If our future does indeed lie in an environmental industrialised society, why is it so difficult to speak in the Commission, with the Commission and even in this House about the proper investment policy that is needed if we are to achieve that goal? Why can we not talk about the building-refurbishment programmes and the modern vehicles and transport systems we need to achieve that goal? Why is it almost taboo to discuss a decent investment policy? And why do these things not feature in the Commission’s programme? Why are they not in the Lisbon work programme either? I do hope there are still changes to be made.

When we talk about the knowledge triangle – the need for education, research and innovation – why can we not make the European Youth Pact a practical instrument and guarantee high-quality training for all young people in Europe, so that they can use their specialised knowledge and intelligence in the effort to restructure industrialised society. These are the practical challenges to which we want to respond.

  Marco Cappato (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think that there have been speakers in this debate as well who have placed economic freedom in opposition to the assurance and protection of social rights and the fight against poverty.

That opposition between economic freedom and social rights smacks of the last century and is no longer current in the politics of our Europe. We undoubtedly have a duty to ensure that the rules are applied to the full in respect of economic freedom against monopolies, the transparency of financial markets, and ensuring that the costs of environmental pollution are paid for. That is without a doubt fundamental! From the point of view of social rights, however, what is now stopping us from helping the poorest in our countries are old social security systems geared towards corporations and organised work which do not help the unemployed and those who continue to be outside social guarantees and social protection.

In my country, Italy, we have a system which more or less forces people to retire at the age of 58 or 59, when at the same time only 20% of the unemployed have any social protection. That is the problem that the poorest face: not globalisation or economic freedom, but the fact that social security mechanisms are old, outdated and behind the times; those mechanisms have to be rethought and that is where the Lisbon Strategy and the Commission can help.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I do not want to repeat the same old banal statements about the benefits of globalisation. It would also be valuable in the European Parliament to present a critical opinion as regards globalism.

For me, the best illustration for our debate is the voice of the Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul. I dedicate his words to the choir singing the praises of globalisation, singing the same song today in the European Parliament. Globalism is an ideology that takes many elements from typical Western religion. Globalism is the belief in a single idea that excludes alternative points of view. At its basis there lies a conviction in the supremacy of economics over other areas of life and a certainty that all economic theories apart from liberalism have failed and that there is no other way.

This conviction is born from the fact that liberalism put in motion global forces that support liberalism as the right way forward and make other approaches appear incorrect. However globalism is deluded in believing that economics is the motor behind civilisation. Over the last twenty or thirty years we have learned to look at everything in economic terms. Even Marx did not go that far. He said that economics is important but did not go so far as to say that everything should be viewed through the prism of profit.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the topic presented by the Commission today is full of contradictions. Allow me to highlight two points:

Firstly, the Commission emphasises that the increase in adaptability to globalisation needs to be intensified in order to ensure viability in our citizens’ standard of living. This is not the situation we have at present, given the failure of the Lisbon Strategy. The truth is that these policies of intensified competition aggravate the inequalities in wealth and manufacturing power, and only the European Commission can see any enhancement of prosperity or elimination of unequal development among the EU Member States.

Secondly, we learn from the document that the Commission is working towards a social Europe, an idea we have heard so much about but evidence of which we have never seen for ourselves. Let me quote a simple example: since 2002, the price of automotive fuels in the Member States has risen by 35-50%. This, along with many other things, hits the purse of those on low incomes, and none of the Commission’s social economic strategies seems to offer a solution.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, our European aim of success in the age of globalisation can be achieved if we take our chances. Our discussion in the public forum focuses all too often on the adverse effects of globalisation. We discuss them whenever companies have to shed jobs or relocate abroad, but we say far too little about all the good things that come out of globalisation.

Take my constituency, for example – my home region. No less than 74% of the industrial output of my constituency is now exported. We are reaping definite benefits from globalisation. In my home region, sadly, workers are also being laid off by businesses that are no longer profitable, but many more can be recruited by other businesses that are benefitting from globalisation, companies that have adapted, and our unemployment figures are falling sharply. Unfortunately, we speak too rarely about that side of the coin.

The European Union has an important role to play in shaping globalisation. Four hundred and eighty million Europeans must stand together for their interests and values. We already have the world’s most open economy, but we need worldwide market access. We must set greater store by reciprocity. Non-tariff barriers and other obstacles to trade are unacceptable. We must be able to defend ourselves against unfair trading practices. To that end we need trade-defence instruments, and we need a Commissioner who neither lacks credibility nor exudes arrogance when representing the European Union in the world, but who boldly defends our trading interests in a spirit of cooperation and mutual trust. We must protect intellectual property more effectively, we must press harder for global rules and standards, we must strengthen the WTO, and we must practise transatlantic partnership.

If we and the Commission perform these tasks, we shall truly be able to use and shape the globalisation process to ensure that people in general can continue to live their lives in freedom and prosperity.

  Edite Estrela (PSE). – (PT) Succeeding in the age of globalisation is the great challenge facing the European Union. The question is, how can competitiveness be reconciled with social cohesion, or in other words, globalisation with regulation.

The Lisbon Strategy provides the answer, and the Treaty of Lisbon will make decision-making easier, but success will depend above all on Europe seeing globalisation as an opportunity rather than as a threat. We must understand what is happening with China and India. China has overtaken Great Britain, France and Italy in the ranking of most industrialised nations, overtaken the United States as the major exporter of technological products, and accumulated enormous financial reserves.

As regards India, few people are familiar with the name ‘TATA’. In 2006, however, TATA’s automobile-manufacturing subsidiary had a higher stock exchange value than General Motors, while no-one had heard of the MITTAL Group until it launched a hostile takeover bid against ARCELOR, triggering panic in Paris, Brussels and Luxembourg.

The other side of the Asian miracle, however, must not be forgotten. This is a tale of suffering arising out of the Beijing Government’s complicity with western multinationals that have relocated their factories to take advantage of cheap labour and the absence of a welfare state.

It is in Asia, meanwhile, that the challenge of combating global warming will be won or lost. Europe must be firm and must demand reciprocity in international trade, but must not systematically adopt protectionist policies. It is true that Chinese competition is unfair because of low wages, lack of political and trade union rights, counterfeiting and the undervalued currency. All this is true. It is also true, however, that there are 800 million Chinese and 700 million Indians who are eager to get a decent minimum income and to demand greater social justice. These are challenges for a stronger Europe and a better world.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Madam President, I also believe our reaction to globalisation should not be based on fear but on a sense of opportunity mixed with intelligent adaptation.

As the resolution says, the EU as a global player is one of the major beneficiaries of an open world economy. You would not always realise that from the volume of European anti-globalisation rhetoric. I agree with Mr Czarnecki that liberalism has spread across the world. But, unlike him, I am glad about that.

The EU can only achieve its objective by being active and organised on the world stage, and this is particularly true of migration. I am grateful to see that a paragraph I drafted for the ALDE Group has survived almost unscathed into the final resolution. I really do think that migration deserves to be a priority on the EU agenda, on a par with climate change and energy. We see the pressure from outside; we see the social tensions and, indeed, the racism from inside the EU. But still there is no comprehensive EU policy on legal as well as illegal immigration, and on integration.

Finally, let us not forget the potential of global communications and especially the internet to promote human rights. Okay, maybe it is not as inevitable as we once thought – if you look, for instance, at the censorship being successfully practised by China – but, still, globalisation and the internet and other global communications are a very potent force for good. That is also part of globalisation.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, honourable colleagues in the Council and Commission, just as, in the life of man, childhood is followed by a period of adolescence, so globalisation appears to be a natural stage in the development of humanity and the next challenge for it.

In this difficult debate on this ever-changing and unfamiliar issue I would like to say that, paradoxically, all the preceding speakers from both the left and right of the House were correct to a considerable degree.

What is most important is that there is a real need to create proper guidelines and regulations for a just division of the benefits of globalisation. Since, from the very definition of globalisation, it is clear that it is a widespread phenomenon, it is not enough that only the European Union should have such institutions and regulations – they have to be accepted by the whole world. Mr Barroso was quite right to say that the European Union can and should propose to the world a balanced and just model for globalisation.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, the topic of today’s discussion is misconceived. Success in the age of globalisation safeguards neither European interests nor the prosperity of workers in EU countries, but only the interests of capital. In the context of globalisation, the new order being created by business interests and multinational companies at Community and international level aims to multiply the profits of capital through the intensified exploitation of workers.

Mr Sarkozy’s statements yesterday about globalisation confirm the EU’s reliance on big capital. They underline the intensity of intra-imperialist conflicts and the intention to use the EU as a battering ram against other large imperialist centres, and especially against the achievements and rightful claims of workers. The common denominator of all these endeavours is a full-on attack on workers. Reduced wages, increased working hours, adaptation to the needs of capital, an increased pension age, flexicurity and the restructuring of labour relations are at the core of the Lisbon Strategy.

We therefore consider that the harsh reality experienced by millions of workers cannot be judged by any terms of globalisation. Nor is anyone convinced by the arguments put forward by the Commission and the Council about environmental protection.

  Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE). – Madam President, it is very difficult for Commissioner Verheugen to listen to everything that is said in this Chamber, but of course some very poignant points have been raised and I hope he takes them into account.

I listened to what President Barroso had to say. I thought he put a point across that I totally believe in, that globalisation is here to benefit the European Union. Mr Toussas has just talked very glibly about the working class, but if we do not have globalisation, if we do not have industry and business in the European Union, there will be no jobs for people. What actually worried me considerably was what Mr Sarkozy said yesterday. Are we going to have an old France, a protectionist France, or are we going to have a France which is going to embrace a new generation? I am reminded of when the Chinese went to sign the declaration to join the WTO in the United States. President Clinton had managed to stop them from signing it for 10 years. When President Bush signed it, his advisers looked back and said, ‘my God, China has signed it! What have we done?’ In actual fact, what they have done is that they have brought into play some great opportunities for us.

We must look upon China and India as an opportunity. We must not bring up the drawbridges, man the battlements, close the doors, because Europe has a huge opportunity here and we must take it. Mr Caspary quite rightly talked about employment in his constituency. I know that it is very difficult to keep employment, but if we do not allow ourselves to be part of a global market, then we will get nowhere. I do believe that we have a huge opportunity if we can embrace it. We must look at such things as free trade agreements. Morocco, at the moment, has signed a free trade agreement with the United States. We must look at that.

Finally, I would ask the Commission to allow business and industry to get on with doing what they are supposed to do. Be very careful about the legislation you put in place which damages European opportunities.

  Pervenche Berès (PSE) . – (FR) Madam President, Presidents of the Commission and the Council, we have just heard Mr Barroso tell us that the European Union is uniquely well placed to provide a good basis for regulation at global level. He is right. But if that is what we intend to do, we must also put our own house in order. The tools available in the Union for tackling these challenges include what we call the ‘guidelines’ on economic policy and on employment. I fear today that the Commission is trying to lose these necessary guidelines under the carpet of globalisation. But they are useful and we need to review them.

We need to do this firstly because, at the European Council last March, the Heads of State and Government adopted the best possible strategy for enabling the European Union to address globalisation and the challenges of energy supply and climate change. If, in pursuit of that strategy, we do not use all the means at our disposal in the European Union, including the guidelines – and perhaps especially the guidelines – we will get nowhere and we will merely foster disillusionment about the Union’s ability to tackle globalisation.

We also need to do this because Commissioner Almunia himself has recognised that that questions of exchange rates, oil prices and the real impact on the EU economy of the sub-prime lending crisis will affect the Union’s projected economic growth. He has revised the projections downwards: from 2.9% to 2.4% for the Union as a whole and from 2.6% to 2.2% for the euro area.

We need to do this for the further reason that we need to respond to peoples’ aspirations in Europe and, whatever Nicolas Sarkozy may think, social Europe is a very real issue that you will have to address if you want to avoid being disowned by Europe’s citizens in the very near future.

The final reason for doing this was pinpointed today by Commissioner Almunia when he admitted that, in the prevailing international climate, Europe’s growth will be driven primarily, if not entirely, by internal consumption.

Is it conceivable that, against this background of comprehensive change, the only constant should be the guidelines? Is it conceivable that there should be no change in the Union’s only instrument for effectively steering its Member States’ economic and social policies?

I would ask the Commission representative and the Commission Vice-President to tell Mr Barroso that he needs to change the guidelines; that he needs to take account of the new context so that the Union can equip itself internally with the best tools available for meeting the challenges of globalisation head on.

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, those who proclaim their commitment to a fairer world have no qualms about blaming globalisation for the difficulties in their own economies. They therefore call for less free market, more regulation and more government intervention. Yet globalisation offers the genuine prospect of a win-win situation because it enables the emerging economies and the slow starters in the world economy to catch up and give us the opportunity to develop new markets for high-quality, top-of-the-range products, facilities and services.

If we are to grasp these opportunities, however, we must do our homework, which means redoubling our efforts in the fields of training, further education – particularly for young unemployed persons – and lifelong learning, becoming even more creative in the ways we shape the value-added chains and processes of our economy and encouraging even more free enterprise. Unimpeded globalisation leads to more open markets and more competition, which benefit all consumers.

Let us resist the temptation to shield our economy. Such a move would quickly degenerate into sheer protectionism. Instead, let us nurture the inherent power of our economy to keep renewing itself. Let us invest in the technologies of the future, and the future will be ours.

  Ewa Tomaszewska (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, the economy should be for the benefit of the people and not the other way round. Natural differences in the tempo of movements of capital and labour in the age of globalisation are leading to a spiralling drop in employment standards. Manufacturing is moving to areas with ever lower salaries and ever more dangerous working conditions. This leads to loss of jobs for employees in regions with higher employment standards and to a loss in the purchasing power of employees, which damps down demand for consumer goods.

If the European Union wishes to be successful in the age of globalisation, it has to find effective tools to combat social dumping and to uphold and protect Europe’s social dimension.

  Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I think the Commission’s contribution to the globalisation debate is a very valuable one.

I think globalisation is not a threat but an opportunity. Europe is well placed to rise to the challenge. We have highly developed infrastructure, education systems, technology, capital markets, and vibrant home markets in the making.

It cannot be emphasised too strongly that Europe’s strength lies in an internal market that is a springboard for our companies globally. Business innovations are born all around Europe. Their proliferation, which brings well-being to Europe, should not be burdened with red tape. I especially look to Commissioner Verheugen on this. Reducing red tape in Europe is a key issue for globalisation and the competitiveness of Europe. We have to focus on SMEs in particular. They are the right focus for the Commission’s attention. Much has been achieved but, for example, tax barriers still hamper business in Europe.

Strong businesses do not exist without a workforce, which threatens to be a scarce resource in Europe very soon. Europe’s demography requires immigration. Here, other world regions are far ahead of us, which shows in their economic performance. This is a difficult issue requiring balanced consideration of all interests, not least those of employers. It is an EU issue, of course, because competitiveness does not come about without a mobile workforce. Plans such as the ‘Blue Card’ are welcomed to this end.

Another element that should move freely but steadily is capital. Financial stability is a sine qua non of a competitive and economically safe Europe. Financial markets are, globally, one of Europe’s strong sectors, one of our new winning industries. Innovation thanks to market-led regulation, which does not equal ‘laissez-faire’ – here, also, making it easier for the sector to function across Europe is vital.

As for the outside world, Europe should establish itself as a strong global actor. We need unity from European Union Member States, and the Commission can also contribute to bringing that unity.

  Jan Andersson (PSE). – (SV) Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I would rather look at the opportunities of globalisation than the problems, but that depends on how we act in Europe. I agree that we should invest in research and development, that we should make more long-term investments in a good environment and that we should invest in people and lifelong learning, but what the Commission is forgetting – the error in the Commission’s document – is that we are neglecting the social dimension.

Developments in Europe today point towards good growth and more jobs, but also greater exclusion, bigger gulfs and more insecure jobs – more jobs, not least in Germany, on which you cannot support yourself and you need to receive social security benefits to supplement your pay. We must link growth and employment with a social dimension which reduces the gaps between people and regions in Europe. This was discussed in the debate in Guimarães in which I participated during the meeting of Ministers for Employment and Social Affairs.

The Portuguese Presidency is attempting to push the issue of the Integrated Guidelines and change them to make the social link much clearer and much more integrated.

However, the Commission does not want to do this. The Commission does not want to change the guidelines. The guidelines need to be changed. In our resolution we have reached agreement that we want to have new guidelines which integrate the social dimension and, of course, also deal with the issues of security in change and ‘flexicurity’. The Commission should also take this on board so that we have a stronger link between issues of growth and the social dimension.

We must also embed the Lisbon Strategy. At present it is not embedded at the national, regional or local level. There are many people who are unaware of the Lisbon Strategy. We must integrate it and get the social partners and civil society to also work to ensure that these issues – the social dimension, growth and employment – are treated as important and are integrated.

  Samuli Pohjamo (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I wish to bring a northern perspective to this debate. Two years or so ago I worked in a regional development organisation close to the Arctic Circle and the Russian border. For that distant region, globalisation was both a threat and an opportunity. We began development work, trusting in our own strengths as we took advantage of globalisation. Companies, the public sector, the education system and universities pooled their resources to build a productive innovation environment. The skills base was strengthened by networking with global skills networks in the spirit of the Lisbon Strategy. At the same time renewable energy projects were launched. The results are encouraging. A particular example is the fast growth in international tourism in the area. I believe that this region would serve as a useful model elsewhere in Europe, and the EU should make this sort of work much more feasible.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE-DE). – (NL) Madam President, Europe’s stature stems from the single market, liberalisation of the single market and liberalisation of the world market, globalisation. This has brought us not only prosperity but also stable democracy. So we must be wary – and I am talking primarily of trade aspects here – of an excessively defensive strategy, and above all of protectionist-style trade instruments.

Madam President, Europe’s competitiveness is better served by an attitude of openness towards the world, so I think it is important to give greater priority to opening up economic markets in non-EU countries, more specifically in the emerging industrial countries such as India, Brazil and China, because the enormous potential for growth of those markets represents an opportunity for European companies and an opportunity for the European economy. These emerging industrial countries will in turn have to open up their markets to our companies, in respect of services too, and in the interests of reciprocity I urge the Commission, in its negotiations, to bring pressure to bear accordingly on these countries in particular.

We visited Singapore as part of a delegation from the Committee on International Trade and we saw that American firms get far better access there than European ones, Madam President, and we cannot have that. So we need to be pro-active. We are after all the world’s largest economy. If we all pull together effectively, we should be able to use our power to open up these markets. Then there is the abolition of import levies and non-tariff barriers to trade, Madam President, and in our strategy on market access it is also important to prioritise these emerging markets.

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, Europe has been asked to show its citizens a different side to globalisation. This is not the side of unfettered competition, but that of social solidarity, redistribution, diversification and cultural values.

In this internal dialogue, and also in any opening-up of the EU to the rest of the world through economic, social and environmental policies and those on security, viable development and immigration, the European Commission must promote and strengthen the EU’s cultural ethos. The Commission must directly promote in its annual legislative work, in the Lisbon Strategy and also in the process of strengthening the post-reform Treaty, the following areas in the cultural sector:

Firstly, the Commission must strengthen the cultural industries based on high-quality, innovative services while providing significant productive and innovative possibilities for the European economy. This sector is of considerable importance for intercultural dialogue.

Secondly, it must strengthen the ‘knowledge triangle’ of research, education and innovation. This, unfortunately, does not yet have the backing of legislative measures, although it should be one of the EU’s aims.

Innovation in the field of culture should not be a luxury enjoyed by a few multinational companies, but a horizontal policy for SMEs.

Madam President, the European Commission and the Council must clearly decide their positions for meeting the challenges of globalisation. They must do this through open dialogue, initially with the national parliaments. Globalisation can be presented as part of European history if it can be imbued with the ethos of European culture.

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). – Madam President, globalisation is blamed for everything, from population explosion to climate change to exploitation. But these are just products of mankind; so is competition. Darwin called it natural selection.

European citizens are fearful. We must educate them, true, but not by stating that we need a policy at EU level to face the challenge of a globalised economy. That makes me fearful, suggesting that we do not have a policy.

The EU has unique power at supranational level to shape things and to challenge excesses. In July, in the Financial Times it said: ‘Brussels is the regulatory capital of the world and cannot be ignored from Washington to Tokyo’. So, if we have got it, let us use it, but judiciously. What is the purpose of a competitiveness agenda if it is not to maintain our position in the world? What is the purpose of a single market if we fail to get it properly completed? Stop the faint-hearted excuses. The EU is absolutely about meeting the challenges. We just need to get on with it before natural selection catches up.

  Cristóbal Montoro Romero (PPE-DE). – (ES) Madam President, representatives of the Council and the Commission, globalisation is good for Europe; Europe must encourage globalisation.

We are witnessing an as-yet slow but irreversible dissolution of frontiers in the world, a process which has succeeded in lifting more than 400 million people out of poverty in less than twenty years and for the first time, in 2007, China will be the country, the area of the world, which will contribute most to the growth of the world economy, China, not the European Union, ladies and gentlemen!

This means in short that globalisation is a challenge but also a great opportunity. It is a challenge in the sense that opening-up means more growth, more welfare and more employment, and this is something we must explain to European citizens. What concerns me again is hearing the word ‘protect’ in this Chamber.

Protectionism is a denial of globalisation and a denial of the European Union. Protecting citizens is not necessary when they are the protagonists of their own economic growth and their own well-being. We must hand that ability back to the people and we must therefore also conduct an exercise in self-criticism in the European Union.

This is because we in the European Union are not doing what we must when our growth is inadequate, when we also have our share of responsibility for the crisis in world financial markets and, in short, when we do not do everything we must at home, on our own doorstep, to foster economic growth among small and medium-sized enterprises and create more employment, because we need much more employment than the process of opening up the economy will be able to provide.

The Lisbon Agenda is really a marker: achieving the internal market, putting public finances in order, reforming, modernising our labour market, committing ourselves to environmental reform, renewable energy and in short opening Europe up really means greater social cohesion in Europe.

  Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, Mr President of the Council, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I think it most appropriate for the debate on globalisation to have taken place under the Portuguese Presidency because Portugal is a country whose flag is on the map, because the Portuguese were at the forefront when we Europeans began globalisation, and because globalisation is not a plague upon our heads. The Europeans began the process of globalisation during the Renaissance, when we were less developed than the Chinese and the Indians, and that is how we are seen in the rest of the world.

Now, with the Treaty of Lisbon, we will also be pioneers in what I would call ‘post-imperial globalisation’. We are not going to conquer new continents; what we are doing is giving a response in which we bring together, of our own volition, the values shared between States and peoples and we can be an example of the type of globalisation which is most needed, namely political and social globalisation.

Here we have talked about impetuous, uncontrolled financial globalisation despite the fact that we have, for example, a European at the head of the International Monetary Fund. We are the principal bloc at the WTO and have a specific responsibility. What is missing? What is missing is precisely for us to be able to find answers in a globalised world which are in line with this. Specifically, there are two very important, challenging aspects on which we must be very active: not only in terms of trade and technological development but in the universal defence of human rights, especially workers’ rights, for which the International Labour Organisation exists, and also the negotiations and policies necessary to tackle climate change.

In any event, Madam President, and on this I shall close, I believe that we Europeans have no right to hold a pessimistic view of globalisation. We sought it and must now come up with innovative answers.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, Mr President, it is obvious that we will not be able to solve all the problems of globalisation with one statement and one measure to promote the Lisbon Strategy. However, the statement of the Council and of the Commission is good because it draws attention to the fact that globalisation is not a curse and does not have to be a threat, in fact, it could be something positive for the citizens of Europe, and that it is the citizens and their activities that should be the principal guide behind the actions of the EU.

I am in favour of four areas of activity. First of all, the knowledge triangle, particularly innovation, and I understand that here it is essential to act quickly in order at least to launch the European Technological Institute.

Secondly, the business environment, and this means a fully open and free internal market without monopolies, with open competition, less regulation and less bureaucracy, which is something that the Vice-President of the Commission, Günter Verheugen, is fighting for so courageously.

Thirdly, human resources, entailing the problems of migration and, primarily, counteracting the brain drain, which means better education, attractive investments, and a social dimension to the EU based on the achievements of the economy.

Fourthly and finally, energy and climate change, which means a common energy policy, which I believe is something we are all aware of, and reductions of emissions. However, there is no way that a reduction in greenhouse gases in the European Union alone can save the world’s climate. For this reason we need to have an EU that is politically strong because only a strong EU can influence the United States, China and India towards compliance with climate protection guidelines.

As regards a reduction of emissions in the EU – yes, I am in favour, but I am also in favour of an EU that is politically strong and this means full ratification of the European Treaty as quickly as possible.

  Gary Titley (PSE). – Madam President, hopefully, and I say hopefully, the Lisbon Treaty is going to represent the closing of a chapter in the history of the European Union, the chapter of the growth of the EU, the consolidation and peace and stability on the continent, the dismantling of trade and economic barriers between Member States, and the institutional development which was needed to achieve those things. Now, though, we need to open a new chapter, a chapter of looking outwards, of rising to the challenges of globalisation.

We need a global Europe which sets a completely new agenda for globalisation, resting on the principles of openness, fairness and the importance of cooperation between Member States. We know what the challenges are – they have been well explored in this debate. Climate change and migration are, in my view, the two biggest, but we need to maintain high growth and jobs. We need to have a modern effective social agenda. We need to deal with terrorism and crime and promoting security beyond our borders and dealing with poverty. And indeed, as Ms Bowles has said, we do have policies towards those. But let us be frank: progress has been slow, it has been uneven and it has not always been very effective.

If we really are to deal with globalisation, we need a radical and fundamental shift, not only in our policies but in our entire thinking in the European Union. We have to focus now simply on action and delivery. We have to ensure that Member States fulfil their promises, because we have an EU framework. What we do not have are 27 Member States that all do as they say they are going to do, and our focus must now be on delivering on promises and fulfilling all the potential that the EU has.

  Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, sum up globalisation in two minutes – well, here goes! My first request is that we deal a little more honestly with the subject of globalisation in our discussions. My native region of Bavaria earns half of its GDP from exports. Many people are critical of globalisation, but if we asked them whether they agreed that their local companies should not be allowed to serve the world market any more, they would say ‘no’.

Likewise, if we turned to the public galleries and asked whether anyone was prepared to give up the opportunity to buy competitively priced goods – be they electrical appliances, textiles or other products – there would be no volunteers. Everyone knows that imports from low-cost countries are the reason for the low inflation rates of recent years. It is only right and proper to acknowledge that, even if we regularly speak of globalisation as a threat.

Europe must shape the globalisation process, for it has been benefiting our manufacturers as well as our consumers. That is the purpose, for instance, of eliminating red tape, which is an important objective both for Commissioner Verheugen and for Europe. I do not wish to imply that this is a task for the Commission alone; I am also referring to Parliament and the Council. We are speaking about globalisation now, but afterwards we shall be adopting the Soil Protection Directive and creating more red tape. In short, our actions need to be rigorously consistent in Europe, and it is our mission to shape Europe.

When we consider the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States, we need to realise that international financial markets are intertwined and that we Europeans must help to make things happen. How do we deal with rating agencies, and how do we deal with hedge funds? Regrettably, Commissioner McCreevy, who is responsible for these matters, has not yet taken the lead in the movement to rein in the Americans and other markets, and so Europe is lagging behind.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that Europe is well prepared for globalisation. We are benefiting from it, which we must explain to the public, and we must press for minimum standards, although these would not be European standards, and then we shall be prepared and fit to win the globalisation game. Whether or not globalisation takes place is not determined in Brussels or Strasbourg.

  Magda Kósáné Kovács (PSE). – (HU) Thank you, Madam President. I speak as a representative of a region that was not able to choose its fate after the war. There was barbed wire between our country and the luckier part of Europe, but not even that was able to stop the unexpected effects of globalisation.

In 2000 we started to familiarise ourselves with competitiveness and solidarity in the strategy for work and workers, and in the Lisbon Strategy. Since then, the balance has tipped in favour of capital recovery many times and it came to be feared that the human face of the strategy was becoming obscured.

Competitiveness and work are incontrovertibly and historically inseparable concepts, and we are starting to realise that worthwhile work is only part of a worthwhile life. A worthwhile life also includes basic security, a contribution to a healthy life and development, a lack of discrimination and acceptable living conditions.

But Europe should not only view itself as defending values, but also as shaping the dreams of generations, creating an opportunity for European citizens and for those coming from third countries who want to make things. And it is for precisely this reason that solidarity should not merely remain a slogan; it should be the chance for people who are able to make things, or to enable them to do so.

Ladies and gentlemen, the labour market and the capital that demands a return is ruthlessly selective, and new human resources require investment at a price greater than capital, whose movement is ever easier, can acquire labour. The Europe of values cannot accept that those starting their careers, the elderly, those who are isolated by poverty, those forced to learn new skills, and the gypsies who carry the burden of many kinds of disadvantage, will not have work. Especially so that the burden of disadvantage should not weigh heavily on the shoulders of coming generations, the Community funds spent on us not only keep them within the framework of a worthwhile life, but also continue to increase the prospects of European competitiveness. Thank you, Madam President.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, the conclusion that is naturally drawn from the debate is that projecting the European model onto the global ‘megascreen’ entails both risks and opportunities.

As a rule, globalisation is perceived by European citizens as an external phenomenon: it has no obvious European regulatory or political intervention. It is therefore up to the European plan of action to show that a visible, measurable European interest is indeed being defended, while at the same time promoting global understanding.

As regards the Union’s external commercial agenda, my view is that priority should among other things be given to ensuring terms of market access reciprocity and competition on equal terms, as the French President, Mr Sarkozy, emphatically pointed out yesterday in this House.

The strict European regulatory framework for environmental protection and public health protection for consumers and workers is a significant indication of the Union’s political and institutional maturity. However, if this is not to be a protracted competitive disadvantage for the Union, it must meet with an equivalent response from other leading international players.

The give and take between the internal and external aspects of the Lisbon Strategy will help to promote the European model in the global arena of governance. However, it clashes with a lower degree of regulatory rigour and legally binding completeness in both the WTO and other international organisations. The Union is called upon to play a leading and constructive role at an increased level of international cooperation. It is called upon to prioritise the undertaking of binding obligations and the adoption of international standards in the interests of upwardly escalating regulatory convergence.

  Stephen Hughes (PSE). – Madam President, this has been a very wide-ranging debate and at the end I would like to bring it back to a focus on social policy as a productive factor.

The launch of the integrated guideline package was supposed to lead to a balanced delivery of the economic, social and sustainability strands of the Lisbon process but in practice, when it comes to the employment guidelines, it has been a case not of integration but of subordination. The employment guidelines have become virtually invisible, hiding the very wide variability in Member State performance against the range of indicators and targets they are supposed to meet under the employment strategy on youth unemployment, integration of older workers – a range of factors. In some Member States, spending on lifelong learning and active labour market measures has actually declined over the last five years – not improved but declined. That is disastrous for the Lisbon process overall.

The employment strategy therefore needs to be given much greater visibility in the next Lisbon cycle. One other point – the joint resolution that we are debating here today in several places emphasises the need to deliver decent work and to focus on improving the quality of work. This focus is not helped by the Commission’s concentration on the idea of employment security as opposed to job security, which is repeated in both the Green Paper on labour law and the communication on flexicurity. In our work on flexicurity in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs we make clear that both employment security and job security are important.

What a fast changing flexible firm needs – a firm changing its production line every six months, its IT configuration every four months – is an adaptable, skilled, loyal and dedicated workforce, not a casualised and fragmented labour market. So we will do our best to help produce a good set of principles on flexicurity but they must then lead to an amendment to the guidelines. President Barroso said earlier, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Well, it is broken and it needs fixing.

  Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I congratulate the Commission on an excellent paper and I would just like to highlight these four points.

The first one is on the knowledge economy. I think the way this has been expressed in the paper, about the free movement of ideas and researchers being perhaps seen as ‘the fifth freedom’ of the EU, is a beautiful way of expressing it, and I would like to see that developed.

In reaction to what Mr Hughes has just said, I think this point really reflects where we are, debating in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, that we want to move away from the idea of just simple job protection towards employment protection, by promoting employability and by strengthening skills; in that way, success for Europe in the age of globalisation can mean success for individuals – success for people – which is what the EU should be very much more about.

The second point concerns SMEs. There is a reference to a wide range of new proposals for the end of 2008. I welcome that, but there is a ‘but’: please let us not shift our focus towards new proposals for agreement tomorrow before we first focus on delivering against existing commitments for action today. Here, particularly for Mr Verheugen, I would draw attention to this 25% reduction in simplification of existing EU legislation. Let us please see some real delivery on this across the board, sooner rather than later, as this will particularly benefit SMEs. I would encourage, in this context, a wholesale review of the Working Time Directive, where much more lateral thinking is required of us all – and I do mean of us all, including MEPs.

Thirdly, the single market: adding an external dimension is all very well, but let us get the internal dimension first, completing our own single market before we develop grand ambitions outside. I would say to Mr Schulz, as well as to Mr Hughes, I agree absolutely that this is not just for our economic progress but also because this will deliver social progress.

Finally, on a more personal point, the only thing I really stumble over in the document is the very first line of the front page, which says ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions’. I recognise that the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions exist – although I am never clear why – but please do not elevate them to the same level as the two codecision institutions.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE). – (SK) The phenomenon of globalisation is becoming more and more perceivable. In such a situation, the European Union has to react fairly quickly and determine whether Europe’s competitiveness has not only been preserved but whether it has also been growing; whether the Lisbon Strategy, the tool that is supposed to ensure that this happens, is capable of providing solutions in the areas of innovation, energy, migration, education and demography, in particular. All of this must facilitate growth and the ability to create jobs.

New challenges are appearing in relation to the environment, such as CO2 emissions, the use of pesticides, concerns about clean water reserves and sources, the protection of soil and agriculture. Last but not least, there are also challenges concerning health and epidemics, as well as fighting obesity, cardiovascular diseases and the growing occurrence of all types of cancer.

Ladies and gentlemen, globalisation brings further challenges in the areas of security and migration, and there is a growing danger relating to criminality and terrorism. Very soon we will witness the fall of the last remains of the Iron Curtain and the divided Europe when nine new Member States join the Schengen area. We have to do everything possible to guard this common area comprehensively so that illegal migrants, who aggravate the security situation in the Member States, cannot get in. On the other hand, I am advocating a responsible approach in the area of work permits for legal migrants: we must think about it properly and we must choose qualified employees for the employment sectors most in need.

I also believe that the older Member States of the European Union – and I would like the Commission to take note of this – will do away with the nonsensical restrictions on the employment of citizens from the new Member States. In today’s situation this is an incomprehensible anachronism.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE) . – (FR) Madam President, the European Union cannot let itself become a victim of globalisation or give its people the impression that they are caught up in something they cannot influence. So the question now is not whether globalisation is good or bad: it is whether we are prepared to bring our own weight to bear on it and to regulate it. To face that challenge, the European Union needs to reconcile competitiveness and economic and social cohesion. Strengthening multilateral rules is part of the process.

In an open economic system, the best way of ensuring that consumers’ and citizens’ right are respected is by observing the rules of competition and establishing a fair and equitable market, reflecting environmental and social standards. Therefore, until we have a set of rules that are internationally recognised, it is crucial that we retain and do not water down our existing trade defence instruments, which are our only effective tools against dumping. And yes, it is possible for Europe to protect its citizens without being protectionist. Europe also needs to invest in those sectors that will determine its economic clout in the future: namely research, innovation and the development of clean technologies.

Furthermore, in order to support those who have most difficulty in benefiting from globalisation, Europe needs to step up its arrangements for putting solidarity into practice, for example through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and flexisecurity. It is in Europe’s interest, in terms of coping with international competition, to anticipate adaptation and to embark on reform. The European Union possesses all the necessary capabilities and resources to meet the challenge.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Madam President, success in globalisation is vital for European prosperity: it is the producer of its material content. Now that the three-year cycle for the renewed Lisbon Strategy is coming to an end, we need to focus attention on the external dimension in particular. I wish in particular to highlight three elements.

Firstly, energy, its supply and sufficiency, raises and lowers the position of societies in the global competitive environment. The situation in Europe does not seem to be a happy one. The decline in energy self-sufficiency is a serious challenge for the EU. Even now we import half of our energy from outside the EU and dependence on imports is predicted to grow. In addition to making a determined effort to increase energy self-sufficiency, we need a strong foreign policy on energy, a common voice, solidarity and security of imports.

The second central issue is climate change, a global phenomenon, which is having a negative global impact on the environment, the economy and society, and which calls for global solutions. Unilateral actions distort competition and cause carbon leakage. The following assume prominence where globalisation is concerned: the inevitability of a global emissions trading scheme, the compulsory commitment to such an idea on the part of all industrialised countries and rising economies, and the removal of barriers to market access for clean technology.

Thirdly, the EU should always remember Schuman’s brilliance, i.e. that in our success story the economy would be made to serve common objectives, the human good, peace and stability. Our cultural tradition obliges us to strive for a more human world which respects human rights. Only then can globalisation be in the interests of everyone. Only then will we prevent the world from slipping out of our hands.

  Panayiotis Demetriou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, European citizens generally seem to be greeting the historic phenomenon of globalisation with scepticism – many of them, indeed, with fear and an entirely negative attitude. This is because of the revolution taking place in the global economy and the social fabric of Europe. Prejudice, fear and above all inaction and passive observation of developments are, however, no way to face the new order on the world stage. The situation cannot be reversed. Globalisation is here to stay, whether we like it or not. The great global village is being built, as President Barroso said.

The EU has European interests to protect. It must therefore become involved in a methodical, planned, collective and dynamic manner in the globalisation process, in order to develop proper rules of operation in the new world system. The EU must move forward; it must aim for the wellbeing both of European citizens, of course, and of world citizens. As a commonwealth of principles and values, the EU must give pride of place to its human-centred character and promote it internationally. It must convert economic competition into genuine emulation to promote freedom, democracy, the principle of legality, social justice, respect for human rights, environmental protection and the peaceful coexistence of nations and individuals. This is the role that the EU can and must play in the process of globalisation.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE). – (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate comes none too soon. Globalisation is a fact. Every generation has its own challenges, so they say. Well, the challenge for us is to respond as best we can to the new circumstances brought about by globalisation.

The best response is of course not to resist globalisation – as some would still have us do. We cannot and we do not seek to. That would in any case be particularly counterproductive for us in Europe since more than anyone we depend on the rest of the world for raw materials, energy, markets to sell what we produce and even, given our ageing population, labour.

Our response must be to go along with globalisation and shape it better. That means concluding agreements and setting rules internationally. As Europe, we are well schooled in concluding intra-Community agreements. So let us use this experience to give more of a lead internationally.

We should do that, Madam President, with the necessary self-confidence and inspired by the values which also inspire our actions within the EU, the values we have expressed so well in the Reform Treaty and Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday's assurance that the Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2008 is focused on the desire to shape globalisation to best effect is a good sign, a sign that things are getting serious. The fact that globalisation was also a topic discussed at the informal Lisbon summit indicates that the Lisbon Strategy needs a new external dimension.

As group coordinator on the Lisbon Strategy I would emphasise that this strategy has galvanised us into action. Gradually, in fits and starts, we are now getting somewhere. The first three-year cycle following the mid-term review has almost ended and maybe a new adjustment is needed. I would suggest, Madam President, that from now on we focus less on targets, percentages and statistics and more on the real objectives: innovation, a good business climate, competitiveness, growth, and more and better jobs.

Ultimately we must work towards the goal which hopefully we all share, namely good chances of a decent quality of life for as many people as possible.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Europe’s ability in the past to cope with the modern age has to be admired, but when it comes to globalisation we are not sure how to find an adequate strategy that would enable Europe to play a key role. The first step in this search is to understand that the Lisbon Strategy lacks an external dimension and that it will have to become a part of a more complex economic and social strategy. This strategy should properly identify the conflict between the highly regulated European economy and liberalised global trade, and should give us a tool to minimise this conflict, which makes Europe much less competitive.

The two reasons that justify regulation inside a common economic area are fair competition and a high level of consumer protection. However, both of these are being increasingly eroded by floods of cheap goods from third countries and counterfeit items. We are facing frightening tasks, such as checks on the gigantic volume of imported goods that do not comply with European safety standards.

The key point of our complex strategy must be to promote the convergence of regulatory mechanisms, in other words the creation of global rules and standards, not only technical but also ecological, social and safety rules and standards. One way to help this process is to insist constantly on respect for human rights in third countries. Freedom of speech will enable the citizens of these countries to demand higher living and working standards, and thus contribute to convergence from the other side.

Our new energy policy provides a good response to the challenge of globalisation and sets a good example. However, we need to revise other policies, too, which will subsequently become part of an appropriate and complex strategy for the managing globalisation. We have to do away with relicts such as the agricultural policy, for example.

If we want to continue to be an important player on the global stage, we must not just react: we must actively cooperate in setting up global convergence rules both within and outside the EU. Europe must change slightly. If not, we can expect to meet the fate of the boiled frog: the water will come to the boil very gradually and then it will be to late to leap out of the pot.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Madam President, one of the previous speakers, Alexander Radwan, said that Europe was well prepared for globalisation, yet the modern-day version of globalisation has already been with us for eighteen years. We, meanwhile, are sliding straight from the globalisation trap – the talk of what used to be, the reversal of mass prosperity and the onslaught against democracy – into the European trap, a product of the political original sin of failing to secure a decent treaty back in Nice, where overhasty enlargement was preferred to deeper union.

As a result, the core of today’s problems consists in bureaucracy, wastage of billions of euros and – yes – mistakes in the political recruitment of Europe’s elites. Indeed, you yourself, Commissioner Verheugen, are a case in point. The despicable personal attacks on you began when you tried to bring the bureaucracy under control. Now there is a new man, and they are already trying to pull the carpet from under his feet. We shall see what progress he manages to make on red tape.

This is no way to proceed. If we cannot cure these ills, the Union will remain in the grip of political paralysis, and the challenges of globalisation will defeat us.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, this has indeed been a long and full debate, and of all those I have taken part in here on behalf of the Presidency, this one had the longest list of participants and Members to have given their opinion. This is clearly a highly topical issue of major importance, but let there be no illusions that it is also a difficult and controversial one that has generated a broad variety of opinions, analyses and comments. I take there to be a common conclusion, however, which is that globalisation is here to stay and to develop and to manifest itself in new ways.

There is no turning back, there are no steps backward, we cannot reverse history. Globalisation itself is the result of our march towards the future. What we must do, what we must analyse and what we must decide naturally concerns how to make the most of and get the greatest benefit from globalisation, while reducing or eliminating all the known risks associated with it and always bearing in mind – a very important point for me – that globalisation must be at the service of humankind and citizens rather than the other way round. It is not humankind, citizens or human beings who must be at the service of globalisation.

There is also little doubt that to be able to make the most of and take full advantage of what globalisation has to offer, we in Europe must equip our enterprises, whether large or small and medium-sized, with tools and policies enabling them to face the challenges of economic globalisation. We must raise qualifications and train European citizens and we must also reform our social model. It is not a question of reducing or weakening that model, quite the contrary in fact. We must reinforce it and adapt it so that it can successfully meet the challenges and threats that globalisation raises. In the environmental field it must be recognised that the European Union has proved itself in protecting the environment, and it has proved its capacity to lead and point the way to the future like no other regional bloc in the world has done. The negotiations that will begin in Bali in December will clearly demonstrate this.

Finally, I must also refer to the ‘external dimension’ of the Lisbon Strategy, which is so closely linked to globalisation. The idea is to invite others who share this pathway, these difficulties and these challenges of globalisation to share economic, social and environmental values and principles with us, and naturally to make it very clear that globalisation will be successful for everyone only if we can actually agree on a social, economic and environmental world which is truly regulated for and at the service of all. This aspect is fundamental. Let us not be naïve, ladies and gentlemen. We believe that with solid policies, solid principles and solid values, we can as I have said really achieve what is a fundamental objective for us: globalisation at the service of humanity.

  Günter Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. − (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Communication from the Commission on the European interest that has served as the basis for today’s debate is nothing more than a kind of discussion paper. It is not the Lisbon plan for the next three years. It is a document which is intended to stimulate discussion in the European Council and the European Parliament, so that the Commission can feed the results of that discussion into its proposals for the next Lisbon cycle. These proposals will not be made until December. They are not yet on the table, and so those honourable Members who criticised the Commission for not having presented any tangible proposals were labouring under a misapprehension.

That is not what today’s debate was about. The Commission’s aim was to find out what you, the representatives of the European voters, have to bring to the Commission’s attention for the formulation of the Lisbon plan. I am pleased to say that I can respond favourably to much of what has been said here.

The guidelines will remain the core instrument of the new Lisbon package. As President Barroso made clear, the instrument has worked, and we shall not change the instrument as such, but it will, of course, be formulated so as to enable us to take due account of the experiences of the past three years and to attach greater weight to the issues that have come to the fore during that period.

Let me cite a few examples. We shall have to place greater emphasis on the connections between competitiveness, energy and the environment. There have been several requests to that effect in today’s debate. That is entirely correct. It is time to stop considering policies in isolation. We need a fully joined-up approach. We must attach greater importance to the formulation of firm proposals designed to ensure that global competition, which is certainly what we want, takes place on a level playing field with the same rules for everyone. We must devote more attention to finding ways for social policy to underpin structural change. In today’s debate, there seemed to be a cross-party view that this is the real big issue, and indeed that view is justified.

Let me say something on that subject. I believe it is wrong to see investments in social stability and social security as nothing more than charitable handouts. On the contrary, they are also investments in economic potential, for there can surely be no doubt that Europe’s economic potential depends on a highly motivated and highly efficient labour force, and the reason why we possess this asset is that we have high wage levels and a high level of social security.

It is not the case that economic growth and social welfare are mutually incompatible. In actual fact, as several speakers have said today, each complements and nurtures the other. I regard that as a major consideration. I should also point out that, if only because more and more regions and sectors are suffering from a lack of trained and skilled labour, the question of employability must be addressed far more forcefully than hitherto. So I believe we are on the same wavelength in many of these matters.

The Commission, let me add, shares the view that the turbulence we have recently been experiencing in the financial markets calls for international, multilateral action. Things cannot simply be allowed to run their course because what we have here, as has been said, is an inbuilt structural defect in the international financial system. It is not about human error on the part of those managers who are now being put out to grass with severance packages worth 100 to 200 million dollars; no, it is the result of a structural defect.

I would like to make another three brief comments on the keynote debate that has taken place here today on the subject of globalisation. Firstly, it is so difficult to forge a common European policy on the basis of this debate because there is no agreement as to what the European interest actually is. In our everyday work, in fact, we are constantly confronted with a kaleidoscopic definition of Europe’s interests. Depending on the situation at any given time, Europe’s interest may lie in low supermarket prices in one Member State or in a high level of industrial employment in another, and this is a conflict of aims which is not easily resolved. Europe’s interest may lie in a high level of employment in the steel industry in Liège, to cite a very topical example, or in high environmental standards in European emissions trading. We are continually faced with these conflicts, and there is no uniform line that 27 Member States can follow in order to define their common European interest.

Secondly, we cannot adopt the attitude that globalisation was fine as long as it meant the poor countries of the South being dominated by the rich countries of the North, that it was good as long as those circumstances obtained but is bad when the countries of the South become competitors. That is no way to react. Nor is it acceptable to come up with demands for high environmental and social standards in the developing regions while refusing to change our own policies.

What I am hearing in Europe today is that China and India must change their environmental and social standards. So they must, of course, but the Chinese and Indians perceive such demands as pure European protectionism, as we rose to prosperity with the aid of low social standards and low environmental standards, and now we are telling others that we want to keep what we have but that they cannot have the same.

Such a policy, ladies and gentlemen, is doomed to failure, I can assure you. The only viable approach for us is to demonstrate to these developing economies that there is another way, that it is possible to turn the environmental and social challenge into an economic opportunity. Hence the term ‘environmental industrial policy’.

I believe we are largely in agreement on that point, and against that backdrop the Commission will now work hard to present its proposals for the next Lisbon cycle. These will then be dealt with at the spring meeting of the Council in March, which gives the European Parliament ample opportunity to voice its opinion on the specific initiatives and proposals before the final decision is taken in March of next year.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you for the summing-up, Commissioner.

I have received seven motions for resolution in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

(Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Edit Herczog (PSE), in writing. – (HU) Mr President, Council, Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the consequence of developing globalisation is that more and more countries become democratic and switch on to free global trade. As such, it shows the success of Europe’s half-century policy of peace and democracy. On the other hand, the fact that some countries sometimes gain an advantage in international trade by using illegal instruments is a sign that the switch-over to constitutionality is gradual and is not perfect immediately. It is for precisely this reason that Europe’s goal should continue to be the promotion and reinforcement of democracy.

How successful we will be in the global competition arising from this depends on us. As the author of the Parliament’s report on globalisation, I know that we have recognised the challenges, and it is time for action.

We must think about the fact that the prosperity we have today should remain for our grandchildren, and in such a way that in the meantime the other peoples of the world should develop in this way. Will they have energy? Will they have an inhabitable environment? This is what the European energy policy and the building of a ‘low-carbon’ economy are about.

We must ensure that every person in Europe, irrespective of their origin and situation, and every business, irrespective of their size and registered office, can develop all their talents and their best abilities. This is what equal opportunities, the building of a knowledge-based society, innovation policy and the new European SME policy are about.

We must switch over to the digital age, for which we must implement e-inclusion in all areas and for everyone.

In short, we have all the tools ready; we just have to do it. Let us get to work!

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) Globalisation is an unstoppable process, but the success of the European Union in this globalisation is not a foregone conclusion. For certain, the Lisbon Strategy, implemented as it has been so far, is no recipe for success. In fact, it is just a paper strategy and even at the halfway stage, in 2005, it was clear that the main objective, which was the race against the USA in the areas of competitiveness and innovation, had not been achieved.

In the meantime other challenges have presented themselves in the form of the economic offensive from China, India and other Asian countries. So far, the multitude of sensible objectives have hidden the fact that there is not the political courage to undertake structural reforms at national level, which is the level at which the possibility of an innovative and dynamic Europe is decided. Due to the lack of this courage, the European Union is looking for replacement solutions. For example, by placing its hope in a radical change in the Community budget, meaning increasing public expenditure on research and development. This is not enough if it does not go hand in hand with an ability to take risks together with support for innovative companies from the private financial sector.

A solution in the form of the European Institute of Technology illustrates the tendency towards institutional solutions, while the Globalisation Adjustment Fund shows the extent of exaggerated European concerns. The proper response to the challenge of globalisation is full market liberalisation and courageous reform of the European social model.

  Joseph Muscat (PSE), in writing. – In order to succeed in this era of globalisation, the European Union needs to develop a Foreign Direct Investment Policy for Europe.

We need a policy to cover:

- Incoming Foreign Direct Investment, that is direct investment into the European Union and originating anywhere else in the world;

- Outgoing Foreign Direct Investment, that is direct investment anywhere in the world originating in the European Union; and

- Internal Foreign Direct Investment, that is direct investment in any European Union Member State originating in any other European Union Member State.

It is true that we have elements of such a policy, such as the Seventh Framework Programme, which provides the conditions to attract research and development investment.

But this is only one part, albeit an important one, of the story.

Facts and figures show the immense importance of foreign direct investment in today’s world economy, or Europe’s foreign direct investment position in relation to the rest of the world.

These facts show that if we are to put any real strength in the Lisbon goals, we need an overall FDI Policy for Europe to reap the maximum benefits of FDI for our people.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE), in writing. – Nowadays Europeans don't find it at all strange to backpack in Latin America, chat online with friends from Africa and order cds from US. Because of globalisation, the world is shrinking. Especially the young generation regards Europe as the backyard and the globe as just the hometown.

Still the term globalisation has a bad ring to it. A common fear is that due to globalisation, countries with low labour costs will deprive Europe of jobs.

The EU has a significant role in changing these attitudes. And it has - by proving that together the member states are strong enough to not only survive globalisation but even gain from it. As mentioned in the statement, Europe is the worlds' largest exporter of goods and services and the second largest destination of foreign direct investment. And talking about employment: in 2006 altogether 3,5 million new jobs were created!

Sure, there are things to improve: Europe's innovation policy would do with a boosting, global market regulation is needed and climate change prevention should not be only Europe's problem. Still, all in all, I have no doubt that the EU will pass the test of globalisation with flying colours.

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

3. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

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

3.1. The regional impact of earthquakes (vote)

– Report: Nikolaos Vakalis (A6-0388/2007)

3.2. The European Union and Humanitarian Aid (vote)

- Report: Thierry Cornillet (A6-0372/2007)

3.3. Protection of soil (vote)

− Report: Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (A6-0410/2007)

3.4. European insurance and occupational pensions committee (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0236/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Pervenche Berès (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, we are about to vote on nine reports. In fact, the six that follow will be in the same vein. This is all about implementing the agreement on comitology procedure that was so impressively concluded among the three institutions. What we are engaged in here is the necessary practical follow-through and we need the support of this House, following the long and fruitful negotiations between the Council and the Commission.

3.5. Transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers of securities (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0418/2007)

3.6. Capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0419/2007)

3.7. The taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0420/2007)

3.8. Life assurance (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0421/2007)

3.9. Supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0422/2007)

3.10. Insider dealing and market manipulation (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0423/2007)

3.11. Markets in financial instruments (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0424/2007)

3.12. Prospectus on securities (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Pervenche Berès (A6-0425/2007)

3.13. Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (implementing powers conferred to the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Michael Cashman (A6-0289/2007)

3.14. Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Gyula Hegyi (A6-0292/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, I do not want to steal my colleagues’ time, but as we did not have a plenary debate and we have reached the first reading discussion, I would like to inform you about the basic elements of the new legislation on GMOs.

The compromise package gives Parliament the right to control the deliberate release of GMOs. Parliamentary control means transparency on this sensitive issue. The Eurobarometer opinion poll showed that, with regard to GMOs, 94% of our citizens want the right to choose, 86% want to know more before consuming GMOs and 71% simply do not want GMO food. That is why our greatest success is that the Council and the Commission have agreed to Parliamentary control of the implementation of the labelling requirements of GMOs.

I wish to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and the Portuguese Presidency. Having greater openness on genetically modified organisms makes Europe more democratic.

3.15. Placing on the market of biocidal products (implementing powers conferred on the Commission (vote)

− Report: Åsa Westlund (A6-0344/2007)

3.16. Statutory audit of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Bert Doorn (A6-0374/2007)

3.17. International accounting standards (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

- Report: Manuel Medina Ortega (A6-0370/2007)

3.18. Prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing (implementing powers conferred on the Commission) (vote)

− Report: Philip Bradbourn (A6-0225/2007)

3.19. 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) (vote)

− Report: Jean-Marie Cavada (A6-0417/2007)

3.20. International accounting standards (IFRS 8) (vote)

− Motion for a resolution (B6-0437/2007)

3.21. Application of the international accounting standards (vote)

– Motion for a resolution (B6-0438/2007)

3.22. EU-Russia summit (vote)

− Joint motion for a resolution: EU-Russia summit (RC-B6-0434/2007)

– Before the vote:

  Konrad Szymański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, following the discussion on the compromise version of this resolution, we had precisely 16 minutes to submit amendments and to review the results of our work. I believe that this undermines the rights of every Member of this House and every political group in this House to be able freely to influence the texts of our resolutions, including by submitting amendments.

I would ask that this situation should not be allowed to reoccur in the future.

– Before the vote on amendment 1:

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I would like to propose the following amendment to Paragraph 6. This will require a split vote. The first sentence should be changed to read:

‘emphasises that the situation in Chechnya continues to be a point of dissent in the relations between the EU and Russia’

(NL) replacing the text as it currently stands. The rapporteur is in agreement.

( The oral amendment was accepted)

– Before the vote on paragraph 23

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, we must allow the realities to speak for themselves, and the summit on Siberian overflights. This has not taken place, so we ask that the reference to it in the text be replaced by a reference to the next summit.

(The oral amendment was accepted.)

– Before the vote on recital O:

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, we speak about frozen conflicts. We mention two conflicts – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – but I would like, on behalf of my Group, to introduce after ‘frozen conflict’ the phrase ‘such as Transnistria’, so that Transnistria is also mentioned in Recital O.

  Marianne Mikko, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, Mr Swoboda has already informed you of our amendment, which was about Transnistria.

(The oral amendment was accepted.)

3.23. Report on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 2006 (vote)

- Report: Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo (A6-0392/2007)

  President. − That concludes the vote.

4. Membership of political groups

  President. − I have today received letters from Ms Daniela Buruiană-Aprodu and Mr Cristian Stănescu announcing their decision to leave the ITS Group. Parliament takes note of this decision with effect from today, 14 November 2007.

Taken together with the announcements already made this week concerning three Members leaving the group, I conclude that the number of members of the ITS Group has now fallen below the minimum of 20 Members required to form a political group laid down by Rule 29(2).

(Loud applause)

Parliament therefore takes note of the fact that the ITS Group no longer fulfils the conditions of the Rules of Procedure for the formation of a Group. As a consequence, the group ceases to exist with effect from the moment of this announcement.

(Applause)

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I should like to bring to your notice that, when I, like many other Members, was applauding your last announcement, Jean-Marie Le Pen made this hand gesture, signifying (EN) ‘Fuck you!’ (DE) directly at me. May I ask you to check that on the video recording. I believe such an action really must have consequences. I find it appalling that anyone should behave towards me in such a downright aggressive manner.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Martin, I did not see it myself, but I take note of your point.

5. Explanations of vote

- Report: Vakalis (A6-0388/2007)

  Den Dover (PPE-DE), in writing. − Conservatives have supported the Vakalis report but have grave reservations about paragraphs 16 and 17. We believe that both prevention and rapid reaction capabilities in relation to earthquakes should be concentrated on the resources of the Member States and do not support ‘the establishment of a European Civil Protection Force.’

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I am in favour of this report on the regional impact of earthquakes. As a geologist and oceanographer – in fact my thesis was on the seismicity of the mid-Atlantic ridge from 12°N to 20°S. I am all too well aware that the United Kingdom is almost immune. According to records in the UK, only one person has died as the result of an earthquake and that was in the mid-seventeenth century. Yet across Europe the same is not true, with thousands killed, and massive devastation across the centuries from Lisbon to Sarajevo.

Part of my own constituency, Gloucestershire, was devastated by floods in July that caused billions of euros of damage to road and rail, hospitals and schools, water treatment plants and power stations. We are likely to get assistance from the European Solidarity Fund. I hope it will not prove necessary, but if it does Europe must prove willing to assist nations, regions and committee hit by earthquakes.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) As has been pointed out, the whole of southern Europe is delimited by the edge of two tectonic plates that cross the Mediterranean and go on through the Atlantic Ocean via some of the Azores Islands, which means that earthquakes are one of the most frequent natural disasters in this region.

This EP report contains a variety of concerns and proposals that we appreciate, particularly when it recognises that the outermost regions suffer these phenomena regularly, or when it points to the need, among other things, to support national action in terms of prevention, response and repairing damage, public information, scientific research, civil protection and solidarity at Community level.

As far as coordination is concerned, the report proposes cooperation between Member States and between the latter and third countries to implement the measures referred to. However, despite supporting the creation of a ‘European Civil Protection Force’ as a ‘centralised prevention and management instrument’ – a policy we disagree with – it states that this ‘only makes sense on the basis of improved national civil protection schemes, and of better instruments for coordination between Member States’, which in our opinion raises the question again as it should be raised.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) Our fellow member Mr Cornillet has presented us with a very thorough report, noting that earthquakes have a negative impact on social and economic cohesion in the regions.

We should remember that severe earthquakes also occur frequently in the countries and regions of the European Union, especially in southern Europe and by the Mediterranean Sea. For this reason we need to ensure that the necessary prevention and rapid reaction capabilities are in place to deal with any such disaster.

It is important to initiate social education and information campaigns throughout the EU and to provide education and training to the staff of the relevant technical authorities in the Member States, and this should include training at regional and local levels as well as for all the specialists involved in earthquakes. In addition we must take into account the role to be played by the many national, regional and local authorities and ensure that instructions exist for effective protection of essential infrastructure, such as access to telecommunications infrastructure, power networks, hospitals, bridges, ports, airports and so on.

In future, cohesion policy should give thorough consideration to the damage caused by earthquakes and this should be taken into account in the framework of a new financial instrument for the protection of the population.

I also believe that issues of coordination, cooperation and flexibility in the activities of authorities at Community, national, regional and local levels should be included in the debate, as these create considerable problems when dealing with natural disasters.

- Report: Cornillet (A6-0372/2007)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) Today we have voted in favour of the resolution, drawn up on basis of the report by Mr Cornillet, on a European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. I would like to thank the rapporteur and confirm once again my approval of this important document.

We are well aware of the fact that the European Union – and here I am thinking of the Commission and the Member States – is the leading provider of humanitarian aid. The EU contribution for 2006 amounted to only EUR 2 billion. I completely agree with the opinion that the EU should determine where to set the limit for the new level of humanitarian aid. On the other hand, the EU has to define its position in view of the new international initiatives and the implementation of the reform initiated by the United Nations. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I would like to point out the third problem that the EU needs to solve, namely improving the coordination of Community and Member States’ resources with a view to making them easily accessible for the victims of humanitarian disasters.

I hope that Parliament’s concrete and precise position will facilitate the achievement of our common objectives and help find consensus on the subject of humanitarian aid.

  Koenraad Dillen (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I am glad to hear there is a European consensus on humanitarian aid and of course no reasonable person objects to aid for countries that do really need it. But we must also be honest and admit that there is manifestly no European consensus on a code of conduct as regards dictators.

The UK’s intention to boycott the EU-Africa summit if Mugabe attends is simply being ignored by other Member States, and humanitarian tragedies – as we all know – very often arise as a result of wars or criminal misrule, as is the case in Zimbabwe. The enduring truth is that Africa is the scene of bloody conflicts and that Africans spend more on arms than they receive in development aid.

It is equally true that states with a democratic system, where rulers and government are not above the law, hardly ever go to war with one another. If dictators like Mugabe are allowed to take part in a European summit, that totally undermines Europe’s credibility on human rights and democracy. It is because of this ambivalence that I abstained in the vote on the Cornillet report.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Irrespective of our support for various aspects of humanitarian aid which are stressed in the report, we cannot endorse a ‘consensus’ on the EU's principles, objectives and strategies for the delivery of humanitarian aid in third countries that calls for the promotion of ‘the right, or indeed the duty, of intervention in cases of serious violation of IHL and/or human rights’, considering that ‘coercive measures, including military intervention, may only be used as ‘a last resort’. We know the results of such a policy of ‘good intentions’, i.e. the aggression and military occupation of Iraq by the USA and its allies and the resulting hundreds of thousands of deaths.

As has been said, so-called ‘humanitarian intervention’ very often conceals other real objectives that use and manipulate it according to the interests and unscrupulous calculations of the major powers and multinationals, calling the basic principles of international law into question.

We believe that the resolution of the serious problems affecting millions of human beings involves, among other things, respect for the sovereignty of all peoples and countries, the peaceful resolution of international conflicts, meeting the urgent needs of the economically poorest countries on a basis of friendship and solidarity, and their effective development.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (PSE), in writing. − (PL) The rapporteur Thierry Cornillet is right to emphasise the need for the Community and the Member States to extend the debate on political strategies in humanitarian operations to the relevant Council forum by creating a new special working group. The creation of such a group (e.g. COHUMA, that is, the working group of the Council on Humanitarian Aid) would help to develop coherent methods that would enable rapid and systematic activities in this area.

It was also quite right to point out that the frequency of natural disasters has increased and that their effects are becoming increasingly significant, which means there is a need to strengthen intervention.

For these reasons I agree with the proposal that the EU should increase its rapid reaction capabilities. The readiness and ability to react will certainly follow on from improvements in coordination and early warning mechanisms as well as stores of appropriate materials and reserves on the international level.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Humanitarian aid is often very difficult to deliver because of adverse circumstances or security problems. This makes good harmonisation and coordination of aid activities all the more important. Efforts to achieve that objective, however, must not in any way be used as a pretext to make European institutions even more bloated, nor can either an EU civil-defence agency nor an EU rapid-response force provide effective protection in the event of natural disasters.

Moreover, consideration must be given to yesterday’s criticism from the Court of Auditors, which identified a ‘material level of errors’ in various areas, including the EUR 5.2-billion budget for food aid, humanitarian aid and the part-funding of non-governmental organisations. Since the present report, in my view, is not a suitable basis for the resolution of all these problems, I have voted against it.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), in writing. − As a strong supporter of humanitarian aid projects when they are timely, well targeted and effectively resourced, I voted in favour of the report on humanitarian aid.

However, I have serious objections to many of the formulations that are used. It is unfortunate that there are references to the so-called Reform Treaty – the revived EU Constitution – to which I am fundamentally opposed. It is unrealistic to imagine that humanitarian aid can be free of all political considerations; the report itself is a very political document, advancing the EU agenda.

In any case, priorities, scale of assistance, and delivery of aid in a way that avoids the clutches of abhorrent regimes are all political questions. Apart from many other objections to EU involvement in military matters, it is a distraction from a clear focus on humanitarian aid. The EU is not a unique humanitarian actor. It should focus on adding value to the humanitarian efforts of our nations through improved coordination of effort in particular areas and in ensuring that there is proper control of its resources and evaluation of their impact.

- Report: Gutiérrez-Cortines (A6-0410/2007)

  Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I regard this Framework Directive for Soil Protection as a serious mistake which jeopardises the competitiveness of European agriculture and food supplies in Europe. What image do the supporters of this directive actually have of our farmers? Let me tell you: they believe that we need a fat bureaucratic directive, that we need to map 420 million hectares of farmland, wield the threat of horrendous fines and finally create priority areas for soil protection before farmers will take proper care of their soils.

I say to you, however, that this image is completely divorced from reality. Soil is a farmer’s most precious asset. Any farmer who does not treat his soil with care will not be a farmer for long. Most of the soils in the EU are cared for; they are worth preserving and are nurtured by our farmers. I regard this directive as an example of ivory-tower bureaucracy, and I hope we can rectify this mistake quickly before any serious damage is inflicted on our agriculture.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. As the MDF MEP, I have voted in favour of the creation of the European Soil Protection Directive because I am convinced that it is necessary. Without an appropriate amount of good-quality soil, European agriculture too will be jeopardised. I trust that, if this legislation is created, an opportunity will open up for us to work using Union resources on cleaning soil from pollution and protecting its quality.

However, at this point I would like to draw the attention of the Member States to the fact that this is possible only if the Member States also take their duties seriously. In my home country, for example, the action mostly amounts to the preparation of plans, and their implementation drags along. There is a national remedial programme in Hungary, but not a word about consistent implementation of it. The government does not guarantee the necessary resources. EUR 18 million is earmarked for the future, which is risible in comparison with the scale of the problem. At this rate, we would need more than 220 years to finish cleaning up the soil pollution we know about today. Let us be more serious, please! Thank you.

  Anja Weisgerber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted to reject the Commission’s proposal. The proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity. Soil has no cross-border aspects, which is why this matter can be regulated equally well or even better in the Member States than at European level. Many countries already have soil protection legislation. The Commission’s proposal takes scant account of that.

In the final vote I also voted against the report and most of the compromises, although I do believe that the report adopted by Parliament is a marked improvement on the Commission’s proposal. There were improvements, for example, with regard to the identification of potentially contaminated sites. The redraft offers greater flexibility in the application of the criteria enumerated in Annex II. In general, however, there are still many provisions that make this directive an elaborate bureaucratic and expensive instrument.

One good thing is that the criteria listed in Annex I will at least be non-binding now. Another is that the directive recognises the special character of agricultural land use. The cons outweigh the pros, however. On the question of funding, for example, we ought to have spelled out more clearly that the Soil Protection Directive will have no impact on the Community budget and that no new funds will be set up to implement the directive. Only the existing support mechanisms are to be used.

For these reasons I have voted against the directive, and I hope that the Council will now make the necessary corrections.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, some time ago this Parliament asked the Commission for a directive on soil protection. Commissioner Dimas gave it to us five years later. We do not need it any more, and that is no secret. We have other Directives on the protection of specific, transnational problems relating to soil. The Commission ignores the fact that many countries – and the Czech Republic is one example – have their own legislation and good systems in place to protect soil from further erosion and degradation. What some countries (including Flanders) need is a common strategy and enhanced coordination.

Thanks to an enormous effort by the rapporteurs, Parliament was able to vote for the reworked Directive, which will probably not cause too much harm because it will at least make it possible to maintain national legislation where it already exists. In his presentation yesterday, the Commissioner did not show any understanding for a sensible solution painstakingly negotiated by the rapporteur in Parliament. By not being receptive to Parliament’s hints, the Commissioner is helping to bury his own Directive. He as good as asked me to vote against his report. I believe that the Council will behave in a similar manner.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I am convinced that the clauses that we have approved are absolutely necessary and that they will help to improve the state of the environment and also people’s health. The soil is a finite and non-renewable natural resource. It deserves special protection because of its social, economic, environmental and cultural functions.

I share the view that soil protection should be subject to regulation at Community level in order to guarantee a minimum level of protection in all the Member States of the EU.

I look very positively on the proposal to create publicly available national inventories of polluted locations. An inventory should be drawn up of locations where the soil may have been contaminated in the past. Guided by the principle of providing assistance, help should be given to EU Member States to return contaminated soil to cultivation and to assist in the removal of dangerous compounds that remain in it.

The introduction of proper regulation restricting soil degradation and ensuring sustainable soil usage, while at the same time returning degraded areas to cultivation will undoubtedly constitute a step forward as regards protection of the resources of the natural environment.

I also believe it to be particularly important to harmonise legislation in Member States as regards the issue of soil protection.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, all the Austrian PPE members advocate an ambitious set of measures to protect soil, but they must be adopted at the right political level. We consider the proposal and the report to be in clear breach of the principle of subsidiarity, which is why we have voted against many of the amendments and also against the report in its entirety.

In spite of the sterling work of the rapporteur, Mrs Gutiérrez, who drew many of the fangs in the proposal, we take the view that this report overshoots by far the proper bounds of EU legislation. The Member States should, however, be urged to involve themselves deeply in this area because soil is the basis of all economic and agricultural activity. It must also be said that the Member States are responsible for funding their own programmes.

  Albert Dess (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted against this so-called soil protection directive because I find we lose any credibility if we talk every day about eliminating red tape and then we create this bureaucratic monster of a directive. Unlike air and water, soil is not a cross-border issue but a national matter. We need this directive like a hole in the head. The Commission and President Barroso ought to have withdrawn this draft. President Barroso speaks eloquently of eliminating red tape, but his actions do not match his words. Where I come from, people like that are called Dampfplauderer – patter merchants. For 46 years I have been tilling my soil. My soil is more fertile now than it was 46 years ago. I am all for a European soil protection regulation, but one that protects my soil from European bureaucracy.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I voted in favour of the directive. The implementation of the provisions of the directive will allow economic use to be made of degraded areas, while at the same time protecting greenfield sites from being used for industrial and commercial purposes. This directive will also make it possible to classify soils in accordance with an evaluation of their plant and animal production capacity, with particular attention being paid to the production of high quality food.

I would like to emphasise the importance of preparing a European strategy to recognise and resolve problems associated with soil degradation. The considerable diversity of different types of soil means that, irrespective of the steps taken by individual countries, a European strategy is required, based on prevention and increasing awareness of the need for protection of the soil as well as a description of existing risk factors, in order to solve this problem on the European level.

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We have chosen to vote in favour of the report even though a number of EU countries already have fully functioning legislation in the area of soil protection.

We supported Amendments 106, 107, 108 and 110 which read as follows:

‘Member States which already have specific national legislation in place to protect their soils shall be exempted from the obligations under this Article, on the condition that their legislation secures at least an equivalent level of protection.’

Even though the directive can be seen as superfluous in certain Member States, we have hopes that it can bring about an improvement in the large number of Member States which currently lack functioning legislation for the protection of soil.

We also hope that the Member States which have functioning legislation in this area can work together with Parliament in the ongoing negotiations to ensure that the directive does not entail unnecessary duplication of administrative work for them once it has entered into force.

  Jens-Peter Bonde (IND/DEM), in writing. − (DA) Carbon storage is of great significance in connection with the reduction of greenhouse gases. The overexploitation of the soil involving the combustion of carbon is causing considerable pressure. That is therefore an issue that requires an international initiative.

The June Movement is therefore in support of the EU’s dealing with soil protection in the Member States.

It is very good that the European Parliament has endorsed the examination of the possible use of the ‘polluter pays’ principle under Article 22, and the assessment of land use under Article 28, given its great significance in connection with carbon sequestration. Both proposals are the initiative of Mr Bonde.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE), in writing. − On balance, I voted in favour of the Gutiérrez-Cortines report as I believe her text has substantially rewritten the soil proposal to restore subsidiarity, remove duplication of obligations and introduce a voluntary code of conduct for agriculture, without imposing further red tape. It also recognises, very validly, the important role of farmers as the custodians of the soil.

It is important that the soil proposal both protects peatlands as valuable habitats under threat, while at the same time allows for the appropriate extraction of peat as a raw material. It is not clear whether Amendment 36 of the Gutiérrez-Cortines report (on the adjustment of the list of functions in Article 1) allows this and I urge the Commission and or Council to clarify this in their considerations.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the Gutiérrez-Cortines report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC because I consider soils to be a vital resource that must be protected to mitigate the effects of climate change and to ensure that the activities of future generations can take place in a safe and healthy environment.

I therefore believe that this proposal contributes to effective soil protection insofar as it defines the objectives on which there is no Community and/or national legislation. According to their specific situation, however, Member States will have to decide what their priority measures should be, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) We understand the importance of protecting soil, firstly for agriculture, which will need to produce more food and will require more water. Protection of soil is therefore essential to safeguard food production and to guarantee sufficient clean water for future generations, since the earth has a social function that no private interest should threaten.

Soil is a platform for human activities, including cities and infrastructure, but also for nature and landscapes. Its protection is therefore crucial to the preservation of our cultural heritage and natural resources.

The proposal tabled by the European Commission, however, is not the most appropriate because of its partial vision, the conditions it imposes and its scant regard for agriculture.

The European Parliament has amended it significantly, with proposals in support of the principle of subsidiarity, recognising the importance of agriculture and stating that ‘each Member State, in accordance with its climate, soil characteristics (...) may decide upon its own agricultural policy in relation to the soil’, and recognising the different approaches towards soil protection.

It nevertheless retains aspects on which we have reservations. Hence our final vote to abstain.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) I consider the existence of a framework directive on soil protection to be extremely important, since soil is a non-renewable resource that provides vital services for human activities and the survival of ecosystems, particularly when climate change is an increasingly worrying issue, and when there is as yet no specific European legislation on soil protection.

I therefore support the Gutiérrez-Cortines report and vote against all the proposed amendments that seek to reject the Commission proposal or significantly weaken the report.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE), in writing. − (PL) The proposed framework directive consolidates legal solutions in the area of soil protection policy that are contained in a fragmentary way in other legislation relating to waste management, the use of pesticides and environmental protection. The document proposes not only measures for the protection and sustainable use of the soil, in order to prevent its degradation by climatic changes, but also measures to remediate soil that is already degraded.

The framework directive is an instrument that will make it possible, first and foremost, to take account of the differences in soil in individual EU Member States and will guarantee flexibility in its implementation. Its objectives are already being achieved, although to different degrees, on the basis of legislation in individual Member States. On the other hand, the directive offers a great opportunity to those countries which do not as yet have any soil protection regulation.

In this regard the decision to introduce a definition of contaminated land would seem quite significant, as well as the obligation to draw up national lists of such land by EU countries, which would be made public knowledge and updated every five years. In addition, the clauses concerning the obligation to draw up a remediation strategy that includes objectives for repair measures, a financing mechanism and identification of priority areas requiring particular protection from erosion, salinisation or acidification, over a period of seven years from the introduction of the directive, is very encouraging.

Thank you for your attention.

  Robert Goebbels (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The geological and climatic conditions within the European Union differ widely from one country to another, and sometimes indeed within the same country. There are something like 300 different types of soil. Nevertheless, the European Commission is bent on regimenting soil use right across Europe, and the Committee on the Environment actually wants more regimentation. I support subsidiarity and I oppose over-regulation. That is why I voted against this indigestible and pointless report.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) There is no need for a framework directive on soil protection. The soil situation in the Member States varies. The problem areas included in the directive are of a national character and are therefore best managed at national level. The soil protection which is needed is already governed by existing EU and national legislation.

The proposal will only lead to increased bureaucracy and more complicated rules for the parties involved. Detailed provisions and exhortations are typical EU ideas which lead to increased costs and irritation with the EU machine. Some of us in Sweden question the compatibility of the directive with the EU’s work to simplify rules and want Sweden’s Parliament to examine the proposal in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

We have therefore, as a matter of principle, chosen to reject the proposal in its entirety.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. − Amendment 112: I am rejecting the Commission proposal, as a Soil Framework Directive would simply mean increased bureaucracy and duplication of regulations without bringing about any additional improvements to soil protection. A wide range of measures exist under the CAP reform, as well as under the reform of environmental legislation, and these will bring about benefits for soil protection.

  Christa Klass (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) Soil is a vital asset. As a non-renewable resource, it is of the utmost importance in sustaining biodiversity, as a source of raw materials and also as a storage and filter medium for nutrients and water. Soil, however, is not something that crosses borders, nor can it be shifted by the European Union. Protecting our soils is in the best interests of those who own land and therefore falls within the responsibility of the Member States. This application of the subsidiarity principle must remain intact.

There is no justification for ignoring all the existing European legal provisions and the dedication of farmers right down to the present day and to enact new provisions running parallel to the European directives, national statutes and cross-compliance rules that directly or indirectly affect the protection of soil. Among the numerous soil-related directives and regulations enacted by the EU are such instruments as the Nitrates Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Emissions Trading Directive and the Plant Protection Products Directive.

The bureaucratic commitments that could hit the Member States and the farming community is in stark contrast to the common efforts to eliminate red tape. In addition, the precautionary measures envisaged in the draft directive impinge on every aspect of the law as it relates to agriculture. I consider a European soil protection directive to be superfluous and inexpedient, and I have voted against this proposal.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) Healthy soils are the basis of human health and wealth. They must be protected. We cannot be content with the current state of soils in all parts of the EU.

Nevertheless, wanting to regulate this problem paternalistically and bureaucratically at European level is a step too far.

Soil, which is already protected by the directive concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (the IPPC Directive) and the Habitats Directive, does not migrate, as we all know, from one country to another, although the same cannot be said for water, which is a potential factor in soil pollution. That, however, is already covered by the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Directive. If we now add a soil protection directive, the result will be duplicated regulation and costly bureaucracy, which nobody wants.

Open coordination and sharing of experience on best practice would be a better approach. Adopting a framework directive on soil protection would be putting the cart before the horse. It is unthinkable that countries which already have exemplary legislation on soil protection should have to invest a great deal of time and money re-examining their entire territory for possible risk areas.

I tried to engage in damage limitation in this vote, but I am afraid I did not succeed. I was therefore unable to vote in favour of the report. I want to know that I can still look our farmers in the eye.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − With my fellow Labour MEPs, I voted against this proposed directive. While we supported the general thematic strategy on soil protection yesterday, as it stands, the directive on soil protection is over-prescriptive. It does not take into account existing and well-functioning legislation that is already in place in the Member States.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), in writing. − Despite my stated opposition to a proposal for a Directive on Soil Protection, I voted in favour of this report at the final vote.

I have already placed my opposition to such a Directive on the record in relation to the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. I do not believe that there is a need for additional legislation relating to soil protection. We already have a range of legal instruments in place to ensure the protection of soil, and until these pieces of legislation are fully implemented and the effects are fully analysed I do not believe that further legislation in this area is either necessary or desirable.

However, the amendments proposed by the rapporteur go some way towards reducing the level of overlap between this new proposal and existing legislation and this is to be welcomed.

  Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (NL) Soil protection is very necessary in order to prevent the destruction of natural soil systems, erosion, contamination and desiccation. Without measures of this kind it becomes impossible to grow plants in densely populated areas where soil use is intensive. In many places in Europe I see wasteland which has lost all value for nature and human use.

Yesterday, along with a majority of this House, I voted for the Prodi report which spells out the need for proactive measures to protect our soils.

Today we are looking at what those measures should be. I am in favour of encouraging Member States which have not yet taken the necessary measures on their own initiative to remedy the omission now. Their failure to act affects not only them but neighbouring states too, for example in producing erosion debris which causes rivers to silt up and flood.

But EU rules must in no event mean that Member States which already regulate these matters properly have to face more bureaucracy or obstacles to dealing with them efficiently. I support amendments to the effect that those applying equal or higher standards must be free to do so. But it is irresponsible to reject, delay or limit the soil protection package in the way the largest group in Parliament is proposing.

  Robert Navarro (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Gutiérrez-Cortines report because it proposes positive steps forward for the protection and sustainable use of soil – a non-renewable resource which it is vital to preserve, and the quality of which is crucial if we are to ensure adequate levels of food production and access to clean water. The European Parliament has called for clearer identification of contaminated sites where dangerous substances, present as the result of human activity, constitute a significant risk to health and the environment. National or regional lists of such sites will be compiled and they will be available for the public to consult. Each Member State will have to prepare remediation strategies so that the number of contaminated sites can be limited, and sustainable agricultural policies will be encouraged, taking account of national soil characteristics, so that clean soil can be preserved. In adopting this report the European Parliament is underscoring the need to protect the earth’s resources and use them more wisely.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. − This is yet another example of the one-size-fits-all approach which gives the European Union a bad name in our Member States. With more than three-hundred types of soil in the European Union, how can we expect to cover them all by means of a single directive? Surely this is a prime example of an area in which we should allow Member States to determine their own legislation on the basis of their own soil types.

It is very disappointing that, with all the scientific expertise at its disposal, the European Commission has produced a legislative proposal which fails to take account of simple scientific facts. If the United Kingdom suffers floods and Greece suffers a heatwave during the course of one summer, it is obvious that the impact of those weather conditions on the soil in those Member States will be entirely different. The only real consequence of this proposal will be to tie up the agriculture industry in yet more red tape and burden it with yet more expense. It is frustrating that, yet again, the agricultural community will have to pay for the pursuit of useless uniformity.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption by the House of Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines’ report, urging the introduction of a single, coherent European policy for soil protection.

Soil protection has become a priority for the EU because Europe’s soils are becoming more and more degraded. The factors to blame are rampant urbanisation, an increase in the number of contaminated sites (to more than 2 million at the most recent count) and intensive farming practices over the last 50 years, with abusive use of pesticides and nitrate-based fertilisers.

In my view, the 225 MEPs who voted to reject this directive were either driven by nationalist fanaticism or, at the very least, have lost touch with ordinary people’s concerns! Europe can offer genuine added value in the matter of soil protection, an issue on which only nine Member States have their own legislation.

I would add that the directive leaves the Member States a considerable freedom of choice, with two precise targets to be achieved within generous deadlines: within, respectively, five years and seven years from transposition of the text, they must compile a list of contaminated sites and adopt a national remediation strategy.

I think there can be no doubt that this constitutes respect for the principles of flexibility and subsidiarity!

  Brian Simpson (PSE), in writing. − I am afraid I will be voting against this report because it is my view that a framework on the protection of soil is not needed. I voted for rejection initially because I believe this issue should be left to Member States under the subsidiarity principle.

What we have before us is a piece of legislation that is disproportionate, has little flexibility and merely repeats what is already covered in other directives. It tries to cover desertification on the one hand and cleaning up soil on the other — a wide remit indeed — but ends up being a report that covers neither adequately; but creates problems in how it will be implemented.

In my own region where local authorities are trying to recycle soil, this proposal would make that so difficult that the viability of the whole operation is put in question.

Sorry to say, I think this is a poor and unnecessary piece of legislation, and I will vote against in the hope that I can save farmers, horticulturalists and local authorities from a bureaucratic nightmare.

  Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) I reject the framework directive on soil protection, because it is a gross breach of the principle of subsidiarity and is therefore unacceptable as European legislation. Even if the European Parliament votes in favour, I shall take my fight to the Federal Government with a view to ensuring that the Federal Republic of Germany challenges this directive before the European Court of Justice.

  Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) In line with the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs, I believe that the Commission has exceeded its brief here and that the European Union does not need to issue new instructions to the Member States. It is a matter of national responsibility. I see it as an artificial exercise to seek to issue identical prescriptions to countries with extremely diverse legal traditions and environmental circumstances. The Commission should therefore review its proposal and identify specifically those situations where European legislation is called for.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) I reject the framework directive on soil protection, because it is a gross breach of the principle of subsidiarity and is therefore unacceptable as European legislation. Even if the European Parliament votes in favour, I shall take my fight to the Federal Government with a view to ensuring that the Federal Republic of Germany challenges this directive before the European Court of Justice.

- Report: Berès (A6-0425/2007)

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, the justification for the Commission’s proposal to the European Parliament is a new comitology procedure that significantly increases the powers of the European Parliament. It is a regulatory procedure combined with scrutiny. The rapporteur’s view, which deserves to be supported, is that the new procedure will apply to matters in regulations concerning securities prospectuses, such as measures relating to exemptions from the obligation to publish a prospectus, the format of the prospectus as well as third country equivalence.

This is the basis for the amendments tabled on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in the plenary vote. The report under consideration also gives additional impetus to the idea of significant progress in the harmonisation of regulations for European financial and stock markets. This is due in large part to the inexorable process of globalisation and partly to the Financial Services Action Plan from 1999.

At the same time it confirms the sound choice made at the beginning of the 1990s in countries such as Poland, where the reconstruction of capital markets was based on European standards, which is now simplifying the harmonisation of regulations across the European Union.

- Report: Cashman (A6-0289/2007)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) In 2006 the decision amending the previous 1999 decision laying down the rules for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission was finally adopted after years of negotiations between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament.

The regulatory procedure with scrutiny was thus introduced. This must be used for adopting measures of general scope which seek to amend (by deleting or supplementing) non-essential elements of a basic instrument adopted in accordance with Article 251 of the Treaty, i.e. under the codecision procedure.

This is therefore a new comitology procedure that must be applied to a list, drawn up by the Commission, of 25 instruments that have already been adopted and that must be adapted, including the present Regulation on the Schengen Borders Code.

I therefore support the technical proposals introduced by the rapporteur, Mr Cashman, to take into account the specificity of the Schengen Borders Code since it constitutes a development of the Schengen acquis.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The Schengen acquis is a particularly sensitive area in which we must be able to respond to any contingency. Organised human-trafficking gangs are constantly on the lookout for new gaps in our defences through which they can flood the EU with migrants. For this reason there must be no overhasty enlargement of the Schengen area. Steps must be taken beforehand to ensure that the Member States concerned have fully mastered the task of protecting their external borders. Since this is extremely doubtful in my opinion, I have voted against the Cashman report.

- Report: Hegyi (A6-0292/2007)

  Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Hegyi report because we have repeatedly criticised the democratic deficit that exists with regard to genetically modified organisms.

We know that a proper decision for or against the authorisation of GMOs has scarcely ever been taken by the Council or the Committee of Permanent Representatives. It has always been more or less the same story of the European Commission exercising its responsibility for risk management by authorising GMOs against the will of the EU population and in spite of the reservations of many Member States and experts. The European Commission cannot be allowed to have the final say. Its decisions must be subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament.

Although Mr Hegyi’s report goes in the right direction by insisting on a binding parliamentary right of codecision on GMO authorisations, we reject the negotiated compromise, because it leaves the undemocratic comitology procedure in place. There can really be only one solution, namely codecision rights for the European Parliament in all matters relating to GMO licensing. I therefore find it rather regrettable that we have not made the most of this vote and grasped the opportunity at long last to exert more pressure against the continued existence of this democratic deficit.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) It is true that the long-term consequences of GMO technology are still unknown. There are contradictory scientific statements, and many people are afraid of the possible dangers and risks. Precautions must therefore be taken and their use in agriculture must not be insisted upon.

Directive 2001/18/EC concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms is in force. This directive covers the experimental release of GMOs into the environment, in other words the introduction of GMOs into the environment for experimental purposes (such as for field testing) and the placing of GMOs on the market (products containing or consisting of GMOs), such as for cultivation, import or processing into industrial products.

We believe it is important as a minimum to have wider control of GMO technology, at least in relation to procedures, as the European Parliament now intends, but we stress the need to exercise caution, whether in relation to agriculture or processed foodstuffs.

  Andreas Mölzer (ITS), in writing. − (DE) 70% of the European population are opposed to genetic engineering. In Austria people are even more afraid of toxic residues in food products than of terrorist attacks or bird flu. Besides the suspicion of a link between genetically modified organisms and increasing incidences of health problems, there is more and more evidence that the use of genetic engineering will cause farmland to degenerate into wasteland as well as making farmers dependent on multinational conglomerates.

- Report: Bradbourn (A6-0225/2007)

  Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE), in writing. − Conservatives voted in favour of this report but have regrets over the approach the Council has taken during the parliamentary process. In early stages of drafting the report, a great deal of undue pressure was placed upon Parliament by the then Presidency of the Council. This we find unacceptable, given Parliament’s role as scrutineer of legislation.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) This directive is extremely important because of growing concerns regarding money laundering and its role in funding international crime and terrorism.

A Community approach is therefore required to create uniform rules, close loopholes and strike a balance between the need to control and requirements concerning the protection of the internal market and the free movement of capital.

I support this initiative, which seeks to update Directive 2005/60/EC on money laundering, particularly as regards all the implementation measures listed in Article 41 of that directive.

This is therefore yet another case of updating the legislation in force in line with the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny under the Comitology Decision.

This will give the European Parliament greater control over the implementing powers conferred on the Commission.

  Hélène Goudin and Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) We have chosen to vote in favour of the proposal in its entirety. It is important that international standards are introduced and respected in order to protect the financial system against crime and money laundering in general, while at the same time the Member States’ own measures must not be incompatible with the rules of the single market. However, we find it repugnant that through the frequent use of the concept of terrorism the EU is seeking to extend its power at the expense of the Member States. Money for terrorism is a tiny part of money laundering. The large sums go to other kinds of well-organised crime.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The proposal submitted amends the provisions of Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, which imposed a time limitation on the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in this area.

According to the recent decision on the exercise of the Commission’s powers, this limitation has been removed, but the European Parliament retains the right to scrutinise the implementation of acts adopted under the codecision procedure. It is therefore now clear that any amendments to this directive must be submitted for consideration to the European Parliament as well as to the Council.

This should not mean, however, that national parliaments are excluded from the legislative procedure or are restricted merely to transposing directives adopted in this area at Community level. And what is more, as the ‘Reform’ Treaty seeks to establish, gradually transforming justice and internal affairs into a future common policy, which we obviously reject.

Finally, we must highlight the inconsistency of the European Union, which promotes total freedom of movement of capital and tax havens at the same time as it champions the fight against money laundering.

  Jeffrey Titford (IND/DEM), in writing. − The justification for this legislation is to protect the EU financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. The UKIP would always seek to cooperate internationally on these matters, however, the EU has no agreed competence on defence. Moreover as an organisation that has been unable to get its own accounts signed off for thirteen years the EU Commission cannot be considered to have any expertise whatsoever on finance or to be a fit body to put forward legislation on control of the financial system.

- Report: Cavada (A6-0417/2007)

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report because we consider that there is a need to increase knowledge about BZP, which is a synthetic drug, and to make the substance subject to control measures and criminal sanctions. However, we voted against all proposals which aim to prevent the introduction of decisions on control measures and criminal sanctions, as that is contrary to the precautionary principle.

- Resolution: International accounting standards (B6-0437/2007)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Since 2005 listed companies have been required in certain circumstances to draw up their consolidated accounts in compliance with international accounting standards. These standards were developed by a London-based private organisation (the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation/International Accounting Standards Board) and were subsequently incorporated into Community legislation by means of a regulation.

Despite certain reservations, this resolution accepts the Commission’s proposal (amending that regulation) to endorse a standard (IFRS 8) which in turn incorporates a US standard (SFAS 131) into EU law.

This is accepted, as stated in the resolution, even though the impact assessment carried out by the Commission did not take sufficiently into account the interests of users as well as the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises located in different European countries and enterprises operating only locally.

We therefore cannot support this resolution.

- Joint resolution: EU-Russia summit (RC-B6-0434/2007)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I requested explanations of votes on the EU-Russia Summit resolution. I regret that some important paragraphs have been sacrificed for some strange reason, in order to have a shorter resolution instead of having a longer resolution but covering important issues.

I think it is very important to call on the Commission and the Council to pursue joint initiatives with the Russian Government aimed at strengthening security and stability in the common neighbourhood, in particular by means of enhanced dialogue over Ukraine and Belarus and joint efforts to finally resolve the frozen conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh as well as in Moldova and Georgia by guaranteeing the full territorial integrity of those states and, as far as Transnistria is concerned, by withdrawing the remaining Russian troops, who if necessary should be replaced by a force of international monitors.

  Jana Hybášková (PPE-DE). – (CS) I emphatically voted against this motion for a resolution on the outcome of the 10th EU-Russia Summit. The Russian KGB regime is seeking legitimacy. I refuse to become a puppet and I feel ashamed for all those who are becoming Russia’s puppets due to ignorance and cowardice, especially in order to gain minor economic advantages. Russia is not Europe’s partner. I completely reject the opinion that Russia is our partner on the issue of Kosovo’s independence. Why does this House attach so much importance to the partnership? Russia continues to throw the bodies of Chechens from helicopters above Chechnya, keeps thousands of opponents of the regime in prison, institutes illegal court proceedings against politicians from the Other Russia and detains Mikhail Khodorkovsky in prison illegally. Who and when will we find out the truth about the death of Anna Politkovskaya? When is Russia going to stop threatening human rights activists? Why have we not been invited to observe the Russian parliamentary elections? Why does Putin not want us, his partners, to be there? They put up with us in Morocco as well as in Palestine.

Someone who breaches the fundamental principle of solidarity, helping Poland in relation to free export, equal export conditions, is considered a partner by this House. Russia is holding us hostage. If we do not support a democratic and stable Russia, but we do we support a secret service regime instead, then we are our own worst enemies. Finally, our country has the right to be free to contribute to Europe’s safety, to protect Europe from a possible attack by Iranian forces. How can we ask the US not to jeopardise peace in Europe through its policy, while we make allowances for the Russians’ more than obvious support for the Iranian regime? This resolution is an example of perfidy and weakness. As we Czechs know, being weak in relation to Russia really does not pay off. I emphatically reject this resolution, if for no other reason than as an expression of respect for the legacy of the Czech political prisoners, of all whom had opposed the occupation.

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, after having voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the EU-Russia Summit, I still regret that the amendment I proposed as a new recital was rejected by the rapporteur. Therefore I quote it now, ‘whereas Russian Federation did not fulfil any commitments of those undertaken by its accession to the Council of Europe in 1996 and two years ago bluntly denounced already signed new border agreement with EU Member State Estonia, thus leaving this sector of EU-Russia border unregulated up to now; whereas the actual legislation of Russia Federation still contains aggressive positions as that on social privileges for its military servicemen in a case of losses caused or injuries got during armed actions in Baltic States, or that about procedures of accession of foreign states or their parts with Russian Federation’. I am convinced that those positions will be reconsidered by this House later.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − I supported this resolution with a degree of reluctance. Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin have proved difficult of late in a number of areas, especially energy.

Nevertheless, the one issue on which I have some sympathy is their response to the highly contentious US plan to deploy Theatre Missile Defence in the EU supposedly to defend against a scarcely credible threat from Iranian nuclear-tipped ICBMs, but which equally poses threats to Russia’s own defence.

I therefore regret that Amendment No 3, which I voted for, by the Green Group, was defeated by 242 to 362.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) A great deal could be said on this resolution about the recent EU-Russia summit, and we will therefore only mention certain examples concerning its aims.

For example, at the same time as it glosses over the US Administration’s initiatives and profound responsibilities in promoting a new escalation in the militarisation of Europe – with the support of NATO members, it should be noted – it considers that the ‘declarations made by the Russian authorities’ and the ‘[...] inappropriate threat to pull out of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe have raised serious concerns about the preservation of peace and stability on the European continent’.

It more or less directly stresses the essential aspects, for example, which are that Russia has allowed EU companies to buy strategic stakes in Russian companies, the importance of improving the climate for investment in Russia (to the joy of major EU financial groups), and ‘equal access to markets, infrastructure and investment’ on the basis of the principles of the ‘Energy Charter Treaty’.

And in line with the above examples, it maintains the political pressure on the Russian Federation, even seeking to promote intervention instruments, while ignoring the unacceptable situation of the most basic rights of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia, an EU Member State.

  Richard Howitt (PSE), in writing. − The European Parliamentary Labour Party supports this resolution and its aim to build a strategic cooperation with Russia based on common values, democracy and respect for human rights. In particular we support calls for a positive Russian contribution to finding a sustainable political solution on the issue of Kosovo.

We voted in favour of Amendment 3, as there are concerns which should be raised regarding any further build-up of conventional or unconventional weapons on the European continent, and we support continuing bilateral discussions between the US and Russia on this issue.

  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PL) Mr President, the EU-Russia summit in Mafra illustrates the change in relations since the 1990s when the partnership and cooperation agreement, which expires in 2007, was born. Three principal factors have affected these relations.

First of all, European Union enlargement, marking a definitive emancipation of a whole group of countries from the Russian sphere of influence, which the former empire is unwilling to accept.

Secondly, the authoritarian nature of the Putin presidency, which has put back the democratisation of Russia. Although there is wide acceptance of it in Russia and while it provides a basic economic order, the EU cannot remain passive in the face of instances of violations of human rights, which creates an additional area of friction.

Thirdly, the situation in the energy markets, which makes it easier to use Gazprom for political purposes and has also made European countries more sensitive to the issue of energy security.

Taking the above background into consideration, the resolution proposed by the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats provides a balance of criticisms of Russia with hopes for a warmer diplomatic climate, fortified with principles reflecting our system of values. Particularly worthy of notice are the points about respect for human rights as well as a demand, which is important for Poland, for the suspension of the impasse as regards Polish agricultural exports to the Russian market, which is a confirmation of the much-desired solidarity between European Union countries in relations with Moscow.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I voted for the joint motions for a resolution arising out of the EU-Russia Summit, where Parliament, among other things, called on the Russian Government to create, together with the European Union, the necessary conditions for a rapid start to the negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Russia. Other issues covered included Russia’s pending accession to the WTO, human rights issues in Russia, the climate for investment and ongoing concerns over the upholding of the Conventional Forces Europe Treaty.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. − (PT) The 18th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall came after the EU-Russia summit, which was held after this report was discussed but before it was put to the vote. Eighteen years later, what used to be Eastern Europe is now a democratic area in which the market economy is an established feature. Russia, meanwhile, is far from democratic and far from being a reliable partner. In relation to energy, Kosovo, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, Moldova or on the Iranian nuclear issue, Russia’s contribution to the solution has been found wanting.

In the same week the European Council on Foreign Relations presented a report stating that the Russians are making the rules in relations between Russia and the European Union, and that Europe has shown a lack of unity and of strategy, in some cases not appearing to have put memories of the Soviet era behind them, while in others being overly pragmatic. It then rightly suggests that EU strategy should encourage Russia to respect the rule of law. Even though it is not a liberal democracy, Russia must be a predictable and reliable state, and Europe must work hard to that end.

- Report: Iturgaiz Angulo (A6-0392/2007)

  Jan Andersson, Göran Färm, Anna Hedh and Inger Segelström (PSE), in writing. − (SV) We consider the freedom to disclose information to be an important principle. Civil servants should, without risk of reprisal, be able to provide information, obtain information in order to exercise their freedom of expression and freedom to disclose information, have the right to anonymity and an investigation ban which means that authorities and other public bodies are not allowed to investigate who has provided information under the freedom to disclose information.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. − I strongly disagree with the Atkins amendment (Amendment 1 to paragraph 15) to the Committee on Petitions’ report by Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo.

The Ombudsman’s Special Report regarding OLAF concerns the allegations made by the Office against a journalist who covered the story regarding its investigation into allegations made by Mr van Buitenen.

Regardless of whether Mr van Buitenen’s allegations are right or wrong, we should defend the right of journalists to report on matters of public interest, even those who work for newspapers which are not very supportive of our views.

The Ombudsman’s Special Report found that OLAF acted incorrectly in making accusations against a journalist. The Petitions Committee agreed to request an own-initiative report on this issue in order to pressure OLAF into accepting it had acted incorrectly. By voting for the PPE-DE amendment, we will be failing to defend the independence of journalists doing their work, failing to support the Petitions Committee in its work, and failing to support the Ombudsman in his work.

6. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.10 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

7. Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes

8. Situation in Pakistan (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission Declarations on the situation in Pakistan.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we know, the European Union has observed recent developments in Pakistan with great concern, particularly the events leading to the establishment of the state of emergency on 3 November last, and consequently to great social unrest and numerous arrests, including the Chief Justice, who is currently under house arrest.

Have no doubt that this is a serious backward step in the structure of the rule of law and the democratic process in Pakistan, which I would say destroys any hope the Pakistani people and the international community in general may have entertained of strengthening the legitimacy of democratic institutions in Pakistan. This is why the Presidency issued a statement on 6 November on behalf of the Union expressing our profound concern regarding the introduction of the state of emergency and the suspension of the Pakistani constitution and fundamental freedoms.

On 4 November, two days previously, the Heads of Mission in Islamabad and the High Representative, Javier Solana, had expressed their concern at the course of events. Our words, the words of the EU, were thus added to the many others reiterating how important it is to reinstate the Constitution, restore civil order, guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the mass media, release all political prisoners, journalists and defenders of human rights and create the conditions required for the legislative elections to take place as planned, i.e. in January 2008.

We have no doubt that any nation’s stability and development can only be guaranteed in an atmosphere of total democratic credibility. We are seriously concerned by reports of numerous arrests, the boycott on freedom of information, repression of the essential freedom of expression of citizens and attacks on professional people, such as judges, lawyers, journalists and human rights activists. At the same time, however, we appeal strongly for all parties to exercise the utmost restraint and to work together to seek a democratic and peaceful solution to the present crisis that will allow a rapid return to normality.

Although recognising the challenges currently faced by Pakistan in relation to its security situation and the Pakistani people’s sacrifices and efforts in combating extremism and terrorism, the European Union firmly believes that the solution to these challenges cannot involve an interruption in the democratic process.

We cannot, however, fail to acknowledge the ally that we have always been able to count on in this battle against extremism and terrorism. We must therefore ensure that Pakistan remains committed to the battle against this global threat, in which international cooperation is an essential tool.

Finally, the Union hopes that the current climate of uncertainty will be resolved swiftly and peacefully and calls upon President Muscharraf to honour his pledge to remove his military uniform and abandon his position as Chief of Staff.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, Pakistan is on the agenda of this plenary for the third time within a few months. This bears witness to the very difficult transition the country is currently going through. The imposition of emergency law by President Musharraf on 3 November in his capacity as Chief of Army Staff has sent a deeply worrying signal to Europe and the wider world and has damaged the course of democracy in Pakistan.

Before the emergency was imposed we had witnessed some encouraging developments, with hope for a more inclusive political process and stronger democratic institutions, but regrettably this has now been put in question and today we ask ourselves whether this situation is still reversible or whether it is not too late to restore confidence and conditions in advance of the parliamentary elections.

President Musharraf, in his televised address on the night of 3 November, told us that he was suspending the Constitution because of threats to the nation due to a visible ascendancy in the activities and incidence of terrorist attacks. There is no doubt that Pakistan is currently facing a very serious threat of religious extremism and violence as recent events in the North-Western Frontier Province and the attack on Ms Bhutto’s convoy on 18 October in Karachi have clearly demonstrated. But what we are also witnessing now is the arrest of thousands of lawyers, journalists, political party workers and human rights activists, including such distinguished persons as Ms Asma Jahangir, the Chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, or Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

These are people who stand for an open and tolerant Pakistan. They are not terrorists and it is wrong to detain them. They should be set free immediately. I would regard the drastic action taken against Pakistan’s judiciary as particularly serious. Rule of law is at the heart of any democratic process and the functioning democratic system cannot be sustained without an independent judiciary.

The statement by the Presidency, just mentioned also by our President on behalf of the EU, is therefore very clear, and this remains our position. Last Sunday President Musharraf announced at a press conference that he hopes parliamentary elections can be held in Pakistan by 9 January 2008. This would be a step in the right direction but there are a lot of remaining problems. When can we expect the state of emergency to end? How can we have free and fair elections when print and electronic media are censored, other civil rights and liberties suspended and the independence of the judiciary has been undermined? How will parties be able to campaign when freedom of assembly is curtailed and party leaders like Benazir Bhutto are kept under house arrest? These issues are not at all clear at this stage.

To end this uncertainty it is of fundamental importance that a firm date for elections should be announced as soon as possible, along with a clear timeframe for ending the emergency. For these elections to have any chance of being at all democratic and transparent, it will be essential for all restrictions on political rights and fundamental freedoms to be lifted. And, as things stand, at present it seems it will not be possible to deploy an election observation mission. Certain minimum conditions laid down in the Commission communication on EU election assistance and observation for the holding of democratic elections are not met.

However, if the emergency rule was lifted rather quickly and conditions were significantly improved soon, I might yet be able to review the situation. In any case I have made the necessary preparations for possible deployment of an EU election observation mission to Pakistan should the conditions noticeably change for the better quickly. But, as I say, I am very much concerned as to whether this is likely to happen.

There have been calls to suspend or review our aid to Pakistan, and some EU Member States have taken steps or are considering some action in this respect. The European Commission’s support to Pakistan focuses, I would like to remind you, on key issues such as poverty reduction and education, including in the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan, which are the most disadvantaged provinces in Pakistan.

Therefore, I think we will need to consider how best to proceed but, given the nature of this assistance, I think we have to reflect very carefully on that.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, the truth is that the situation is very worrying: suspension of constitutional guarantees, state of emergency, detention of many members of civil society, including lawyers such as Mr Ahsan, who is the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and of opponents, house arrest of the opposition leader Mrs Bhutto. What do we do in this situation?

We have learnt that the Deputy Secretary of State at the US State Department, Mr Negroponte, will shortly visit Pakistan and that one Member State, the United Kingdom, has joined the United Nations in its call for the President to renounce his leadership of the army and lift the state of emergency within ten days.

What can we, as the European Union, do? I believe that as a first step we must act with utmost caution. I believe that the representative of the current Presidency has noted, very correctly, that Pakistan is a vital partner in the fight against terrorism and also a country with nuclear weapons.

I therefore believe that on the one hand the European Union must ask the Government to re-establish as far as possible – because we must not lose sight of the fact that terrorism is a factor in Pakistan, a major factor – to re-establish to some extent order and stability and constitutional rights and freedoms, and to release those people who have been unlawfully detained. Furthermore, Commissioner, I would ask you to marshal your considerable capacities and efforts to ensure that free and fair elections can be held and, on the basis of the guarantees you referred to in your speech, that the European Union is present and has a presence in the process in Pakistan which is so very important for the stability of the region and all relations between that region and the European Union.

Therefore, Commissioner, we have great confidence in your capabilities, great confidence in your diplomatic action, great confidence in your efforts and we hope that they will genuinely have a successful outcome which will allow the European Union to have a presence in the electoral process.

  Robert Evans, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission, especially the Council for its tough declaration on 8 November.

I do not think that anyone would doubt that the situation in Pakistan is very serious and very volatile. It is perhaps hard to register that everything that has been going on has really only taken place in the last ten days or so, since the state of emergency was declared. Several Members here met General Musharraf some months ago, both in Brussels and later in Islamabad, and we received a number of assurances. He was adamant that he would follow the constitution and that free and fair elections would take place. I welcome his announcement that elections can take place by 9 January, but I share the Commissioner’s apprehension and beg the question: in the light of what has gone on and the present emergency measures – the suspension of certain television channels and other human rights – are free and fair elections possible in less than eight weeks’ time?

Whilst I refer to the Commissioner, I would also like to draw her attention in particular to our paragraph 14 of this resolution where we invite the Commission to consider expanding aid to Pakistan for education, poverty reduction, healthcare and relief work, but channelling the funds through secular NGOs rather than directly to the government under these circumstances.

We have no issue with the Pakistan people. We recognise that Pakistan is a key ally of the West, as Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra said. We recognise the important role they played in many, many areas and that they have also been victims of terrorism. But I do not think, colleagues, that means we should stand aside and ignore what is happening at the moment. My group also wanted to have a paragraph in about possible sanctions, inviting the Council ...

(The President asked the speaker to speak more slowly)

I thought I was speaking such clear English that they would manage perfectly but I will, of course, slow down.

I am also inviting the Council to consider targeted sanctions, which is what the Socialist Group would have liked to have done but we did not get any support for it: travel bans perhaps, the freezing of assets. But we hope all of this will not be necessary and we hope that Pakistan can still come back from the brink, that the state of emergency can be withdrawn and that General Musharraf will step down as Chief of Army. Mr President, my apologies for going too quickly.

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Pakistan is a vital ally for the European Union. Today we find that Pakistan finds itself at a crossroads. But I believe that it wants to engage with us and we have re-established a recent history of engagement with Pakistan, which I understand is progressing reasonably successfully.

But we must not forget the historical context in which we find ourselves today. I know Pakistan reasonably well and by far the biggest issue and problem facing Pakistan internally today is the terrorist threat coming from across the border in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a common global problem. We in the West turned our backs on Afghanistan some years ago. It is important that we do not turn our back on Pakistan today.

Pakistan has been at the forefront of this battle, sometimes carrying a very heavy burden on behalf of the international community, a heavy burden sometimes carried on weak shoulders, a burden the people of Pakistan have carried, absorbing so much violence and carnage which would otherwise have made its way into other parts of the world. The solution is not to isolate liberals and liberal values and to take away those liberal values from the people of Pakistan.

Today I see that the Commission has again called for the release of prisoners who are currently being held and I support that call. This includes people like the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and indeed Mr Aitzaz Ahsan, who is a leading lawyer in Pakistan. The President of Pakistan must – and these must be our baselines – end the state of emergency immediately. He must reinstate the Constitution. He must reinstate the Supreme Court and he must move towards free and fair elections.

President Musharraf should recognise that we have not turned our back on Pakistan. We remain engaged. It is now time for him to roll back from his current position, to acknowledge our core values, to make them shared values. In a distinct way, despite the desperate situation, he has a unique opportunity even now to deliver power to the people of Pakistan, the true custodians of that power.

  Eoin Ryan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I too recognise the importance of Pakistan to all of us in the fight against terrorism and it has been an ally to all of us in that fight. However, I do not believe for one minute that it justifies in any circumstances what has happened in Pakistan in recent weeks.

Any deviation from the general democratic process cannot be a solution to solve political problems within Pakistan. One of the things that really worries me about this is why he did it: because he was afraid that he was not going to get the decision from the Supreme Court that he expected or that he wanted. It is a fairly trivial matter in one way and it seems that he has gone to extreme measures in his dealings with the people in Pakistan, with the judiciary in Pakistan, in the way he has dealt with it, which is extremely dangerous.

I welcome the fact that he has given a commitment that he will hold elections, but the international community must not allow him to turn his back on this commitment. The state of emergency in Pakistan must be lifted immediately and the Government of Pakistan must respect the boundaries of its Constitution. The scrapping of the Supreme Court did immeasurable damage to the separation of power systems within Pakistan. It is a very, very poor example for the General to have undertaken. I fully condemn the wholesale arrest of political opponents of the General, which include 3 000 peaceful protestors and civilian and human right activists.

The European Parliament today must send a very strong message out to General Musharraf that his recent actions violate all respected international conventions and he is moving Pakistan in a very negative and very dangerous direction.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, like many others, I think we are here with a deep sense of regret and a certain feeling of anger that, once again, we are having to discuss the situation in Pakistan. I would agree with virtually everything that has been said this afternoon. We are in a serious situation, not least because this is a nuclear state and the risk of a failed nuclear state is one that should make us all feel very nervous indeed.

People are right to say that the power to step back from the brink here is basically with President Musharraf and his supporters. This idea that there is a state of emergency but the elections should go ahead undisturbed does not hold water. It is certainly not an undisturbed election if the leaders of the other political parties are under house arrest or in jail. If there is no freedom of the press, if people cannot even get satellite dishes because imports of those have now been banned, then there are no circumstances for free and fair elections whatsoever.

It is clear that we want the release of all those political prisoners, that we want freedom of the press and we want the judiciary to be able to operate freely because, if all those with stated commitments to democracy are locked up, who else is left out on the streets? The message that is being sent by the actions of the Government in Pakistan at the moment is therefore extremely worrying for a state that says it is committed to democracy.

I would agree with what Mr Robert Evans has said. We do need to have certain sanctions ready for use if the deadline of 22 November set by the Commonwealth and the UN is not observed and we do not see President Musharraf stand down as military leader or, indeed, an end to the state of emergency.

We should be supporting Amnesty International’s Day of Action tomorrow to remember the political prisoners held in Pakistan, and we certainly need to be looking at aid and the way in which it is spent. Pakistan has had USD 10 billion dollars of aid from the USA in about the last five or six years, mostly for anti-terrorism measures, and not for the maintenance and development of education.

  Georgios Georgiou, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (EL) Mr President, I have seen that the entire western world, with the United States at the forefront, is demanding an earlier election in Pakistan. They want an election before the opposition is out of prison and Mr Ahsan, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, is released from house arrest.

The consequences will certainly be felt in Pakistan. There will also inevitably be political instability and a negative impact on the economy of a country that is in a bad enough situation already. The crisis is likely to have other repercussions at regional level, and wider developments affecting stability throughout Asia. I find it impossible to disassociate developments in Pakistan and Kashmir from those in Afghanistan.

I propose that the EU should insist on securing Pakistan’s considerable nuclear arsenal, if necessary through the UN, at least until the country returns to its former political and, if possible, democratic state.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, for years now we and the rest of the western world have thought of Pakistan as an important ally. The threat of terrorism and the Pakistani Government’s promises and hardline rhetoric with regard to stopping this threat have also been words of assurance to the EU. There have, however, been too many drawbacks associated with this alliance and mutual solidarity. Now at last it is time to open our eyes.

The state of emergency declared by General Musharraf on the third day, a crack in Pakistan’s constitution, is just the tip of the iceberg, which we gave warning about here in July and October. The society has been gradually militarised over the years, and the litmus test for the state of human rights, freedom of religion and the rights of minorities, has shown that these are restricted. Instead of Pakistan getting itself ready for the triumphal march of democracy this year, there have been clear signs of a hardening dictatorial system of government. The arrests of members of the opposition, the disruption of the work of the Supreme Court, the refusal to allow one opposition leader into the country and the house arrest of another, the detention of a UN representative, and the violence used by the authorities against peaceful demonstrators all show that Pakistan is on the brink of a precipice.

Commissioner, the EU should now send the strong and united message that it is popular democratic power and a society that respects human rights, and not an army, which is the strongest barrier to the rise to power of radical groups. We understand that the country has internal threats to its security and that there has to be a response to these, but democracy is not a threat to security. Democracy is also precisely the answer in the struggle against talebanisation. The EU must dare to speak up and say that we see the building of a stable and democratic society as being crucial to our alliance. The first step for Pakistan’s stability is to guarantee that the Supreme Court can work independently and in peace. Then there are the parliamentary elections in January. The supply of international assistance to the authorities in the investigation into the bomb attack in October would show our concern. A society which is at least officially constitutional, with long democratic traditions and where the people have a genuine desire for democracy, peace and stability, will not give up that easily. Pakistan is, therefore, full of hope.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – (CS) Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the long-term experience of many countries shows that the rule of law and democracy are the best and most effective way of preventing extremism, instability and chaos. Seen from this angle, President Musharraf’s decision to declare a state of emergency is a serious mistake and gaffe. Pakistan is not a country without democratic traditions: on the contrary, as seen from the courageous and responsible conduct of Pakistani judges, lawyers, journalists and other representatives of non-governmental organisations, civil society has deep and strong roots in Pakistan. However, this civil society needs help. We therefore appeal to President Musharraf to end the state of emergency, to release all political prisoners and to restore all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including freedom of movement, speech, association and assembly, so that truly democratic, free and transparent parliamentary elections can be held at the beginning of next year.

  Neena Gill (PSE). – Mr President, the last couple of weeks have been a rollercoaster of shocking events in this turbulent and troubled country. The imposition of martial law in the guise of emergency rule is an underhand attempt to destabilise Pakistan for the personal ambition of one man.

President Musharraf justifies his actions as an attempt to stop the country from committing suicide, but it is not that the country is committing suicide but that the actions and deeds of a dictator are killing the country.

It is totally unacceptable that the leader of the opposition, Benazir Bhutto, has been put under house arrest and banned from political activity and that other activists and the media and independent judiciary have all been muzzled.

While recognising that there are real threats from extremists within the country, I believe that General Musharraf’s actions will only embolden the extremists instead of eradicating them and will serve only to weaken the democratic and moderate voices within the country.

Some say that Pakistan is on the brink of collapse. We must prevent this by giving a strong response. Moderate people in Pakistan are feeling frustrated and angry and they are disappointed by Europe’s soft response.

Therefore I call upon Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and the Council to give an unequivocal, clear message to the President about the severe consequences if the suppression of the constitution, of politicians, of the media and of the judiciary does not end immediately.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, almost all the previous speakers have made the point that the declaration of a state of emergency in Pakistan and the way in which it was done is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable that Musharraf should show such a cavalier disregard for democracy.

Moreover, this state of emergency aggravates a serious problem still further because in a manner of speaking it opens up a second front, that of Islamic terrorism.

As you know, there is already plenty about Musharraf’s regime to criticise: it is ineffectual in its measures against the Taliban, for example, and groups associated with Al-Qaeda which are operating along the border with Afghanistan. Well, declaring a state of emergency has opened the door to terror organisations of this kind and the situation can only get worse as a result.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank the European Parliament for scheduling this debate, which, in view of the situation in Pakistan and the cooperation we have had with that country in such an important battle against extremism and terrorism, is very opportune indeed.

We cannot and will not remain indifferent to a country like Pakistan. This debate also shows that the three institutions, Parliament, the Council and the Commission, share the same fundamental and immediate objectives, i.e. the rapid and complete restoration of the rule of law and democratic freedoms in Pakistan and the holding of free and democratic elections. This is the goal that unites us and the goal that we must all work towards, particularly the three institutions, in the area of our respective competences and powers.

I would also like to say that in the capacity of the Presidency we also understand, as the Commissioner has said here, that any measures that might lead to a possible suspension of cooperation affecting a population which is already suffering many shortages must be considered and examined with care. The people of Pakistan have already suffered enough and must not suffer further. This too is a question that must be considered with some care, should it arise.

Whatever the case, our objectives are now clear and defined, and I can assure you that the Presidency and the Council will take all the initiatives and measures deemed appropriate to respond to developments in the situation.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think it has been shown very clearly that we all feel that what has happened is very difficult to understand. It is very serious. We are all concerned, because the imposition of emergency rule has greatly endangered the strengthening of democratic institutions and the building of a more inclusive democratic process. It is therefore of fundamental importance that civil and political rights are fully restored, media restrictions withdrawn and essential improvements made to the framework and conditions for elections. Stability and development can only be achieved with democracy and the rule of law.

We therefore have to reflect further on the question of a possible election observation mission. As I said, we might be able to send a smaller team of advisers to follow the process under the current circumstances. If not, as I said, the state of emergency would have to be lifted very quickly and civil liberties restored.

With regard to aid, let me say that we had already substantially increased our aid to Pakistan, particularly in the fields of education and rural development. Therefore, as I said before, I think at this stage we must sit back, wait for a moment, and judge very carefully. Of course we should not endanger the poor people in Pakistan, but we have to go about things in the right way.

  President. − To wind up the debate I have received seven motions for a resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 November 2007.

Written declarations (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. – Pakistan is a vital ally in the war on terror. As a result it has faced enormous internal pressure and threatened instability. President Musharaff has responded to this situation by declaring a state of emergency.

He argues that an abnormal situation requires abnormal actions. His response is in part understandable but quite wrong. The way to fight anti-democratic forces is with democracy. He should end the state of emergency, announce a date for elections and a date on which he will give up his uniform. He should then call for an open and wideranging debate about the future of Pakistan.

I am convinced such a debate would reveal that the vast majority of Pakistanis reject extremism and fundamentalism and wish to live in a country at peace with itself, at peace with it's neighbours and on good terms with the West.

(1) see Minutes.

9. Council's strategy for the Bali Conference on Climate Change (COP 13 and COP/MOP 3) (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on

- the oral question on the Council’s strategy for the Bali Conference on Climate Change (COP 13 and COP/MOP 3), by Guido Sacconi, on behalf of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change to the Council (O-0057/2007 - B6-0379/2007), and

- the oral question on the Council’s strategy for the Bali Conference on Climate Change (COP 13 and COP/MOP 3), by Guido Sacconi, on behalf of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change to the Council (O-0058/2007 - B6-0380/2007).

  Guido Sacconi (PSE), author. – (IT) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure that I do not need to remind you of the importance of the Conference of the Parties in Bali which is now imminent and in view of which we have asked for further information on your strategy, on the line that you intend to take.

As the European Union, we are independently committed to an extraordinary effort, if I may put it that way, even though we know that it does not represent the ultimate solution. Our shared goal is to keep global warming within two degrees of levels in pre-industrial times, fully aware that this is a high-risk threshold, and that it will be necessary for some areas of the world, for some parts of Europe, to make provision, as planned, for a policy of adaptation. If we really want to pursue this difficult goal, however, we know that a new international treaty is absolutely crucial.

As we know, the European Union’s burden of responsibility is limited (14% of global greenhouse gas emissions). A new international treaty taking account of the changes that have taken place since Kyoto, in particular the extraordinary and explosive growth of the Asian giants: indeed, Bali is a crucial step in that direction, and while it will not be the place at which agreement is reached, it will be the place at which negotiations will start and it will therefore be very important for Bali to come up with a clear negotiating mandate, with precise deadlines, with a view to conclusion by 2009.

In recent months, the world context has changed from the political, economic and cultural point of view, from the IPCC reports whose final synthesis will be released at the end of this week, and is to be presented in Valencia, to the award of the Nobel Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC’s scientists. A great deal has changed in recent months and we can therefore be optimistic, albeit in a critical and vigilant way.

I would therefore like to sum up the purport of the resolution which we have drawn up and which we are sure will be adopted in this House tomorrow by a large majority; it is an offering, an offering to the negotiators to help them to take a tougher line as these negotiations are being launched. I would like to thank Mrs Hassi who, with the other rapporteurs, has managed to provide a synthesis, to prevent the whole thing from becoming an overdressed Christmas tree. The focus is very much on those negotiations and that is how we put it before you.

  Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), author. – (FI) Mr President, I wish to express my thanks for the excellent levels of cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs of the political groups in the negotiations on this resolution. Climate change is happening now, and it is advancing more quickly than predicted. A dramatic indication of this was that at the end of last summer a million square meters of the ice in the Arctic Ocean melted, an area the equivalent of Finland, Sweden and Norway combined. The message the scientists are sending out about the advance of climate change and the urgent need to cut emissions is becoming an ever more alarming one. It is also echoed in the advance information on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting in Valencia this week.

It is important that there is no gap left between the Kyoto Protocol and the next climate agreement. That is why the post-2012 treaty must be ready no later than 2009. At Bali the EU must do all it can to achieve a negotiating mandate to allow global warming to remain under two degrees. The leading role assumed by the EU is crucial to this. We are showing the way with our own measures to reduce our own emissions, but also by coordinating international negotiations. It is vital to get all the industrialised countries involved, including the United States of America, although that will not be enough to save the climate. It is just as crucial to get big developing countries, such as China and India, to accept limits on the increase in their emissions. This is perhaps the hardest challenge in the history of international diplomacy. We have to understand that if China, India and other similar countries accept limits to their emissions, it will mean a huge change in their way of thinking and the way they do things. We have to be prepared to give them something back in return. In other words, we also have to provide financial assistance for the breakthrough in clean, climate-friendly technology in these countries.

I would like to remind everyone that Nicholas Stern estimated that 1% of global gross domestic product each year would be needed to protect the climate. After the Second World War the United States delivered 2% of their GDP in the form of Marshall Plan aid. It was important to get reconstruction under way after the war, but it is still more important to prevent a comparable catastrophe as a result of climate change. We must therefore also be prepared to pay for climate protection.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the time is approaching when the Indonesian island of Bali will welcome delegates to the 13th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change, who will be asked once again to use their experience and negotiating skills to make history.

In light of the first period of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, from 2008 to 2012, the worrying scientific information that has emerged meanwhile on recent developments in relation to climate change highlights how urgent it is to find a collective and effective response to this challenge, since the very future of our planet is at stake. In this context Bali is the final opportunity to launch negotiations on a global and comprehensive agreement on the post-2012 climate regime. We are aware of the difficulties of this judicial process.

The European Union will go to Bali with the same sense of purpose that has guided it over the last 15 years, during which we unhesitatingly and unambiguously took on the role of leader of the international community in this great global challenge. The European Union's major objective at the Bali Conference on climate change will relate to the process itself, i.e. to ensure that a global and comprehensive negotiating process is set in motion.

I would also like to inform you that the EU considers the following aspects to be essential for creating an effective and appropriate post-2012 framework: firstly, to continue to develop a common perspective on the problem so as to achieve the Convention’s major objective; secondly, to reach agreement on the adoption of firmer commitments by the developed countries as regards global emission reductions; thirdly, to facilitate the provision of new equitable and effective contributions by other countries, including incentives created by new types of flexible commitments to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions associated with economic development; fourthly, to expand the carbon market, particularly by reinforcing innovative and flexible mechanisms; fifthly, to reinforce cooperation in the areas of research, development, dissemination, forecasting and transparency in the technological sector; and finally, to intensify efforts to adapt, particularly as regards risk management tools, financing and technology.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the figures speak for themselves. We were on the front line in Kyoto in making greater commitments than were asked of us, and today the EU and its Member States have clearly defined ambitious targets that again put us on the front line in combatting climate change. As the President-in-Office of the European Council emphasised in New York, climate change is now undeniably one of the greatest challenges facing humanity, and has moved from the realm of theory to become an effective and widespread concern for the people of the entire world.

This is a global challenge that requires a global response, the effectiveness of which will depend on the international community’s collective action. That is why we insist that every effort must be made to negotiate the global comprehensive agreement, as I said, under the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change, which represents and must continue to represent the central and essential reference framework for all actions and initiatives to be taken in this area.

It is therefore time for other states to assume their responsibilities and to play a real and proportionate role in the global battle against climate change. Encouraged by the debate between the Heads of State and Government at the recent Lisbon Informal Summit on Europe and globalisation, which clearly showed that climate change is an EU priority area, and also by the Environment Committee’s 30 October conclusions on the preparation of COP 23, we will go to Bali committed to contributing actively to achieving a result that can be translated into concrete, perceptible progress on the future of the climate regime. Bali represents not the end but rather the beginning of a journey, the ‘road map’ that has been talked about so much in recent years. It is a complex and difficult challenge, but one that can be achieved and that cannot be put off. The EU for its part is prepared to lead this challenge, since that is what our people want.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, thank you for the opportunity we have had today to exchange views on the EU’s position at the UN Conference in Bali opening on 3 December.

The Commission and the European Parliament made a decisive contribution towards adopting an ambitious European policy on climate change. It took a leading role on the international scene and a constructive position with regard to our main partners among developed and developing countries. I look forward to continuing this close and fruitful cooperation in Bali, where Parliament will be represented by a strong delegation.

The question submitted by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change concerns the most important issues we will be facing in Bali.

One such issue is how to secure the support of our main partners for starting negotiations, with a view to concluding an international agreement that will aim to ensure that global warming is limited to 2°C.

The Bali Conference will undoubtedly be a milestone in the international endeavour to combat climate change. Bali will be a first practical test of the international community’s determination to translate political declarations into action.

There are many encouraging signs. Climate change is now a first priority in international policy; it is an issue of direct concern to Heads of State or Government around the world. A month ago, the first meeting of its kind, called by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York, sent out a very powerful message: climate change is now recognised by all leaders throughout the world as an issue requiring urgent and decisive action by the international community.

The recent meeting in Bogor also confirmed that there is a shared view among a steadily growing number of countries that an agreement must be reached in Bali on starting official negotiations aimed at concluding an agreement on climate change for the period after 2012.

The discussions so far have also shown that there is a convergence of views on the main points to be included in the agreement for the period after 2012. Of course, some would prefer clusters (reduction, adaptation, technology, funding) to establishing the main points of agreement at Bali, which is the position held by the EU.

It is nevertheless true that the EU has to large extent managed to set the agenda for the Bali Conference. The EU strategy on climate and energy, approved by the European Council in March 2007 on the basis of a related motion from the Commission, has had a decisive effect on the aims and level of ambition of the Bali Conference as well as the architecture of the post-2012 agreement on climate change.

The EU strategy has formed a basis for a series of multilateral and bilateral discussions. At the end of this month, the EU will discuss the issue of climate change as a matter of priority at the EU-China and EU-India summit conferences. It is up to our partners in the developed countries to respond to and cooperate on the targets set by the EU, acting at all times on the basis of scientific data.

The developed countries must continue to take the lead by making ambitious commitments to reduce emissions in absolute terms. We have the economic and technological means to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If we and the other developed countries do not take the first steps, how can we expect the rapidly developing, emerging economies to take action, especially on the scale required?

Nevertheless, the forecasts for emission increases worldwide leave no doubt that the developing countries must contribute. We are not asking them for the time being to commit themselves to emission reductions in absolute terms. However, with our help the developing countries must slow the rate of increase in their emissions. Thus on a global scale, at some point in the next 10-15 years, once we have reached a peak in CO2 emissions these can begin to decrease in absolute terms.

This is the only way we can keep the increase in the average temperature of the planet within the limit of 2°C. In this context, we must focus on specific proposals to strengthen funding and investments in clean technologies and the transfer of these technologies to developing countries.

We therefore support the initiative of our Indonesian hosts to invite finance ministers to a meeting on climate change and funding, to be held in Bali during the Conference.

To retain its leading role internationally, the EU must above all achieve results within its own territory. The Commission will approve the package of measures on climate and energy at the beginning of next year and will plan the necessary measures for achieving our targets, namely a unilateral reduction in emissions of 20%, or 30% if an international agreement is achieved.

This package of measures will include proposals on the allocation of responsibility and obligations among the Member States in order to improve the EU Emissions Trading System and achieve the targets for renewable energy sources.

Measures to be taken at Community level must also play a part in reducing emissions. One such area is our forthcoming proposals on CO2 and motor vehicles, as discussed in the European Parliament at the October plenary session.

The Commission will propose a legislative framework for achieving the Community target of 120 g/km by 2012. The Commission will also present the legal framework for capturing and storing CO2, with the necessary guarantees on environmental protection.

Bali is only the start of the negotiation process, as the President said earlier. We must now prepare and secure the widest possible international support for the way ahead that we have planned.

The EU will intensify bilateral contacts with major partners and will take full advantage of the forthcoming summits as well as all the important international meetings.

As I have said before, despite encouraging signs internationally, there are nevertheless serious differences of opinion. For instance, there is disagreement on how to combat climate change, and in particular the type and nature of the targets. The US is continuing to oppose binding targets.

Targets of this kind are of fundamental importance if we wish to ensure the effectiveness of our agreement and the strengthening of the global CO2 market. We shall continue to cooperate with all those in the United States who can help towards bringing about a change of attitude at federal level.

In the United States itself, a very lively dialogue is already being conducted on the issue of combating climate change. From various sections of the United States we are receiving clear messages and appeals for decisive action in the run-up to the Bali Conference.

Through your various contacts with colleagues in other parliaments around the world, with representatives of industry and with civil society, we are counting on the support of the European Parliament in promoting the EU’s ambitious aims regarding the issue of climate change.

We need this support in our efforts to strengthen international cooperation on climate change.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-President

  Eija-Riitta Korhola, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (FI) Madame President, first of all my sincere thanks go to Mrs Hassi for her cooperation on this resolution. Obviously this is perhaps going to be one of the most important, if not the most important, conferences on climate change. Unfortunately, not much progress was made in the last five conferences. Now at last the time has come to decide upon concrete measures for the period after 2012.

What all the earlier conferences have had in common is that, instead of souvenirs in the shape of real breakthroughs, we have seen a pat on the back for the EU for leading the way in its unilateral actions and environmental aspirations, and then off we go again for another year. The problem is that global measures are needed urgently for what is a global climate problem, although they have seemed difficult to produce. For example, a year ago Nairobi failed to show any indication that there would be commitment from any of the important new countries to emissions cuts from 2013. We have therefore had to hope that negotiations outside the Kyoto Protocol framework will result in emissions cuts among the world’s four largest polluters, the United States of America, China, India and Russia.

Perhaps the most tangible challenge for developing countries is the notion of solidarity. At one time no one could have foreseen the extent to which emissions would start to increase, and now around half of all emissions come from the developing countries, mainly China and India. Of course their citizens have a right to economic growth, but it is in everyone’s interests that that growth be as clean as possible. The negotiating situation is thus awkward, but then also is the practice. It may tempt companies operating in global markets to continue to invest in places where there are not proper environmental standards or emissions limits. For people in the developing world, however, there is no solidarity in having their environment contaminated. Furthermore, to move emissions is not to cut them. The outcome, then, is that three out of every four emissions are increasing rapidly. How do we move forward from this situation? Will there be time to decouple industrial production from country-specific restrictions and instead produce a worldwide scheme for the industrial sector and an international carbon economy? The priorities should be energy content, eco-efficiency and low-emission technology and its development.

  Elisa Ferreira, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will begin by sincerely congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Hassi, for her opening text and for her capacity to generate commitments on this complex issue.

The text to be put to the vote reflects the genuine effort made by the various political groups to send a clear, effective and mobilising message to Bali. This is the only way to ensure the conditions for achieving the central objective, which is to transform the Bali meeting into the departure point for all global partners to assume clear and quantified policy commitments for combating climate change by 2009.

Everyone has had to make sacrifices and adjustments. The objective will have been achieved if this text is widely approved by Parliament. That will give democratic legitimacy to the EU’s pioneering spirit in the area of the environment and climate in the eyes of the whole world. This pioneering spirit has created added responsibilities, however, particularly as regards the quality of the specific proposals presented, which must meanwhile include both reductions and adaptations. Account must be taken in particular of the fact that the greatest adaptation costs are now falling upon the poorest regions of the world that have contributed least to the problem and which are least equipped to resolve it. The proposals must meanwhile ensure that the various international reduction responsibilities are distributed equitably, proportionally and fairly.

Environmental commitments will have to be adjusted to the development process the poorest countries and regions are entitled to, including access to normal standards of well-being and comfort, whether for the less developed countries or for the huge populations in the emerging economies. While the pioneering European approach is a duty, it should nevertheless also be seen as an opportunity to gain environment-related technological and innovative comparative advantages. This will only materialise, however, if environmental concerns and commitments gradually become the rule of operation of the global economy. If not, the EU’s good practices will distort competition and disappoint its citizens.

In this context Parliament makes the practical suggestion that national commitments should be complemented by the exploration of global sectoral commitments with a view to creating benchmarks and internationally accepted good practices for all sectors of industry and services involved in international competition. This is a very ambitious agenda, but the EU must assume the responsibilities corresponding to its role of positive leadership which is so very important for the survival of the planet.

  Lena Ek, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, the start of negotiations for what will become the new Kyoto Agreement in Bali in December is, of course, extremely important. Parliament is preparing itself though this debate and a resolution, and the Council has also prepared itself through a resolution. What is still lacking, I believe, is clearer cooperation between the EU’s various institutions. A big responsibility rests here with the Portuguese Presidency. The European Union must speak with one voice in Bali.

An important element is how the situation of developing countries is to be managed and how they are to be able to combine economic development with environmentally friendly technology. They need our assistance. Not only in fine words, but they need money, methodological development and access to new technology. We need to focus our efforts on various policy areas and the aid must be changed so that it is also climate friendly.

Part of the solution also depends on the second point I intended to mention in the debate – forests. Large areas are being devastated today and we all know what that means for the climate. But it is also a catastrophe for the people who live in these areas when their livelihoods disappear. A method of working must be developed in which we pay developing countries and ordinary families to look after and take care of forest areas. Sustainable production is extremely important. A completely untouched forest is good from the point of view of biodiversity, but a rotting forest emits large volumes of methane gas. What we need is a growing forest where the final product is taken care of in a way that locks in the CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Bali will be a big, difficult and chaotic meeting. The best we can do is prepare ourselves well so that the actual start of the negotiations is good. For that this debate is an excellent tool, but we must also make preparations together with our friends through a strong transatlantic dialogue and dialogue with China and India. We know that 25 states emit 83% of the gases we need to stop and, Commissioner, Minister, a true friend is a person who asks how you are doing and also stops to listen to the answer.

  Liam Aylward, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Madam President, can I too congratulate Mrs Hassi on her work and contribution to this debate.

I also want to congratulate Al Gore, the former Vice-President of America, for being recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his sterling work in highlighting the need for international action to arrest climate change.

Receipt of this prize is an international recognition that climate change has risen to the top of the international political agenda. It is international action that is now needed, so that we can all collectively ensure that carbon dioxide emissions are substantially reduced in the near future. I thus fully support the 20/20 and 50/50 EU commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

Bali represents a real window of opportunity for us to agree an official mandate and framework in order to secure clear and firm international commitments for post-2012.

In Bali let the foundations of the building blocks and road map commence, based on: a shared vision; firm commitments from developed countries; the expansion of the use of carbon markets; the strengthening of cooperation on technological research and the reduction of deforestation. Also, let us not forget that the EU needs to deliver here at home and to lead by example.

Therefore, I look forward to President Pöttering’s proposal in February on how this House, the European Parliament, can itself reduce its carbon footprint.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, it has become standard practice in the European Union, as we heard again today from the President-in-Office of the Council, to speak of a leading European role in the international effort to combat climate change. When I cast my mind back to March and the decisions taken at the summit to set targets of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions, a 20% increase in energy efficiency and a 20% renewables quota by 2020, that does indeed sound like a leading role.

I find it highly regrettable that negotiations with the Member States on the energy package did not progress far enough for us to underpin these summit decisions in Brussels prior to the Bali conference. If the countries with which the EU intends to negotiate in Bali take a look behind the European scenes and see the arduous nature of the negotiations with the Member States on energy efficiency and renewables, they will realise that the whole business has been nothing short of a tragedy. I believe it is an ominous sign when we demand giant strides on the global stage but are only prepared to tiptoe forward cautiously at home. It is not as if a lack of technology were a problem for us. Our problem is that we totally lack the political courage to effect the sea change that was discussed in March in our energy and resource policies.

I have to say that, when the Reul report was adopted at the last Plenary part-session, I was horrified to hear that we were back to talking about nothing but coal and nuclear-power options, and it fills me with utter shame that Europeans should now be offering African countries nuclear power as a solution to climate problems. I believe some Europeans must have taken leave of their senses.

  Roberta Musacchio, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (IT) Madam President, the text before this House is the result of collective work by the Climate Committee. That committee, set up on ad hoc basis with a mandate of great importance, has undertaken major consultation and discussion initiatives, and has drawn up an instrument which Europe can use to play a major role in the thirteenth Conference of the Parties in Bali.

The crux of the policy proposal is clear and forceful. What is needed is a political and multilateral approach which is based on the UN, and takes account of the IPCC and major changes not just in technology but also in the social model. Technology transfers, cooperation and a new environmental and development approach are needed. The proposal of 3.20% by the Commission and the Council is only a starting point in this sense, albeit a positive one. Our thinking needs to be wide-ranging and forward-looking, and frankly the future cannot involve a return to technologies of the past which are old, dangerous and controversial, such as nuclear technology.

We also need to start thinking about innovative proposals that we ourselves have put forward in our parliamentary debate and which are now being taken up in a more authoritative way by leading figures such as Chancellor Merkel. I am speaking of the per capita calculation of emissions, which we have proposed, together with Mr Prodi, and which is very important in the light of the current situation in which there now seems to be an inequality in emissions and in which those emissions all have to be reduced in an egalitarian way.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Madam President, may I make the following points on behalf of my colleague, Hans Blokland.

To begin with I must thank Satu Hassi most warmly for all the important work she has done to arrive at the resolution now before us. In view of the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Bali it is important to record the European Parliament's position on climate policy as concisely as possible, and Satu Hassi has done just that.

Now that the European Union is focusing hard on climate policy, it is time for other parts of the world to follow suit, including those countries which have not yet ratified the Kyoto Agreement. In Bali the European Union should demonstrate its credentials as a leader, not paternalistically but in a spirit of cooperation.

I see the Bali conference as a perfect opportunity for us all to sit down together and consider what action is needed on climate policy after 2012. It will take joint efforts worldwide to preserve the quality of our world and safeguard our future.

  Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, allow me to extend a warm welcome to Stavros Dimas. We look forward to our discussions with you in Bali about the path that Europe intends to pursue in the field of climate policy.

I see the pursuit of climate policy as a challenge for all of us. It is not the preserve of misty-eyed environmentalists or of liberal merchants but a challenge to which we must all respond together, and the Temporary Committee on Climate Change is starting to do just that. Not everyone appreciates this yet, but we have nevertheless made a good start.

Bali is a milestone – no doubt about that. A post-Bali gap, which would also be a post-Kyoto gap, would be a disaster, not only for the environment but also in terms of economic policy, because industry cannot invest without hard and fast data. It is also a matter of where we stand at the present time and what we actually have to offer in Bali, for we must have something to offer, otherwise we cannot expect other continents to join us in a common effort to solve the problem.

This is why it is right and proper that we should be committed to making offers here. Three times twenty per cent amounts to a great deal, and we would be happy to hit these targets. I still see major obstacles ahead, to be sure, but we shall make it. Besides, precisely because we need to set a good example, I do believe we shall arrive at a European environmental foreign policy that serves to influence the search for answers to questions such as why these huge conflagrations break out across the globe, producing more CO2 than all of Europe’s power stations put together.

I believe Europe has to get involved here, and we are well on the way to doing so, and then Americans within the United States – not necessarily through their government – will be given a positive stimulus to move forward too. That is precisely where we are heading. I regard climate change entirely as a golden economic opportunity. If we do not take it, others surely will.

  Riitta Myller (PSE). – (FI) Madam President, the credibility of the leadership shown by the European Union in the area of climate policy will be measured in December in Bali. The result must be global will in the shape of a clear mandate to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising by more than two degrees. The European Union has already made its own decisions. If the goal is to be achieved, however, it will take the commitment of all the industrialised countries, the United States and Australia for example, to quantitative cuts in emissions.

We can no longer afford to have the sort of debate we have had up to now as to whether we should reach this target through technological development or by setting binding targets. We need both. Only binding targets and adequately stringent emissions targets, however, will make companies switch to cleaner and more environmentally friendly technology. We have to remember, as has been said here, that to get all the parties to adopt the treaty will take solidarity, especially with the developing countries, which are the worst off of all. We also need, however, to reach a clear negotiating position with developing countries, such as China and India, on quantitative reductions in emissions in the future.

Again I would like to thank all those who have been involved in drafting this resolution for Parliament, and especially Mrs Hassi and the groups’ negotiators. You have done some excellent work.

  Vittorio Prodi (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a word of welcome to Commissioner Dimas, who will be on the front line in Bali. Global warming is an urgent, very serious and genuinely global problem in respect of which a global consensus is urgently needed. That makes it necessary immediately to put forward proposals to control greenhouse gas emissions which are more equitable and more widely accepted than those of the Kyoto protocol based on the principle of ‘grandfathering’, i.e. ‘whoever has polluted most, can continue to pollute most’. That is unacceptable.

For that reason I think that we have to put forward a bolder proposal. I tabled an amendment, as has already been pointed out, which can be summarised in slogan form as ‘one person, one right of emission’, something suggested by Germany’s Professor Lutz and also welcomed by Chancellor Merkel.

If every person is to be given the same right of behaviour, the same access to natural resources, it is important for Parliament to support this process which, from the point of view of the emissions trading mechanism, could bring the developing peoples a quantity of resources of an order of magnitude greater than that of international cooperation and easier to control. In return, that would also require a commitment to respect carbon deposits such as the equatorial forests.

The principle of equity should provide a baseline for a gradual improvement that has to start from a baseline if emission figures admissible in 2050 are to be calculated. It is therefore crucial for ‘grandfathering’ to be gradually reduced. It is precisely because the matter is so serious and urgent that we have to set matters in motion so that that final outcome can be swiftly achieved.

  Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, one of the most effective strategies the EU can employ in Bali is to lead by example. The first piece of new European climate legislation to be decided upon since the March Council is the inclusion of aviation in the Emissions Trading System. So the outcome of that is vitally important, not only in itself but for the signal that it sends to others at the Bali Conference about whether the EU is genuinely serious about its climate change commitments.

So far, frankly, the outlook is pretty grim. The Commission’s initial proposal was hopelessly weak and the fact that the Council has been unable to reach a common mandate for a first reading agreement sends extremely negative messages. I therefore urge both the Council and the Commission to raise their game substantially and quickly.

Success in Bali also depends critically on whether equity is at the heart of any new agreement. That is why proposals must be based on convergence towards equal per capita emission rights, such as the approach known as ‘contraction and convergence’. I urge the Council and Commission to follow that approach.

Finally, I would caution against an over-reliance on carbon-offsetting mechanisms. As a colleague of mine memorably pointed out, carbon offsets are about as useful as an anti-smoking campaign that pays someone else to stop smoking in the developing world while you continue cheerfully puffing away. It is irresponsible and critically ineffective.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the remit of the Bali Conference is to promote an ambitious and realistic post-2012 framework. There is no room for further delay. Global warming must be addressed immediately and drastically. Ecology and economics can and must coexist.

The ensuing benefits will greatly exceed the financial cost. However, this requires a broader agreement, with specific commitments to reduce emissions, and not mere wishful thinking. Commitments must be made to combat emissions from international air and sea transport. There is a need to capture greenhouse gases through sustainable forest management and a change in production standards and consumption, as well as through land use.

However, in order to achieve this, the Commission must remember forgotten aims relating to the bold promotion of renewable energy sources. It must promote more ambitious targets and demonstrate a stronger political will.

This is what we expect, Mr Dimas.

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE-DE). – (SL) The European Union is a world leader in combating climate change and developing new environmentally friendly technologies. But for how much longer? Awareness of the need to reduce human impact on the natural environment is growing in a large number of countries. This is being followed by strategies, plans and measures, even in countries in which environmental protection was, even recently, not a priority.

Take for example China, which a delegation of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change visited recently to familiarise itself with the situation there. Although as a developing country under the Kyoto Protocol China does not have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, it is becoming aware of the problem of global warming and has already begun to take action. It has adopted a national climate change program in which it has, amongst other things, set itself a large number of ambitious targets.

All this demonstrates that we cannot rest on our laurels if Europe is to retain its global influence. I therefore call upon the delegation in Bali to put forward Europe’s position in the fight against global warming accordingly and with a single voice. In my view, a sufficient reduction in warming is possible only if we succeed in setting up a global market in carbon. Price, that is to say money, is an extremely effective mechanism for attaining goals in human society.

In seeking to reach an agreement on global measures we cannot forget about implementing our own targets. We must steadily develop our own policies and continue to introduce innovations in energy, transport and other sectors which also cause greenhouse gas emissions. Only with effective and successful implementation at home will we be successful in our negotiations and cooperation with third countries.

I hope that the delegation in Bali will have a very successful visit and successfully put forward the positions set out in our resolution.

  Dorette Corbey (PSE). – (NL) Madam President, next month in Bali the European Union must bring its full political weight to bear in order to make the conference a success. To that end we very much need the support of the developing countries and also of countries like China and India. To date those countries have contributed very little to climate change, but they are seriously affected by its repercussions. Europe must offer help to those countries and reach out to them so that they can adjust to climate change, and we must invest in technology transfer.

I am optimistic that in 2009 we can really get down to brass tacks and conclude a good agreement which the United States can also sign up to. But if the rest of the world does not follow Europe and agree binding targets, we shall need a plan B and even a plan C.

Plan B would be to set worldwide targets for reductions in every sector of industry, and if that does not work plan C would be to slap import levies on products from countries that refuse to implement the climate policy.

The proposed resolution is a good one and it merits our full support. My compliments to Satu Hassi and the shadow rapporteurs.

  David Hammerstein (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Madam President, an average per capita emissions level has been proposed for everyone but be aware that what may be fair in social terms may end up being impossible in ecological terms.

Environmental objectives must incorporate countries such as China and India, they must incorporate equity. However, environmental convergence between North and South must take place quickly and the level of emissions must be very low if it is to be an effective measure rather than smoke and mirrors.

At the same time we should consider fiscal and commercial measures to slow trade both in highly polluting products and in products which have been manufactured using dirty technology.

External climate protection of this kind may provide a response on the part of the European Union to the growth of emissions in our products from Southern countries and we can collect the income generated and then invest it in clean technologies in the South.

  Jens Holm (GUE/NGL). – (SV) We will soon be deciding how we will be able to combat global warming after 2012 when the Kyoto Agreement comes to an end.

We have a very good basis. We need reductions of up to 80% by 2050, assistance for developing countries to reduce their emissions, measures against the meat industry, which is responsible for almost one fifth of global emissions of greenhouse gases, more flexible patent laws which make it easier to spread green technology, certification of biofuels to avoid them coming into conflict with food supplies, and the conservation of the world’s forests. As has been said, this is all wonderful.

What is missing and what we must do in the future is to take measures against the constantly growing flows of traffic within the EU, EU subsidies and the fact that markets tend to be given priority when the EU legislates and implements.

There are eleven amendments, most of which I think are good and strengthen the thrust of the resolution, which is that it is the rich world which is responsible for climate change and must therefore take the lead in radical reductions.

I am troubled by Amendment 7, which aims to use nuclear power to combat the greenhouse effect. We should not replace one environmental problem with new problems.

  Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE). – (SV) Madam President, it is almost 15 years since the Climate Convention was signed at the Rio Conference and yet the fact is that climate emissions are rising faster today than ever before. This shows how inadequate international cooperation has been so far.

The EU must continue to take a leading responsibility through measures at home – everything from tougher requirements for the cars of tomorrow to increased aid for alternative sources of energy. But ‘domestic action’ is not enough. Mr Florenz asked what we can offer the rest of the world. That is a good question. I believe we can offer three things. First, clean environmentally friendly technology to all developing countries which are in a phase of modernisation, not least China and India. They are fully entitled to their development, but they do not need to repeat our mistakes. Providing support for technology and knowledge must be a priority in the EU budget. They gain from it, but we also gain from it.

It is equally important for us to accept our historical responsibility and provide support for adaptation measures to all the low-income countries which will be greatly affected by storms, floods and extended droughts. The money which has so far been put aside in various adaptation funds and the initiative recently taken by the Commission, the ‘Climate Alliance’, is not enough. It is absurdly small. The need is hundreds of times greater.

Third, as Mrs Ek underlined, it is important to pay attention to the role of forests, not least tropical forests. We must give the forest owners an incentive not to chop down forests but to preserve them.

Climate policy does not stand and fall with Bali, but success in Bali will, of course, improve the chances of achieving a final agreement in 2009. In order to facilitate this I assume that the Commission and the Council will listen to Parliament, not least with regard to the need to do much more with regard to technical cooperation, adaptation measures and forest issues.

  Matthias Groote (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at their spring summit the Heads of State and Government took good decisions on the fight against climate change. Their decision on greenhouse gases provides for a 20% reduction in the 1990 emission levels in Europe by 2020. It was also agreed at the spring summit that the reduction target would be raised to 30% if other industrialised nations committed themselves to cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions. The EU should therefore make every effort to encourage other industrialised nations to sign up to the post-Kyoto agreement.

I should like to refer to another specific point, namely transport, for it is important that we should succeed in securing the inclusion of transport in the post-Kyoto agreement. In Europe alone, transport produces 21% of all greenhouse gases. International aviation in particular was not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, because the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, gave assurances that there were plans to create a global system. This pledge has not been honoured in the period since 1997, and I am afraid we are still waiting for aviation to be incorporated into the Protocol. I hope that this step can be initiated in Bali.

  Herbert Reul (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is a serious climate problem. No one is denying that. The political issue, however, is how we approach the effort to solve the problem. I must say that we have had great difficulties with the present report as regards the manner in which the problem is being addressed.

Problems are not solved by describing doomsday scenarios and speaking of human-rights violations or by adopting a disheartening tone instead of proposing solutions. The aim must be to search realistically and objectively for solutions, weighing up diverse arguments. In this respect I find it regrettable that we have not been prepared to countenance divergent assessments regarding the causes of climate trends and changes. I am all for the inclusion of ambitious goals, but it is also essential to ensure that they are achievable, otherwise our climate policy will be ineffectual.

It is also wrong to establish taboos and say that the subject of coal and the development of clean-coal technology or the subject of nuclear power are off limits and that the only answer is renewable energy. Such an approach completely fails to address the problem. What is needed is a comprehensive debate in which all aspects are examined in detail and in which we are all open to a variety of instruments and to information from a wide range of sources.

I believe we should also consider, as part of that debate, what impact we can achieve with what resources. How do we maximise the impact? We should also reflect on costs. I believe we should not only focus on the way in which national political decisions are taken but also consider, as one or two colleagues have said to me, how the development of technology can be spurred on and supported. I do not see any sense in holding today’s debate and then, two or three hours or two or three days later, discussing Lisbon strategies and the like in the same chamber. These two debates must be rolled into one if we want to fight climate change and mitigate its effects.

In my view there has been only a limited opportunity here to voice the critical comments that we aired in our deliberations in committee. I hope that the next time, when we deal with the full report from the Committee on Climate Change, we shall have a chance to put forward a rather wider spectrum of arguments.

  Karin Scheele (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, I should like to add my voice to the numerous compliments that have been paid to the rapporteur for this good and objectively presented report, which also received the support of a good majority of the Committee on Climate Change. It goes without saying that we expect results and a clear mandate for Bali. This must include shared but differentiated responsibilities for the industrialised nations, the states with emerging economies and the developing countries.

This resolution also indicates clearly that we expect results by 2009. In the legal instruments the European Parliament adopts – and speakers have already referred today to the inclusion of aviation in emissions trading as well as to CO2 emissions from motor vehicles – we must send very clear political messages to the rest of the world, to the other continents. That is an essential condition if we are to bring all countries on board.

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Commissioner, allow me first of all to congratulate you on your efforts in this important international issue of climate change.

Mr President, the fight against climate change should inspire the creation of a new development model. This model will redefine the existing policies in the direction of environmental protection, linking economic activity with respect for natural resources and social welfare.

The EU should play a leading role and ensure that the negotiations do not end in a broadening of the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. The aim in Bali should be an agreement with an environmental perspective. The agreement should also make use of the opportunities for technological innovation, economic development and job creation.

For example, transition to a low-carbon world economy, by linking carbon markets to emissions trading systems, would be a move in the right direction.

The Bali Conference should be an opportunity to formulate a comprehensive proposal for the post-2012 period with binding, long-term targets.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate of unquestioned importance that we have had regularly here in the European Parliament. The issue of climate change and the European Union’s preparations for the Bali Conference have been a recurring theme during these monthly sessions that I have attended. That clearly highlights the importance Parliament rightly attaches to it, and only this morning climate change was on the agenda once more in connection with our debate on globalisation.

In my opening speech I referred to the six fundamental objectives the European Union is taking to the Bali Conference. These are clear and defined objectives which I assume are well understood and fully endorsed, and naturally our aim will be to achieve them all. I also stated very clearly, however, that this is a difficult, complex and politically delicate process, but we will obviously do our utmost to reach a conclusion.

Some fellow Members have suggested that the EU may not have been the leader it has often claimed to be in this process. I cannot share that opinion, because if there is a bloc, organisation or entity that has shown practical signs of having ambitious targets, of seeking to go further and of showing a real concern for a problem that affects our citizens, then that entity is the European Union. We have established our own emission reduction goals that cannot be and have not been equalled anywhere in the world, and we have also made significant efforts to save energy, to invest in renewable energies, etc. We must therefore be proud of our efforts and of our work and must not slacken them.

Finally, I would also like to say that I have taken note of the recommendations and suggestions made in Mrs Hassi’s resolution. Some of those suggestions were referred to here by Mrs Ferreira, and the Council will certainly bear the recommendations in mind.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the speakers in today’s debate for their positive contributions.

There is an emerging consensus that global efforts are needed to win the battle against climate change and that Bali must set out the process and content of the post-2012 climate agreement.

The European Union will intensify its bilateral contacts with key partners to gain support for this line. However, we also need to look beyond Bali. Let us not forget that Bali is just the start of a negotiating process. Making sure that we get on the right track in Bali is, of course, fundamental. But we will need to step up our efforts to forge common views and develop common solutions with all our partners over the coming months and years.

The EU-China and the EU-India summit, as well as the EU-Asia summit, all this November, are the next steps to generate even more convergence and political momentum for the post-2012 international climate agreement.

As regards the United States and Canada it will be vital to continue but also to go beyond contacts with the Federal Government. The international carbon market partnership (ICAP) with US states and Canadian provinces, which I signed on behalf of the European Union in Lisbon on 29 October, brings together partners who are actively pursuing the implementation of carbon markets through mandatory cap and trade systems.

I look forward to continuing these discussions with Members of the European Parliament in the run-up to Bali, and thank you very much for your support.

I have to underline that without the continuous support of the European Parliament we would not have had an energy and climate-change package earlier this year and without your support we do not have any hope of achieving a better result in Bali. So please come in Bali with high ambitions and try to help us as you know how to do.

  President . – I am now closing the debate, and I have received a motion for a resolution,⁽¹⁾ in accordance with Rule 108(5), on behalf of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow – Thursday.

(1) See minutes.

10. Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy - Situation in Georgia (debate)

  President . – The next item is a joint discussion on:

– the report by Raimon Obiols i Germà and Charles Tannock, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy (2007/2088(INI)); and

– the Council and Commission statements on the situation in Georgia.

  Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE), Rapporteur. – (ES) Madam President, I inherited the role of co-rapporteur of this report from our colleague Mr Beglitis, who is now a Member of the Greek Parliament, and I did so with a degree of trepidation, but I must now say that I am very satisfied with the result achieved. First, because of the good working relationship with my co-rapporteur Mr Tannock, and also because I have had the opportunity to work with a group of extremely competent assistants and officials, and finally because a high level of consensus was reached in the drafting of the report.

It has also been possible to accept most of the amendments, which were likewise submitted in a spirit of agreement, and I feel the outcome has been satisfactory.

The report supports the Commission document of December 2006 on the assessment and future development of the European Neighbourhood Policy and, having regard to the consensus reached, we can currently say that Parliament and the Commission share the same vision, the idea that the European continent and the Mediterranean are interdependent realities which cannot be viewed in isolation, and that the neighbourhood policy offers new channels for relations and for cooperation with societies facing common challenges and problems, as well as major opportunities for joint progress.

The report points up a number of aspects which can make the European Neighbourhood Policy as strong and as ambitious as possible. I shall quickly go through five of them:

First, the principle of a broad policy schema in a framework of differentiation, a principle of differentiation, so that the European Neighbourhood Policy is viewed not as a standardised, mechanical routine, but as the means by which the European Union can organise relations with its neighbours while being flexible enough to respond successfully to different situations.

Secondly, the idea of a balance between the countries of the East and the countries of the South. We must not prioritise one side over the other, but must have a fully balanced approach at all times.

Thirdly, the idea of strengthening, using the neighbourhood policy, the structure of the Euro-Mediterranean policy, the aspect on which I worked most closely in this report. This does not mean superimposing policies, establishing an over-elaborate, over-complicated framework, but creating synergies so that the European Neighbourhood Policy can mean the strengthening of the general structure of the partnership policy or the Euro-Mediterranean association.

Fourthly, the idea of moving from cooperation towards integration in all areas where it may be possible to do so. This would mean that in the coming years, those sectors which are prepared for it would share policy areas to help develop rapprochements and synergies in key sectors such as energy, transport networks, intercultural dialogue, the environment or education.

And finally, involvement on the part not only of government policy or parliamentary institutions but also, as far as is possible, of many other active sectors in involved civil societies, the more the merrier.

To that end the European Neighbourhood Policy should also tackle the basic issue of communication and visibility. I would say, the history of the overall policy of Europe in relation to its neighbours.

Finally, I would like to note that at the moment it faces its first challenge of visibility, of history, with the proposal for a Mediterranean Union made by Mr Sarkozy. Yesterday we heard the French President speak, and I think he introduced some very positive nuances in that he noted that his proposal for a Mediterranean Union excludes no one, first of all, secondly it must be added to the acquis of the Euro-Mediterranean policy and, thirdly, it must try to go beyond it.

I could not agree more with this idea of trying to simplify the general political and institutional framework of the European Neighbourhood policy, in particular with regard to the Mediterranean area.

  Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Madam President, I too would like to join in thanking both Mr Beglitis, who is now a Greek MP in his national Parliament, and his successor Mr Obiols i Germà for excellent cross-party cooperation and eventual consensus as co-rapporteurs of this key report.

It is self-evident that everybody needs good neighbours. In an uncertain and ever-changing world, the EU needs to develop good and enhanced relationships with countries on its periphery that are based on security, stability and mutual benefit to all. So far the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is proving to be a valuable tool in this process, in creating a ring of friends aimed at improved trade, travel and political cooperation, particularly against terrorism and people trafficking. But, of course, of utmost importance are the shared values and in particular reinforcing democracy, the rule of law and human rights as our main priority.

ENP policy was conceived somewhat hastily, I have to say to the Commission. Some would argue that a blanket arrangement for all southern Euromed and Eastern European countries and the South Caucasus neighbouring countries cannot be an enduring foreign policy idea for the European Union. Nevertheless, our report fully accepts that for the foreseeable future this unitary policy is here to stay and Parliament will engage with it as it is.

Nevertheless, clearly Moldova is not the same as Morocco. Countries in the southern dimension are not European and therefore have no real prospects of EU membership. In the East, which is my side of the report, however, there are at least two countries in my view – Ukraine and Moldova – that are allowed to accede under Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty, as they are undeniably European in nature.

Certainly, matters in terms of visa facilitation, readmission and, post-Ukraine’s WTO accession – which we hope will happen next year – a deep EU free trade agreement, these are all progressing well with a country such as Ukraine, and I hope these will be extended to Moldova and eventually to other South Caucasus countries in due course.

In my view the eventual ENP aim to the East must be visa-free travel.

The ENP will help generally to consolidate these countries’ wishes to anchor themselves firmly within EU institutions. In Moldova’s case, the ENP may prove to be a significant boost to the resolution of the Transnistria frozen conflicts. Nevertheless, these Eastern European ENP countries need to know for sure, by the EU Council and Commission, that membership is ultimately available to them and that the ENP is not just a delaying tactic to frustrate these countries’ membership ambitions.

The report also recognises the suffering of the people of Belarus and the bravery of the country’s democratic forces. We need to be ready, as and when the Lukashenko regime crumbles, to welcome Belarus back into the ENP and grant it, too, a European perspective.

The report proposes the development of a joint parliamentary assembly for the European Parliament and Eastern ENP countries, provisionally dubbed ‘EURO-NEST’. It draws on the success of similar structures, such as the Euromed Parliamentary Assembly, which is already up and running and basically is the southern dimension of parliamentary cooperation for the ENP, as well as the Barcelona Process, and the more famous ACP Assembly. I am personally convinced that EURO-NEST would strengthen democratic institutions in Eastern ENP countries. It would hasten an end to the isolation of Belarus and enable, for instance, Azerbaijani and Armenian parliamentarians to discuss the potentially explosive Nagorno-Karabakh frozen conflict, where a war could once again break out, given the amount of petrodollars flowing into the Azerbaijani Government’s treasuries and the rhetoric on both sides of the divide.

The EU has become far too dependent as well on Russian energy resources, so we all agree that we must develop alternative sources. That is why our report, when it went through the Committee on Foreign Affairs, proposed the idea of bringing Kazakhstan potentially one day as a possibility into the ENP. However, now, I am afraid to say, this is sadly no longer supported by the major political groups, so it may well be taken out of the report tomorrow at the vote. We would have had access through this process to Kazakhstan’s vast natural resources, while the EU would help further reforms in this vast – geographically speaking – secular country of strategic importance. If it is indeed pulled closer one day to Russia and China, which I am sure is the intent of those two powers, we will be ruing the day that we took such a precipitous decision to keep Kazakhstan at arm’s length.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, whom I would particularly like to applaud for dedicating so much of your time, work, effort and enthusiasm to developing and implementing the European Neighbourhood Policy. I acknowledge all that commitment, work and effort and must applaud you for it.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Neighbourhood Policy, to which from now on I will refer simply as ENP, is an essential policy for the EU.

The ENP is a fundamental element of the architecture of the Union’s relations with the ring of states surrounding it. Stability, security and development are interconnected processes. Relations between the Union and its neighbours must be strengthened, both to the East and to the South, so that the ENP provides a global, single, inclusive, balanced and coherent policy framework. Despite the specific nature and individuality of each country and each society, common interests and challenges exist that must be faced together.

The fact that we are strengthening the ENP is first of all evidence of the merits of this policy. We are concerned only with strengthening and deepening policies that have been successful. We all acknowledge, however, that we must continue to reinforce and strengthen the ENP. Since the Commission presented its proposals at the end of last year, Member States have reached a broad consensus on the need to strengthen the ENP and the measures required to do so. In this context, on the Council’s behalf I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Tannock and Mr Obiols i Germà, for their excellent and exhaustive report.

Parliament’s opinions are particularly important and valuable, especially for implementing the strengthened European Neighbourhood Policy, and will be taken into account as we go forward. As you know, the German Presidency presented an interim report on strengthening the ENP that was endorsed by the Council and by the European Council last June. The June Council also adopted conclusions reiterating the main principles of the ENP. Firstly, the ENP consolidates a strategy based on partnership and cooperation. Our objective is to help our neighbours to modernise and to reform. For this purpose and to ensure that the strengthened ENP is effective, it must be followed by all the member countries as part of a privileged partnership with a view to achieving the necessary reforms. The imposition from Brussels of a calendar of reforms is certainly not the best way to obtain results, which is why we have listened to what the partner countries want from the strengthened ENP.

Secondly, it is a global, single, inclusive, balanced and coherent policy framework. The Member States agree that the offer of intensified relations applies to all partner countries, while maintaining an overall balance between the East and the South.

Thirdly, the aspects of differentiation set out according to the performance and assistance per measure continue to be essential in the EU's relations with neighbouring states. The ENP’s policy framework obviously needs to remain sufficiently flexible to take into account the needs of each partner and the extent to which they effectively and visibly make and are prepared to make progress on the reform track. EU support should therefore be tailored even more to the needs of partners and their priorities as set out in the ENP action plans.

Finally, the European Neighbourhood Policy remains distinct from the process of enlargement and does not prejudge any possible future developments in partner countries’ relationships with the EU. Participation in the ENP in itself makes it possible to bolster national transformation processes in the interests of our partners’ citizens, independently of an EU accession perspective. We must therefore be cautious and not amalgamate two things which are different.

Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union provides that any European State which respects the principles of the rule of law, freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms may apply to become a member of the Union. Any application for accession will be examined in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.

I would now like to refer to the strengthening of the ENP. As you know, one of the key aspects of the strengthened ENP is to make best use of the Union’s financial weight. The increase in funding for partners under the new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument is already a sign of the Union’s enhanced commitment. To encourage reforms even further, a governance facility has been created based on objective and transparent allocation criteria. Funding will be allocated via this facility for the first time this autumn. Work is also progressing on the establishment of the ENP investment facility, which is intended to improve the impact of the Union’s budgetary contributions and to help to mobilise major donor resources. This new mechanism will be fully compatible with existing financial instruments, particularly the Euro-Mediterranean investment and partnership facility.

In order to further encourage and support regulatory and administrative reform and institution-building, we aim to open up Community agencies and programmes to ENP countries through a gradual approach. Some progress has already been made in this area. The Commission is negotiating the necessary protocols on the general principles for participation in these new Community programmes with the first group of ENP partners. Israel, Morocco and the Ukraine are likely to be the first countries to benefit from this measure.

I would like to conclude with some remarks on what we consider to be the key elements of the strengthened ENP. First and foremost, one of its essential components is increased economic integration, which must be achieved in particular by the gradual adoption of comprehensive free trade agreements. The opening of negotiations on such agreements, however, must be preceded by the accession of partner countries to the WTO.

It is also essential to facilitate mobility for certain categories of people between the partner countries and the EU. As a clear and tangible sign of the Union’s openness to its neighbours and in line with its common approach on visa facilitation, we concluded visa facilitation and readmission agreements with Ukraine and Moldova. We will also discuss visa facilitation for certain groups of people from Eastern Europe so that they can participate in ENP-related events, building on equivalent measures that have been applied for groups of citizens from the Euro-Med countries since 2003.

Finally, I would like to refer to the commitment we recently assumed in relation to the Black Sea and countries in that region. The Black Sea Synergy initiative aims to strengthen cooperation among the countries of the region and deepen the EU’s relations with it at all levels. In general terms, the European Neighbourhood Policy is in the interests of both the Union and the partner countries. It is now time to make it a more attractive, effective and credible policy that guarantees security and prosperity for all.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regard the European Neighbourhood Policy, the intensification of which we are discussing today, as a key strategic policy, and I would like to record my sincere thanks to the two rapporteurs for their report, a truly important document which will also serve to fill our sails for the next leg of the ENP voyage.

We want to use this neighbourhood policy, of course, to project our stability and to encourage reforms. In view of the international challenges confronting Europe, the success of this policy is also vital not only to our prosperity but also to the prosperity, stability and security of both ourselves and our neighbours. That is the basic idea.

I also thank you for the key elements that were developed in the report. It is a differentiated policy, a policy that must have a coherent political framework. It is a policy which is also designed to generate synergy within a regional structure – Black Sea Synergy in one area and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in the other. It is a policy based on recognition of the need to support particular sectors. Implementing and further intensifying the neighbourhood policy is thus an absolute priority. I am therefore grateful for the support of Parliament, which is essential.

The results of the major European Neighbourhood Policy Conference on 3 September also show that our partners and our Member States are now fully in agreement with this prioritisation. The conference was a real success, because it brought all of our ENP partners and all the Member States together for the first time, along with representatives of the various authorities and of civil society. A clear consensus emerged on the substantive priorities of the neighbourhood policy, from economic integration to greater mobility, and from energy policy to political cooperation.

Parliament can play an especially prominent and important role in the realm of political cooperation, and of course you are also a catalyst for the development of democracy, for human rights and for reforms leading towards the establishment of the rule of law, to which we naturally attach the utmost importance here, and which serve as a compass of this neighbourhood policy. The neighbourhood policy is already yielding definite results too. One need only consider how much we have intensified our cooperation with Ukraine in the ENP framework since the Orange Revolution. The fact that Ukraine has now held free and fair elections for the second time undoubtedly constitutes a success. I hope that the political decision-makers in Kiev will now maintain the momentum of recent weeks.

We shall continue to work with you on the implementation of major reforms too, with the aid of the substantial ENP Action Plan. Negotiations are progressing on an enhanced agreement, which, as you are aware, is intended to bring Ukraine as close as possible to the European Union.

We shall also continue, of course, to support Ukraine’s accession to the WTO so that we can establish a comprehensive free-trade area, and we have already – as you know – concluded a visa-facilitation agreement with Ukraine and hope that the same can be done soon with the Republic of Moldova, each of these agreements being accompanied by an agreement on readmission.

Morocco is another enthusiastic beneficiary of this neighbourhood policy, and is using it astutely as an engine of modernisation, which is precisely what we wanted to happen. We have very clearly commended Morocco’s progress on the basis of its detailed internal reform programme, and the new aviation agreement and Morocco’s close energy cooperation with the EU, for example, are good models of fruitful cooperation.

Only last week I was in Rabat for talks, at which I also initiated further progress on the joint reflection process we began in July with a view to meeting Morocco’s request for advanced status in the ENP framework. I am confident that in the second half of next year we shall be able to present appropriate proposals on a new and advanced form of association.

The neighbourhood policy, then, is working, but we must go further, of course, in our efforts to make it even better, even more effective and even more comprehensive. Last December the Commission published recommendations on ways of strengthening the ENP, which our President-in-Office of the Council has already presented. I believe we have taken some very important steps. For example, our eastern partners lacked a regional dimension, but now we have launched this Black Sea Synergy programme as a tailor-made process for the East. It gives the East what the South has long possessed in the form of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, and the first meeting in the Black Sea Synergy framework will take place in 2008.

We have also made progress towards opening Community programmes and agencies to our neighbours. This year we shall also be awarding the first allocations from the new Governance Facility, through which we are demonstrating that we can and will offer more to those partners that display genuine reforming zeal.

In addition, before the year is out we shall have established the Neighbourhood Investment Facility. Its purpose is to help mobilise funds for the neighbourhood policy over and above our normal budget, primarily to make it possible to fund the large-scale projects in areas such as energy and transport.

I do believe we can claim some successes, but we now need your continued support and that of the Member States to enable us to make further improvements and take further steps. I am thinking mainly of closer economic integration and of more intensive free trade with our partners. Their integration into the EU internal market is, of course, a very powerful reform lever. For this reason we must also gradually open our market, even to what we call sensitive agricultural goods and services, in which our partners have certain competitive advantages. This means that we must also ask ourselves whether we are prepared to do that.

The second thing I am thinking of is further visa-facilitation measures, which are urgently required to facilitate contacts between people in different countries. These measures can often be taken within the existing rules, provided there is enough political will to use the available scope, and we must continue to develop the political dimension of the neighbourhood policy. This relates to the frozen conflicts we see in the partner countries on our eastern borders, conflicts that seriously impede our neighbours’ progress towards reform and, in some cases, threaten our own security.

For this reason the neighbourhood policy must help to create the right climate for the resolution of conflicts such as the one in the southern Caucasus.

In the Mediterranean region, I shall naturally continue to press for progress in the Middle East, especially in the Quartet framework, and I very much hope that the meeting in Annapolis and the subsequent donors’ conference in Paris will materialise so that further genuine progress can be made in the Middle East.

We are also prepared to help the parties to the conflict in the Western Sahara in their quest for a long-term solution. In the coming period our neighbourhood policy will be sharply focused on practical implementation. We must all pull together in order to maintain and intensify the dynamics of reform that have developed among our partners.

Next month the Commission will adopt another communication on the neighbourhood policy, in which we shall outline the steps which the EU needs to take in order to deliver further tangible results in 2008, in other words our own contribution. In April we shall then present the country-by-country progress reports, in which we shall analyse where our neighbours can further improve the implementation of the action plans.

At the beginning of December some fundamental questions will have to be asked, such as whether the Commission is fully aware of the various capacities and goals of individual neighbouring countries. As I have said, however, we can make a good deal of progress on the basis of this differentiated approach.

It seems to me that importance also attaches to the concept of ownership and the local potential for putting the ownership principle into practice, as well as to even greater involvement of civil society, an area in which we could still do far more.

I must not omit to add a few words on the events in Georgia, which we have been discussing together. I merely want to add that we are very concerned about the latest developments in Georgia. We regret the excessive use of force on the part of the Georgian state security forces in breaking up demonstrations and closing down independent television stations.

I believe we need an independent inquiry into these incidents. We also remain concerned about the continuing state of emergency and the restrictions on the freedom of the media, for curtailing constitutional rights and closing down media operators are draconian measures which are inconsistent with those democratic values that underlie our bilateral relations with Georgia and that Georgia has pledged itself to uphold. We therefore expect these measures to be lifted without delay.

I welcome, on the other hand, the decision taken by President Saakashvili to hold presidential elections and a referendum on the date for parliamentary elections, thereby meeting the main demands of the opposition. I hope this will help to ease tension, and I appeal to all involved to keep political disputes within the bounds of the normal democratic process and to return from the streets to the negotiating table. We need the right conditions for a fair and transparent electoral process.

I just wanted to add that. Do forgive me for taking longer than usual, but since I bear particular responsibility on the basis of the precept that politics is about people, you will understand that these matters are particularly close to my heart.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – Mr President, the Committee on Regional Development views a strengthened European Neighbourhood Policy as a key tool first and foremost to bring our neighbours closer to the European system of values. An efficient and open ENP can provide multiple incentives for boosting economic, legal and social reforms in countries bordering the EU. True, the ENP is not to be seen as a direct route to EU membership. Therefore, the conditionality principle in the EU approach should provide workable mechanisms to encourage necessarily economic and democratic changes in our partner countries, in accordance with their own willingness and progress.

The ENP can only function as a two-way street. On a political level, I think the ENP would provide us with a wonderful opportunity to deepen regular political dialogue with countries which are willing to align their foreign policy positions with those of the EU, countries like Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and others.

The Committee on Regional Development stresses the crucial importance of cross-border and interregional cooperation programmes in implementing the ENP. These programmes should include economic and environmental as well as social and cultural aspects.

I would like to stress another principle: ENP should not be limited to cooperation between governments and institutions. It has to involve civil society and especially stimulate grass-root exchanges between citizens, NGOs and local authorities. Therefore, it is important to facilitate efficiently visa requirements for local border traffic and for specific population groups. We also call on the Commission to develop guidelines for local and regional authorities on their specific role in implementing the ENP action plans to develop the ENP further.

Finally, in the Regional Development Committee’s opinion, the ENP should also include cooperation in preventing and dealing jointly with natural disasters. We encourage the Member States to include this aspect in the cross-border cooperation programmes.

  Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, in these times of globalisation and insecurity about the future, our neighbours need clear signs from the European Union. They need to hear that we consider them as partners. They need to know that we support them in their transition towards democracy and a better life. Therefore I welcome the Commission proposal for strengthening the ENP by offering our partners new incentives for reforms.

As draftsman of the opinion for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I want to insist on the importance of the ENP as a means of enforcing an area of freedom, security and justice that goes beyond our borders. We cannot afford to leave our neighbours dealing alone with security issues, organised crime and illegal migration. In today’s world, each of these phenomena has a global impact and these challenges are our challenges. The ENP is ultimately a win-win policy. Building an area of freedom, security and justice is in our mutual interest for the EU and for our neighbours, for the sake of all our people.

  President. − I am being told that the Presidency of the Council had not been informed that the debate was a joint debate on the European Neighbourhood Policy and the situation in Georgia.

We shall therefore give Mr Lobo Antunes the opportunity to deal with the latter topic now, with the change of speaker.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I really did not understand why this debate should cover both neighbourhood policy and Georgia. We do not have much time, which is why I would like to say very quickly that on 18 November last, as you know, the Presidency issued a declaration expressing its deep concern at recent events in Georgia, and called for dialogue between the parties and a search for solutions to the current crisis that did not violate democratic principles and fundamental rights, namely freedom of expression. We would also like to stress that it is essential for the Government of Georgia to restore confidence in the legitimacy of its actions and to do its utmost to ensure respect for the principles of democracy.

From our point of view the current situation remains a cause for concern, but we very much welcome the Georgian Parliament’s announcement that the state of emergency will be lifted on 16 November next, the day after tomorrow. We hope that this will actually come to fruition rather than simply remaining an announcement.

This is an important step towards restoring democratic normality in Georgia, since presidential elections have been announced for the near future and all the democratic conditions necessary for those elections to take place must naturally be guaranteed. We are also pleased that dialogue has been established between the authorities and the opposition.

I can inform you that the Council is working with Georgia in exerting political and diplomatic pressure to ensure a rapid return to normality. Our Special Representative for the region is active and is currently in Georgia. I can also inform you that the situation in Georgia will be on the agenda of the next General Affairs and External Relations Council. Some three weeks ago I personally chaired an Association Council between the European Union and Georgia, when I was able to highlight the economic progress the country was making and to refer with some hope to the democratic developments that we considered to be positive.

We sincerely hope that what is currently happening in Georgia is not a backward step, since that would naturally be highly detrimental to the positive aspects of the development of both the political and the economic situation that we thought were encouraging. I assume that the Georgian people and the Georgian authorities are aware of that. A backward step is neither possible nor acceptable.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, I would like to refer to one aspect of the excellent report prepared by our colleagues Mr Tannock and Mr Raimon Obiols i Germà. This is the idea of the EURO-NEST Parliamentary Assembly.

The main purpose of EURO-NEST, as proposed in the report, is to put into practice the idea of creating a circle of friends of the EU on the parliamentary level and making them friends among themselves. This is to supplement the policy of neighbourliness pursued by the executive bodies of the EU. EURO-NEST would be a parliamentary forum for dialogue, the exchange of experiences and multilateral cooperation. It is not just a matter of strengthening contacts between the European Parliament and the national parliaments of Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, as well as with representatives of democratic forces in Belarus. For us, the most important issue is that our neighbours should have dialogue and cooperation among themselves, that they should get to know each other better, develop trust in each other and benefit from the best examples of democracy, free speech and respect for human rights.

The concept of EURO-NEST was supported by the majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I would hope that it will also gain the support of all of Parliament. I would like to address my colleagues from the Liberal Group, who submitted amendment number 5, which proposed replacing EURO-NEST with the existing organisation PABSEC. I would like to say that PABSEC, the Parliamentary Association on Black Sea Economic Cooperation, fulfils a completely different function. First and foremost there is no role within that organisation for the European Parliament. Thank you to my colleagues from the Socialist Group for their understanding. The compromise formula, replacing amendment number 11 and emphasising the need for better intergovernmental cooperation, will make it possible to delineate this form of cooperation in the proper way.

I am convinced that EURO-NEST will provide an additional impetus to strengthening partnership with our eastern neighbours and will complement relations with regard to our southern neighbours as part of the Barcelona process. It will be a signal that, in the European Parliament, we treat our neighbours seriously, and proof that we are strengthening ties with our eastern neighbours, irrespective of party divisions.

  Marek Siwiec, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PL) Mr President, in the report under consideration there are some important statements and they come at a good time. The situation in the countries to which the report relates (I am speaking mostly about the eastern area) is a very dynamic one, bringing, as can be expected, many new experiences. It is very good that European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – are speaking with a common voice, a voice that reflects the function for which the institutions were created, and for these introductory statements I would like to thank the Commissioner and the Minister. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament supports the development of a European Neighbourhood Policy, a strengthened European Neighbourhood Policy, provided that it is prudent and effective. During work on this report we avoided many unnecessary disputes. We avoided a rather unwise discussion on whether neighbourliness with the East is more important, or neighbourliness with the South. That would be like asking a child ‘who do you love more, your Mummy or your Daddy?’ We avoided any unnecessary debate on whether or not a European Neighbourhood Policy takes the place of a policy aimed at EU enlargement. These, too, are unreal dilemmas, but these matters received clarification.

A European Neighbourhood Policy can be effective if it is carried out jointly. ‘Jointly’ means that it is carried out by the European Union as well as by interested countries. It cannot be the same towards all countries, because these countries have different degrees of democracy and are interested in implementing this policy in different ways. How delicate a matter this is you have seen for yourselves, in observing what took place recently in Georgia, which has just been the subject of discussion. Satisfaction because of another democratic election in Ukraine has been clouded by the fact that these were the second elections in two years in that country. One could say a mixed satisfaction. As far as the East is concerned, our policy relates to an area that is constantly troubled by intrigue organised by the Russian Federation, whether this is obvious or hidden.

Finally, as the Minister said, this policy can only be successful if it is accompanied by resources, political will, effective action and an absence of naivety, especially if the creation of new institutions is involved.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, neighbourhood policy is one of the priorities of the EU’s foreign policy. The European Neighbourhood Policy is part of a wider aim to promote peace, stability and economic prosperity. The implementation of the ENP also demands much from the EU, as the strategic goals of the 27 Member States have to be able to be compatible. It is important to avoid east-west confrontation, although, obviously, the Member States of the EU have different priorities when it comes to cooperation.

Cooperation is needed in all directions. As all the EU Member States are involved as well as 16 partner countries, it is also understandable that people should have strong misgivings in the development of this policy as to how the different partner countries can be included in the collaboration. The ENP policy’s strength, however, lies in the fact that it provides the EU with more resources to aid the partner countries than would be the case if each country were approached separately and from totally different angles. The ENP’s comprehensive approach also ensures that EU policy does not depend on the regional and national predilections of each country to hold the presidency.

My group offers its unambiguous support for the development of the ENP and the priority areas highlighted by the Commission, which are economic integration, the mobility of people, energy (to which we would definitely like to add climate change), and financial and technical assistance.

(Applause)

  Adam Bielan, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, the European Neighbourhood Policy gained more impetus at the same time as the last enlargement of the EU. It now helps to encourage neighbouring regions to move towards the European value system. It is the sine qua non for realising objectives that are in both sides’ interests, that is, a guarantee of security and stability and the promotion of values such as respect for human rights and full democracy.

At the same time, within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy it is worth emphasising the particular significance and identity of countries such as, for example, Ukraine. This country should have a special status within the group of countries included in the ENP and should be given priority treatment, first and foremost because of its role in Europe’s cultural heritage and its historical ties with neighbouring countries. Granting Ukraine privileged status is also particularly important because this country has a pivotal role to play in ensuring energy stability and security for the whole European Union.

The issue of Ukraine and opening the way for its full membership of the EU should therefore be considered on an individual basis, taking into consideration that it is Ukraine that is the EU’s principal partner in the east European neighbourhood.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I should like to say, firstly, that I am sorry this is a joint debate because the crisis in Georgia ought to have been the subject of a debate in its own right. Last weekend, the President of this House sent me to Georgia. I have just returned and I should have liked to deliver a report on events there and the various meetings I had. Two minutes – sadly – will not be long enough for me to do that.

Before talking about Georgia, however, I should like to welcome the latest arrival among the European Neighbourhood Policy countries, namely Mauritania – a country which I recently visited as head of our election observation mission there.

What is clear today is that the serious crisis in Georgia has certainly put our European Neighbourhood Policy to the test. Can this neighbourhood policy be really useful? It is now legitimate to ask that question in the light of the situation in Georgia.

What I can tell you, colleagues, is that, four years on from the non-violent Rose Revolution, the communities in Georgia are truly shocked by the violence of which we saw something on our television screens: the violence directed against Georgia’s people and the violence used to close down Imedi TV. They are shocked because they do not understand what is going on.

I am therefore grateful to the Commission for calling on the Georgian authorities to instigate an inquiry – an independent and transparent investigation – because people want to know exactly what happened and how it happened.

We visited the country and, of course, we heard two versions of events: the opposition version and the authorities’ version. Both are admissible. It is very clear that two versions exist, but people are calling for genuine transparency. Obviously we must remember not only, as our colleague reminded us, that Georgia is vulnerable – and we do know that – but also that Georgia has to compromise with a ‘big brother’ constantly lying in wait to catch it out.

When the Georgian authorities draw our attention to Russia’s omnipresence, we need to consider the sort of things that happen. We had an example with our visa facilitation arrangement with Russia, benefiting people from Abkhazia and South Ossetia who hold Russian passports, even though these areas are part of Georgian territory, and thus placing Georgia in an awkward position.

None of this is news to you, Commissioner. What we must demand today – in addition, obviously, to lifting of the state of emergency – is the immediate restoration of freedom of expression and media freedom and of course, most importantly, an assurance that there will be free and transparent elections. Georgia today is capable of organising such elections. It demonstrated that just last year when it held transparent, democratic local elections in full accordance with international standards. It is now time – and I am addressing the Council here, for I believe it has been somewhat harsh with the Georgian authorities – for us, with our European Neighbourhood Policy, to demonstrate that we can be useful. We need to show the people of Georgia that there is some point to the ENP. The European Union must not let them down. That is the message we should convey very strongly to the Georgian authorities.

  Willy Meyer Pleite, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, first I would like to thank Mr Tannock and Mr Obiols for presenting the report and, without further ado, to inform you that my group is critical of the evolution and approach taken in the neighbourhood policy.

We are critical because in 2004, when establishing a neighbourhood policy based essentially on promotion of human rights, specialised technical advice, a better balance in terms of trade and people in migratory flows, we clearly saw possibilities opening up; however there is no doubt that since the approval of the financial instrument it would appear that the impression we give is that what we are basically interested in is establishing free-trade areas, free-trade agreements and cast-iron control over migratory flows, while leaving to one side any reference to the promotion of human rights and the requirement to respect them.

There are two clear examples towards the west and the south, namely the conflict in the Sahara, to which Mrs Ferrero-Waldner has referred, and the conflict with Israel or, to put it another way, the responsibility of Morocco and the State of Israel for two conflicts: the occupied territories of the Western Sahara and the Palestinian conflict.

I sincerely believe that in those areas the neighbourhood policy would have to be much more demanding of those two States in order for them to assume responsibility once and for all for conflicts which in the one case has been going on for almost a hundred years, and in the other has been in existence for forty or fifty years without having been resolved.

We therefore believe that from that point of view we would have liked the European Union to take a much more rigorous position when establishing the neighbourhood policy.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, this report clearly demonstrates how the Europhile political elite in this place are completely out of touch with reality and the wishes of their constituents.

The report asks for the processing of visas to be urgently improved so that travel from some non-EU states can be made easier and less burdensome. This is not what most Londoners want. They do not want to make it easier for people to come to Britain: they want to make it harder. They want to be more selective of the people we invite to our country, not to extend the current open-door policy.

The report anticipates Ukrainian entry to the EU. Ukraine has a population of 46 million and, as EU citizens, they would all have the right to enter Britain. The majority of my constituents do not want millions more people given the right of entry to Britain. They do not want any more indiscriminate immigration from Eastern Europe. We already have enough immigrants driving around London without tax and insurance; we have enough criminals, drug dealers, fraudsters, people traffickers and sex slaves.

Another crackpot idea in this report is the call for a EU Neighbourhood Parliamentary Assembly – another talking shop of politicians, out of touch with reality, dreaming up more ways of wasting taxpayers’ money. These politicians would, of course, need to be handsomely rewarded for their efforts.

It should surprise no one that one of the authors of this report is a member of the British Conservative Party, a party that pretends to be Eurosceptic at home, but is enthusiastically Europhile here. No wonder that in London Mr Tannock is known as the Member for Eastern Europe.

I totally oppose these policies; they damage the interests of my constituents. That is why I will be re-elected in London in 2009, and Mr Tannock may not be.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – Mr President, recital C of the report says that the European Neighbourhood Policy 'should remain distinct from the process of enlargement, whereas participation in the ENP does not preclude, for the eastern neighbours which are clearly identifiable as European countries, any perspective of EU membership in the long term'. For some reason that rule seems not to apply to Turkey. Here we have precisely the opposite situation. Turkey is clearly identifiable as a non-European country, is not part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, but it does aspire to membership of the EU.

It has never really been clear why Turkey was not included in the ENP. The Commission said at the outset that as an applicant country Turkey's inclusion was not appropriate. That is odd, because in other cases the point is specifically made that the Neighbourhood Policy and the enlargement process must remain distinct from one another. For Turkey clearly a sui generis rule applies.

All this, I fear, has to do with ideological obfuscation. Even assuming total commitment to negotiations on Turkish accession, we ought to have included Turkey in the European Neighbourhood Policy, if only for reasons of prudence. If the negotiations had to be suspended, as they should have been long ago, Turkey could then have been absorbed directly into an existing structure. It did not happen, and things will only be more difficult as a result in future.

  Marek Siwiec (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, after today’s vote I found out – perhaps it was only I who found this out – that the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty Group ceased to exist at the time that the President of the Parliament announced this information. However, I note that, according to the list of debates, this Group does still exist, so I am not at all sure who made the mistake: was it Mr McMillan-Scott when he announced that the Group had ceased to exist, or the person who writes these lists?

  President. − Mr Siwiec, the electronic mechanism has still not been updated, but Mr Claeys has not already spoken on behalf of a group which ceased to exist a couple of hours ago, rather he spoke as a Non-Attached Member.

  Elmar Brok (PPE-DE). − (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office, ladies and gentlemen, I am indeed astonished at the words of Mr Batten, who comes from the cosmopolitan United Kingdom and yet is spreading narrow-minded and xenophobic propaganda here with his false allegations. That has nothing to do with the proud tradition of his great country.

The neighbourhood policy has surely become the European Union’s main instrument of foreign policy now that we are entering more of a consolidation phase following the accession of twelve countries altogether. For this reason it is important that the instrument of the ENP is used in an appropriate and concentrated manner, and indeed this is clearly being done in some respects.

The neighbourhood policy also gives us a solid instrument for active involvement in matters relating to the conflict in the Middle East, as Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner indicated. I do believe the emergence of solutions in Georgia so soon after the outbreaks of tension, and the fact that fresh elections are to be held, are partly connected with the effects of the European perspective and the neighbourhood policy, and show that we are on the right track here. The policy gives us the means to look after our interests, to forge links, to serve the interests of our partners and to foster the development of human rights and democracy.

When we discuss Belarus in this context, Commissioner, I find it interesting how we are managing to find a suitable way to link the instruments for human rights and democracy in a situation in which the neighbourhood instrument cannot yet have the same impact. That is an important exercise, which we must repeat in the coming year.

We have here an eastern neighbourhood policy and a southern neighbourhood policy. Both are equally important, but the method need not always be the same, because the eastern neighbourhood policy also has this dimension of the European perspective, which means that there can be different starting points and, to a certain extent, different prospects too. A policy that has to do with association agreements, with partnership and cooperation agreements and with the objectives of getting a country such as Ukraine into the WTO and then creating a free-trade area – with steps towards that kind of development – seems to me to be a very important instrument of progress.

This is a policy of joint responsibility. It is not a matter of the Central European Member States alone looking eastward and the Southern Europeans looking southward; the whole European Community is responsible for both parts. For this reason, I have to say that I cannot accept proposals such as that for a Mediterranean Union. I would very much like to see people in Spain and France concerning themselves with Ukraine, and Swedes and Germans taking the same interest in Morocco. That, and not a new division of the European Union, must be our policy.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MANUEL ANTÓNIO DOS SANTOS
Vice-President

  Jan Marinus Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, first may I wholeheartedly, on behalf of my Group, echo the appeal which Elmar Brok addressed to us all just now. It shows how important the neighbourhood policy is to the European Union’s external activities. We welcome the plans to strengthen the ENP, but this does not mean that the ENP is the finished article. The EU must keep looking for ways of making the policy more effective.

Differentiation – as others have said too – is the key to making the neighbourhood policy a success. The ENP applies to a huge area, from Morocco to Ukraine. Europe’s influence is not the same in all these countries, and Europe is not equally attractive to all of them. Within the context of the ENP, the EU must offer its partner countries the cooperation agreement that best meets its expectations. This is a given which we think should be reflected in the Commission’s priorities.

Georgia’s European aspirations are different from those of Azerbaijan. Tunisia is less important to the EU than Ukraine and Lebanon does not have the same weight as Morocco. Hence the need to consider each country individually.

We must concentrate on those countries where the ENP’s key objective of bringing neighbouring countries closer to Europe appears the most achievable.

The report also talks about the ENP countries’ eastern neighbours. We think it is a good idea, as part of the recently adopted Central Asia Strategy, to work for solid ties with the countries in question. In so doing, the European Union could certainly draw on experience from its neighbourhood policy.

We do not, however, endorse the idea of giving countries outside the region the status of ENP countries. We would do better to focus on a coherent approach to Central Asia rather than dragging certain countries into the ENP.

Lastly, stronger parliamentary cooperation with the ENP countries to the east is only useful if it is accompanied by multilateral cooperation by the region’s governments. If a parliamentary assembly were to be set up, there would also have to be a ministerial assembly, as in other regions where we have created parliamentary assemblies of this kind. In our view there could only be a parliament of this kind if the Council and Commission also created an intergovernmental counterpart.

  Lydie Polfer (ALDE) . – (FR) Mr President, as rapporteur on the South Caucasus, I should like to use the opportunity of this report by Mr Tannock and Mr Obiols i Germà – whom I congratulate, by the way, on their work – to tell you my impressions of the situation in Georgia, based on a visit I made there on 5 November, at the height of the demonstrations.

I found it a very complex situation. The major reforms that had been undertaken were, on the one hand, impressive, particularly in relation to the economy and to combating corruption; on the other hand, the difficult social climate has to be borne in mind, with very high unemployment and a third of the population living below the poverty line.

The most striking thing is the very tense, indeed aggressive, political climate, with the opposition levelling extremely grave accusations at the President, then engaging in public retractions that simply raise more questions. The Government responds with repeated accusations of foreign – i.e. Russian – interference, and produces video footage in support of its claims. The events of 7 November – the declaration of the state of emergency, the violent police crackdown on demonstrators and the closure of the television station – underscored the extremely worrying nature of the situation. Obviously actions like this do not sit well in the traditional European framework of values rooted in the rule of law and fundamental rights; and they need to be explained.

We must hope that the presidential election scheduled for 5 January will allow democratic debate to return to the fore. It will be up to the Georgian people to decide what is rumour and what is fact, and whether to focus on their disappointments or on the challenges ahead. It will be up to us, however, to encourage them and to assist in the organisation of genuinely democratic, properly conducted elections, in accordance with international standards. The issue at stake is the credibility and stability of democracy in Georgia.

  Inese Vaidere (UEN). – (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, after the Rose Revolution, Georgia demonstrated its wish to subscribe to European values. It expected our understanding and sensitivity. Unfortunately, we have totally ignored this wish. Last year I called for CIS peace-keeping forces to be replaced by international peace-keepers. I suggested a review of the legality of issuing Russian passports in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which alters the national make-up of Georgian citizens. I proposed that the Commission and the Council should adopt the same visa facilitation for Georgia that is currently granted in Russia. However, these calls for more active involvement in resolving Georgia’s problems fell on deaf ears. This disregard has done much to encourage the current situation. The path of democratisation and reform often means internal political crises, especially in this situation, where they are provided by a large neighbouring state. The European Union must listen to Georgia and must demonstrate its solidarity through deeds as well as words. Thank you.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, the official aim of the European neighbourhood policy is to create, and I quote, ‘a ring of stable, friendly states’ around the EU. A very large amount of money is being spent on it – EUR 12 billion for the period from 2007 to 2013. For what purposes? There has been much talk of human rights, but it is all about asserting the interests of the EU. For example, there is talk of establishing a free-trade area. For whose benefit, I ask.

There is a lot about protecting borders and controlling migration. Specifically, the report says, if I may quote parts of it, that Parliament ‘stresses the need to improve the capacity of ENP countries to manage migration flows, effectively combat illegal migration, … to intensify their cooperation in the fight against … terrorism (and) supports the neighbours’ involvement in the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) and the European Police Office (Europol)’. These are things that we do not support, and so, as my colleague Willy Meyer-Pleite has said, our group will not be voting for the report.

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). – (NL) Mr President, the Commission’s commitment to the state of Israel under the European Neighbourhood Policy is a matter close to my heart. Only yesterday the Commission demonstrated it here in the person of its eminent spokesman Dr Andreas Eldina.

Keep it up, Commissioner. I know I have the backing of our co-rapporteur, Mr Tannock, and of the chairwoman of our Israel delegation, Mrs Hybášková.

I have one burning question to ask. What specific new possibilities does the Commissioner envisage for strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy in regard to Israel, certainly in view of the highly developed political and economic status of the Jewish state? In short, is it not altogether appropriate to differentiate here within the European Neighbourhood Policy? I think it is. Indeed!

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, it is very important for our neighbours to be a circle of prosperous, stable, peaceful countries where power is based on democratic models and where there is full respect for basic rights.

This idea must be a basic premise for the European Neighbourhood Policy, a policy which should encourage and help our neighbours to undertake the reforms necessary to make the values I referred to above effective.

The issue of political, economic and social reforms is, for me, an essential part of the report which we will approve tomorrow.

A second thought is that the neighbourhood policy must have regard to each country’s specific characteristics. Differences must not be drawn on the basis of the continent to which the country belongs. Neighbours are just that: neighbours. That is the important point. The fact that some of them are also European may have consequences in terms of potential accession to the Union, but not for the purposes of neighbourhood policy. That is a more general assertion with which I agree, because it would be a mistake for us to discriminate against one group of countries in favour of another.

There cannot be a first-tier neighbourhood policy and another, second-tier, neighbourhood policy. Neighbours on the southern shore of the Mediterranean have noted with some apprehension that the enlargement to twenty-seven may lead to a degree of exclusion by the enlarged Union; a neighbourhood policy which prioritises Eastern Europe or the Caucasus may well fuel that fear.

The southern Mediterranean countries have very ancient links to the Union. They are crucial to us in key fields such as security, immigration and energy. Many of our Member States have, as we know, extremely close historic, political, human, cultural and economic links with them.

This, then, is the second major point in my speech. We should not differentiate between Europeans and non-Europeans in the neighbourhood policy. The policy must, as Mr Brok has just said, be one of shared responsibility.

In view of the above, Mr President, I do not share the doubts expressed in numbered paragraph two of the report about the meaningfulness of the ENP’s geographic scope. Moreover, I would not have split the report into two sections, one on European neighbours and the other on Mediterranean neighbours. A single document would have been better.

To close, my congratulations to Mr Tannock and Mr Obiols.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, the question is whether developments in Georgia show that the neighbourhood policy has failed. I believe that is not the case. They show that there may still be a need to raise the profile of the neighbourhood policy, for much of what has happened there was foreseeable. The fact is that the successes and the credit side of the Rose Revolution in Georgia have been tarnished in recent months and years by a good few authoritarian decisions which have encroached on the powers of the judiciary.

Compounded by the social situation, this has resulted in the recent unrest, and I hope we are now strong enough to ensure, together with President Saakashvili, that a dialogue is initiated and that transparent and free elections are conducted with genuine freedom of expression, resulting in truly democratic choices.

A second reason why the neighbourhood policy needs to be strengthened is undoubtedly this whole discussion regarding further enlargement. Our intention is now to discuss enlargement to the south-east, to negotiate with the countries of south-eastern Europe and Turkey and to bring the process to a conclusion. This is not the time to anticipate subsequent rounds of enlargement, but rather to strengthen relations with our neighbours, and some of those neighbouring countries, in so far as they are situated in Europe, will have the chance to join the European Union at a later date, though some will not. This strong link, however, must exist.

The third reason has already been mentioned. I believe that such abstruse ideas, if you will pardon the expression, as a Mediterranean Union that would draw a line right across the European Union, a Mediterranean Union in which, as President Sarkozy suggested yesterday to the Conference of Presidents, the other Member States of the EU could have observer status, should and must be prevented, to which end we must have a common neighbourhood policy and work together to strengthen relations.

It is legitimate to envisage an EU-Black Sea community and an EU-Mediterranean community, but it will always be the task of the European Union as a whole to maintain and strengthen relations with these neighbours, a task which also involves supporting the efforts of the Commission.

  István Szent-Iványi (ALDE). – (HU) Mr President, the Union’s objective is to create an area of prosperity, stability and security with its neighbours. There have already been some serious and solid results in this area, but there have been serious failures too. There has not been any real progress in the area of frozen conflicts, and we do not see any ideas for solving the Transnistrian, Abkhazian, Palestinian or Western Saharan crises.

The countries of the neighbourhood policy do not constitute a whole, either geographically, culturally, economically or politically. This is why a differentiated, country-specific approach is needed – it is not certain that what is good for Jordan will be good for Ukraine.

Political and budgetary balance needs to be created as soon as possible between the eastern and southern dimensions of the neighbourhood policy. However, this must lead to reinforcement of the eastern dimension, since it is an obvious consequence of the fact that the European Union was recently enlarged, with the accession of new Member States. We have had many promises from the Commission about this, but we are waiting for the Commission to keep them. Thank you.

  Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, for the European Neighbourhood Policy to be effective, it must be constantly monitored and adapted to the geopolitical situation. Only in this way will it be able effectively to implement the tasks required of it by the EU.

The European Neighbourhood Policy still faces considerable challenges. These challenges consist not only in providing effective assistance for the creation of interstate or economic cooperation. Today it is also of vital importance to have an answer to the question of how we can help to remedy the situation in those countries where freedom is under threat. I am thinking particularly of Russia and Belarus.

The European Neighbourhood Policy must be a tool to exert influence on the authorities of those countries where political freedom and democracy are no more than a show, where journalists from independent media lose their lives in unexplained circumstances, and where opposition is systematically and often brutally removed from public life. Countries that act in this way must be made aware that such practices will be exposed and roundly condemned by the European Union.

  Árpád Duka-Zólyomi (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you, Mr President. The last three years have proved that the European Neighbourhood Policy is a very important instrument for ever closer cooperation with the states concerned and for increasing the stability and security of our Community. The neighbourhood policy also puts us under an obligation, mainly if the fragile system constructed up to now in one of the countries concerned is at risk.

I would like to draw your attention to the situation in Georgia, where the democracy, constitutionality and vigorous economic development that have been built jointly are threatened. The mass demonstrations and riots have made the situation uncertain. I am convinced that the subversive intentions of Russian superpower policy lie behind the situation that has developed.

The greatest attention must be paid to strengthening the system of democratic institutions. After the declaration of a state of emergency, or excessive action by the armed forces against demonstrators, bringing the presidential elections forward was the right step in this direction.

Georgia, led by Saakashvili, is a committed partner to the EU, and despite numerous problems it is showing significant progress in the areas of reform and economic growth. The EU, that is, the Commission, the Council and Parliament, in cooperation with the OSCE, have taken an interest in resolving this tension using peaceful means. We must give all our support to this.

The EU is a ‘soft power’, in other words the method of persuasion through involvement was proved by the Georgian situation, when President Saakashvili drove the intensified process back into the pool of democracy. I feel it is particularly important to have a systematic review of the effectiveness of the neighbourhood policy in the mirror of the Georgian events. Georgian power is being put to the test. In any event, dialogue with the divided opposition, which cannot be excluded from this process, is inevitable. Despite our support, Tbilisi must prove how strong the country’s democratic system is in the January elections.

  Josep Borrell Fontelles (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, as special envoy of the Spanish Presidency of the OSCE I have had the opportunity to visit one of the most conflict-torn of our neighbourhood areas: the Caucasus; the best thing that could happen with all the ‘frozen’ conflicts is, given what is going on in Georgia, for them to remain ‘frozen’, because we have achieved no clear improvement in any of them; indeed, the events in Georgia, which have been admirably described, demonstrate how difficult the road to full democracy is.

Today the Caucasus is the front line of the new cold war, the localised cold war. Upon arrival in Tbilisi, one is greeted by a huge image of President Bush and, upon arrival at the border with Ossetia, by a huge image of President Putin, symbolising the new confrontation which we thought we had overcome.

What has happened has happened, but it is now our responsibility to use the neighbourhood policy to help ensure that the elections in January are free and fair. It will be difficult. It is difficult to go within a few months from a state of emergency where demonstrations are violently repressed, where the media are closed down with brute force, to an atmosphere of freedom which enables a free, democratic election to be held; it is difficult to imagine that we can go from a situation in which the Ombudsman is beaten in the city streets by the police to a situation in which people can freely choose their president. But such are the facts of the matter.

We, the European Parliament, must be heavily involved and must participate in overseeing the elections with the OSCE through the observers we must send, because the area concerned is the one where most progress towards democracy is at stake in one of the most conflict-torn areas in our neighbourhood.

  Samuli Pohjamo (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I too want to thank the authors of this report for the excellent job they have done. I would like to point out how important the role is of local and regional authorities and civil society in the implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

When we want to promote European values in the neighbouring countries, of crucial importance are cultural and student exchanges and successful practical projects jointly realised. The Committee on Regional Development is also reminded of the excellent experiences of the partnership principle in cohesion policy. These should also be used to advantage when the ENP is being implemented.

A genuine sense of rapprochement will also be achieved if the impediments regarding border traffic are relaxed and the movement of students, researchers, artists, journalists, entrepreneurs and others is facilitated.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, in speaking of the European Neighbourhood Policy we must remember, first of all, to support those governments that respect basic freedoms and human rights, and to encourage those rights in countries where they are not respected. This is of fundamental importance for the stability of the European continent.

The list of countries included in the ENP is a long one. I would like to draw your attention to two countries, Ukraine and Belarus, which may be included in the ENP.

Ukraine must be a priority for us, and current negotiations with that country should lead to the conclusion of an association agreement and then make it possible for that country to become a member of the EU. Such a policy should provide us with an insurance policy against Russia’s developing ambitions and yet another attempt to make Ukraine a vassal state.

Finally, Belarus – the Commission’s initiative to invite Belarus as an observer to the ENP conference would seem to be premature. We should bear in mind that this country is still under the dictatorship of Lukashenko, breaching human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities. The EU would do better to provide more effective support for the people and the opposition within Belarus. A reduction in the cost of visas for Belarussians, and particularly for students, could be a positive signal in this direction, and the Commission should introduce this without delay.

  Jana Hybášková (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like first of all to congratulate the Commission on having collaborated on such a unique concept as the ENP. Now finally we have a clear distinction between the enlargement instrument and the ENP.

Europe is in a very peaceful process. So far it is extremely successful. The ENP represents a necessary amount of creative thinking which will guard and protect peace and stability for our kids. Energy security, immigration and counter-terrorism are all core issues. The more clear, precise and analytical and the less political that we are, the better we are equipped to face these threats. Allow me, then, to use this particular context and to ask about the legal basis.

Some action plans will expire soon. Specifically I point to the EU-Israel action plan, which is due to expire in April 2008. The German Presidency created the reflection group. Its main task is to come up with clear working action for the future. In between, Madam Commissioner, your work, our work, is very positively reflected in Israel itself.

The Council and Commission received a non-paper reflecting on the simple fact that Israel wishes to enhance our bilateral relations, to have the EU and Israel meeting annually, to have regular high-level cooperation. Madam Commissioner, my question is how the Commission will reflect on the Israeli non-paper and especially how will the Commission work on a new action plan? How will our new action plan or enhanced action plan reflect our concerns – counter-terrorism, the fight against extremism, xenophobia, energy security and of course human rights issues, as well as international issues, the Geneva Conventions? How will all this be reflected and how we will answer the reflection group and the German Presidency?

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – Mr President, I am also very concerned about the crisis in Georgia and I have to admit that I am negatively surprised. Recent developments are very unfortunate and regrettable for all those who are in favour of the democratic development of Georgia. The reports of organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the Georgian Ombudsman’s report are very disturbing.

Given the situation in the country at present, I welcome the statement by the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament that the state of emergency will be lifted on Friday and that within two days from today normal life will hopefully return to the Georgian citizens. The situation, in my opinion, undermines the reputation of the Government and also of Mr Saakashvili, who rose to power with peaceful protests in 2003, and that cast him as the most democratic leader in the Caucasus.

The fact that President Saakashvili has already called presidential elections on 5 January 2008 is a positive step that has already helped to ease the tensions in the country. But the Government has to hold a democratic and free election in accordance with international standards in order to show to the world that the country is moving on. Therefore the Government must guarantee that the election campaign will ensure freedom of expression to all the candidates. I welcome the dialogue which is taking place between the authorities and the opposition; it is a progressive sign. I also expect and call upon all the parties involved to act with responsibility during the whole electoral campaign and to engage constructively in the challenge, which is free and safe democratic elections.

  Grażyna Staniszewska (ALDE). – (PL) Mr President, it is vitally important that, in tandem with the neighbourhood policy, the doors of the European Union should remain open to our East European neighbours. Membership can be a long-term possibility, as it is dependent on the progress of reforms and on compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, but it has great symbolic and political significance. I know, based on the example of my own country, that the possibility of EU membership alone has the power to mobilise society to take the path of economic reforms and democratic change.

Today, in the European Parliament, we are sending a clear and positive signal to our eastern partners, and now we await their reaction, not only in political declarations, but also, most importantly, in practical economic and social measures. We expect them to go down the path of reform and democracy, to reform their justice systems and make them independent of political influences, to fight corruption and to create a positive environment for economic growth.

I am convinced that a democratic and wealthy Ukraine, Moldova and – let’s hope – one day also Belarus would be good not just for the inhabitants of those countries, but also for the whole of the European Union.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the neighbourhood policy is one of the mechanisms aimed at supporting the creation of an area around the EU where cooperation without conflict is possible, as well as avoiding the formation of a cultural and economic divide at the EU borders. I agree with the concerns expressed by the authors of the report that it would be a mistake to include the countries around the Mediterranean in this same policy. It would be much better to create an EU-Mediterranean partnership with its own proper mechanisms.

I believe that only those countries that have land frontiers with the European Union should be included in the neighbourhood policy. Participation in this policy should be a step to the country in question gaining EU membership, obviously only if this is something that the countries themselves and the EU want. In the future we will have to think about the creation of a separate EU-Asia policy for cooperation with countries in Asia that want to cooperate economically and politically with the European Union, for example, countries such as Georgia and Armenia. We have to separate our activities by region.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) We are aware of the fact that the aim of the European Neighbourhood Policy is to create a secure circle of safety and stability around the European Union, to develop close relations with neighbouring countries as well as to enable these countries to implement democratic reforms, based on respect for human rights, the rule of law and economic and social development. My question would be this: what price are we prepared to pay to achieve these objectives?

Having considered past experience I would like to point out that adequate funds are essential for the development of the European Neighbourhood Policy. In my opinion, EUR 11 billion for a seven-year period for 16 countries is not very much. More efficient coordination of financial instruments and policies is an essential part of improving the funding of the European Neighbourhood Policy, and the evolving EU budget reform is an excellent opportunity to lay solid foundations for the much more efficient development of the European Neighbourhood Policy in the future. There is no way I could agree with Mr Pflüger, that it is just a case of squandering taxpayers’ money.

The second point I would like to emphasise concerns relations among EU neighbour states. It is essential that they maintain good relations and support one another. No doubt they would be able to solve most of their problems by working together. In view of this the European Parliament should express its forthright support of EURO-NEST – the EU Neighbourhood-East Parliamentary Assembly – as well as show political determination and offer financial support for the implementation of this project. EURO-NEST would provide new momentum for more efficient implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy while substantially increasing the parliamentary dimension of this policy, within which the European Parliament would be able to fulfil its honourable mission.

  Jamila Madeira (PSE). – (PT) The European Union’s role in the world is now absolutely vital if we are to achieve certain balances which are essential to the pursuit of global peace and justice. The logic of associating with some countries through bilateral agreements in particular must therefore not undermine the development of a multilateral approach that a global vision requires of us.

The undeniable influence of universal human rights and the guarantee of fundamental freedoms in the EU’s relations with the world must underpin any dialogue with any partner in the world, especially in connection with the Mediterranean region.

Because of this region’s geographic proximity to Europe, its age-old affinity, its cultural diversity and its constant political instability, the EU must act very firmly to ensure those fundamental principles. I therefore congratulate the rapporteurs for the importance they attach to this in their report on the European Neighbourhood Policy.

The proposal tabled by President Sarkozy, meanwhile, on the Mediterranean Union is completely out of context. Although it is extremely useful because it revitalises the debate on the Mediterranean, it proposes on the one hand to dismantle the current partnership while, on the other, it disowns the EU’s fundamental principles regarding the supremacy of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms in particular, considering them to be secondary issues according to a case-by-case pragmatism that would foster a multi-speed relationship.

It is not our role to foster the slow-down our partners take refuge in, or to foster divisions. We must promote development and progress, especially in terms of rights, while always guaranteeing that we use our investments to provide opportunities for growth and economic development as a whole for the entire region.

Guaranteeing completion of the free trade area in the region in 2010, among all its peers, is therefore an achievable objective, but we must never abandon our respect for humanist and democratic values and rights.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE). – (RO) I appreciate Mr. Tannock’s report. We need neighbours that meet the European Union standards, no matter if and when they become members of the European Union.

For this reason, I believe the Neighbourhood Policy should become proactive, namely we should not only monitor the development of the situation, but also support the given countries in their efforts to meet the required standards.

Regarding the situation in Georgia, President Saakaşvili’s decisions to organize early presidential elections, a referendum for establishing parliamentary elections and to lift the state of emergency are salutary.

All these actions will contribute to the restoration of a democratic climate favourable to resuming debates and negotiations for the viable settlement of the sensitive situation in Georgia.

I support the idea of the need to reinstate the mechanisms of the rule of law, freedom of expression and freedom of the media. I ask all the political forces in Georgia to cooperate in order to draw up a law regulating audio-visual activity, which would prevent situations like the recent one.

The party now governing is the one that, beginning with 2003, has initiated and supported a coherent system of reforms in key fields that, in their turn, have generated visible economic development, propelling Georgia towards a functional market economy and an authentic democracy.

Under the same government, the creation of mechanisms for more efficiently actually implementing the action plan with the European Union has been supported and the evolution towards a European direction has been intensified.

At the same time, Georgia has become a strategic partner in the neighbourhood policy, which is indispensable for solving the frozen conflicts in the region, a good mediator, an important partner within regional cooperation and a strategic ally in energy cooperation projects and transport.

The claims and attitude of the opposition should be taken into consideration, but evaluated in the context of the entire political and economic situation, both internally and in the region. I believe we should carefully watch what happens in the conflict areas in Georgia, as well as the attitude of the Russian Federation, especially in the context of the near deadline for making a decision on Kosovo’s status.

  Kader Arif (PSE) . – (FR) Mr President, I intend to speak specifically about the Mediterranean region which, as the rapporteurs have reminded us – and I thank them for doing so – is very important to Europe in foreign-policy terms. It is my support for substantial European commitment in the Mediterranean region that prompts me to warn against the risks of diluting Europe’s Mediterranean policy within its overall neighbourhood policy.

We do not want to see rivalry developing between eastern European countries and our southern neighbours. The ENP should bilaterally complement the multilateral Barcelona Process, which, I would remind you, has been the framework of reference for structuring relations in the Mediterranean region since 1995. That being so, neither the ENP nor any other project directed at the Mediterranean countries should be allowed to obscure or replace the Barcelona objectives, based on the three pillars of partnership in political, economic and social development, which are the only way of promoting effective regional integration.

I therefore need to highlight two points. First, we must maintain a balance in apportioning funding between the eastern European and the Mediterranean countries. Our ability to sustain a strong and ambitious European policy for the Mediterranean region depends on getting that balance right. Secondly, with regard to the projected Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area – the subject of my report to the House earlier this year – I would emphasise the importance of a coordinated and gradual approach, enabling the countries concerned to cope with the pace and intensity of an open trading system, while taking account of their own specificities and particularly the fragility of some sectors of their economy. Trade that serves the cause of development must remain our aim.

In conclusion, I should like to see these aspects addressed in the report because they are necessary to the definition of a clear Mediterranean policy based on a strategic long-term vision of development and stabilisation in this region.

  Ioannis Varvitsiotis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, let me congratulate the rapporteurs on their thorough examination of the topic. However, I must point out that if one of our basic aims is to create an area of peace, we must pay attention to the political future of the countries in question.

Let me cite Egypt as an example. Do any of us know what will happen in the post-Mubarak era? I fear not. Do we not realise that sooner or later Egypt will be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, a large Islamic extremist organisation? We must therefore understand that all our planning in the area will be undermined by such a situation.

I do not want to repeat here, yet again, the proposal I made last year in the previous debate on the report. I suggested the creation of a commonwealth among these countries in order to strengthen relations in the political neighbourhood.

Allow me to end by pointing out that the European political neighbourhood was promoted in tandem with the accession of the Ten, with the aim of mitigating the formation of new lines of division with neighbouring countries. For this reason, the European political neighbourhood must remain unified, geographically cohesive and balanced between its eastern and southern parts.

In addition, since the countries making up the European political neighbourhood display political, economic and even cultural differences, the principle of diversity is as ever crucially important, but it must not be used to widen the gaps between these countries.

  Evgeni Kirilov (PSE). – Mr President, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner was right at the beginning that the ENP should stimulate democratic reform. The Georgian Government has to fully restore the normal democratic process in the country and strictly abide by the principles of the rule of law in all its actions. In particular, we should express our concerns about the serious violations of the right to free expression and access to information. What is needed in this situation is resuming the political dialogue and finding a compromise in the interests of the people and democracy in the country.

I am particularly alarmed by the violence exerted by the police force against peaceful demonstrators. The events of these last days show failure on the part of the government to bear criticism. The excuse of the alleged plot of a coup d’état, implying some Russian influence, is highly controversial to say the least. Moreover, it is clear that any successful opposition challenger, whom at this moment we do not see on the political scene, is highly unlikely to be pro-Russian.

We welcome President Saakashvili’s decision to call early presidential elections. Today’s news that the state of emergency will be lifted is also a positive sign. From now on, we expect that all the necessary conditions for free and fair elections will be met. One of these conditions is the freedom of expression, and this means that all media that have been forcibly closed down during the recent developments, like Imedi TV, and Kafkasya TV, should resume their normal activities. We should be very clear on that.

I believe that President Saakashvili will be bold enough to reverse the negative trends established over the last weeks. After his election he started a good reform policy in Georgia, which has to be supported. I also firmly believe that the democratic development of the country should be closely monitored and supported by the European Parliament.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, because of the time I will be very brief, though that is in my favour since I will be present at question time. This has been a long and intense debate, which I think has covered every essential aspect of the neighbourhood policy.

I also believe that broad consensus has been reached on fundamental issues such as the need for the neighbourhood policy to be a comprehensive and inclusive policy geared towards the North but also towards the East and the South. It must also take the specific characteristics of the countries to which it is addressed into account. We must of course take our partners’ specific characteristics and needs into account, just as we must also use the necessary instruments in line with those needs and specific characteristics. The European Neighbourhood Policy has a single objective which is valid for all the partners, which is to establish a partnership leading them towards economic and social progress and towards strengthening the rule of law and their democracies.

I have to say, however, that in this and other forums I sometimes hear the reflection or indeed suggestion and advice that we should possibly increase the resources and possibly increase the instruments. These are generous ideas that I understand, but we must also be aware that increasing the instruments or increasing the funding, i.e. the resources, very often simply does not work because our partner countries’ absorption capacity is limited. We would obviously like to see an increase in resources too, but the truth is, as I have said, that our partners’ absorption capacity is very often limited, so giving them more financial resources will not make the programmes more effective or the results quicker or more visible.

I believe the Commission has made the right choice of areas in which partnerships should be established with the countries which are in these associations with us. The Commission acts in a broad variety of areas, including administrative capacity building, reinforcement of the judicial system and the provision of support for civil society organisations and for education and training – a whole gamut of areas are covered by this neighbourhood policy. As I have said, the single and most important objective is obviously for these partners to be able to experience a development which is also in the European Union’s interests.

The Council will naturally continue to monitor closely the proposals the Commission submits for its approval in connection with the European Neighbourhood Policy, and is naturally also always prepared to discuss and debate ideas, suggestions and proposals with this Parliament.

  Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I will also try to be as brief as I can. I will just say that I think it was a very fruitful debate and I wish again to thank the two rapporteurs. It was really clear that a great number of Members wanted to speak in this very important discussion.

I shall make just a few points in response to some questions. Firstly, it is true that Mauritania is now a partner country in the Euromed process, but it is not a Neighbourhood Policy country. I just wanted to make this clarification; the funds for Mauritania will still come under the ACP heading.

On my second point, I wish to be very clear. There was criticism from some Members that human rights, democracy and the rule of law were not our major objectives. On the contrary. If you look at any of the action plans, one of the major parts is always a basis for developing as much as possible human rights, democracy and the rule of law. But, of course, it takes time and we are working particularly with those countries on the question of the judiciary and the justice system, which is, of course, a basis for making differences on the ground.

Then one of the Members of the Independence/Democracy Group said that he did not want to have more migration. I want to tell him that visa facilitation always goes hand-in-hand with readmission agreements, so we are trying to combat illegal immigration, but we also want to try to facilitate people-to-people contact and sometimes apply some ideas for legal immigration, which is also necessary for many of our countries because of the ageing population.

Fourthly, on frozen conflicts, of course the Neighbourhood Policy alone cannot solve all frozen conflicts. For that, we also have special representatives of Mr Solana, the Secretary-General of the Council. But with the Neighbourhood Policy we are trying to create the best enabling environment for that. And that is highly important: in Israel and Palestine, when we speak about the Maghreb and when we speak about the countries of Eastern Europe.

There was another question with regard to Israel’s special status. I can tell you, as I told the Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, when we met her in Lisbon, that we have a special reflection group. The reflection group is working. The ideas on the table are very ambitious, particularly from the Israeli side. But, we have to see that it fits into the overall coherent framework approach of the Neighbourhood Policy. But within that we can certainly do a lot. And this is what we are reflecting on and discussing at the moment. I imagine that, next year, under the next Association Council, we will hopefully come up with proposals for that. So we have not forgotten it; we are working on it.

A last word on Georgia: many colleagues who have spoken on Georgia, including my friend Lydie Polfer, have said that the situation is very complex. We all know that, on the one hand, there are great tensions between the opposition and the government, but, on the other hand, there might be also other tendencies there. I therefore think it is highly important that President Saakashvili has called for presidential elections. He has said that he will consult the population on the date for parliamentary elections. And I do hope that the reform aspect that we have really tried to promote will go on in the future, otherwise confidence in the Georgian Government will be very much damaged if the current crisis cannot be solved in a democratic way. But, of course, we will try to do everything to support Georgia.

My last point is on financing. Many have said that we need more funds. But you should know that the European Investment Fund or Investment Facility that is always mentioned is an opportunity to give more funds to those countries that need them with regard to infrastructure projects, energy, transport and so on. We have therefore said that what we have is maybe not sufficient. Therefore, let us have more.

  President. − The debate is closed.

I would like to remind you that the Raimon Obiols i Germà and Charles Tannock report will be put to the vote tomorrow morning, and that the texts submitted to close the debate on the Council and Commission statements will be put to the vote in Brussels on 29 November 2007.

Written Statements (Rule 142)

  Marianne Mikko (PSE), in writing. – As the Chair of the Moldova delegation, I want to thank Mr Tannock for pointing out that Moldova fully corresponds to the criteria necessary for a perspective of membership codified in the Maastricht Treaty’s Article 49. Thanks also to his co-rapporteur Mr Obiols i Germà for this balanced and thorough report.

Moldova is not in the neighbourhood of Europe, it is geographically in Europe and should be entitled to join the EU once the three Copenhagen criteria are fulfilled.

Although the EU-Moldova Action Plan is far from being completed, we must ask what is the next step? More incentives are needed to motivate our partners in Europe to make painful reforms.

To achieve its aims, the financial and other resources of the ENP must be noticeably more generous. Full ESDP missions are needed to have a realistic chance of solving the frozen conflicts in Transnistria and the Caucasus. Presently there are no resources available to stage those missions.

Finally, it is hard to imagine policy which would fit both the countries of geographic Europe and the non-European Mediterranean countries. Clearly, the scope of the ENP needs to be rearranged in the future. Especially its eastern component needs better definition.

  José Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work. The resolution we approve will consolidate Parliament’s vision in this area of neighbourhood policy, developing the lines we defined in January 2006.

For that very reason it is important to approve amendments 1 and 2, which I thank Mr Tannock for presenting. They reaffirm points we have already approved and that cannot be forgotten now, concerning our neighbourly relations on the South Atlantic border. It is important to recall once again the particular situation of island states neighbouring our outermost regions – the Canaries, Madeira and the Azores – with which we have historic links and special close ties. We must also therefore reiterate our request to the Commission to propose and to develop specific policies to expand the European Neighbourhood Policy as far as possible to our island neighbours in the Atlantic, close to the European continent, insofar as they highlight not only our geographic proximity but also our cultural and historic affinity and the common interest of mutual security.

Along the same lines, I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud the recent communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the future of relations between the EU and the Republic of Cape Verde.

11. Question Time (Council)

  President. − The next item is questions to the Council (B6-0382/2007).

The following questions were presented.

Question No 1 by Manuel Medina Ortega (H-0777/07)

Subject: ‘Revolving door’ immigration policy

Some political figures and specialists have raised the possibility of achieving an agreement between the Member States which would combine the monitoring of the Union’s external borders with a new ‘revolving door’ immigration policy to allow legally established immigrants in the Union to return to their countries of origin without fear of encountering a closed door when returning to the EU.

Does the Council consider this approach feasible, and would it be possible to set up this policy using straightforward intergovernmental cooperation, or would it be necessary to establish new institutional mechanisms to achieve this end?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) As the honourable Member will know, in May 2007 the Commission presented to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Committee of the Regions a communication on circular migration and mobility partnerships between the European Union and third countries. In its communication the Commission considers circular migration to be a useful means to be developed at Community level to ensure more effective management of migration flows. In the June 2007 conclusions on extending and enhancing the global approach to migration, the Council in turn stressed that legal migration opportunities, including well-managed circular migration, could potentially benefit all partners involved.

The Council believes that all well-managed circular migration opportunities should therefore be explored in close cooperation with all the relevant parties, with a view to the adoption of Council Conclusions not later than the end of 2007. The need to examine these circular migration opportunities, based on the Communication from the Commission of 16 May 2007, was also reiterated in the conclusions of the June 2007 European Council. The Council is currently examining the issue of the adoption of specific instruments and measures to facilitate circular migration, and the issue of finding out how such measures may be implemented.

The Commission has not as yet proposed any specific measures.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I believe the Portuguese Presidency is devoting a fair amount of attention to this matter, I believe the reply was accurate.

I am aware that the Portuguese Presidency is coming to an end because this half-year is fairly short, but I do not know whether you think it will be possible for a specific proposal to be formulated before 31 December, or whether you will encourage the Commission to submit more specific proposals, especially with regard to the institutional aspects, whether the mechanisms we have today are sufficient or whether it would be appropriate to establish an institution of some kind to facilitate circular migration of this nature.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Member for his kind words. The presidencies are indeed always a little shorter in the second half-year, whether fortunately or unfortunately I am not sure, because of the summer holidays. We would in fact like to make further significant progress on this matter by the end of the year, but we are also obviously dependent to some extent on the initiatives the Commission wishes to present to allow us to do so. That would be our intention and our desire. At this time I cannot guarantee that, however, but if possible and if we have the opportunity, we will certainly take it.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I share the view of the Presidency of the Council on the revolving door policy for immigration and the new ideas on blue cards to attract immigrants of high calibre.

I would, however, like to ask the Presidency of the Council if it is convinced that we will be able to contain the huge inflow of immigrants to the European Union we have each year, in view of the fact that there are countries in the world whose level of development is so poor and so low.

  Emanuel Jardim Fernandes (PSE). – (PT) The question I would ask on circular immigration is whether there should not be a special mechanism to provide for such immigration, particularly in terms of providing training in the countries affected. I am thinking of doctors and nurses from Malawi who are in the UK, for example.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) This question of circular immigration has been or is being discussed and was rapidly raised by the Commission during a broader debate on the question of immigration in Europe, particularly illegal and legal immigration, and was one of the mechanisms referred to in this debate on immigration-related issues. The Commission has reflected on the matter, and invited the Council to do so and to discuss it. In my opinion circular immigration mechanisms alone will not resolve all the issues arising in this area and in this debate. It is a measure that could be a proposal and that could be a way of easing our burden and resolving issues related to immigration, and in this case even to legal immigration, but it will certainly not resolve all the problems involved. That will naturally require a broader range of policies, which as you know the Council is in fact discussing, on a proposal from the Commission.

You will also naturally be aware that the Portuguese Presidency’s programme prioritises all questions related to immigration, whether illegal or legal. At next month’s December Council marking the end of our Presidency, we would like to be able to present a set of conclusions on the general question of legal immigration and on combating illegal immigration, which signals real progress in these two areas.

As regards the concrete technical questions addressed to specific groups, the reflection the Council is and must be engaged in is not concluded, and I am sure the honourable Member will appreciate that I cannot tell you at the moment what the results of that reflection are, particularly on very ad hoc and very specific questions.

  President. − Question No 2 by Claude Moraes (H-0779/07)

Subject: Burden-sharing regarding asylum and immigration

In the context of the framework programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 2007-2013, what progress has there been with regard to the concept of ‘burden-sharing’?

What practical steps are being undertaken by Member States to achieve a fair sharing of responsibilities with regard to asylum and immigration between themselves?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) In May 2007 the European Parliament and the Council approved three decisions: the decision creating the European Refugee Fund 2008-2013, the decision creating the External Borders Fund 2007-2013, and the decision creating the European Return Fund 2008-2013. In June 2007 the Council also approved the decision creating the European Fund for the integration of third country nationals 2007-2013. These four decisions are an integral part of the general programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’.

In line with the objectives laid down by the European Council, the objective of this programme is the fair sharing of responsibilities among Member States with regard to the financial burden arising from the introduction of the integrated management of the EU’s external borders and the implementation of common asylum and immigration policies.

The European Refugee Fund complies with the obligations set down in Article 63(2)(b) of the EC Treaty on the adoption of measures promoting a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons.

The Council also seeks to promote solidarity by other means. The Council Conclusions of 18 September 2007 on reinforcing the EU’s southern maritime borders, for example, encouraged Member States to provide support on a bilateral basis to Member States facing particular pressure, stating that such support can be provided at the level of return operations, reception conditions, case working expertise or voluntarily undertaking to take responsibility for asylum seekers, refugees, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection or unaccompanied minors.

  Claude Moraes (PSE). – That was a comprehensive statement of the theoretical position on burden-sharing. We know what the instruments are, but I have to ask you candidly, when it comes to Malta, Lampedusa and the Canaries, what is the implementation? Do you feel that, over the last six months, Council members, including those in Western Europe, have taken seriously their burden-sharing commitment regarding these places, which are in an emergency situation? Some of our colleagues here know it and see it every day.

Nobody is identifying Portugal as being in any way apathetic on this issue, but what about the Council actively carrying out burden-sharing? Is it being implemented? Please give us your candid response.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I am very pleased to answer the honourable Member, and obviously I am speaking on behalf of the Portuguese Presidency in accordance with its thinking on this issue. The honourable Member knows that migration and migration flows, especially illegal migration flows, particularly from regions to the south of Europe, represent a new problem that we did not have to face just a few years ago.

We must obviously, therefore, react to this new and unfamiliar phenomenon and must take appropriate measures. As is always the case, however, those measures, that reaction and the instruments referred to are taking shape gradually, just as our awareness of the importance and gravity of this problem is taking shape gradually. I have to say in this regard that the keyword in this issue for the Portuguese Presidency and for Portugal as a Member State is solidarity. Just as we all understand that when other issues affect one or two Member States they must be seen as a problem for everyone, so too in connection with illegal migration the appropriate word is also solidarity, since we are aware that these phenomena often affect individual States in particular.

It is true that quite often all we do is talk, and it is true that we must and should do more than just talk. However, the current awareness that the issue concerned is a global problem that affects everyone and that is everyone’s responsibility is a first step. Naturally we are confident that gradually and realistically, but also with the necessary urgency, we can continue to refer to ‘solidarity’ while turning it into concrete actions and measures. That is the Presidency’s role, and that is what Portugal must do as a Member State. You will also understand that it is not up to a single Member State or a single Presidency to influence all events and all measures, as might perhaps be desired. But I can assure you that there is a heightened and increasingly strong awareness that we must share that responsibility and give effect to that solidarity.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE-DE). – (MT) With all due respect, President-in-Office, I am not convinced by your reply, as while the Council of Ministers are thinking about it, there are people drowning in the Mediterranean and there are Mediterranean countries that cannot cope with the emergency; that is why I am not convinced. I am going to ask you something specific: Malta made a proposal in the Council on the division of the burden, on burden sharing. It asked that any immigrants saved from the sea outside EU waters – in Libya’s waters, for example – should be divided among all the EU countries. What was the Council’s reply, I would like to know.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I am very familiar with that situation and I am very familiar with the issue the Government of Malta has raised in that regard, and your question is covered by the answer I have already given to a fellow Member: the Presidency is aware, and Portugal as a Member State is aware, that Portugal is also a country of the South, and we too will therefore do our utmost to ensure that the word ‘solidarity’ is actually put into practice while bearing in mind the difficulties and problems, which do exist, though like many cases this one also requires perseverance and persistence.

  President. − Question No 3 by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (H-0781/07)

Subject: Measures to ensure decent living conditions for illegal immigrants, particularly women and children

Which measures does the Council intend to take to ensure that illegal immigrants, particularly women and children, enjoy decent temporary living conditions, so that Member States uniformly respect their international commitments?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, I do not know if this is possible or within the regulations, but when the question is introduced I would like to know exactly which of the honourable Members is the author, because obviously my answer will be addressed firstly to them.

As I am sure you know, the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals lays down specific rules for the treatment of such nationals. Article 13 of the proposal for a directive provides for safeguards as to the conditions of stay pending the return of all persons covered by the directive. Article 15, which establishes the conditions of temporary custody, defines the treatment to be afforded to third-country nationals pending their return. Article 15(3) states that particular attention must be paid to the situation of vulnerable persons, and specific provision is made for minors. As you also know, the European Parliament and the Council are currently examining this proposal for a directive.

  Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Thank you, Mr President; allow me to repeat Mr Moraes’s comments: you are theoretically answering our questions very well and in detail. However, what is the responsibility of the Member States when we do not yet have your analyses? Are there any international treaties and are they being applied equally to all Member States, or do some Member States, for special reasons, provide more or less? What is the responsibility of the accession countries that serve as transit routes for illegal immigrants, mainly women and children? During yesterday’s sitting I mentioned to the Commissioner that even a 14-year-old illegal transporter of clandestine immigrants had been arrested.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I have just said that a proposal for a directive is currently under discussion between the Council and the European Parliament in which this issue is addressed. Since the proposal for a directive has not yet been approved, I cannot say exactly what measures the directive will propose for defending and protecting the weakest individuals who need the most protection. We shall see. This proposal for a directive now addresses that concern to protect the weakest.

I can also clearly tell you that when we, the Portuguese Presidency, refer to the question of illegal immigration, we always say that the fight against it is based on two fundamental principles: solidarity and respect for people and respect for the humanitarian tragedy underlying the phenomenon. We should not treat people as objects, and neither the Presidency nor Portugal accepts or has ever accepted that the humanitarian dimension should not be considered or should be considered to be secondary in these situations. This is our position in principle as the Presidency, it is our position in principle as an EU Member State, and it is a position that we will not abandon under any circumstances.

  President. − Question No 4 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0784/07)

Subject: European Security Strategy

What are the results to date of implementing the European Security Strategy? In particular, what are the results of extending the security zone to include Europe's periphery? Is the Council satisfied with the strategies ‘Peace through regional integration’ and ‘Regional integration through peace’ on the EU’s geopolitical perimeter?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, honourable Member, in the four years that have elapsed since the European Security Strategy was adopted in December 2003, the European Union’s foreign and security policy has developed dynamically.

We have reacted successfully to the threats identified in the European strategy, following the main thread that informed our approach. We have had to be more active, more coherent and also more competent. The new threats of terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, degeneration of the state and organised crime have been met by many concrete actions that reflect the range of instruments currently available to the European Union. These include diplomatic action, civilian and military missions and trade and development activities.

We have endorsed effective multilateralism, supporting and increasing our cooperation with the United Nations in crisis management, the war against terrorism and non-proliferation. Our operations in relation to European security and defence policy are our most visible contribution to global peace and security and demonstrate our willingness to take on global responsibilities. Since 2003 we have initiated 16 crisis management operations, four military and 12 civilian, in various parts of the world. These European security and defence policy operations cover three continents and range from purely military operations, including reform of the security sector and institutional development, to police missions to ensure the rule of law. From Aceh to Ramallah, from Kinshasa to Sarajevo, the EU is putting the main catalysts for peace and stability into place.

The pressures on the Union are increasing, however. We have just decided in principle to lead a military mission to Chad and the Central African Republic to help to draw a close to the regional consequences of the Darfur crisis. We are also prepared to lead a police mission to ensure the rule of law in Kosovo. From the Western Balkans and from Eastern Europe to the Mediterranean, we have worked actively for peace and stability in our neighbourhood using all the means at our disposal. I believe that the work done by the High Representative Javier Solana, EU enlargement policy, the Barcelona process, the European Neighbourhood Policy just debated here, the EU’s special representatives in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova and the Southern Caucasus and the peace process in the Middle East, as well as the EU’s role as a member of the Quartet for the Middle East and the Troika for Kosovo, plus the other ESDP missions I have referred to here reflect our determination to create security in our neighbourhood.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Thank you for your answer, Mr President. I really feel that the European security strategy is proving more successful in missions outside the European continent than in meeting challenges arising within the EU. I believe that situations such as that in Kosovo, the management of an emerging crisis, the policy of conditionality in FYROM, a candidate country whose political system is seriously ailing, and the Russophobia, whether justifiable or not, that preoccupies our colleagues from the countries of the former Eastern Europe – all these challenge us to form a more coherent and effective European security strategy.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) We have just had a discussion here in this plenary session on the European Neighbourhood Policy intended precisely for our partners on this continent. I presume that a general conclusion was that, despite the difficulties that might exist and the improvements that could be introduced, this European Neighbourhood Policy that forms part of our strategy has worked well and has ensured that many of our partners and neighbours can enjoy stability, economic progress and economic and social development.

For well-known historical reasons, many of our partners are naturally now experiencing what could be called stages of transition, democratic consolidation and consolidation of the rule of law, and as is so often the case, these processes are not exempt from difficulties, upheavals or problems. And this is perhaps true of some of those countries. We recently spoke about Georgia, when I said here that I chaired the Association Council with Georgia some three weeks ago and had the opportunity to inform our Georgian colleagues that in the area of the economy, for example, we were pleased to note that significant progress had been made in terms of economic development, despite the problems that country has with Russia. We must therefore be prepared for the significant progress that we expect and want, but for well-known reasons we must also sometimes expect backward steps that we sincerely hope will only be temporary, and we hope that the States and countries will rapidly return to progress and towards reinforcing the rule of law.

I must therefore tell the honourable Member in all sincerity that, although we European Union citizens sometimes tend to be very modest with regard to the capacity of our achievements and to the achievements themselves, we must be a little more friendly towards ourselves, as it were. I think that we have achieved something despite the difficulties.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – Given what the Treaties of the Union say and the content of the Reform Treaty on the issue of security and defence, and given what the President of the French Republic said here yesterday and the fact that France will be taking on the Presidency next year, could the Council tell the House if it envisages that there will be a common defence policy within the European Union in the lifetime of this Parliament, or in the next Parliament, and when it thinks that might come about?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) As the honourable Member knows, the Council does not comment on speeches by Heads of State of European Union Member States. Naturally, however, I have noted President Sarkozy’s opinion, which is that of the Head of State of a very important EU Member State. If we are to progress in that direction or not, towards a Europe with an enhanced defence, it will be the Council that will have to decide, and as you can imagine, I cannot anticipate the Council's decision. If that is the Council's decision – and as you know, defence is a specific area that requires very strong consensus – then naturally we will be able to go forward along that route, but the decision is obviously in the Council’s hands. I do not have a crystal ball and therefore cannot tell you how far this idea will go. We shall see, but since it is a proposal from President Sarkozy, it will obviously be listened to very attentively, like all his proposals.

  President. − Question No 5 by Bernd Posselt (H-0788/07)

Subject: Accession negotiations with Macedonia

What is the Council’s assessment of the stage reached in bringing Macedonia closer to the EU, and when does it consider that it will be possible or desirable to set a date for starting accession negotiations?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, honourable Member, the December 2005 European Council decision to grant candidate country status to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was recognition of that country’s reform achievements. The European Council stated that further steps towards EU membership would have to be considered firstly in the light of the debate on the enlargement strategy, as provided for by the conclusions of the 12 December 2005 Council, which concluded with the ‘renewed consensus’ on enlargement that was achieved at the 14-15 December 2006 European Council; secondly, of compliance by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with the Copenhagen criteria; thirdly, of the requirements of the Stabilisation and Association Process and the effective implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement; and finally, of the need for further significant progress to respond to the other issues and criteria for membership included in the Commission’s Opinion and implementation of the priorities in the European Partnership.

In its interim reports the Commission has examined developments in detail. Following the assessment of the situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as set out in the Commission report of 2006, in its session of 11-12 December 2006 the Council regretted that the pace of reforms observed had slowed down in 2006. On 14-15 December 2006 the European Council reiterated that each country’s progress towards the Union would continue to depend on its efforts to comply with the Copenhagen criteria and the conditionality of the Stabilisation and Association Process. The Council called for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to accelerate the pace of reforms in key areas and to implement the priorities identified in the European Partnership in order to move ahead in the accession process. The fourth meeting of the Stabilisation and Association Council between the European Union and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia took place on 24 July last. Particularly important among the messages set out in the Union’s common position for the Stabilisation and Association Council was its insistence that stability and the regular functioning of democratic institutions were fundamental aspects of the political criteria essential for ensuring progress towards European integration. Institutions such as the Government, Parliament and the President must function and cooperate effectively. They must also play their differentiated roles and interact as laid down in the Constitution. A constructive political climate must be established and maintained so that the country can concentrate on the reforms necessary to make progress towards the Union. Further efforts must also be made to establish confidence between the ethnic communities at all levels. The Union recalled that sustained implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement was a key element of the political criteria. Every effort must be made to achieve the broadest possible political agreement on the associated reforms, in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the agreement.

The meeting also recalled the importance of making progress in the areas of justice and internal affairs, particularly in combating organised crime and corruption. At the same time the Council also recalled that regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations were an essential part of the process of EU integration. Finally, I wish to state that the Council is examining very carefully the Commission report published on 6 November, which will be the subject of conclusions at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in December next.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Thank you, Mr President-in-Office, for your very comprehensive reply. I have only two brief supplementary questions. Firstly, do you think it conceivable that a date for the opening of accession negotiations will be set in the course of next year? Macedonia’s applicant status dates from more than two years ago, and it is surely high time to think about a date.

My second supplementary question is this: what approach is being adopted? Are attempts being made to link Macedonia’s accession with that of other countries, such as Serbia, or is this country really being dealt with separately from any others?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) As the honourable Member will understand, I cannot say whether we are or are not in a position to set a date in the coming year for starting accession negotiations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Difficult and demanding conditions and criteria must be met before such negotiations can begin, so the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be further from or closer to being informed of the date for starting negotiations according to how far it meets those criteria and conditions. What I would say, however, is that the candidate country will be better placed to answer that question than the European Union.

As regards connecting accession processes, the Presidency maintains and has always maintained that each candidate State must be judged separately on its own merits. If the candidate State is eligible because it meets the commitments and conditions for starting accession negotiations, it should be granted that status irrespective of what might happen in parallel processes involving other candidate States.

  President. − Question No 6 by Sarah Ludford (H-0790/07)

Subject: Tiger conservation

What has the EU done, and what further measures are under consideration, in order to encourage and assist India and other relevant countries in the conservation of their tiger populations in a way that involves local people and gives them a stake in the protection of those animal populations?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, honourable Member, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, provides the international legal framework for the conservation of tigers and other endangered species. The EU and its Member States are strong supporters of CITES, both politically and financially.

In recent years the EU has laid particular stress on the need for greater concentration of effort in the practical application of CITES controls in order to reduce illegal slaughter and trade and to guarantee sustainable trade of species. To underscore this need, the Commission published Recommendation No 207/425/EC of 13 July 2007, identifying a set of actions for the enforcement of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. Meanwhile, the species ‘pantera tigris’ is listed in Annex A of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1332/2005 of 9 August 2005, and is also listed in Annex I of CITES, which means that specimens of that species can only be moved in exceptional circumstances, subject to rigorous criteria. If those criteria are to be met and any decision to authorise trade is to be possible, assurances must be forthcoming that the activity is not detrimental to the state of conservation of the species.

We would also draw your attention to the need for international cooperation and in particular for capacity building to facilitate the implementation of policies for the conservation and sustainable use of wild flora and fauna in States where such species are found. The EU thus supported the decisions relating to Asian big cats, approved at the 14th meeting of the parties to CITES at the beginning of this year, with the aim of intensifying application and conservation efforts.

We are, furthermore, also prepared to provide assistance to India and to the other States of the distribution area in implementing these decisions. We recognise that the effective implementation of conservation measures requires the participation of the local population. We have stressed the need, through CITES, to ensure the support and cooperation of local and rural communities in managing wild fauna and flora resources, and consequently in combating illegal trade in them.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – I thank the Presidency very much for that, and I will read the documents mentioned.

However, the problem is that the situation regarding tigers is a crisis. There are probably only 3000 left in the wild. They could be extinct in the wild by 2020. The main problem is poaching, which is driven by the lucrative illegal trade in tiger skins and parts, said to stretch to Eastern Europe. The Indian forestry authorities say they are unable to cope with poaching gangs, due to chronic underfunding. Can the EU help with that? Have we got specific projects?

A Chinese official said recently that it is very hard to resist pressures to open the tiger trade. Surely the key is education on the one hand, but also giving local people an economic stake in maintaining higher levels. What is the EU actually doing in terms of specific projects?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) The honourable Member will note that I have referred extensively, at length and in detail to the international legal and judicial framework in which the European Union exists and operates. I have also naturally expressed the Council’s willingness, readiness and commitment to do its utmost within that international framework to ensure that the measures it provides for are effectively applied.

I have also said very transparently that we also recognise that we must work together with local populations that have direct contact with those endangered species. The battle against poaching and similar illegal activities is not an easy one, as people with experience of these situations know. They are aware that it is a difficult yet necessary battle, an assessment with which I agree.

The whole of European public opinion is with you, because what has been seen recently in connection with the illegal trade in endangered species shows that people are much more aware of the need to draw attention to these issues than they used to be. The pressure of public opinion and the attention paid to it in connection with these situations is therefore now much greater than it was. You can therefore obviously count on that public awareness, which is also necessary to ensure that we, the EU, and our Member States are able to act more effectively. As I said, we must recognise that it is a difficult battle.

  David Martin (PSE). – Mr President-in-Office, you have made it very clear that you and the Council as a whole are committed to the protection and conservation of the tiger. The Indian Prime Minister equally has, in a number of statements, made his passionate commitment to defending the tiger clear. As we are engaged in a bilateral negotiation with India to create a new bilateral treaty between the EU and India, do you think this is a subject we could include in that treaty and that we could go beyond our current commitments under CITES to help with education, training, conservation – the sort of measures that Baroness Ludford was talking about?

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, my question has to do with this issue but relates to a slightly different aspect. I believe – and you rightly referred to this – that questions such as the one under discussion arouse strong feelings among the general public. On the other hand – and you also referred to the legal position – are we in the European Union really justified in arrogating legislative or contractual powers to ourselves on every issue that deeply concerns anyone in the EU? Or should we not exercise a little restraint in these matters?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Very well, I must confess, Mr President, that I did not fully understand the second question, perhaps because of delays in the interpreting.

As regards the question of the tiger and dialogue with India, I must say in all sincerity and frankness that it is a specific question, on which I have not reflected, but on which we will reflect in the future, and I therefore take note of the honourable Member's suggestion. In our bilateral dialogue with India – an EU-India Summit is to be held – we may also discuss this issue of protected species and how we can better protect endangered species.

I must confess that because of the interpreting, I believe, I could not understand your second question.

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Thank you very much, and my apologies for having spoken so quickly. I was consciously trying to avoid overrunning. I mean it is important that we deal with such concerns when they matter to the people of Europe. On the other hand, we should also be aware of the legal limits of the Union and take care to respect these limits as far as we can.

The approach you have proposed seems interesting, but we should not leave ourselves open to the accusation that the Union is claiming competence for all global matters.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) I agree with the honourable Member, the European Union cannot and should not be responsible for everything, and should not be accused of or judged for everything. According to the Treaties, many of those aspects and responsibilities lie with the Member States, and in this case may be responsibilities both of the Member States and of the States in which these situations occur.

The European Union is not and cannot be a universal panacea, particularly since there is a principle, the principle of subsidiarity, that must always be respected.

  President. − Question No 7 by Gay Mitchell (H-0792/07)

Subject: Non-EU financial services centres

Will the Council make a statement on how it engages with non-EU financial services centres on areas of mutual concern?

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) Mr President, honourable Member, in the conclusions adopted in May 2006, the Council welcomed the Commission’s White Paper on financial services policy from 2005 to 2010. The Council particularly welcomed, and I quote: ‘the ideas put forward with respect to the growing importance of the external dimension in financial services – namely to deepen and widen regulatory dialogues with third countries and work towards the further opening of global financial services markets’.

On the Portuguese Presidency’s initiative, on 9 October last the ECOFIN Council examined the state of play regarding macroeconomic, financial and regulatory dialogues with the Union’s principal partners – the United States, Japan, Russia, India and China. The importance of these strategic dialogues was stressed during the discussion. Such dialogues make it possible to reinforce convergence, cooperation and mutual understanding between global partners, thereby helping to facilitate access to the respective markets and to promote macroeconomic and financial stability, particularly in financial services. The dialogues have led to significant progress concerning convergence and equivalence of accounting standards.

The Council supports the work carried out by the Commission, and considers that financial market globalisation requires increasing effort to achieve convergence and cooperation at international level, in line with the Commission and the Council’s strategic vision on the need to reinforce the Lisbon Strategy’s external dimension through the promotion of and an international approach to regulatory cooperation and the convergence and equivalence of standards.

Stress was also laid on how important it is for the European Union to ensure a coherent approach in this area, and it was considered that information on the development of such dialogues should continue to be forwarded to the Council on a regular basis.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE). – I would like to thank the Council Presidency for its reply. Is this Council Presidency aware that there is a school of thought that says that the developing world could greatly benefit from having a financial services sector? Given Portugal’s experience in Africa in particular, could I ask the Council President, if he does not have the response there in his brief, if he would cause this issue to be examined and pursued, because it may well be a way of assisting not just the developing world but in having global interchanges, which would be of great benefit to this part of the world as well.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) The honourable Member is right, I do not have a written answer in my brief to give you, but I will give you my opinion. In this respect we had a very interesting discussion this morning on globalisation, when we also discussed financial services and questions related to the turbulence on some financial markets.

One issue I consider to be fundamental in relation to Africa and which is closely linked to the Europe-Africa Summit concerns Africa’s position in globalisation: should Africa be a full partner, as we believe it should, in the problems and challenges raised by globalisation, should Africa be an active partner and should it have effective instruments at its disposal so that it really can be a full partner in globalisation, or do we on the other hand want an Africa which is condemned to war, insecurity, underdevelopment and poverty?

In this context, therefore, the financial or other instruments, initiatives or mechanisms that could actually put Africa with all of us, with the European Union and with other major emerging blocs, on the agenda of the talks, debate and theme of globalisation can only be welcomed.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Thank you, President and President-in-Office for being on overtime as we all are; we appreciate that.

What do you think are the obstacles to greater progress in this area, and do you think that, as things stand, enough is being done? Because what we are talking about is consumer confidence in the financial services sector, both within Europe and outside.

  Manuel Lobo Antunes, President-in-Office of the Council. − (PT) This issue, the conduct of these dialogues and so on in this specific area, which is part of the question I was asked, has been directed by and is the responsibility of the Commission. I also have to confess that I am not a financial specialist and therefore do not have the detailed knowledge required to give you a technical answer. You are asking for a technical answer and I cannot give you one. I can give you a political answer that will outline a new reality, a new problem and a new challenge, but also a new opportunity. This problem should be and has now been examined and has been developed to an unprecedented extent. We in the European Union too must naturally seek appropriate answers when problems arise, and the necessary instruments must also be at our disposal when it is a case of developing and making progress.

I cannot tell you specifically what obstacles may have arisen or may arise, though I can give you an idea, as I have, of what the EU’s policy and the Council’s responsibilities in this field have been. Finally, I can say that it gives me great pleasure to be able to extend my stay here with you, particularly since this mandate is coming to an end. I only have one more opportunity to be with you, so I must make the most of this experience.

  President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).

Question time is closed.

(The sitting was suspended at 19.45 and resumed at 21.05)

IN THE CHAIR: Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

12. Membership of committees and delegations: see Minutes

13. Trade and economic relations with Ukraine (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Zbigniew Zaleski, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on trade and economic relations with Ukraine (2007/2022(INI) (A6-0396/2007).

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (PL) The report illustrates the role that we envisage for Ukraine against the background of our own economic activities as well as as a partner in the context of trade with other countries. In addition we wanted to emphasise the role that Ukraine plays in the Black Sea region, that is, its political, economic and cultural role.

I believe that economic activities and development should progress irrespective of the political ideas held by a country. The economy must be free, state and legislative authorities should provide support, individual businessmen and groups of entrepreneurs should constitute economic entities. The economy should be an instrument to bring good living conditions to the citizens, and this objective can be achieved by raising living standards, improving working conditions, through good education, a good justice system, including ownership rights. We cannot allow common property to be used for individual gain. Encouragement should be given, also motivation, for people to work honestly to bring material and other personal benefits.

If one does not have one’s own good models or history, it is worth taking advantage of others’ good practices and experiences, those of one’s neighbours. For this reason it is important to include Ukraine in the common market and make the know-how developed in the EU available to it. I believe that our economic model is good, even though it is far from perfect, for example with regard to production and trade in food, but we are making constant efforts to improve ourselves. We can offer to our neighbour from the other side of the River Bug the standards and rules that we have found to work.

What does the report cover? It covers industry, agriculture, energy, finance, border guards, transport infrastructure, examples of non-corrupt activities, intellectual property, the natural environment, scientific cooperation and relations with neighbours. These are parts of a single whole that we call the economy. There are well-defined standards that form the basis of that economy and, in the report, we recommend that our partners develop such standards for themselves or abide by them.

What conditions does Ukraine have to fulfil in order to negotiate better links with the European Union? As essential conditions, I believe, first of all, joining the World Trade Organization and, while so doing or even before, resolving the debt problem with Kyrgyzstan. This process is already under way. Secondly, approval of membership by the Ukrainian Parliament as quickly as possible. Other conditions include good relations with its neighbours, that is, with Russia and Belarus, stability in its currency, the quality of financial services, developing brands in international markets and keeping to the letter of the law.

Ukraine, which has declared its desire to join the European Union, faces great, even enormous, challenges. Namely, convincing Europe by its economic, legal, financial and political activities that it is a sufficiently committed partner for the EU to ask itself, sooner or later, would it not be worthwhile to include Ukraine in the common European entity?

Commissioner, our approaches may sometimes have been different, but I believe that we have the same objective, which is to develop a beneficial modus vivendi, a way to coexist with this important eastern neighbour.

I think, Mr President, that I have saved some time as it is already evening.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all let me congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Zaleski, on this very good report.

I also want to thank the rapporteur for the excellent cooperation with the Commission services when drafting this report. The report is very timely. It provides a comprehensive overview of the issues at stake in EU-Ukraine economic and trade relations.

Allow me to focus on some points that you also highlighted in your report. We consider Ukraine a key and valuable partner in our neighbourhood strategy. We agree with the general spirit of the present report: to bring Ukraine’s economy as close as possible to the EU by means of a new enhanced agreement, of which the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement will be a key pillar.

The Commission also fully shares your views concerning the need to strengthen the rule of law in Ukraine and the importance of Ukraine’s accession to the WTO. We strongly hope that Ukraine can still complete the WTO accession process this year, and we will cooperate closely with the Ukrainian Government to this end. We consider that, once the accession package has been approved by the members of the WTO, the multilateral process of accession will have been completed.

Ukraine has set WTO accession as its priority and we are convinced that it will duly carry out its internal ratification procedures to formalise its membership. The European Union has no interest in further delaying the launch of FTA negotiations and is ready to start as soon as the decision on the accession package has been approved by the members of the WTO. Concerning the future FTA, we completely agree that it should be deep and comprehensive, with a strong focus on regulatory alignment.

As for economic relations with neighbouring countries, the report suggests a three-way dialogue: EU-Russia-Ukraine. We should be very prudent not to duplicate processes on topics already covered in other forums. Furthermore, the question arises as to whether the European Union would not risk being drawn into bilateral disputes between Russia and Ukraine. We would also question the benefit of such an approach.

It is our policy to favour the opening-up of energy markets to competition as a means of ensuring access to secure and affordable energy. This will be an important subject in the future FTA negotiations with Ukraine.

As for concerns on safeguarding the basic needs of the population, EU legislation on the liberalisation of the electricity and gas sector includes significant provisions with the scope to ensure protection of consumers and to safeguard their basic needs. We intend to negotiate Ukraine’s alignment with this legislation.

Concerning the suggestion to extend the GSP+ to Ukraine, I would like to underline that Ukraine does not qualify for these additional preferences and that the European Union has committed itself not to amend the basic GSP criteria on an ad hoc basis. In addition, this would severely undermine our negotiating positions for the future FTA.

In conclusion, allow me to once again congratulate the rapporteur on his good report. The Commission widely shares its general approach, except on the few issues that I have underlined above. The Commission will take the report into account in its ongoing and future cooperation with Ukraine.

  Jerzy Buzek, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PL) Mr President, although the post-electoral situation in Ukraine has not yet stabilised, those who represent democracy have won. This is a victory not just for democracy in Ukraine, but also for the European Union itself, which supported this kind of activity. Now, in the interests of Ukraine, the Ukrainians and the European Union, we must consolidate what has been achieved with such great difficulty in Ukraine. It is the Ukrainians themselves who have to take the post-electoral decisions, but we can help Ukraine and, at the same time, help ourselves.

I fully support Mr Zaleski’s report, and congratulate him on preparing such a document. In my opinion there are three areas that are most important as regards bringing stability to Ukraine and also benefit to the European Union.

Firstly, energy cooperation, which is very important for both sides. It is essential that we become involved in investment in pipelines that are in many cases in poor condition, as also in new pipelines, such as the one from Odessa – Brody – Gdańsk, in investment in the electricity grid and in supporting energy efficiency. We can offer our own technologies, we can create joint capital to improve energy efficiency in Ukraine, and this will also help our own energy security. Finally, something which is obvious, improvements in nuclear power station safety in Ukraine, which is very important for Europe.

The second area is scientific cooperation. Ukraine has considerable achievements in this area. It is worth benefiting from them. In addition, exchanges of students and scientists, which could reduce the deficit in the European Union, where we are short of seven hundred thousand scientists. We should bear in mind that this is always the surest and fastest method of cooperation: science, educational institutions and students.

Thirdly, cooperation between local and regional government. Our EU towns have a great deal to offer in this regard. We could assist in creating full democracy on the level of local government in Ukraine, which is something that has not happened so far.

All this should be made part of a long-term aim, namely an association agreement with Ukraine. It does not matter whether it takes 10 years or 20. It is worth presenting Ukraine with this opportunity. It will help Ukrainians, and it will help the European Union.

  Vural Öger, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, in plenary this afternoon we debated the European neighbourhood policy. Following the enlargement round of 2004, the European Commission proposed the development of a coherent strategy towards the Union’s new neighbours. The ENP has created special links with a ring of countries that share the EU’s fundamental values and aims.

Our neighbour Ukraine is firmly embedded in the ENP. We are aware of the special geopolitical and commercial importance of Ukraine as a natural bridge between the EU on the one hand and Russia and Central Asia on the other. Today the EU is Ukraine’s main trading partner; by 2006, the volume of trade between Ukraine and the Member States of the EU had already reached EUR 26.6 billion.

We in the European Union acknowledge the great efforts that have been made in Ukraine in recent years. The former command economy has been developed into an efficient market economy. According to the OECD report, Ukraine’s economic growth averaged 7.6% in the years from 2000 to 2006. That is a great success.

In February 2007 we began negotiations on a new partnership and association agreement between Ukraine and the EU. The Ukrainian aspirations to EU and NATO membership are also well documented. For reasons of trade and economic policy, accession to the World Trade Organization is at the very top of the Ukrainian agenda. We assume that accession to the WTO will prove possible before the end of this year. This would also considerably broaden the scope for cooperation between the EU and Ukraine and smooth the way for negotiations on the creation of a free-trade area in the ENP framework.

The EU must treat Ukraine as a genuine partner and give it clear messages. In this respect I can only welcome the outcome of the EU-Ukraine summit held in Kiev on 14 September 2007, where the strong and enduring relationship between the two parties was reaffirmed. We should continue to lend vigorous support to Ukraine on its path to WTO membership, in the subsequent creation of a free-trade area, and with regard to its European aspirations.

  Danutė Budreikaitė, ALDE Group – (LT) Ukraine is a strategically and economically significant EU partner and an Eastern neighbour with an important role within and outside the region.

Relations between the EU and Ukraine have mainly developed in the direction of increasing political cooperation and gradually increasing economic integration. The implementation of these objectives would contribute towards the further consolidation of democracy and the development of the market economy in Ukraine. However, the success of Ukraine’s development does not depend solely on the EU. Ukraine must make a forthright decision to follow the pro-Western direction and follow it consistently.

I would like to share some thoughts about economic and trade relations between the EU and Ukraine.

First of all, the start of negotiations for a free trade area with the EU is strictly linked to Ukraine’s membership of the WTO. However, negotiations on the-free trade area would cover not just the abolition of tariffs (which is included in the negotiations with the WTO), but the more extensive convergence – the liberalisation of the services sector, institutional reforms, the harmonisation of the legal basis with the EU acquis. Accordingly, coordinated actions between the EU and Ukraine with a view to creating the free-trade area should develop alongside Ukraine’s membership of the WTO.

Secondly, more attention should be paid to the implementation of good management practice, the intensification of the public sector and the curbing of corruption. More intense cooperation in these areas would contribute significantly towards establishing more stable economic and trade relations between the EU and Ukraine as well as strengthening the process of democratisation and increasing the prospect of Ukraine’s membership of the EU.

Thirdly, it is important to point out the fact that Ukraine’s producers are not yet ready to compete with the producers of EU Member States. Therefore, transitional periods should be established, as well as supervisory institutions in order to safeguard against the negative impact on the Ukrainian economy and society.

The fourth point is that while the EU supports the liberalisation of trade with Ukraine, it must be prepared for possible difficulties arising from Ukraine’s producers, especially those involved in exporting to the CIS; resistance to implementation of EU standards; attempts by functionaries to maintain the status quo and existing corruptive ties. To facilitate successful implementation of the reforms the Ukrainian Government should inform business people and the public about the advantages of the liberalisation of trade and a free-trade area between the EU and Ukraine.

The fifth point is that the intensive development of relations between the EU and Ukraine can potentially increase Russia’s political and economic pressure on Ukraine. In that case the EU should abandon its role of passive arbitrator, as has happened quite often before, and take on the role of defender of its own interests and those of Ukraine. There is a possibility that Russia could apply pressure on Ukraine and certain EU countries in the sphere of energy supply. Therefore, the EU should not only make an effort to solve these problems at the highest level, but also, at the same time, seek Ukraine’s involvement in the EU common energy market and ensure the security of EU and Ukrainian energy security.

  Guntars Krasts, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (LV) The report provides an overview of the current development of Ukraine, as an EU partner, and the tasks it still has to carry out, and it deserves praise for the number of issues covered and the depth with which they are assessed. It is apparent from the report that the author has a deep, personal interest in Ukrainian development issues and in the shaping of its relations with the European Union, and this has of course benefited the report. The rapporteur has carefully and considerately assessed the problems posing a threat to the successful development of Ukraine, but at the same time, if we do not call a spade a spade, it is sometimes difficult to anticipate solutions to problems. It cannot go unremarked that in Ukraine’s economy increasing numbers of economic sectors are over-regulated, state intervention is not based on laws and there is a continual increase in the creation of mutually incompatible legislation, which benefits those seeking loopholes in laws and those whose job it is to interpret legislation. Together with the high level of bureaucracy, this significantly hampers the influx of investment into the country’s economy, including that from the European Union. The energy sector is an obvious example of this. The European Union is interested in a transparent transport system for Ukraine’s natural gas, which, like the entire energy sector in Ukraine, is over-regulated, with artificially complex structures and flows of money that are not transparent. The European Union still does not have the data to allow it to assess the safety of Ukraine’s gas transport system. These are important issues for the European Union, which is Ukraine’s largest trading partner. It is to be hoped that Ukraine will manage to overcome the protracted political crisis and that the Ukrainian Government will in future be involved in EU talks that, on the basis of mutual interest, will make it possible to establish close cooperation. I agree with the rapporteur that Ukraine’s wish to join the European Union cannot be ignored, and here I would like to stress this once again: a clear prospect of EU membership is the most effective reform tool that the European Union can offer Ukraine. Thank you.

  Caroline Lucas, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Zaleski very warmly on his report. I think it is a significantly different kind of report to recent ones which have been voted on in the Committee on International Trade. Compared to the reports on bilateral trade relations of one or two years ago, like the EU-Russia or EU-Mercosur reports, it shows a lot more cautiousness with regard to the benefits of unfettered free trade. And I think it indicates a growing consensus across the party spectrum on the importance of actively engaging in a political search for how best to submit trade rules to the principles of sustainable development.

In that respect, I think we can be pleased that we have made the most of the various delays at the WTO Doha Round, which, in a way, have allowed us to conduct this search for more fair and sustainable trade rules in our bilateral trade relations. I therefore thank the rapporteur for actively seizing this opportunity.

Among the many positive signals that this report gives to DG Trade for their negotiations with Ukraine on a free trade agreement, I would like to highlight four points in particular.

In paragraph 10, I think the report rightly warns against relying exclusively on export orientation and export diversification in order to make trade sustainable. Instead, it focuses on the importance of developing the domestic market as a necessary basis for any economically sustainable development.

In paragraph 13, the report suggests the need to strike a balance with regard to investors’ rights. In other words, it insists on a legal framework in Ukraine which fosters best practice in corporate social responsibility.

In paragraph 23, the report suggests a significant shift in our foreign energy supply policy by asking for multilateral rules regarding access to energy resources and by warning not to support the race for the best conditions for unilateral energy access.

Finally, in paragraph 36 the report recognises that agriculture is a special activity that cannot be treated in the same way as industrial goods and therefore justifies different tariff rules.

I very much hope that those and other points remain in the final text so that my group can very happily vote in favour of the report. But I do just want to add that I think it is a pity to hear that DG Trade has been objecting to three key amendments proposed by the Greens and supported by the rapporteur, which call on DG Trade to start negotiations for a bilateral FTA only after the Parliament of Ukraine has given its assent to the WTO accession negotiations. While DG Trade is certainly right that this might delay the bilateral FTA, we have to insist as parliamentarians, as we do ourselves before the conclusion of such FTAs on the part of the European Union, for the voice of the people to be taken into account on such an important matter and that includes, of course, the people of Ukraine. We would therefore especially like to thank Mr Zaleski for not giving in to that pressure and, once again, for an excellent report.

  Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, everyone has thanked our honourable colleague Mr Zaleski, and I shall do likewise. His report was adopted in committee without a single dissenting vote, which shows that we can indeed produce a cross-party report if we try hard enough.

Allow me to make a few remarks. The Ukrainian elections have taken place. They were democratic, they were fair and they were free, but I believe they have left a host of problems unresolved. The incumbent President has always had difficulties in his dealings with strong prime ministers, whether with Yulia Tymoshenko, whom he dismissed in 2005, or with Viktor Yanukovych in 2006 and 2007.

Although the coalition agreement concluded between Yulia Tymoshenko’s alliance and the Our Ukraine bloc exists on paper as the basis of a possible new government constellation, the government has not yet been formed. Nor do we know what will actually transpire, even though the deadline is now quite close. If this government is formed by then, its first task, in my view, is to tackle constitutional reform, for without reform of the Constitution there is no guarantee that the internal stability of the political forces in Ukraine will suffice to avoid another fresh set of elections, especially as some people are already thinking about calling for new parliamentary elections at the time of the presidential election.

If you look at certain areas, such as economic policy, the OECD report paints a truly encouraging picture. It tells us that Ukraine recorded average GDP growth of 8.7% between 2000 and 2006. If you look behind these figures, however, you will see a huge trade deficit. Ukraine has a deficit of more than EUR 4.5 billion in its trade with the countries of the CIS and a deficit of almost EUR 4.5 billion with the European Union. In other words, there is still a real need for economic change, and the partnership agreements can and must be used for that purpose.

On the other hand, compared with the statistics of a country such as my own – the Federal Republic of Germany – the Ukrainian figures do seem magnificent. Ukraine’s unemployment rate is lower, its GDP is growing faster, its welfare expenditure on pensions is higher, and it spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education, and hence on investment in the future, than the Federal Republic of Germany. There is therefore every reason to conclude that the country is unquestionably on the right path.

Nevertheless, I referred to problems in the economy, and there are, of course, problems in other areas too. Russia has clearly signalled and plainly stated that its energy prices will rise by 10% with effect from 1 January 2008. That will have a profound impact on the Ukrainian economy. At the present time, Ukraine pays its debts to Russia with gas supplies from its own underground deposits. We shall see how that develops. It will become a political issue again, and it is important for the European Union to intervene to keep the peace. The Russians are entitled to raise their prices, and it goes without saying that the Ukrainians will have to work out how to deal with the economic fallout.

Take another point, namely social policy. During the electoral campaign, all of the parties that stood for election announced vast increases in welfare spending. If you look at the present coalition agreement between the Tymoshenko alliance and the President’s bloc, you will see that there is no mention at all of an increase in welfare expenditure. And indeed it would be virtually impossible, given the present level of government revenue, to effect the promised spending increases. This means that Ukrainian development is not advancing as quickly as is always asserted.

The next point to which I wish to refer is foreign policy. During the election campaign, all parties promised to move the country closer to the European Union. The party that has always linked this convergence with the European Union most closely with the issue of accession to NATO, namely the Our Ukraine party, was the one that suffered the heaviest losses. An absolute majority of the Ukrainian population are opposed to membership of NATO. I therefore ask the European Union to proceed cautiously here. The majority of the population do not want their country to join NATO. All the available data indicate that they do want it to join the WTO.

If we consider, against this backdrop, how the partnership agreements should now be shaped, the real needs emerge in the areas where Ukraine still has the difficulties I have listed. Ukraine must – and here I agree entirely with Mr Zaleski – have a European perspective, a prospect of accession to the EU. It would be good for the European Union to have a strong partner in the East, and it would also be good for Ukraine in view of its general geostrategic orientation.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Mr President, our debate on the European Union’s trade and economic relations with Ukraine, the subject of Mr Zaleski’s very thorough report, comes at a crucial time: parliamentary elections have taken place and the country’s economic and political problems need to be tackled vigorously by an energetic new government. I am thinking of active measures against corruption. With winter coming, Ukraine also needs a strong government which can negotiate with Russia on the supply and transit of Russian gas.

Having read this report, I am inclined to say that Europe has made clear what it wants. The ball is now in Ukraine’s court. The country must have not only an effective government, but also one which demonstrates a political determination to address the problems. After five elections in as many years, the population is understandably tired of all the political squabbling. Ukraine’s politicians must henceforth be concerned less with each other and more with the country’s political and economic future.

Yes, the ball is in Ukraine’s court, but I will say more than that, Mr President. The European Union has work to do too. I agree with what our rapporteur says in Paragraph 51, that the European Neighbourhood Policy suffers from a lack of clear definitions and perspectives. The prospect of EU membership must be extended to Ukraine in the medium or long term. As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Union can then initiate or support the reforms needed in the country.

  Sylwester Chruszcz (NI). – (PL) Mr President, Ukraine is a country with strategic importance within the European Neighbourhood Policy, and it is an important partner for the countries of the European Union.

We all hope that growth in trade between Ukraine and EU countries will strengthen economic growth and cooperation with countries in the region. Good economic relations are advantageous to both sides.

Economic growth in Ukraine should take place in parallel with respect for democracy and for the country’s laws. I am also thinking at this point of respect for the rights of ethnic minorities and, an issue that is important for me, activities that glorify fascism and genocide should not be permitted. We support democratic and economic processes in our eastern neighbour.

On the other hand, it would seem appropriate to avoid biased and one-sided support for any political bloc in Ukraine.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, acting as you did earlier I would like first of all to congratulate Mr Zaleski on such an insightful report concerning trade and economic relations with Ukraine. The issue of cooperation with Ukraine is particularly important at present, and all the initiatives aimed at strengthening cooperation are a clear sign of European interest in our eastern neighbour and of openness on the part of the European Union.

The problem lies in the fact that the time when it would be appropriate to put into practice the idea of closer cooperation, going further than the European Neighbourhood Policy, which has been of little benefit to Ukraine so far, is actually coming. It is undeniable that Ukraine still has far to go to approach the Community’s economic, political and social structures. The tasks that Ukraine faces have been thoroughly considered in the report.

Despite the fact that Ukraine can boast of its achievements as regards liberalisation of trade and capital flows, further reforms and strengthening of the Ukrainian economy, which includes membership of the WTO, are essential. Despite the European aspirations aired during the orange revolution, Ukraine still has to make an unequivocal choice between the European option and the Russian one. If we want Ukraine to choose the European option, we must state this clearly and we must give this our support.

The EU should express its interest in contact with Ukraine by providing active support on the one hand for changes in Ukraine and, on the other, by taking steps within the European Union aimed at a gradual transition from a neighbourhood policy to a policy of integration. For this purpose, steps need to be taken both on the economic front and in the social and political arenas. It would be appropriate, therefore, to support Ukraine’s independence from Russia by strengthening economic ties, which means creating an EU-Ukraine free trade area, including Ukraine in the Community’s power network, and possibly providing finance for the transport system.

It would also be useful to support and implement programmes to promote Ukraine in the European Union as well as the European Union in Ukraine, and also programmes to promote the development of science and education, which is an issue raised by Professor Buzek. The most important step as regards changing the image of the European Union in the eyes of Ukrainians would be to abolish the visa requirement for travelling to the European Union, as well as a clear statement, and this is something of which everyone has spoken, that Ukraine will be able to accede to the European Union, even if this involves an extended time frame.

  Šarūnas Birutis (ALDE). – (LT) On 18 October in Portugal President Yushchenko announced Ukraine’s intention to join the WTO this year. Ukraine has already completed negotiations with the WTO countries, with the exception of Kyrgyzstan, which still insists on recovering the old debt of USD 27 million dating from Soviet times.

Ukraine’s acceptance into the WTO will result in a reduction in import taxes and an increased number of importers. However, it is important that Ukraine implements systematic economic reforms. Despite positive changes, such as the membership of the WTO, the public mood indicates the need for serious reforms.

Ukraine is developing rapidly. In recent years there has been significant growth in the GDP, but there is still a lot to be done in the area of economic productivity and competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report for 2007-2008, Ukraine has dropped from 69th place to 73rd. The influence of oligarchs is decidedly negative.

Ukraine is a strategic partner, so it is important to integrate it further into such important sectors as energy and bilateral trade. Ukraine’s significant role in ensuring the security of EU energy supply should be considered comprehensively. The possibility of integrating Ukraine in the trans-European transport networks should be encouraged, as Ukraine could play the strategic role of a transit country through which oil and gas could be supplied to Europe.

I hope that, now the Verkhovna Rada elections have taken place, Ukraine will have got on the path towards political stability. I think the EU should continue its open door policy in respect of Ukraine.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, it would clearly be in the interests of the European Union to strengthen and develop political and economic ties with Ukraine. Ukraine, which has benefited from the continuing process of democratisation, has become one of the most promising trade partners for the European Union.

Ukraine’s aspirations to become a member of the World Trade Organization deserve support. The acceptance of Ukraine by that organisation will show, once and for all, that the country has gone from being a centrally planned economy to being a fully functioning market economy.

It is also important to accept Ukraine’s aspirations to have good political and economic ties with Russia. As Russia, in offering an agreement on a common trade area with Ukraine, is trying to gain control over that country for its own ends, it is important for the European Commission to present a decisive standpoint supporting Ukraine in its aspirations to become a member of the European Union. Ukraine should have proper political and economic relations with Russia but, at the same time, we should support its EU aspirations.

At the start of the coming year, the solutions relating to the acceptance by Poland of the Schengen Convention will come into force. It is important that compliance with the regulations on security as regards the borders of the European Union do not, at the same time, create a new Berlin wall for the inhabitants of Ukraine. I hope that the European Commission will allow Poland to introduce these regulations in such a way as to make them beneficial for the inhabitants of Ukraine.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, I questioned the Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych during his visit to Parliament last March. I confronted him with the problem of the gruesome, but lucrative and widespread illegal trade in human body parts in his country. To my surprise, he did not deny it. In fact he said it was a very painful issue and asked us in the Committee on Foreign Affairs for help, especially with the buyers, many of whom come from the EU.

It is important to compliment the Ukraine on its honesty about this problem and we should express a strong desire to eradicate it as a trade completely incompatible with human dignity and with closer EU-Ukrainian relations. This report is about helping the Ukraine in areas like trade. This must include the help that the former Prime Minister asked our Parliament for. It is a matter of urgency, as one cannot talk about further collaboration with a country where the trafficking of living and dead humans makes up a significant part of the economy. The fight against it has to play an important role in the cooperation between the EU and the Ukraine.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE-DE). – (HU) Thank you very much, Mr President. I would like to join those who have congratulated our colleague, Mr Zaleski, on his excellent report. It is in the interests of the European Union for Ukraine to remain politically stable and to develop its economy. A successful Ukraine could serve as a positive example for all the countries in the region and the states of the former Soviet Union, and help to reinforce democracy in the region.

The European Union must help and encourage Ukraine to bind its future not to Russia but to the European Union. Ukraine is a European country, and its geographical location, history and cultural traditions bind it to Europe. We must help Ukraine to become capable of applying the WTO rules. WTO membership may lead to a free trade agreement with the European Union.

Expanding trade is a common interest for Europe and Ukraine, but there is a need for undistorted trade that also ensures the application by Ukraine of the social, employment, animal health, plant health and environmental rules. Failing this, we will have to face many problems.

Allow me to cite Hungary as an example in this case, since Hungary shares a border with Ukraine. In Hungary, poultry keepers have to make extraordinarily expensive investments in order to fulfil the animal welfare and environmental protection provisions. If the free trade agreement also covered animal husbandry products, a significant proportion of Hungarian producers would relocate their production plants to Ukraine, barely 100 km from the current sites, and could continue competitive production at extraordinarily low cost. On the other hand, all the products that they could produce avoiding the animal welfare provisions would come back into the European Union, and as the River Tisza flows from Ukraine into Hungary, we in Hungary will have to face environmental protection problems too.

I am therefore of the opinion that we must help Ukraine to apply all the international social, animal health, environmental protection and animal welfare rules as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your attention.

  Stavros Arnaoutakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to congratulate Mr Zaleski on his excellent work.

Ukraine is an important EU trade partner. We support its accession to the WTO and the negotiations for a free-trade area with the Union.

For this purpose, Ukraine’s economic performance needs to be developed further so that it can achieve the greatest possible rapprochement with the EU economy.

In addition, a greater effort is needed to meet the challenges in Ukraine effectively. The following need attention:

fighting corruption, combating illegal trade, strengthening cooperation with the Union in the fields of science, technology and education, and creating closer cross-border cultural links.

If Ukraine continues with greater vigour to support the reform efforts it has undertaken, I believe the desired results will not be slow in coming.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Ukraine stands today before a strategic decision: whether to make the divisions in the country permanent through the creation of an orange coalition, or to create an Our Ukraine coalition with the Party of Regions. The decision taken in this regard will have a profound significance for future EU-Ukraine relations. If the first option is chosen, there is a high probability that this will lead to political cooperation with the European Union as well as enormous economic tensions with Russia. If there is a large orange-blue coalition there will be relative economic stability, but the integration of Ukraine with the EU will be significantly delayed.

I am not sure whether the EU today is in a position to provide Ukraine with assistance that would be sufficient to compensate that country for the losses brought about by a conflict with Russia. This issue is important, in that the EU has to make a declaration now as to whether it is prepared for significant financial and political involvement in helping Ukraine. If we do not provide an unequivocal viewpoint, we could ourselves provoke destabilisation of the internal situation in Ukraine. I would like to congratulate Mr Zaleski on his report.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) If somebody were to ask me today which of the European Neighbourhood Policy countries was the closest to the European Union, I would not hesitate to say: Ukraine.

This huge country with a population of 46 million has a right to take pride in its democratic achievements since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has undoubtedly developed into one of the most promising EU partners. As a representative of the European Parliament delegation, more than a month ago I had the opportunity to observe the parliamentary elections in this country and was satisfied that there is an obvious trend towards increasing the development of democratic civic institutions, democracy is becoming an integral part of life in Ukraine, and the elections in that country are no different from those in the EU Member States.

If you look at the map, it is obvious that Ukraine’s position cannot be easy (on one side there is the EU, and on the other side, Russia). The choice is not easy, as it is not easy to give an answer to the question – ‘Quo vadis, Ukraine?’ It is clear, though, that today Ukraine must make an irreversible choice.

This choice does not mean that all long-term trade and economic relations with Russia and the CIS must be severed or that Russia cannot participate in Ukraine’s economy; it is rather the opposite. However, for example, the agreement on the CIS Single Economic Space recently proposed by Russia would be more likely to jeopardise Ukraine’s ambition to achieve economic independence than help realise that ambition.

I wish to point out that the EU, together with its institutions, its Member States, should offer political and diplomatic assistance to Ukraine with a view to ensuring the country’s acceptance into the World Trade Organisation. Assistance after membership of the WTO is finalised is also of great importance, such as assistance with official negotiations on the Free-Trade Agreement and a new, more detailed agreement between the EU and Ukraine.

Finally, I would like to thank my Polish colleague Mr Zaleski for his excellent report. My best wishes to our colleagues from Ukraine in finalising the formation of the new government and commencing the important tasks that await them.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Ukraine is a strategically important neighbour for the European Union. It is a natural bridge linking us with Russia and Central Asia.

Since 2004, that is, since the time of the major enlargement, the EU has been Ukraine’s largest trading partner. To a great extent, the EU and Ukraine share the same economic and trading interests and, for this reason, it is sensible to go down the path of further integration of our markets in order to gain the greatest benefits. The way to achieve this is to create a common free trade area, but first Ukraine must complete its process of accession to the WTO. We should do everything we can, politically and diplomatically, to support Ukraine in its bid to gain this membership. It will also be necessary to provide ongoing support to help Ukraine fulfil WTO requirements.

We should remember that, behind Ukraine, there is the mighty hand of Russia, which would once again like to dominate this part of Europe. For this reason it is a good idea to give Ukraine the status of a market economy, which should bring that country closer to Western Europe and, as a result, should lead to membership of the European Union. Mr Zaleski’s report is a good step in this direction, and I would like to congratulate him on the report.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, allow me to begin my remarks by pointing out that this is the second debate today on a foreign-policy issue at which the Commission has not been represented by the competent Commissioner. This morning we had our main debate on the subject of globalisation, and the competent Commissioner was not present, and this evening the members of the Commission with responsibility for this important matter are once more absent. I have nothing against our esteemed Commissioner Borg, but it would be proper, in my view, if the Commission were represented by the Commissioner with responsibility for the subject under discussion. I should be grateful, Mr President, if you would forward this request to the Commission for future debates, and I am sure it serves the interests of the whole college of Commissioners.

I should like to express my sincere thanks to Mr Zaleski for his very balanced report. We must improve our cooperation with our Ukrainian neighbours. That is why it is good that the European neighbourhood policy should be shaped accordingly. That is why it is good that Ukraine should accede to the WTO. That is why it is good that we should negotiate a partnership and cooperation agreement, and it is good that we should support the vision of a free trade area as the start of a careful unveiling of a European perspective for Ukraine.

Let me also say at this point, however, that I cannot envisage Ukrainian membership of the EU for the foreseeable future. Improved cooperation, to which many of my fellow Members have already referred, is also an urgent requirement and can benefit both sides. I attach particular importance to fruitful cooperation and close solidarity with our eastern neighbours.

In my view it is intolerable, for example, that Russia should make its cooperation with Ukraine dependent on which government is in office in Kiev and which parliamentary majority the Ukrainian nation has elected. That is intolerable, and Russia is on the wrong track with such a policy. We as Europeans, as the European Union, must support the Ukrainian people on the next stages of their journey to independence and firmly established democracy. Mr Zaleski’s report constitutes a large and important contribution to that effort.

  President. − I am sure you are right, Mr Caspary, that the debate should be replied to by the appropriate Commissioner, but in practical terms that is not always possible. I know that Mr Borg is an extremely experienced Commissioner and politician who will no doubt convey your message to the relevant people.

I should point out that the debate on globalisation earlier today was replied to by Mr Barroso, so it is a mix-and-match Commission, but a very competent one.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, Ukraine should have priority as regards the European Union’s foreign policy within Europe. This is because of its strategic geopolitical situation. On one side it is a direct neighbour of the European Union and, on the other, Ukraine could be an important bridge between the EU, Russia and the countries of Central Asia. With its access to the Black Sea, it could be an important economic partner in that region as well.

I support the recommendations of the rapporteur as regards assistance from Member States to Ukraine in its accession to the WTO. This will bring a raft of benefits to Ukraine and to the region. In saying this, however, we should not lose sight of the fact that, for historical reasons, Kiev still has much to do. The European Union should support the Ukrainian government in rebuilding the country on many levels, not just as regards its economy or industry, but also in social matters. There should also be considerable flexibility as regards foreign policy, taking into consideration the political complexity in Ukraine.

At this point it is important to consider Russia, whose interests conflict with Community interests in Right-bank Ukraine. Ukrainian democracy is still very young. However, the last few years have shown that democratic processes are becoming stabilised. We cannot at this time forget that, depending on social attitudes, it would be possible for strongly anti-European forces to come to power. For this reason I would like to add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed in the House, and I am in favour of Mr Zaleski’s report. It is a report in which all these fundamental questions have been addressed, and in which a path has been outlined for the EU to follow in its policy towards Ukraine.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the Members of Parliament for their comments and the interesting debate.

I have taken good note of it and will convey your messages to my colleague, Commissioner Mandelson, who is today attending an international commitment that he could not miss. I am, however, certain that he will give them due consideration.

Allow me to react to some of the points raised in the debate. While not entering into detail on the different points, I would like to underline that we are in agreement on two most important conclusions.

First, that Ukraine is a key and valuable partner in the European Union’s neighbourhood strategy. We share your key messages concerning the positive economic interdependence, the importance of our energy relations, the field of science, people-to-people relations and the need to deepen and strengthen our economic relations.

On the issue of WTO accession, the Commission is in full agreement that this is a key issue. However, the Commission and the Member States believe that negotiations on an FTA represent a crucial step which needs to be taken as soon as possible. As a consequence the finalisation of the WTO Geneva process would be sufficient to allow for the setting in motion of the negotiations for a deep and comprehensive FTA. We hope that the WTO process can still be finalised by the end of this year or the very beginning of 2008.

We aim to conclude the most ambitious bilateral trade agreement we have ever entered into. It will also need to address the question of institutional capacities and reform needs, customs, police and the judiciary and the question of corruption in general.

On the issue of scientific exchanges and visas, I would like to point out that these will also be covered by the FTA.

Let me also state that increasing trade flows is not a threat for sustainable development. On the other hand, it encourages sustainable development through the adoption of EU standards.

On the issue of Ukraine’s possible accession to the EU, let me emphasise that neither side is ready for this step. The new enhanced agreement will bring Ukraine as close as possible to the EU in as many areas as possible while not prejudging any possible future developments in EU-Ukraine relations in accordance with the treaty provisions.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the rapporteur once again for this good report, which we find to be a balanced report, and we will take due account of its recommendations in our ongoing work with Ukraine.

  President. − Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you to all speakers in this important debate on a particularly relevant topic.

The debate is closed;

The vote will take place on Thursday.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  András Gyürk (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) The report that has been discussed rightly sheds light on the fact that Ukraine is a strategically important partner for the European Union, since it may play an important intermediary role in dialogue with Russia and other Central Asian countries. We are convinced that the strengthening of economic relations through the principles of a free market has inherent advantages for both sides. This is particularly true in the area of energy policy.

The events of the last few months have shed new light on the fact that the energy sector in Ukraine today is characterised by a lack of transparency. The confusing relationships allow room for corruption and the exercise of political pressure. None of this promotes the realisation of market relationships. They impede Ukraine’s endeavours in respect of integration with the Union and thereby endanger the security of European supply.

The European Union and Ukraine must work together precisely for this reason, so that the principles of transparency and competition are realised as cooperation begins to develop in the field of energy. At the same time, in any case, we must base the relationship on reciprocity.

I feel that it is important to note that the economic cooperation to be developed between the European Union and Ukraine cannot be interpreted without taking into account the ambitions of Russia. The Ukrainian Government that is taking office may have an important role in ensuring that the principles outlined above are realised not only in connection with dialogue with the Union but also in the whole region.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – Following the 2004 enlargement and the accession of countries with common external borders with Ukraine, it is clear that Ukraine has become a neighbour of strategic importance to the EU as a whole, as well as a determinant actor in the region. Since 2004, the EU has been the most important trade partner of Ukraine, and the eastern expansion of the Union’s borders has definitively opened up new opportunities for trade, industrial cooperation and economic growth in the region.

In this respect, it is of the utmost importance for the Union to actively support the WTO accession of Ukraine, following which it will be possible to establish a genuine EU-Ukraine free trade area within a sound and transparent institutional framework. Generally speaking, it is indeed in the interests of the Union to foster a good commercial, economic and social performance in Ukraine in order to secure trade relations and political stability in the region.

We therefore support the call for a coordinated global response to the political, economic and social challenges in Eastern Central Europe. More specifically, we ought to set up consistent approaches, together with Ukraine, on important issues, such as the reliability of energy supply, nuclear safety, agricultural matters and environmental sustainable standards.

14. Recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Iles Braghetto, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (COM(2007)0169 – C6-0110/2007 – 2007/0058(CNS)) (A6-0408/2007).

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, firstly I would like to express my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Braghetto, and to the Committee on Fisheries for this report, which raises the issue of the recovery plan for bluefin tuna.

The Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna is a key stock for the Community. As confirmed by scientific advice, this bluefin tuna stock is now at high risk of collapse. All the states involved in this fishery have agreed to the need for urgent measures to ensure the sustainability of the bluefin tuna stock and of the fishery.

I am convinced that the recovery plan adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas in 2006 represents a realistic chance for the gradual recovery of bluefin tuna if it is fully respected. Therefore, decisive and effective action is immediately necessary at Community level. The speed of the implementation of the ICCAT recovery plan is an absolute must, both for conservation reasons and to safeguard the common fisheries policy’s credibility and the credibility of the EU fishermen themselves. The objective is to have the proposal agreed at the November Council.

During discussions held in the context of the Council preparations, many changes were introduced to the original proposal, some of which go in the direction of your suggested amendments. I am sure that we are in agreement on the objectives of urgently taking measures to eliminate overfishing and to ensure strict compliance with ICCAT measures, in order to bring the bluefin tuna stock to sustainable levels. This will, at the same time, improve the profitability of the fishing industry in the long term. Apart from the benefits to industry, there is also an international political commitment that we are obliged to fulfil.

Turning now to the report, I appreciate and share the Fisheries Committee’s view that the Community needs to address the excess fishing effort of its fleet. The Commission also considers that the annual fishing plan is an effective instrument to avoid overfishing because of the overcapacity of the Community fleet.

In this context, the Commission can accept Amendments 1, 2, 7 and 8 concerning the establishment of annual fishing plans to ensure a balance between the fishing effort of the Community fleet and the quotas. A relevant provision on this issue has been introduced in the Presidency compromise.

In addition, the Commission asks the Member States concerned to include in their operational plans a reduction of their fishing capacity, either temporary cessation or scrapping, to ensure that their quotas for 2008 and the following years are fully respected. I recognise that we are asking the industry to make considerable sacrifices, but these are necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fisheries, fleets and coastal communities concerned. The choice is between short-term sacrifice and the collapse of the stock.

Moreover, I totally agree with you that, in order to alleviate the socio-economic impact that will be caused by the reduction in fishing activity, it is necessary to ensure financial compensation for the industry. A provision on the related financing measure in line with Amendment 5 has also been introduced in the Presidency compromise. I am aware that there are other concerns. I share many of those concerns and know that they too will need to be addressed.

With respect to Amendment 3, let me state first of all that I am well aware that the number of cages for tuna fattening has increased greatly since 1990 and that their capacity exceeds the total sum of the TAC available.

ICCAT has now adopted a strict regulation in order to ensure the sustainable development of farming activities for bluefin tuna. The next step will be to regulate the number of farms. The Commission fully supports the adoption of the recommendation made by the ICCAT Working Group on Capacity in July 2007.

This recommendation proposes the implementation of a freeze on boat fishing capacity and farming capacity for bluefin tuna. We need to wait for the final results of the ICCAT discussion being held in Antalya this week. That is the reason why the Commission cannot accept, at this stage, the amendment concerning the limitation of farming capacity.

On the derogations relating to fishing areas and minimum size, I would like to remind you of the context within which such derogations were accepted by ICCAT. All contracting parties have agreed these derogations as part of the package on the recovery plan. These derogations were granted for artisanal fleets and for some seasonal fleets because their impact on catches is insignificant. In addition, these derogations include a series of strict conditions, such as a limited number of vessels, limited catches and designated ports. Having said that, the recovery plan may be revised in 2008 on the basis of new scientific advice or weaknesses detected in its implementation.

At this stage, the Community has a responsibility to ensure that the recovery plan is incorporated in Community legislation to ensure its full implementation. In this context, I cannot accept Parliament’s amendments on the deletion of the derogations, that is Amendments 4 and 6, or Amendments 12 and 13 on the renaming of the plan, the modification of the EC quotas and the introduction of a new payback system. These amendments are not in line with the recovery plan adopted by ICCAT and the ICCAT rules on payback.

Similarly, I cannot accept Amendment 10 regarding traps, since the proposal does not include measures to address this issue. For the first time, the recovery plan regulates trap activity and this will, in future, enable an evaluation of the impact of this fishing activity on the stock.

Regarding Amendments 9 and 11 relating to the harmonisation of sanctions and the possible closure of a national fishery of a Member State where it fails to respect its reporting requirements, let me say that, whereas we fully understand and share the spirit behind this proposal, we cannot accept the amendment in this context, as the proposal does not include measures that address the issue. The issue is one of general policy and the Commission will examine it in the forthcoming 2008 reform of the control framework of the common fisheries policy.

We consider that documentation and transmission of information to the Commission at set times is a crucial element for the success of the bluefin tuna recovery plan, and it is also a prerequisite if we are to monitor the uptake of the EU quota in real time. The Commission has therefore opened infringement procedures against all seven Member States which take part in the bluefin tuna fishery for shortcomings in data transmission.

In conclusion, let me state that we are deeply concerned about the overshoot of the quota by some Member States, which undermines the credibility of the Community at international level and jeopardises the success of the bluefin tuna recovery plan.

At the meeting of the Compliance Committee, which took place in Antalya on 8 and 9 November, the contracting parties – notably the United States and Canada – criticised the lack of compliance with ICCAT rules. As expected, the European Community was severely criticised for overshooting the TAC in 2007.

At the same time, the contracting parties acknowledged the difficulties for the European Community fleet in adapting to the reality of the recovery plan, which entered into force in 2007, and welcomed the European Community proposal on a specific payback regime. The Compliance Committee has adopted a specific recommendation concerning a payback system for the overshoot of the EC quota in 2007, which comes to 4 440 tonnes, based on an EC proposal.

In accordance with this recommendation, the overharvesting of the European Community’s quota in 2007 will result in a yearly deduction of 1 480 tonnes from its annual quota for the period 2009-2011.

In addition, the Compliance Committee agreed that the figure for the European Community was provisional and may be subject to review and eventual adjustment as a result of ongoing investigations. This recommendation will be adopted by ICCAT during its plenary session on 18 November.

Nevertheless, we have to reassure the ICCAT parties that the European Community will do its utmost to ensure that quotas allocated to the vessels of our Member States are scrupulously monitored by those Member States and by the European Commission, in order to ensure respect for the quota set for 2008 and the forthcoming years.

Following the adoption of this regulation, the Commission is resolved to work closely with the Member States to ensure and closely monitor the full implementation of the bluefin tuna recovery plan. The Community Fisheries Control Agency will also play an active role. The agency has started the preparatory work for the coordination of control and inspection activities by Member States, with a view to having everything in place for the 2008 bluefin tuna season.

  Iles Braghetto (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of the European Commission’s recovery plan for bluefin tuna, set in motion by ICCAT, is to respond to scientists’ concerns regarding the critical condition of the stock brought about by overfishing.

The plan has been criticised in a variety of ways, illustrating the fact that scientific experts and fishermen hold differing views regarding the need for stocks to be protected. It does, however, offer an appropriate response to those needs that have been highlighted, providing, as it does, for a steady reduction in the catch quota of up to 20% between 2006 and 2010, an increase in minimum size to 30 kg, the limitation of fishing periods and the stepping up of control measures to combat illegal fishing.

In detail, some elements of the plan were strengthened during the Committee’s work, with proposals to:

– make provision and ask for fisheries plans to be submitted by Member States under the fisheries agreements, even in the case of fish stocks which are in good biological shape, since one of the main problems is a fleet capacity which exceeds the quotas available;

– establish a balance in each Member State between its quotas and the capacity of its fattening farms;

– remove the derogations relating to fishing areas and minimum sizes: these conflict with the views held by all scientific experts and with the opinion of the majority of the Member States. Moreover, these derogations are not justified from the biological point of view, since the Mediterranean and the Atlantic are populated by a single stock, and are severely distorting competition, leading to more intensive fishing in the areas concerned, including by vessels which do not traditionally operate there, and reducing the effectiveness of checks;

– urge Member States to respect their requirements to report data and information to the Commission, closing national fisheries if no catch data are provided by Member States;

– draw up a plan to reactivate traps in the Atlantic and to recover traps which are no longer active in the Mediterranean in order to preserve a sustainable and highly selective method of catching tuna;

– make provision for financial compensation from the European Fisheries Fund to be paid to fishermen during the closed season in order to safeguard and protect the socio-economic balance of fishery enterprises and fishermen;

– harmonise penalties in order to prevent discrepancies in the way in which the Member States implement this regulation.

Lastly, the infringement procedures opened in recent months against some Member States for their failure to respect the 2007 catch quotas are undoubtedly called for and necessary, but the short period for the entry into force of the current provisions during this year should also be borne in mind.

Bearing in mind also that stock management is particularly complex, especially in areas in which there is strong competition with other non-EU fleets, in particular in the Mediterranean, there is a need for improved respect of the principle of reciprocity to ensure that the aims set out by ICCAT are fairly pursued. Those measures will be effective only if their principles and their provisions are applied by both the Member States and non-EU countries.

In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to offer my particular thanks to all those colleagues who have taken part in this work.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (ES) Mr President, although I share the view that this recovery plan is not as ambitious as it should be, the truth is that it is the result of a hard-won compromise at the ICCAT and I believe that by approving it we are taking a huge step forward and for the first time sending a very clear message to the persons responsible for the over-fishing of this species.

In any event, as far as the European Union is concerned, the serious status of the bluefin tuna is down to certain Member States which have allowed and even encouraged excessive growth of their Mediterranean fleets and by the Commission which, while fully aware of that abuse and the continuous under-reporting of catches, has not lifted a finger to remedy the situation until now.

This failure to take responsibility is what has led to the closure of the fishery to all Member States because of the scandalous news in August that two countries had fished the European Union’s entire quota.

On that ground I believe it is important for the plenary sitting to endorse Mr Braghetto’s report, which includes my amendment, so that henceforth the Member States will be required to submit a fisheries plan in advance stating, first, the maximum number of vessels and secondly, that the country’s fishing effort is in line with its quota. The Commission has indicated that it is in favour of incorporating the fisheries plan and we hope that the Council will also lend it its support.

I regret, nonetheless, that the report has not made provision for any exceptions for fleets which have since time immemorial fished the Atlantic taking a negligible amount of the Community quota with much more selective gear. The people involved in these traditional fisheries are therefore forced to pay for the sins of unrestricted avarice on the part of the purse-seine fleets of the two Member States I referred to above even though they have had no part in it. This is an injustice which I also hope this Parliament and the Council will rectify.

Finally, all that remains for me to do is to ask and urge the Commission to take all the measures necessary so that when distributing the Community quota for next year due compensation is made to the Member States which have been forced to stop fishing because the quotas to which they were entitled have been used up by others and that the appropriate tonnage is withdrawn from the quotas of those responsible so that it can serve as genuine and effective recompense.

IN THE CHAIR: MR COCILOVO
Vice-President

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I take a very positive view of the Commission proposal to transpose the recovery plan for bluefin tuna agreed at ICCAT into the legal order and I agree with the Commissioner that the measures it contains, if applied correctly, will allow a gradual recovery of stocks both in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

The plan — and this is a very important factor for me — has taken into account the specific features of traditional fisheries by extending to them terms and conditions which will prevent their activity from being penalised, while at the same time striving to combine conservation of the resource with socio-economic aspects.

On that matter I would like to inform the Commissioner that from the outset my country sought a degree of flexibility over the minimum size to be applied to the traditional fleet and for that reason asked for a given percentage allocated to the traditional fleet to be included in the under-30kg quota of that fleet.

The Commission listened to that request, understood that small traditional fishermen could not be made to pay for a situation brought about by large industrial fleets, and agreed to include that measure, although it reduced it to 2% in the plan.

However, Commissioner, the place in which it incorporated it, namely point 6 of Annex I, raises doubts as to the geographical scope of application.

Restricting the measure to Atlantic fisheries would mean quite simply ordering the disappearance of the traditional Mediterranean fleet, a fleet which does not even have the capacity to travel to the Atlantic fishing grounds. At issue here is an historic fleet which has been operating for centuries without causing problems to the stock; any decline is down to excess capacity in the purse seine fleet of the Mediterranean.

Commissioner, the measure should apply to the fleets of all countries which are involved in the fisheries, not only those which have Atlantic fleets. Algeria, Tunisia or Turkey also have the right to use some of their quota to protect their traditional fleets against competition from industrial fleets and I do not believe that this exception, minimal as you know it to be, will do anything at all to reduce the effectiveness of the recovery plan.

That is why I am asking the Commission to take account of the doubts raised by the inclusion of the measure under point 6 of Annex I and why I am asking the Commission representatives to make every possible effort during the ICCAT meeting currently under way to clarify that that 2% of catches may be made by traditional fleets both in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean.

As regards the report we are debating today, I would like to inform the rapporteur that my Group is again opposing the removal of exceptions both to the minimum size and to off-limits areas, exceptions which, as the Commissioner has said, were agreed at ICCAT. For the same reason we oppose, and will oppose tomorrow in the vote, the new amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens.

  Alfonso Andria, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Braghetto, on his excellent work in the Committee on Fisheries, making it possible for to us to table a balanced text for tomorrow’s vote, which, based to some extent on previous experience, amends the regulation on bluefin tuna recovery in a way which undoubtedly improves it.

The removal of the derogations to the fixed quotas for tuna catches, some of which had originally been maintained, and for catches in the Eastern Atlantic and in the Adriatic, is in my view one of the major successes of this parliamentary procedure. Those derogations were not adequately justified from the biological point of view, since the Mediterranean and the Atlantic are populated by a single tuna stock, and they could even severely distort competition since they could lead to more intensive fishing in those areas not subject to restrictions. Checks would also be more difficult and would undoubtedly be less effective.

I agree with the rapporteur that financial compensation needs to be paid to fishermen during the closed season and I also welcome the proposed plan to reactivate traps.

Illegal fishing, considered to be one of the major scourges undermining the protection of bluefin tuna stocks, also needs to be vigorously combated. Although the proposal for a regulation tackles the problem of checks more incisively than in the past, ongoing discrepancies in the way in which the various Member States apply the legislative provisions should, in my view, be ironed out. In my view, improved cooperation between states is needed to harmonise national legislation on implementing measures and that is the direction that my amendment takes.

In my view, a further problem also needs to be resolved: managing bluefin tuna stocks in the Mediterranean requires a global strategy agreed with the other non-ICCAT countries which fish in the Mediterranean. I am thinking, for instance, of the Japanese fleet, as otherwise the goals pursued by the regulation will come to naught.

I therefore hope, by way of conclusion, that the vote will endorse the text agreed by the Committee on Fisheries.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I too would like to begin by acknowledging the work done by our colleague Mr Braghetto in this report. However, as I mentioned at the time during the Fisheries Committee discussions, on the basis of the reports being drawn up by a large number of scientists, environmental organisations and even some areas of the sector, I believe the title of the report should be changed.

Instead of referring to a supposed regulation of the recovery plan for bluefin tuna, we should call it the non-recovery plan or, better still, the plan for the annihilation of tuna. Let’s be clear about this: when the misnamed recovery plan was adopted at ICCAT a year ago in Dubrovnik the Scientific Committee warned even at that stage, and I quote, ‘Generally speaking the preliminary results indicate that it is unlikely that the measures adopted, although a step in the right direction, will fully achieve the objective of the plan’. It added, ‘If implemented perfectly and if future recruitment is approximately at the level of the 1990s and is not affected by the recent level in the reproductive biomass, there is a 50% probability of recovery in 2023 under the current regulations’.

In other words, in the event either of less than perfect implementation or of recruitment which falls below recent levels in line with the reduction in the reproductive biomass, or both, the objectives of the recovery plan will be difficult to achieve.

I reiterate that the basis for my speech is scientific reports. As if that were not enough, the plan, which has already been implemented provisionally in 2007, has gone so badly in practice that the European Union has exceeded its quota by 26%, which, in an unprecedented move, has forced legal proceedings to be taken against all the countries which failed to comply with the rules, especially France and Italy.

I am of course concerned to know how another country, Spain, was able to export almost 9 000 tonnes of tuna in 2006 when it only declared having captured 4 700 tonnes, as organisations such as Greenpeace or Adena have noted.

Finally, it would also be interesting to hear what measures the Commission and governments intend to take to control and even reduce the size of the fishing fleet, given that it would be difficult, to say the least, to believe it possible to reduce catches when our vessels are increasing in number and quality, vessels which in the majority of cases are living off European subsidies. Perhaps the ICCAT meeting being held at the moment in Antalya, Turkey, which my colleagues Marie-Hélène Aubert and Michael Earle are attending, will be able to provide us with some answers.

To my mind, however, the immediate conclusion is both simple and alarming: all the indications are that the situation with regard to the stock is very much worse than the most optimistic forecasts. Some even say that we have already gone past the point of no return. In other words, given the circumstances, I find it difficult to believe that the current plan should be called a recovery plan rather than something else.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, can I, first of all, also add my congratulations to the rapporteur on this report. To achieve recovery in any recovery plan is always difficult. This is no different from many of the others establishing a multiannual recovery plan, but this time it is for bluefin tuna. I, like everyone else, sincerely hope that the programme will be successful.

I have only had one experience and that was with the cod recovery plan in the Irish Sea. During those years the fishermen in that area did not receive any compensation for not being allowed to fish during that period. I believe two wrongs never make a right: if you have conservation then I believe you must also be prepared to pay compensation – I do not believe there is any alternative. It is fine to ask for sacrifice but sacrifice also comes at a price.

I recognise that this report is extremely sensitive for fishermen who come from the Mediterranean and those who fish in the Atlantic. So, from an economic and social perspective, it is going to be extremely difficult for them. In such circumstances, this will also be a very painful regulation for the fishermen on the ground in this region. However, the preservation and the protection of species of bluefin tuna are paramount.

  Paulo Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I also want to congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Braghetto, on the excellent work he has presented, and I would like to begin by saying that the most striking example of the inability of the current common fisheries policy to ensure the sustainability of this activity is the situation we are now facing with bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and in the Mediterranean in particular. This was recently recognised in a very interesting study commissioned by the Directorate-General for Fisheries, which Mr Borg took the trouble to make public, a gesture I would like to thank him for now.

The fact is that the tough measures we are now seeing in this area, with the total closure of fisheries before the end of the year, an attempt to decommission a substantial part of the fleet and the prospect of a total paralysis of activity, even if it perhaps does not achieve its objectives, are a direct consequence of a view of the common fisheries policy in which management decisions are dissociated from their application and control, and in which the fishing communities and authorities’ responsibilities have been eroded by an exclusive European competence that has nevertheless not been exercised by the party that advocated it.

Environmentally sustainable but economically less profitable traditional pole-and-line fishing gear had to compete with modern technologies and extremely sophisticated resources that were incomparably more profitable in the short run but environmentally unsustainable, and some discriminatory measures against the latter type of vessel are finally only emerging now. I would like to endorse and stress my total support for what my colleague Mrs Miguélez said here, to the effect that it is essential to favour traditional fishing methods.

The imminent threat of the commercial extinction of bluefin tuna fishing should make us all reflect on what needs to be done urgently in connection with the common fisheries policy as a whole.

  Ioannis Gklavakis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I agree with most of Mr Braghetto’s positions on restoring tuna stocks. I think we all want seas with satisfactory fish stocks.

However, let me express two concerns. Firstly, there are plans to establish a system whereby fishing boats would submit a detailed tuna fishing plan, to ensure greater control. I believe the situation created by this fishing plan would be feasible only for large tuna-fishing vessels that exclusively catch tuna, not for small craft intended for tuna and other fish.

We all want to control tuna fishing but do not wish to exclude nations with small craft. Besides, there is a strong fishing tradition here.

Secondly, I refer to Amendment 3, which links the capacity of the fattening units to the national quota. The breeding of red tuna in the EU is carried out in countries other than those with large quotas.

My country, for example, is not one of the favoured countries in terms of quotas. On the other hand, we have comparative advantages in terms of tuna breeding. Why should we reduce the capacity of our units to the level of our quota?

To conclude, let me now mention the unacceptable fact that tuna fishing was prohibited in September, because two EU countries were catching quantities that should have sufficed for all Member States together. These countries must be subject to the appropriate sanctions. On the other hand, the countries deprived of their fishing rights this year should be the first, next year, to receive the percentage they were deprived of. Meanwhile, we should find ways of checking fish catches promptly.

  Robert Navarro (PSE) . – (FR) Mr President, allow me to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Braghetto, for the excellent job he has done. As the ICCAT negotiations are still ongoing, we do not yet know what fate has in store for our fishermen next year. What we do know is that something very serious happened this summer and that we shall have to undertake a thorough review of the arrangements for monitoring catches. The Commission, I am glad to say, has that task in hand, although I fear that some of the measures proposed last month for eliminating illegal fishing will not go down too well with the Council.

I hope that, whatever happens, the Community Fisheries Control Agency will succeed in introducing proper coordination of European efforts to carry out the necessary checks, because the national monitoring systems are not working. It is all very well for our Spanish, Portuguese and Greek friends to sound off about the behaviour of the French and Italian fleets and the failure of monitoring in those two countries. Everyone knows the true picture! We are all aware that every country has concealed the illegal activities of its own fishing fleet for too long. That is why – like it or not – we need tougher control at European level, and that is why I am convinced we need a European coastguard.

We also need to discuss sanctions for this overfishing. It is very likely that ICCAT will decide to penalise the Community, and then we in turn would have to penalise those Member States that are at fault. The French Government has made loud noises about refusing to compromise and has warned that heads could roll. Personally I hope these sanctions – which would not have been necessary if the monitoring systems had been effective – will be tough but fair and balanced. I also hope that those engaged in traditional tuna fishing – which has less impact on stocks – will not be punished for the faults of others.

Lastly, since the experts have clearly established that European fleet capacities have been disproportionate to the bluefin tuna stocks, I want to take this opportunity of asking the Commissioner what resources are to be allocated to retraining those fishermen who will have to go out of business.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the honourable Members of Parliament for the interesting points they have made.

What has emerged from this debate is recognition of the fact that we share a common objective, which is that of effectively addressing the precarious situation of bluefin tuna. The best way of addressing the poor stock status is to implement the ICCAT recovery plan. I thus thank Parliament for its proposal regarding national fishing plans, which is an effective tool for addressing compliance on overcapacity.

On the issue of derogations, the Commission cannot modify the contents of the plan adopted by ICCAT. All the contracting parties have agreed to those derogations. Let me remind you that the derogations were granted for artisanal fleets and for some seasonal fleets because their impact on catches is insignificant. Furthermore, those derogations include a series of strict conditions, such as a limited number of vessels, limited catches and designated ports. Having said that, the recovery plan may be revised in 2010 on the basis of new scientific advice or weaknesses detected in its implementation.

As regards the point made by Mrs Miguélez Ramos, who wanted a further extension to the two specific instances in the Atlantic and in the Adriatic, these are specific, small and inconsequential cases. To extend them to cover other areas necessitates a change to the ICCAT recovery plan agreement. That certainly cannot take place this year. We do not want to reopen the ICCAT plan. A revision is scheduled for 2008 but, given the criticism of the two derogations, I believe it will be extremely difficult to extend them even further.

Overcapacity will be addressed through the national plans to be submitted by the Member States, which will have to balance capacity with catch. In addition, in our discussions in the Council, we have managed to introduce enhanced control measures to allow for better compliance. Furthermore, in 2008 we will be concentrating our efforts on the reinforcement of controls in general.

We are also insisting that, under the European Fisheries Fund, funds are committed for the decommissioning of vessels in those Member States where there is overcapacity, in particular with regard to bluefin tuna fisheries.

On the question of ensuring that other fishing vessels comply with ICCAT regulations, which is to say fishing vessels belonging to third countries, the ICCAT provisions apply to all ICCAT partners, and we expect all of them to adhere to the terms and conditions of the bluefin tuna recovery plan. If they do not, we will take this up with them within ICCAT and bilaterally. If they refuse to honour their commitments, then we will consider other measures that can be taken.

Regarding the question of overfishing by two countries, I have already said that we support the national fishing plans, and this features in the Presidency compromise, which I hope will be endorsed by all Member States at the November Council.

The amounts overfished have to be repaid, and this was agreed to in Antalya. The result will be a yearly deduction of 1 480 tonnes for the period 2009-2011. Compensation with regard to states underfishing will take place with effect from 2008.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12 noon on Thursday.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), in writing. – (IT) The Braghetto report contains much for us to think about as regards the implementation of the bluefin tuna recovery plan. That plan imposes major restrictions on fishing, in view of the need to protect stocks of an endangered species. There is nevertheless a risk that the initiative will not be effective if the European Union fails to adopt measures to counteract its socio-economic impact. All credit is due to the report for highlighting this gap and proposing appropriate instruments for effective implementation of the recommendations from the Commission and ICCAT.

As regards socio-economic aspects, tuna fishing is a traditional activity and is the sole source of income for thousands of families: if it were to be shut down completely, fishermen would have to receive financial compensation from the EFF.

Member States must also apply penalties for illegal fishing, which is the real cause of stock impoverishment. There is little point in clobbering honest fishermen if there are no instruments to stop predators at sea.

Lastly, reciprocity must be demanded from non-EU countries: there is no point in sacrificing our fishermen to protect the species if the other countries, and I am thinking here of Libya and Turkey, as well as China and Japan, do not apply equally severe restrictions in their seas. While they would have a competitive edge over European fishermen, the problem of tuna impoverishment would not be resolved.

15. Quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Alexandru Athanasiu, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies (COM(2007)0076 - C6-0090/2007 - 2007/0033(COD)) (A6-0335/2007).

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the objective of this regulation is to establish a legal framework for the collection of quarterly statistics on job vacancies. Quarterly data on job vacancies, broken down by economic activity, are needed by the Commission and by the European Central Bank for economic and monetary policies. They allow monitoring of short-term trends in the labour market and help to assess the business cycle. Owing to its importance, this statistic was included in the set of principal European economic indicators defined in the 2002 communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Eurozone statistics. Quarterly data on job vacancies is the only one of those indicators for which a legal basis has not yet been developed. The proposed legal act will provide for a mechanism to guarantee a harmonised set of timely job vacancy data across all Member States.

I understand that there was a discussion on several issues addressed by the legal act proposed by the Commission, and some changes were introduced. The amendments proposed in the Parliament report include the changes introduced by the Council, and the text proposed to you today for adoption reflects the compromise achieved between the three institutions involved – the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. There is also agreement across the three institutions that the legislation should come into force as soon as possible. This opens the way for adoption of the regulation at first reading. I am grateful to the rapporteur, Mr Athanasiu, for his good cooperation and his understanding on this matter.

  Alexandru Athanasiu (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, representatives of the Council and the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking my colleagues, who entrusted me with this report, and the shadow rapporteur for their respective contributions.

Obviously, in the society we live in, data collection has become an essential tool of analysis. Data about job vacancies are used not only to gauge the health of the economy but also to determine and shape certain policies. Nowadays, statistics about job vacancies have a direct impact on financial markets. Ratings agencies await these figures and use them to inform the advice that they give.

Statistics, Mr President, are, if I may say so, a demanding subject. It is worth quoting G.O. Ashley’s famous comment: ‘Like other occult techniques of divination, the statistical method has a private jargon, deliberately contrived to obscure its methods from non-practitioners.’ In working together on this text in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, my colleagues and I sought to highlight three aspects.

Firstly, there is the political aspect of the regulation: reasserting once again, even in the context of a statistical tool like this, the concept of free movement for European citizens and unconditional, unlimited and unhindered access to employment. Then there is the social aspect: making it easier for all the people of Europe to find suitable employment and to access information about job vacancies throughout the European Union. Lastly – and we have the Commission and the Council to thank here – there is the technical aspect of data quality. We are talking about a system that has harmonised procedures and has effectively updated arrangements for statistical information gathering, in other words an improved approach to obtaining precise data.

As you know, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we previously had no more than a gentleman's agreement – that is to say a voluntary basis for statistical information gathering. Accurate analysis depends, however, on the collection of these data being compulsory and consistent. That is why a regulation is a better legal basis than a directive because the provisions of a regulation, unlike those of a directive, are identical throughout the Union: the Member States have no power to apply them incompletely or selectively and no choice as to the methods of pursuing the stipulated aims.

One of the aims of the Lisbon Strategy is to bring more people onto the labour market, and at the same time more jobs need to be created, hence the need for the best possible system of information on labour supply and demand. Quality of information can be the key to success, and we all know today that information is power. That applies in economics as elsewhere, and that is why it was deemed necessary to develop and publish a structural indicator for job vacancies, capable of measuring just how narrow the job market is and where the skills shortages lie.

The Commission and the European Central Bank also need quarterly data on job vacancies in order to monitor fluctuation in the number of vacancies in particular sectors of the economy. Job vacancy figures are part of a series of major European economic indicators and they are needed for evaluation of prevailing conditions on the EU labour market and within the euro area under the EMU Action Plan.

Mr President, I will conclude by quoting Abbé Pierre, who said that many politicians are familiar with poverty only through statistics, and no one has yet shed tears over statistics. We ought to need no convincing of the necessity for a technically more effective mechanism for gathering all the statistics that are required. As politicians we can do our job by making it easier for people to find suitable employment. These statistics will enable us to facilitate their efforts.

  José Albino Silva Peneda, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Athanasiu, whom I have had the opportunity to meet several times over the last few months, and who is now presenting the results of what I consider to be a fine job.

I have monitored the content of the report under discussion today and negotiations with the Commission and with the Council since June this year, and on behalf of the PPE-DE I can now safely say that a high-quality and very sound compromise text has been reached. Should Parliament adopt the amendments to the Commission proposal in this plenary session, as I hope it will, we know that the Council has already said that it will also adopt the same amended proposal for a regulation.

I believe this report will turn out to be a useful tool for identifying EU sectors and regions where workers are needed, and therefore for promoting solvency and better management of training. I would also like to draw attention to what I believe is an important aspect: the content of this report does not represent a greater bureaucratic burden or more inconsequential legislation, since in its current version it avoids the duplication of initiatives and the inclusion of tools already in place.

Meanwhile, the report also represents a good compromise between the need to provide information for statistical purposes and the need to ensure that enterprises, mainly small and medium-sized ones, are not overburdened with unnecessary bureaucratic procedures.

I therefore believe that all the conditions have been met for it to be adopted now at first reading, and that is the decision I recommend to this House.

  Proinsias De Rossa, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, having all of four minutes tonight, which is 400 % more than I normally have to play with, I have to avoid becoming too talkative. So I will get on with it.

Despite the exceptionally technical nature of this proposed regulation, its value to Europe and the Member States should not be underestimated. The relaunch of the Lisbon Agenda for more and better jobs in 2005 gives rise to the need for accurate, timely and comparable statistics on job vacancies in Europe, by region and by economic activity. It is crucial if we are to plan for the needs of the labour market and the needs of those entering the labour market.

I welcome the fact that, in this instance, we are negotiating a regulation rather than a directive, as this ensures speedier implementation once it is approved. And, of course, it is directly and equally applicable to all Member States and there is therefore no likelihood of different definitions or interpretations arising from one Member State to the next. There is no need, for instance, to transpose it into national law, thus avoiding the delays that this can entail.

This is an excellent example of how the EU can add value to the work of Member States that could not possibly be achieved by them working on their own or even together. Nevertheless, it has taken two years for this piece of legislation to reach this stage and I hope therefore that an agreement can be finalised with the Council and that it will be approved at this first-reading stage.

I know that in Ireland we do not produce job vacancy data, but work by the Central Statistics Office is under way. The CSO is highly regarded and it is hoped that, within a year or so, Ireland will be able to participate fully in the system.

I welcome too the proposal to include personal services, farm vacancies etc., employers with fewer than 10 employees, and the nature of the employment contract. I think this is particularly important in view of the growing concern about the casualisation of employment and the fears in some quarters arising from the move towards flexicurity.

I do hope that an agreement can be reached and that we can get on with the job of establishing common statistics right across the European Union.

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for his excellent work on this proposal for a regulation on the collection of quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies.

First of all, let me say that high quality, up-to-date and relevant statistics underpin good policy decisions. This is particularly true at EU level, where we are dealing with 27 different countries all trying in this particular context to achieve the Lisbon objectives. Indeed, any help or assistance that can be given to Member States to achieve these objectives – that is to create more and better jobs – in my opinion will be well worth the effort.

I fully support the idea that, while the information required can be compiled by the Member States themselves under this regulation in order to ensure comparability of data, we still need the Commission to coordinate the harmonisation of the statistical information. And I am satisfied in this context that we do need a regulation – rather than a directive – but that the regulation proposed is the minimum required to achieve the desired objectives and does not go beyond that.

I suppose in this context I do not really need to go beyond that except to say that I am particularly pleased to see that we are asking Member States to transmit information on personal care services, residential activities and social work activities without accommodation. This information is hugely important because of the growing number of carers in the EU. The ageing of our population is a major demographic challenge and caring is an essential element of dealing with that challenge. Those of us who are lucky enough to live long enough will be more likely to need care of some sort and this is definitely a growing market for job opportunities within the EU. While most caring work is unpaid and indeed much will remain so, the opportunities for employment in this area will increase. Therefore we need reliable, good quality statistics in order to prepare ourselves to meet the caring aspect of the demographic challenge.

To conclude, as I said earlier, in the overall or global context: high quality, relevant, timely, comparable and coherent information is an extremely valuable tool in good policy formation, provided of course that we as politicians use the information that is provided to us.

  Ewa Tomaszewska, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, implementation of the Lisbon Agenda as regards the increase in the number of high-quality jobs requires certain tools. One of these is provided by quarterly statistics on job vacancies in the Community. Eurostat has to have a legal basis for collecting data on job vacancies. An unwritten agreement is not enough and does not guarantee comparability and completeness of data.

Now for some specifics. The first amendment means, in practice, an increase in the bureaucratic burden placed on small businesses, but there is an ever-increasing percentage of employees in just such businesses and therefore information about the situation in these businesses is increasingly useful.

I support the second amendment, which includes social partners in the implementation of the regulation.

Amendment 3 tidies up the method for submitting data even when they are provided voluntarily, which makes it vital.

I also support Amendment 17, which guarantees publication of the data, thus creating the possibility of using them to come to practical conclusions.

I would like to congratulate the rapporteur.

  Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to add my voice to those who wish to congratulate the rapporteur and thank him for his report. Like him, I also support the opinion that the compilation of good quality and comparable job vacancy statistics is a European priority. I am equally certain that collecting this statistical data under the auspices of a gentlemen’s agreement alone is insufficient, and that it is necessary to adopt a legal act at European level to guarantee the production of harmonised and high-quality statistics across the Member States. Only the Commission can coordinate the necessary harmonisation of statistical information at Community level.

I did advocate the same point of view recently, when expressing my opinion on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work. I was also very pleased by the results of the trialogue between the rapporteur, the Commission and the presidency. The ensuing compromise proposals significantly enhanced the quality of the document. Just like the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups, I, too, was happy to add my signature on behalf of the GUE/NGL.

Among these compromise proposals I would like to highlight in particular the significant contribution of the proposal to include in the statistics data concerning units with fewer than 10 employees, the proposal to distinguish between vacancies for fixed-term and permanent posts, and the proposal to ensure that as many European citizens as possible have access to the data.

Finally, I would like to say that I welcome the definition of the quality assessment criteria because only relevant, exact, updated and comprehensible job vacancy data can help to fight unemployment in the Community.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, information on changes in job vacancies to identify labour shortages sounds fine. But surely not just to compile statistics? It must be to enable employers to fill vacancies and for workers to find jobs, both as quickly as possible, hence quarterly.

Currently, national statistics are compiled by Member States themselves and the Commission seems to favour making use of that to set up a common framework under a single European Union regulation, option C. So the EC craze to harmonise converts a simple system into a bureaucratic and time-consuming one.

The real purpose is centralised control. Will we soon see a requirement for employers and jobseekers to consult an EU bureau? Down the road, does it lead to job direction? It certainly leads to a planned European economy, spelling the end of the dream of an increasingly prosperous Europe of full employment and bustling innovation.

In a globalised marketplace, the only way to stay competitive is to stay loose, ready to fill the gap, ready to exploit an opening, ready for anything. Columns of stats on reams of paper or locked on a hard drive do not do that – it is the man or women on the ground suddenly finding the chance and striking quick, before the other fellow. If he wants second place, get employers to browse the stats. While they are doing that, streetwise operators elsewhere are jumping in first thing and cornering the market.

Worse, Amendment No 8 – if adopted – allows the collating agency to reject as inappropriate national figures and substitute figures of their own. Thus they can create a false image to suit the EC centralised controllers, misleading the people. So much for informing the citizen!

Finally, Amendment No 3 encourages the exclusion of agriculture, fishing and forestry from these considerations. Now, why should that be? I do not know much about forestry, but the UK figures for farming and fishing are horrendous. Since 1973, when we joined under the CAP, more British farmers have left the land and more have committed suicide than in any other comparable period in our history. Our fishing fleets, down to about a quarter of 1973 size, are testimony to the devastation caused by the rotten CFP.

No wonder some people want to keep these figures out of pan-EU stats; no need to alarm the citizens is there?

  Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, every attempt to streamline the EU is worthy of respect, especially when it concerns the issue of employment. Employment is, I believe, the most crucial link in the social and economic transformation of an integrated Europe. The rapporteur has found a climate of anticipation accompanying this legislative initiative and has imbued his report with a highly accessible and truly interesting format.

The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council replaces existing practices, based on a gentlemen’s agreement, for the collection of data on job vacancies with a decision to establish a legal framework for this activity. This provides the opportunity to improve the next section of the process of information integration, which, by the way, forms part of the basic European economic indicators. With this there arose the need for a legal basis that would help in the creation of the necessary methodological pillars for summarising the growing collections of data.

This regulation also promises to create another type of benefit. It enables higher standards to be achieved in the quality and comparability of statistics. It will also make it easier to develop effective employment policies based on reliable data, at both national and international level. At the same time it will become possible to monitor the implementation of such policies in individual countries. The governments of the so-called new EU countries have pointed out that, thanks to quarterly statistics, they will have at their disposal a common system of indicators which is essential for monitoring the employment market. They have also noted, with some relief, that the introduction of this regulation will not mean that any additional finances are needed for quarterly data collection.

In the justification for its standpoint as regards this proposal, the Polish Government pointed out that the unification of data at European level, together with monitoring of its quality, should lead to increased knowledge concerning the changing levels of demand for specific qualifications and to more effective monitoring of the situation in the Polish labour market. It will also make it easier for more accurate employment and pay forecasts to be made. Comparability of data at European level will make it possible to evaluate the extent of mismatches in national labour markets against the background of the remaining EU countries. It also has specific practical outcomes as regards the correlation of employment policy with supply and for planning the direction of vocational training for future employees.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to express my support for the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies. There can be no disagreement over how important it is for these data to be collected systematically and uniformly while fulfilling set standards in all Member States. The value of information collected in this way is undeniable in terms of assessing the situation in the labour market in the European Union, as well as for the functioning of the European Central Bank.

The present situation, where these data are collected on the basis of an unwritten agreement, clearly shows that this method is ineffective and has to be changed. Only with the approval of this regulation, which establishes the same rules for the preparation of high-quality statistics throughout the Community, will it be possible to have an accurate insight into, as well as an analysis of, the factors that combine to create the overall situation and conditions in the labour market.

This regulation does not just oblige Member States to create statistics in accordance with well-defined norms but also helps them in this task, by supplying ready-made tools for this purpose. The unification of this research at European level will help to extend our knowledge of fluctuations in demand for specific jobs in national markets and will enable more accurate employment and pay forecasts to be made.

For these reasons it is vital for a legal document to come into force that, in a clear and transparent manner, will define all the rules regarding the collection of data about job vacancies across the entire Community.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 12 noon on Thursday.

16. Cross-border collective copyright management (debate)

  President. − The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the follow-up of the EP resolution on cross-border collective copyright management (Lévai report (A6-0053/2007)), by Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs (O-0068/2007 - B6-0381/2007).

  Cristian Dumitrescu (PSE), author. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 13 March 2007, in plenary session, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission's Recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services.

In that resolution, Parliament invited the Commission to make it clear that the 2005 Recommendation applied exclusively to online sales of music recordings, and to present as soon as possible – after consulting closely with interested parties – a proposal for a flexible framework directive to be adopted by Parliament and the Council in codecision, with a view to regulating the collective management of copyright and related rights as regards cross-border online music services, while taking account of the specificity of the digital era and safeguarding European cultural diversity.

Parliament also stressed that the proposed directive should not in any way undermine the competitiveness of creative businesses, the effectiveness of the services provided by collective rights managers (CRMs) or the competitiveness of user businesses – in particular small right-holders and users – and that it should, on the other hand, guarantee right-holders a high degree of protection and equal treatment; ensure that the relevant legal provisions had a real, significant and adequate impact; emphasise the use of alternative dispute resolution; provide for democratic, transparent and accountable governance in CRMs; promote creativity and cultural diversity; allow only fair and controlled competition without territorial restrictions, but with the necessary and suitable qualitative criteria; take into account the interests of users and of the market; satisfy the future needs of an online market; and foster the development of legitimate online music services.

Today the European Parliament is asking the Commission what steps it has taken towards meeting the expectations enshrined in that resolution.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament for the interest expressed in the cross-border management of music rights and the 2005 recommendation on online music. The Commission’s 2005 online music recommendation aims to allow the music market in Europe to develop in the digital environment. It aims to create a framework in which the best new online licensing model will emerge by agreement between the market players. This should allow authors, composers and music publishers to get a fair share of the distribution of their online works.

The recommendation does not prescribe a particular EU licensing model, and leaves implementation of its principles to the market. Exactly two years after adoption of the recommendation, the Commission is assessing the development of online licensing practices in the music sector in Europe. Stakeholders were invited to comment on emerging online licensing trends by 1 July 2007. The Commission received 88 replies from interested parties, such as collecting societies, authors, creators and music users in Member States. The process of reviewing the submissions is still ongoing. Only after a thorough examination will the Commission assess further policy steps regarding the online operations of collecting societies. The submissions analysed so far show that most stakeholders do not see the need for a framework directive, and prefer market-based solutions to regulatory intervention.

On the question of whether the 2005 recommendation is limited to online sales of some recordings, the Commission would like to point out that the principles on transparency and governance set out in the recommendation should not be limited to online music sales and should apply to all the activities of collecting societies.

To conclude, while the online market for music is still in flux, legislating in favour of a particular licensing model would appear premature. The Commission will monitor developments and report back to Parliament and the Council as foreseen in the recommendation. Any follow-up, if necessary, will be closely coordinated with the European Parliament and the Council.

  Manolis Mavrommatis, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (EL) Mr President, on 13 March 2007 the European Parliament passed a resolution on collective cross-border management of copyright.

In its resolution, Parliament called on the Commission to waste no time in presenting a proposal for a framework directive regulating collective cross-border management of copyright and related intellectual property rights for legitimate online music services. It also called on the Commission to make it clear that the 2005 recommendation in this area applies exclusively to online sales of music recordings.

Can the Commission update Parliament on the measures it has taken to date, in response to Parliament’s requests?

Can the Commission inform Parliament whether it is following the same guidelines and instructions issued by President Barroso on the unified, democratic, rapid development of a united Europe? When will the Commission respect Parliament’s procedural rules and the position adopted by the majority of its 785 Members?

The 13 March resolution reflects the European Parliament’s clear position on cross-border collective management of copyright. The Commission’s recommendation was the first step towards future convergence of the various practices in the 27 Member States. On behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, I myself argued, in my opinion for to the competent Committee, in favour of the importance of ensuring equal treatment for all right-holders, whether writers, composers, editors, record producers or performers.

In other words, this is an issue concerning millions of right-holders throughout Europe. The situation today, as regards online services is not considered to be effective enough, either for rights users, or for right-holders. We have thus all worked to present the Commission and the Council with the proposals that we believe would bring about a change for the better in the collective management of copyright.

The close cooperation between rights managers must be retained for the benefit of all parties. Piracy remains the greatest problem facing the music industry today. Three of the reasons for the spread of piracy internationally are the technological facilities for low-cost illegal copying, unfavourable economic conditions and the expansion of the Internet.

We shall all have to bear in mind that the spread of music piracy has the greatest impact on small countries where the music industry is mainly of a local and regional nature. In specific terms, piracy entails a shrinkage of the legal music market and results in a decline in legal sales; it therefore affects the viability of the national music recording industry.

Piracy certainly entails copyright losses for composers and songwriters, but it also deprives the state of income tax and VAT. The fight against piracy must therefore be included among the Commission’s initial aims in the possible legislative proposal on collective management of copyright.

I would therefore like to call upon the Commission to take steps, as soon as possible, to fulfil Parliament’s requests and to present a proposal for a framework directive with a view to regulating the collective cross-border management of copyright.

Lastly, as I have always said, music is not a commodity, and it is the duty of us all to protect and strengthen creativity in Europe. A directive that will in all likelihood not come into force until 2010 is a disaster for millions of artists in the EU.

  Katalin Lévai, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) Thank you very much. I would like to emphasise that this is about an extraordinarily important area, since income from goods and services protected by copyright and related rights accounts for 5–7% of the European Union’s GDP. This highlights the importance of such rights being managed appropriately.

As you know, in 2005 the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on the cross-border management of legitimate online music services. At the time, Commissioner McCreevy described the Recommendation as ‘a “soft-law instrument” designed to give the market a chance to move in the right direction’.

The Recommendation has far-reaching consequences for the copyrights market and major players in the market are already acting on the basis of it. It clearly goes further than merely interpreting and supplementing existing rules and its impact has all the characteristics of a full regulatory initiative.

At the time, a lot of fear took hold in connection with this Recommendation, including the fact that it would result in uncontrollable competition and that market forces would be concentrated in the hands of a few big management societies, and monopolies would be created. This is precisely why I thought that I should make a recommendation in an own-initiative report for the online music market to be regulated in a different way.

All the same, the Recommendation – which the Commission adopted – deprived the European Parliament and the Member States of the opportunity to have any significant influence on the changes affecting competition and cultural diversity in Europe.

It is precisely for this reason that I have been able to win the support of the whole Parliament and all the political parties for my report, in the interests of bringing to fruition a decision-making triangle, so that Parliament cannot be left out of the legislation of such an important area, and I have recommended that the Commission draw up a framework directive.

In my opinion, this recommended directive must meet the following requirements: it must guarantee right-holders a high degree of protection and equal treatment. It must be based on solidarity between right-holders and on an appropriate, fair balance among management societies. It must provide for democratic, transparent and accountable governance in management societies, including organisational structuring, transparency, representation, rules relating to copyright and production, and accounting, through minimum standards.

Comprehensive transparency must be ensured in collective management societies. Creativity and cultural diversity must be promoted. Fair and controlled competition can be allowed, without territorial restrictions, but with the necessary and suitable qualitative criteria for the collective management of copyright and the preservation of the value of the rights.

A high degree of legal certainty must be provided for users, and the availability of the global repertoire must be preserved. We, or I, therefore ask you to think about whether a directive would be necessary for regulating this important area.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner Borg’s reply to the question put by Mr Dumitrescu fills me with concern: the Commissioner spoke of leaving the matter in the market’s hands. But what is it we are talking about?

We are talking about rights which have taken two centuries to evolve: rights of creators, authors, composers, artistes. And now we are being told that those rights are to be regulated by the market: by what market? The market of thieves, the market of people who have divested producers and creators of their intellectual property by using new means of communication? What sort of rights are we talking about?

Rights are regulated by public bodies; specifically in the European arena we have institutions, namely the Commission, the Council and Parliament: the Commission with its power of initiative, the Council and Parliament through the codecision procedure.

It seems to me that now is not the time to follow a path which will lead to the disappearance of intellectual property. And if intellectual property disappears, intellectual creation disappears as well.

Some of the wise men and women who talk to us today about the advantages of the information society say well, yes, composers and authors can wander the streets giving concerts like in the Middle Ages. Are we going to reduce our authors to medieval minstrels who can play in the middle of the street, with a cap on the floor hoping someone will give them alms?

I think now is the time for the institutions of the European Union to react vigorously to defend this European tradition; its political essence is very important and it is vital for the maintenance of intellectual creativity. Only through societies of authors, the collective management of those societies, can intellectual property rights and the creation of intellectual property be defended today, right now, against the real thieves in the form of broadcasting companies which use intellectual creativity for their own benefit.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the response to the Commission’s Recommendation on collective cross-border management of copyright for legitimate online music services was provided by Parliament’s Resolution that a framework directive be introduced to regulate this issue. However, the Commission did not carry out the necessary and wide-ranging stakeholder consultation that was required, including with Parliament, which was a breach of democratic procedures. It is completely unacceptable to ignore the institutional triangle and instead apply the so-called soft law approach without prior consultation and without the formal involvement of Parliament and the Council in the matter.

This recommendation, which aims in practice to create more freedom for copyright owners to select the institution that provides collective management, depending on requirements, would have far-reaching consequences for the copyright and related markets and would create a potential threat not just to competition rules, but also to cultural diversity. As a result, market power would be concentrated in the hands of a few of the largest entities that will then be able to bypass the network of bilateral agreements and grant licences to the whole European market.

It is worth remembering that about 5-7% of the EU’s GDP comes from the sale of goods or services that are protected by copyright and similar laws. This fact illustrates even more how important is proper management of the relevant rights, as well as the need to strengthen their position in the current digital era. While respecting the principles of competition, we should avoid reducing the income of composers, at the same time providing users of musical works with an EU-wide licence that corresponds to the business model of the future. With this in mind the Commission should, as soon as possible, submit a proposal for an appropriate instrument that would be legally binding on entities working in this area.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank all the Members who spoke for their comments, which I will certainly convey to my colleague, Commissioner McCreevy.

If I can pick up on a number of points that have been raised: regarding the need for legislative intervention, let me say that the 2005 Commission recommendation on online music licensing has already brought about significant progress in the marketplace. The recommendation has given collecting societies in Europe an incentive to set up EU-wide licensing platforms that make their repertoire available for online music shops across Europe.

Let me cite three relevant examples. The UK and German societies have set up a platform for EU-wide licensing of the EMI repertoire, CELAS. The UK and the Spanish societies are cooperating on a platform that will manage the Anglo-Hispanic repertoire at EU level, and the French and Spanish societies have announced a joint licensing platform that grants EU-wide access to the French-Hispanic repertoire. In these circumstances, the Commission does not see the need for any premature legislative intervention.

I would also like to say that the 2005 Commission recommendation on online licensing has already brought about significant progress in the marketplace. The recommendation has encouraged collecting societies in Europe to set up EU-wide licensing platforms that make their repertoire available for online music shops across Europe. I refer to the three examples I have just mentioned. The CELAS joint venture alone is in fact in a position to license approximately 25 % of all musical works to any European online music retailer, such as iTunes, Sony’s CONNECT or eMusic, in a single transaction.

On the question of cultural diversity, let me state that our recommendation is not detrimental to cultural diversity. There are clear indications that the new platforms for Anglo-American, French or Spanish music are open platforms. These platforms can include other music publishers’ repertoires or the entire repertoire of existing societies.

National collecting societies would not disappear; authors would still be members of local collecting societies and revenues would still be distributed through collecting societies affiliated to the new licensing platforms.

Regarding the issue of rights, I would like to underline that there is no reason to think that this multiterritorial licensing model is bad either for cultural diversity or for the rights of artists, while it is good for the rightholders, who get more money than under the old territorial model. Cultural diversity and the rights of artists are also about giving authors more money so that they can continue to create.

Let me make one last point. The Commission actively encourages the development of an own online licensing market for music. In this vein, the Commission will closely monitor developments in this emerging market and, in doing so, the Commission will carefully consider the issues raised in the Lévai report of 5 March 2007.

If, between now and 2010, we observe, for example, that monopolistic licensing structures are emerging on the Internet, that the repertoire available on the Internet does not adequately reflect Europe’s cultural diversity and that the marketplace alone is not delivering EU licensing structures that are adapted to the Internet era, then the Commission will consider adequate alternative means for reaching those objectives.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 29 November in Brussels.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) The purpose of Mr Dumitrescu’s question is to remind the Commission of its responsibilities. Through its recommendation of September 2005 and its decision to call into question the territorial competence of CRMs, the Commission has upset the relationship between rights-holders and national collecting societies – and this has happened outside the context of any legislation or harmonisation measures.

Under the guise of adaptation to the digital environment, the Commission has introduced confusion into the European system of author’s rights and related rights. That in turn has encouraged concentration and a format-based approach, to the detriment of artists and to the advantage of industrialists and other economic operators.

The Commission urgently needs to stop taking random initiatives without serious assessment of their impact; it needs to examine the situation in all the arts and cultural sectors, in conjunction with all the stakeholders, and to adopt a comprehensive policy that will reflect the requirements of cultural diversity, as well as Europe’s values and the Lisbon Strategy objectives based on the knowledge and innovation economy; and it needs to present Parliament and the Council with coherent draft directives respecting the principles that I have mentioned.

17. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

18. Closure of sitting

(The sitting was closed at 11.30 p.m.)